Principia Discordia

At the end of the day, "yeah, we're all people and should be treated as such" is what I think. BUT I think that labels also have use.

- Humans like labels because they're short-hand ways of explaining yourself to yourself and to others. And you will inevitably pick them up and assign them to yourself no matter what. "Biped" is a label (a favored one around here, actually) and a perfectly good one at that.

- If someone tells me they're transsexual, I know to ask "what's your name, and which pronouns do you prefer?"

-- They quantify experiences and in order to accept people, you need to accept that they have had different experiences at the hands of society than you have (unless everyone you know is your clone). Which requires that you acknowledge their labels (because those are the ones that matter) because those labels help explain their stories. Saying NO LABELS LABELS ARE BAD is denying them a way to explain their lives, their experiences, their thoughts (no matter how retarded a set of thoughts is, you need to be able to explain it and labels make that easier).

-- If you want to be able to talk about a society, you need to have words to describe groups. "White men" = dominant group in Western society. "Women" = a subordinate group in most, if not all, modern societies, tasked with being the primary caregiver of children (whether or not you are actually fulfilling the expected roles or telling them to fuck off, it tells me what is expected of you and what sort of filters society probably outfitted you with).
--- They give you the ability to talk about power inequalities in a society. Cissexism (you are either a man or a woman and all other identities are unnatural) and racism require the dominant group and the subordinate group have names (in the case of race, specific cultures have sprung up around these as they have become identities). Otherwise you're groping around for an easy, concise way to explain elements of a concept, which isn't very good for a discussion necessarily

- Not teaching your kids about labels is not going to make an egalitarian society. They will assume (because kids are monkeys until you teach them otherwise) that everyone is like they are and that other forms of expression are badwrong (how do you think we got in this situation in the first place?). What you need to do (imo) is teach your kids that labels have their place and you should acknowledge them because they're ways people will tell you about themselves, but that these labels are not the be-all-end-all of who a person is, that people's labels and identity are perpetually in flux, and that you oughtn't judge them based on labels they have no control over (you don't get to pick what race, class, sex, or gender you were born into).

- I think quite a lot of this "ALL LABELS ARE BAD" thing is coming from positions of privilege. How often have you not had a word to explain yourself? Even if not all of you fits into the box that you were assign to, you have a box that explains at least some of your experiences. I can tell you that not having a word to explain vital parts of yourself is unsettling. I spent years trying to figure out why feminine pronouns are so fucking jarring (although less jarring than any others I have found). I kept poking at it and wondering if there was a word for it or how to explain it and then while reading up on gender, I found a word and it was like, "Oh! That's a pretty explanation!"


I don't think an egalitarian society can be labelless. I don't think it's even necessarily a desireable outcome because we need to be able to explain ourselves to ourselves and to others, and to do that we need labels for ideas and identities because no personal identity, no ways to explain yourself, sucks monstrously.

The problem is that there's too damn many labels already, and people attach too much importance to them.

How is "too many" being determined? Are you going to prune them? Which ones will be deemed unacceptable or useless? Why do you get to determine this?

People like explaining themselves and ready-made explanations are the path of the mouthy and lazy. But I don't see why that necessarily means NO LABELS ALL LABELS ARE BAD.

I ignore them, for the most part. I don't need "lapsed Jesuit straight CIS caucasian former drug addict professional artist felon american right-handed blah blah blah" when "Joe" will do.

I also see that most of us here who could be considered "CIS" don't LIKE "CIS". So what happened to self-determination? When I use a term, I use the ones people generally WANT to be called. Labels that people don't want to be called are known as "slurs". If a label's going to get hung on ME from somewhere else, of COURSE I'm going to swat it off.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:42:50 PM

- I think quite a lot of this "ALL LABELS ARE BAD" thing is coming from positions of privilege.

I'm going to address this one first.

I can't speak for anyone else, just myself, but I find it wrong that my opinion on the subject is automatically assigned as "coming from privilege".  In my case, it's more cold-bloodedness, in a way.  I honestly don't care what someone is with respect to orientation, gender, whatever.  It's not that "I don't see it", because it's kind of hard to miss.  It's that I don't give a shit.  It simply isn't relevant to me.  Not because I am "not conscious of the oppression", because it's a little hard to miss, but because I have my own standards by which I judge or classify people, and the above qualities aren't part of those standards.

Example:  When hiring people, I consider the following questions:

1.  Do they have experience in the trade?
2.  Why did they leave their last position?
3.  Are they physically capable of doing the job?
4.  Are they missing any digits (this is an important indicator in the trades, but is not necessarily a deal-killer.  I want to know where the finger went, though, for reasons that should be obvious)?
5.  Can they get along with people?
6.  Do they have military experience (this is more an indication of whether they can bear up under difficult work and work conditions, and isn't mandatory.  It is a plus, though.)

I am utterly unwilling to think in terms of labels during this process.  Does this make me somehow privileged (I mean, I am, but not for that reason)?  No.  In question #3, I am looking to see if their physical strength will allow them to actually perform the job.  Some men can't, some women can't.  This is mostly important on the mechanical side, which demands a great deal of physical strength.  On the I&E side, I'm more interested in whether or not they are color blind, which can get you killed in this work.

In the end, there is one qualification:  Can the person get the job done?  Attendance, for example, is a qualifier.  Someone's orientation is not.

In my personal life, I am interested in what someone has to say, not what they are.

This doesn't make me some super-progressive modern male, yada yada yada.  It just means I have a different set of priorities than many other people have.  To say that it isn't possible to think that way without it being based in privilege is wrong for two reasons: 

1.  It is factually incorrect, and

2.  It's stating that I am not an individual, that I am a programmed robot of some kind, as I obviously MUST have the same thought processes as you.  I don't.

Stupid Microsoft booted me off for an update.

Last bit of that post:

"Saying labels don't matter is coming from privilege" is also an example of "poisoning the well".  You have answered my arguments before I have made them, and have stated that if I disagree, it's only because I'm a privileged White male that can't think.

It is a fallacy.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:11:38 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:42:50 PM

- I think quite a lot of this "ALL LABELS ARE BAD" thing is coming from positions of privilege.

I'm going to address this one first.

I can't speak for anyone else, just myself, but I find it wrong that my opinion on the subject is automatically assigned as "coming from privilege".  In my case, it's more cold-bloodedness, in a way.  I honestly don't care what someone is with respect to orientation, gender, whatever.  It's not that "I don't see it", because it's kind of hard to miss.  It's that I don't give a shit.  It simply isn't relevant to me.  Not because I am "not conscious of the oppression", because it's a little hard to miss, but because I have my own standards by which I judge or classify people, and the above qualities aren't part of those standards.

Example:  When hiring people, I consider the following questions:

1.  Do they have experience in the trade?
2.  Why did they leave their last position?
3.  Are they physically capable of doing the job?
4.  Are they missing any digits (this is an important indicator in the trades, but is not necessarily a deal-killer.  I want to know where the finger went, though, for reasons that should be obvious)?
5.  Can they get along with people?
6.  Do they have military experience (this is more an indication of whether they can bear up under difficult work and work conditions, and isn't mandatory.  It is a plus, though.)

I am utterly unwilling to think in terms of labels during this process.  Does this make me somehow privileged (I mean, I am, but not for that reason)?  No.  In question #3, I am looking to see if their physical strength will allow them to actually perform the job.  Some men can't, some women can't.  This is mostly important on the mechanical side, which demands a great deal of physical strength.  On the I&E side, I'm more interested in whether or not they are color blind, which can get you killed in this work.

In the end, there is one qualification:  Can the person get the job done?  Attendance, for example, is a qualifier.  Someone's orientation is not.

In my personal life, I am interested in what someone has to say, not what they are.

This doesn't make me some super-progressive modern male, yada yada yada.  It just means I have a different set of priorities than many other people have.  To say that it isn't possible to think that way without it being based in privilege is wrong for two reasons: 

1.  It is factually incorrect, and

2.  It's stating that I am not an individual, that I am a programmed robot of some kind, as I obviously MUST have the same thought processes as you.  I don't.

My argument there has absolutely nothing to do with any of that, or what you look for when you're hiring or whatever. The point is that you HAVE boxes you didn't have to search for years for; they were given to you and that's a privilege some people don't have. You didn't spend years struggling with a vital part your identity in the same way some people, myself among them, did. You can much more easily say "labels suck and are useless" when a word that fits (and don't deny it, you do wear some labels - "asshole" for one, which comes with some ideas and such that you have attached to it) wasn't years of searching and "what the fuck is with this?"

What someone has to say can be explained with a label and qualified through discussion. IE, I lean left (label). But f sucks because of x, y, and z, so I can't get behind it (qualifying).


I also don't think you get that my argument is that labels are HOW we say things and can be used to explain ideas and concepts, or one of the ways, anyway. "X is one of my labels" tells you where some of my opinions came from.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:30:18 PM
Stupid Microsoft booted me off for an update.

Last bit of that post:

"Saying labels don't matter is coming from privilege" is also an example of "poisoning the well".  You have answered my arguments before I have made them, and have stated that if I disagree, it's only because I'm a privileged White male that can't think.

It is a fallacy.

I disagree. I'm telling you where I think you're idea came from, and you're totally welcome to prove me wrong. I'm not writing you off because the boxes you got at birth work well enough for you.
Also, you've been making those arguments for ages. I was effectively answering what you've been saying for about as long as I've known you.

I think the biggest point of contention here is Labels: The Uniform! and Labels: The Nametag!

Who is using what?

Also Garbo, you're coming off as a zealot. Try to realize that people can understand through their own experiences what its like to be the nonpriveleged.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:42:50 PM
At the end of the day, "yeah, we're all people and should be treated as such" is what I think. BUT I think that labels also have use.

- Humans like labels because they're short-hand ways of explaining yourself to yourself and to others. And you will inevitably pick them up and assign them to yourself no matter what. "Biped" is a label (a favored one around here, actually) and a perfectly good one at that.

Oh, sure.  It's also true that to FORBID labels or refuse their use entirely is as bad or worse than using them too often.

But here's the problem:

Humans love to label, classify, and file things.  Once they've done so, however, they tend to ignore all the other qualities about a person that make them a person. 

Examples:

"Isn't that just like a woman."

"Men are pigs."

"Well, you have to cut him some slack.  You know how Those People are."

"You can't possibly understand, because you're a man."

It eliminates any factors which may change the situation.  I am a straight/cis White male in North America.  Does this mean I am "privileged"?  You're damn right it does.  But what it DOESN'T address is things like my apprenticeship in the trades, where all apprentices are scum for 3 years, with no exceptions.  Compare:

1.  Boss says to his female secretary:  "Do me a favor and pick up something for my wife's birthday on your lunch break."  The implication is obvious:  The boss is abusing his authority by ordering his secretary to perform a demeaning, unpaid task that is not in her job description on her own time, or find another way to feed your kids, woman.  Does she HAVE to do it?  Probably.  Those kids aren't going to feed themselves.

2.  Journeyman says to apprentice, before it's time to clock in:   "Hey, kid...Go get some coffee for me and Joe."  The implication is also obvious:  They are in a privileged position, abusing their authority by ordering the apprentice to perform a demeaning, unpaid task that is not in his job description, on his own time.  Does he HAVE to do it?  Probably.  His family aren't going to feed themselves, and one bad word from the Journeyman to the foreman, and you're history.

So, yeah, there's a whole bunch of life experiences that can show you the difference between having privilege and being subjected to privilege.

Also, I mentioned that I was fired from a job after a period of harrassment that resulted from my boss finding out that I didn't have the same religious views as him.  I am also known at work NOW as being "liberal Roger", who denies "God's plan" by not hating Gays, etc.  In this particular case, I have amassed enough personal power and I am aggressive enough that that shit doesn't have much traction...But I can see how if I was less of a maniac at work, and if I worked in a place with a different overall corporate culture, I'd be out on my ass.

These examples merely state MY experiences.  I'm sure P3nt has his own, I believe he's mentioned at least one, and I am equally sure that Faust has his, I know Cain has his, etc.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 PM
I think the biggest point of contention here is Labels: The Uniform! and Labels: The Nametag!

Who is using what?

Also Garbo, you're coming off as a zealot. Try to realize that people can understand through their own experiences what its like to be the nonpriveleged.

THIS. Everybody isn't "privileged" 24/7 just because they're white guys.

Also, my self-determination thing isn't being addressed. If we don't want to be called "CIS" and we're going to get it hung on us anyway, might as well go back to saying "colored".  :x

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:33:45 PM

The point is that you HAVE boxes you didn't have to search for years for; they were given to you and that's a privilege some people don't have. You didn't spend years struggling with a vital part your identity in the same way some people, myself among them, did.

No.  Just every single day of my life since 1996.  Doesn't count, I suppose.  :kingmeh:

If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 11:47:54 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 PM
I think the biggest point of contention here is Labels: The Uniform! and Labels: The Nametag!

Who is using what?

Also Garbo, you're coming off as a zealot. Try to realize that people can understand through their own experiences what its like to be the nonpriveleged.

THIS. Everybody isn't "privileged" 24/7 just because they're white guys.

Also, my self-determination thing isn't being addressed. If we don't want to be called "CIS" and we're going to get it hung on us anyway, might as well go back to saying "colored".  :x

I cannot see past privilege because I am a White cis/straight male.

I am an animal.

I used to think in labels. In the religion I was raised in labels were all the rage. Labels like "worldly" were applied to everyone NOT a JW and as soon as you said a person was worldly, it brought a whole load of meaning with it. They were untrustworthy. They were directly or indirectly following Satan. They were probably immoral in at least some ways. If you were a girl, you never wanted to be around alone with a worldly guy, or if you were a guy you never wanted to be alone with a worldly girl... they might try to have sex. Worldly also meant that come Armageddon they were going to die.

There were many other labels. Labels for the 'remnant' or 'anointed' ones.. the 3000 or so people in the religion that were gonna go to heaven. AS soon as you met one of them, you assumed that whatever spiritual stuff they said was right, because they were specially directed by the holy spirit. There were the Elders, the Ministerial Servants, the Pioneers, the Bethelites etc etc etc and there were assumptions that went with each.

In the outside world there were labels. Those labels did exactly what you said, they acted as shorthand... but shorthand for a whole set of assumptions and expectations about that person and the interactions with that person.

I didn't even begin to understand this complex mess until I really started reading philosophy, RAW, Korzybski and other stuff that made me think about thinking. The overall message I got was this:

Humans use labels. Labels define the expected experience with that person based on the assumptions related to that label. The reason a woman might clutch her purse when a black man walks by is because of the label and the assumption that is automatically tied to the label in her brain. The same for a woman who gets nervous when she is alone around a guy and her brain says "POSSIBLE RAPE WARNING". The same is true OF any label.

"This is Joe" doesn't tell the brain much and in general the people interacting with Joe for the first time are gonna be a little awkward. "This is Joe, he's a computer programmer" suddenly puts them at ease, because their brain has now categorized Joe and assumes that interactions with Joe will be like interactions with other computer programmers. Joe may also be a musician, a philosopher, a Discordian, a Pagan, homosexual and has an insatiable desire for Chicken Alfredo. However, the brain doesn't really bother with all of that. Joe has been put into the 'Computer Programmer' box.

No two people are the same. No two homosexuals, lesbians, heterosexuals, transgenders or androgynous people are the same. They share one trait... and they may not even share that trait very closely. One might be poly and the other might be monogamous. One might actually be bi, while the other is completely on one side or the other of the sexual preference world. Their history, their experiences... everything that creates their BiP might be different except for this one set of common blocks and bars.

The use of labels creates prejudice, that is pre-judgement for good or bad or neutral.

I mean, look at this argument:
"He is 'cis', he is 'male', he is 'white' therefore his dislike of labels must be because of privilege."

The assumption may be True or False or somewhere in-between, but its still prejudice.

Humans often confuse the Map (the label) with the Territory (the person), the Menu (the label) with the Meal (the person). Promoting labels, even with the best of intention, encourages this behavior.

As Hagbard Celine said in Illuminatus, "Labels are Damnations" they damn 99% of the person based on a description of 1% of who they are.

If people want to choose labels for themselves, that's up to them. I think it will likely bite them in the ass, but it their choice.

I don't want to be called 'cis' or 'straight' and I doubt anyone that knows me would call me 'normal' ;-) I prefer to be called Clyde, or Ratatosk or Squirrel or any of the other nicknames people have for me that know me. I prefer to interact with people without making any assumption about what that interaction will be like and its hard to do. It is difficult to constantly assess your own brain when you meet someone and check the assumptions at the door. Its not impossible... its not foolproof, its never perfect... but I'll be damned if I don't spend the rest of my life striving for it.

If I ever have kids (yeah, I hear all of you cringing at the thought) I will try very hard to teach them that humans are humans, they are all different, they are all unique, they are not all like the child. I will focus on teaching them that the ONLY way to know anything about a person is to actually get to know that person. Maybe that won't work perfectly, but I will do my best to make it work as well as possible.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

The fact that someone has a computer and internet available indicates privilege in and of itself.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 11:08:07 PM
I ignore them, for the most part. I don't need "lapsed Jesuit straight CIS caucasian former drug addict professional artist felon american right-handed blah blah blah" when "Joe" will do.

I also see that most of us here who could be considered "CIS" don't LIKE "CIS". So what happened to self-determination? When I use a term, I use the ones people generally WANT to be called. Labels that people don't want to be called are known as "slurs". If a label's going to get hung on ME from somewhere else, of COURSE I'm going to swat it off.

Those labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

Cis doesn't lock you into anything, precisely. What you do with you, or what "woman" means to you, or whatever, is still what you determine. If you don't like cis, well, *shrug* I'm going to find another word that means "born into a female body, identifies as a woman" because that's, so far as I know, what your story is. Mostly because I'm not and I need a word that describes people who are. Which I realize and respect that you don't like it, but I need to be able to explain how I'm different and that requires that I understand and can describe how most other people are.
Am I making sense here? Like, I'm not using the word to box you in (you're still Stella, lady who lives in a town populated by 'you werkin'?' robots) but I need to be able to describe how I, and other people, are different than the dominant set of gender identities, which you, so far as I know identify with, in order to explain myself to myself.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 PM
I think the biggest point of contention here is Labels: The Uniform! and Labels: The Nametag!

Who is using what?

Also Garbo, you're coming off as a zealot. Try to realize that people can understand through their own experiences what its like to be the nonpriveleged.

I use them to tag ideas, which is where I see the value in them.

Oops. Not my intention. Sorry, everyone. I probably need a day off the interbutts soon, haha.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

The fact that someone has a computer and internet available indicates privilege in and of itself.

Having the time to divide up labels and roles into micromanaged poor sounding words is another privilege not afforded to those without. We literally live as aristocratic gods so arguing about privilege in that case seems hypocritical.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 11:47:54 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 PM
I think the biggest point of contention here is Labels: The Uniform! and Labels: The Nametag!

Who is using what?

Also Garbo, you're coming off as a zealot. Try to realize that people can understand through their own experiences what its like to be the nonpriveleged.

THIS. Everybody isn't "privileged" 24/7 just because they're white guys.

Also, my self-determination thing isn't being addressed. If we don't want to be called "CIS" and we're going to get it hung on us anyway, might as well go back to saying "colored".  :x

Okay, I won't call you cis. I still have to explain myself in opposition to what the norm is, because I am not the norm. So far as I know, you are when it comes to gender. How else can I explain what it is that makes "her" sound fucking weird when applied to me when I'm definitely a female?

Privilege comes in many, many flavors. Pent - SCW dude - has less privilege than I do in some ways because I'm middle class and he's not. I'm fully aware of how privileged I am, as a white female in a society dominated by white people, on a planet effectively controlled and owned by white people.

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:00:25 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

The fact that someone has a computer and internet available indicates privilege in and of itself.

Having the time to divide up labels and roles into micromanaged poor sounding words is another privilege not afforded to those without. We literally live as aristocratic gods so arguing about privilege in that case seems hypocritical.

Can we not go there? And discussions of privilege are necessary to making the world a less shitty place because they're needed to explain WHY shit sucks for entire groups.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:04:47 AM

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:00:25 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

The fact that someone has a computer and internet available indicates privilege in and of itself.

Having the time to divide up labels and roles into micromanaged poor sounding words is another privilege not afforded to those without. We literally live as aristocratic gods so arguing about privilege in that case seems hypocritical.

Can we not go there? And discussions of privilege are necessary to making the world a less shitty place because they're needed to explain WHY shit sucks for entire groups.

Yes, and they are used to explain why some groups can't think past their filters, should they express an undesirable opinion.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:04:47 AM

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:00:25 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

The fact that someone has a computer and internet available indicates privilege in and of itself.

Having the time to divide up labels and roles into micromanaged poor sounding words is another privilege not afforded to those without. We literally live as aristocratic gods so arguing about privilege in that case seems hypocritical.

Can we not go there? And discussions of privilege are necessary to making the world a less shitty place because they're needed to explain WHY shit sucks for entire groups.

Actions of balance are necessary, discussions on the other hand are for the UN, they are a great way to idle away the time and feel like progress has been made.

We would like to take this opportunity to remind our faithful readers to be sure to keep plenty of labels on hand for your personal safety!

You see, we are engaged in a conversation today and during the course of this conversation it has become obvious that it would not be possible to come to an agreement on the interpretation of certain facts, whereupon some of us were informed that we are "privileged" and thus cannot form an accurate opinion.

Labels protect us, friends, by reducing things to their lowest level, making them harmless, one-dimensional things which can be neatly filed away and forgotten.  Labels tear the legs off anything which imperils the flimsy structure of our own world-view, giving us the illusion of stability while perched at the wobbly end of a lot of fragments of random evidence tied together with delicate strands of coincidence and assumption.  A properly labeled idea or object (and labeling reduces PEOPLE to mere objects) becomes Proof of Our Correctness, in that it can be used as evidence whether it agrees with us or not.  On those occasions when it doesn't "fit in" to our structure of belief it is rendered invalid by its label, evidence that IT is wrong, and WE are STILL RIGHT.

You may say, if we do that, we'll just be FOOLING OURSELVES, we'll just be REJECTING a lot of concepts that may be more valid than the illusions we strive to maintain!  That's right, friends, but DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.  Everybody's doing it, so it MUST be alright!  You want to be like everybody else, don't you?  You don't want to be thought some sort of WEIRDO just because you'd rather BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF and ADAPT YOUR LIFE TO THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION than consign ideas, people, philosophies, even NATIONS to the memory hole for failing to agree with your PERSONAL OPINIONS! YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED PRIVILEGED AND RENDERED INVALID BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE, DO YOU?  Of course not.  Remember, when you come across ANYTHING which doesn't support your worldview, Label it, File it, and FORGET IT.  Then you'll be NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE like everybody else.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:49:35 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:33:45 PM

The point is that you HAVE boxes you didn't have to search for years for; they were given to you and that's a privilege some people don't have. You didn't spend years struggling with a vital part your identity in the same way some people, myself among them, did.

No.  Just every single day of my life since 1996.  Doesn't count, I suppose.  :kingmeh:

Does count. It's not something I was aware of.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 11:47:54 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 PM
I think the biggest point of contention here is Labels: The Uniform! and Labels: The Nametag!

Who is using what?

Also Garbo, you're coming off as a zealot. Try to realize that people can understand through their own experiences what its like to be the nonpriveleged.

THIS. Everybody isn't "privileged" 24/7 just because they're white guys.

Also, my self-determination thing isn't being addressed. If we don't want to be called "CIS" and we're going to get it hung on us anyway, might as well go back to saying "colored".  :x

I cannot see past privilege because I am a White cis/straight male.

I am an animal.

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths. Every single one of us who has talked about privilege coming from a sociological angle has said in one way or another that you CAN see past privilege. We know you can, we know you and men/privileged people in general (among whom all of us here count), CAN see past what they were given at birth.

Okay.

Garbo, is it safe to say that you feel like you need "normal" people to have a label so that you no longer feel ostracized or abnormal?  If that's it, that's fine, but don't get hostile to the people who don't want your label (for purposes of equalizing the playing field) when you are the person who labeled yourself.  And if you need a label for them, whatever.  Keep it to yourself if you really can't think without them, and remember that you've just dropped to all fours.

You aren't acting like Labels: The Nametag!, you're acting like Labels:  The Uniform!  Calm down, and relax your stance.  There are people, people who don't have to deal with labels, who nonetheless make the effort to understand and have been in situation(s) where they can at least grasp the fundamentals of the circumstances of people who are less priveleged.  Is that all priveleged people?  Hell the fuck no!  Most people don't have the opportunity or motivation to do it.  But don't write off people who say they can understand, even if you don't have all the facts.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:23:16 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:49:35 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:33:45 PM

The point is that you HAVE boxes you didn't have to search for years for; they were given to you and that's a privilege some people don't have. You didn't spend years struggling with a vital part your identity in the same way some people, myself among them, did.

No.  Just every single day of my life since 1996.  Doesn't count, I suppose.  :kingmeh:

Does count. It's not something I was aware of.

And that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.  In the other thread, Faust just made a statement about how "nobody here has ever been oppressed", because we all have one form of privilege or another.  And BOTH of you are FULL OF SHIT.  Oppression and privilege are in no way connected, except that privilege makes oppressing other people slightly easier.

Your identity problems are based on cis/trans whatever.  Mine are based on something grimmer and far more basic, but MY issues in no way invalidate YOUR issues, and the other way around.  You live with the fear of rape and being seconded based on your sex and gender orientation, and I live with a 16 ton weight on my conscience.

You look at men walking by, and worry that they may have designs on your body.  I look at people walking by, and worry that they might suddenly point and shout "PARIAH!  KILLER!  MURDERER!  FUCKING ANIMAL!"  Both are at the same time reasonable and paranoid.  Both are still very real fears.

To claim that one is greater than the other is to claim that it's okay to be hanged, if they use a golden rope.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

Until I snapped at Roger, I was not being hostile. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

Privilege is something that exists in the fucking West, too, at all levels, and it needs to be dealt with. If you're saying, "hey the UN is the only one who can talk about race and sex relations in America (or where ever)" then you need to remember that change happens on the ground. Roger learned something, Roger changed something about his vocabulary, because we talked about male privilege. I'm sure he's not the only one, he's just the most vocal about it. I know that I learned what my asshole behavior was through these kinds of discussions. I changed because I learned about privilege. All this shit happened on the ground.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:33:03 AM
Until I snapped at Roger, I was not being hostile.

Which is totally inexcusable, given my saintly and buddha-like behavior.

:lulz:

Garbo, remember saying how you probably need to step away for a while?

You probably need to step away for a while.

 :lulz: :lulz: Of course.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:32:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 12:36:23 AM
Garbo, remember saying how you probably need to step away for a while?

You probably need to step away for a while.

I dunno.  I don't think it's POSSIBLE to have this conversation without flaring up, so there's no point waiting.

And I'm a big boy.  I can take my medicine when it's appropriate.

(I'm still waiting to catch hell for my rant gland going nuts upthread.   :lulz: )

Hmm, I haven't gotten there yet. But I'm actually feeling really, like, crowded and cranky (the reason I invented Web-less Wednesday was to decompress) so I'm gonna back off for a couple hours at least.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 12:36:23 AM
Garbo, remember saying how you probably need to step away for a while?

You probably need to step away for a while.

I'm a bit of a terrier, unfortunately.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:33:03 AM
Until I snapped at Roger, I was not being hostile. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

Privilege is something that exists in the fucking West, too, at all levels, and it needs to be dealt with. If you're saying, "hey the UN is the only one who can talk about race and sex relations in America (or where ever)" then you need to remember that change happens on the ground. Roger learned something, Roger changed something about his vocabulary, because we talked about male privilege. I'm sure he's not the only one, he's just the most vocal about it. I know that I learned what my asshole behavior was through these kinds of discussions. I changed because I learned about privilege. All this shit happened on the ground.

Yes some small ground has been made, I wont argue that there is more that can be done, a larger audience reached and a greater impact wrought, because any progress is progress.
It would be negative and standing in the way of progress, messages and teaching to tell someone they are incapable of understanding based on their situation in life.
And I don't think you understood my UN comment, I don't believe the UN makes any progress at all.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
:lulz: :lulz: Of course.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:32:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:41:07 AM
Hmm, I haven't gotten there yet. But I'm actually feeling really, like, crowded and cranky (the reason I invented Web-less Wednesday was to decompress) so I'm gonna back off for a couple hours at least.

:tgrr:

Fucking do-gooders.  This was just getting good.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:42:35 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
:lulz: :lulz: Of course.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:32:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

The bolded part has me genuinely considering gender and sexuality nihilism, It sounded like a fun phrase at the time but I am reaching the point where I wish to Reject all sexuality and gender based classifications as at best absurdism at worst completely false.

QuoteThose labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

But they don't tell Joe's story. They tell you some nouns or adjectives or adverbs and you Mad Lib the rest of Joe's story based on your assumptions tied to those labels. Only Joe can tell you Joe's story and it will involve a hell of a lot more than a few labels.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 17, 2012, 12:51:00 AM

QuoteThose labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

But they don't tell Joe's story. They tell you some nouns or adjectives or adverbs and you Mad Lib the rest of Joe's story based on your assumptions tied to those labels. Only Joe can tell you Joe's story and it will involve a hell of a lot more than a few labels.

This is correct.  They prevent Joe's story, by instead presenting a dossier of labels that take the place of Joe's Story.

Sort of like taking The Count of Monte Christo and telling it as privileged cis/straight man loses girl and freedom to more privileged cis/straight white man, gets revenge, the end.

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:46:57 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:42:35 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
:lulz: :lulz: Of course.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:32:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

The bolded part has me genuinely considering gender and sexuality nihilism, It sounded like a fun phrase at the time but I am reaching the point where I wish to Reject all sexuality and gender based classifications as at best absurdism at worst completely false.

That's what I've been arguing all along.

I am not a cis/straight white male, I am a human.  If you need a label, I am a Roger.

I didn't know I had the privilege to do this:

I claim right of conquest from my position of privilege, come forth and listen for here is my decree

I reject any and all dogma of the twin headed demon Gender and Sexuality.
I am on this day a simpler being for it.
I reject those qualities in myself and I refuse to see them in others, I decree this because I can, because of privilege.
Where once there stood the ever growing cacophony of hetro homo cis trans bi, man or woman and combinations thereof there is now only a person.

Where two beasts should rut it shall only be Fucking and when two beasts romance it be love.

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 01:03:55 AM

I am on this day a simpler being for it.

I'd argue that.  You are instead rejecting an enormous simplification.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:06:04 AM

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 01:03:55 AM

I am on this day a simpler being for it.

I'd argue that.  You are instead rejecting an enormous simplification.

(When I say simpler I mean less headaches and having to wiki what I apparently am)

I'd always kinda thought labels were more of a helpful prediction kinda thing.  Like, Garbo said in the OP "biped" is a pretty common label round here, and what I think might clarify that is to say something like:

If it makes sense to expect someone, labelled as a human being, to act similarly to other human beings you've met before, it might also might make sense to expect a similar correlation between other individuals with the same label.

In fact we can actually see that is true.  It is accurate to say that a heterosexual man displays romantic interest in women, this is likely true of all men who are (strictly) heterosexual.  But I think that's pretty self explanatory.  I think the obvious danger in labels has already been pointed out, which is when they are used as tribe-like identifiers instead of descriptors.  I think the thing that has been bubbling in my brain for a while is that maybe the problem isn't with labels themselves, but with these particular labels and the way we use them.

I mean, it would seem absurd to consider a hammer as inherently a bad thing that should always be rejected, just because it can be used to crush someones skull.  It's important to realise that stereotyping is going to keep happening, even unconsciously (anyone taken an Implicit Association Test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) recently?), maybe part of the answer to affecting positive social change isn't to deny that a process that happens anyway isn't happening, but to be more responsible in usages of stereotypes?  Group stereotypes have the power to aid oppression by creating an in-group and out-group, but, I think it's something I read here years ago:

"If you want to change a system you can't just tear it down, you have to build a better one."  (probably not completely accurate quote, but close)

xx

edd

The problem with labels is they aren't, and can't be, all encompassing.  They ignore tons of bars in our cell.  That's different than, say, descriptors, where you can prioritize bars for another person, you can say those are bars that are REALLY important to you, but it is acknowledged that there are still many other bars that inform the makeup of the individual. 


There are all kinds of descriptors for me.  The Husband.  The Preventionist, The Straight Male, but no single one of those labels defines, or comes close to defining me, the entire person.


That's why labels are useless and pointless.

Can't we say that labels are the descriptors that can be most immediately informative?

I mean, as far as language is concerned, labels = descriptors.  Clearly they are both sets of words that describe characteristics.  Are labels the broadest descriptors one might need to get an idea of where another person is coming from.  Are labels actually any different from descriptors as you're using it (I'd say they are exactly the same thing)?  Why have we made some descriptors more important than others and what might happen if that were changed?

xx

edd

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:09:34 AM
I think the thing that has been bubbling in my brain for a while is that maybe the problem isn't with labels themselves, but with these particular labels and the way we use them.

I'm going to argue that, on account of people being pattern-seeking creatures, who are satisfied when a pattern has been established.  It's wired right into our brains.

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:14:57 AM
Can't we say that labels are the descriptors that can be most immediately informative?

Or the most incompletely informative.

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 01:10:40 AM
The problem with labels is they aren't, and can't be, all encompassing.  They ignore tons of bars in our cell.  That's different than, say, descriptors, where you can prioritize bars for another person, you can say those are bars that are REALLY important to you, but it is acknowledged that there are still many other bars that inform the makeup of the individual. 


There are all kinds of descriptors for me.  The Husband.  The Preventionist, The Straight Male, but no single one of those labels defines, or comes close to defining me, the entire person.


That's why labels are useless and pointless.

This and exactly this.

In the other thread, 50% of the opinions rendered were immediately dismissed by the other 50% of the people, on the grounds of a label.

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:09:34 AM
I'd always kinda thought labels were more of a helpful prediction kinda thing.  Like, Garbo said in the OP "biped" is a pretty common label round here, and what I think might clarify that is to say something like:

If it makes sense to expect someone, labelled as a human being, to act similarly to other human beings you've met before, it might also might make sense to expect a similar correlation between other individuals with the same label.

In fact we can actually see that is true.  It is accurate to say that a heterosexual man displays romantic interest in women, this is likely true of all men who are (strictly) heterosexual.  But I think that's pretty self explanatory.  I think the obvious danger in labels has already been pointed out, which is when they are used as tribe-like identifiers instead of descriptors.  I think the thing that has been bubbling in my brain for a while is that maybe the problem isn't with labels themselves, but with these particular labels and the way we use them.

I mean, it would seem absurd to consider a hammer as inherently a bad thing that should always be rejected, just because it can be used to crush someones skull.  It's important to realise that stereotyping is going to keep happening, even unconsciously (anyone taken an Implicit Association Test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) recently?), maybe part of the answer to affecting positive social change isn't to deny that a process that happens anyway isn't happening, but to be more responsible in usages of stereotypes?  Group stereotypes have the power to aid oppression by creating an in-group and out-group, but, I think it's something I read here years ago:

"If you want to change a system you can't just tear it down, you have to build a better one."  (probably not completely accurate quote, but close)

xx

edd

Some tools outlive their usefulness or are badly designed from the start. A bad tool might roughly serve a purpose but perform poorly or unexpectedly, damaging what it interacts with or even being prone to backlash.

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:14:57 AM
Can't we say that labels are the descriptors that can be most immediately informative?

I mean, as far as language is concerned, labels = descriptors.  Clearly they are both sets of words that describe characteristics.  Are labels the broadest descriptors one might need to get an idea of where another person is coming from.  Are labels actually any different from descriptors as you're using it (I'd say they are exactly the same thing)?  Why have we made some descriptors more important than others and what might happen if that were changed?

xx

edd

In the context of this thread and the other thread, it feels like Labels are being interpreted as something that answers the question "Who Are You?". Which of course is a preposterous proposition.  I have my formal label, my name, but "Who Am I?".


Pull up a barstool. 

"I" wear no uniform.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 11:08:07 PM
I ignore them, for the most part. I don't need "lapsed Jesuit straight CIS caucasian former drug addict professional artist felon american right-handed blah blah blah" when "Joe" will do.

I also see that most of us here who could be considered "CIS" don't LIKE "CIS". So what happened to self-determination? When I use a term, I use the ones people generally WANT to be called. Labels that people don't want to be called are known as "slurs". If a label's going to get hung on ME from somewhere else, of COURSE I'm going to swat it off.

Those labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

I'd rather hear stories from people, not labels. Labels don't tell me what I need to know, anyway, I have to get that from observation. "Professional artist" could mean anything from "creative/successful", to "creative/underappreciated" to "bum". "Felon" only tells me he got popped for who knows what, maybe decades ago. It doesn't tell me what he's like now. Etc.

Saying people are "CIS" has already resulted in the CIS tears debacle and gotten Roger shoved in a box with some fat politician's kid whose darkest hour was probably the time he ended up screaming at the housekeeper for arranging his sock drawer wrong. It's retarded.

QuoteCis doesn't lock you into anything, precisely. What you do with you, or what "woman" means to you, or whatever, is still what you determine. If you don't like cis, well, *shrug* I'm going to find another word that means "born into a female body, identifies as a woman" because that's, so far as I know, what your story is. Mostly because I'm not and I need a word that describes people who are. Which I realize and respect that you don't like it, but I need to be able to explain how I'm different and that requires that I understand and can describe how most other people are.

I'm not sure how putting labels on other people helps with your identity. Self-determination.

QuoteAm I making sense here? Like, I'm not using the word to box you in (you're still Stella, lady who lives in a town populated by 'you werkin'?' robots) but I need to be able to describe how I, and other people, are different than the dominant set of gender identities, which you, so far as I know identify with, in order to explain myself to myself.

"Now the Star-Bellied Sneeches had bellies with stars,
But the Plain-Bellied Sneeches had none upon thars..."

And then a guy came to town with machines to attach and remove labels until nobody knew who was who, just that they were all broke as fuck.

I'm no stranger to identity issues - I was adopted, remember? My lifetime up through my early adulthood was spent wondering who the fuck I was. But labels don't fix that.

You're not your family.

You're not a label.

You're not a sex, or a gender, or a sex or gender with qualifiers.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:16:00 AM

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:09:34 AM
I think the thing that has been bubbling in my brain for a while is that maybe the problem isn't with labels themselves, but with these particular labels and the way we use them.

I'm going to argue that, on account of people being pattern-seeking creatures, who are satisfied when a pattern has been established.  It's wired right into our brains.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:16:38 AM

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:14:57 AM
Can't we say that labels are the descriptors that can be most immediately informative?

Or the most incompletely informative.

Double touche (imagine that's an acute e).

Or maybe not!  A lot of modern feminism/feminists that I've spoken with (just using feminism as an example cause I'm also reading the patriarchy thread) are big into trying to get media portrayal of women to be less misogynistic, and frankly, it should work because it uses the exact same processes of pattern-recognition that lead to misogyny and minority oppression in the first place.  Let's say for the sake of argument that media outlets started only writing homosexual characters.  Pretty quickly, the stereotype of homosexuality is gonna fall apart, 'cause lets face it, you can't have every character in every tv show as a overly camp caricature, it would be boring.

I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.  I think in that way I can see why it might be important for people to self-define as something, in order be like:

"Hey, I have this thing about me that's totally different to this thing about you, but look at all this other stuff that's actually kinda common ground"

Basically, yeah everyone is a human being, but when we live in an evironment where labels exist and are used negatively, one way of removing the oppressive power of the label is to use that same pattern-recognition wetware to illustrate how useless that pattern-recognition can be, or at least co-opt it.  Like in the "everyone is gay on TV" example above, in that situation it seems likely that characters would eventually have to be written in much the same way they are now, you know, as real(ish) people, which would eventually erode the previous stereotype.  Actually I'm being a bit kind to TV there.  I mean if all TV characters were gay and all TV shows were well written...  pretty unlikely huh?

Man I'm really bad at this :/  So if you allow a set of individuals to self-define under a label, it could, presumably, be used to lessen the negative stereotype of that label, by presenting facts contrary to the stereotypes prediction, which remain associated with the label, thereby making the stereotype seems less and less useful.

Maybe :/

As an aside, I'd say in many cases, something like romantic preferences can be a pretty big deal to people.  I mean, if you're a long-term monogamy kinda guy/gal, we're talking about the kind of person that you do or would like to spend a significant portion of your life with.  Obviously that isn't conveyed by orientation, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from?

xx

edd

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 01:18:55 AM
Some tools outlive their usefulness or are badly designed from the start. A bad tool might roughly serve a purpose but perform poorly or unexpectedly, damaging what it interacts with or even being prone to backlash.

Triple touche :(

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:44:09 AM
I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

Well I can't argue with that, guess I'm just an optimist, I still think it could work either way :/

Maybe meaningless labels are the future

xx
edd

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
Well I can't argue with that, guess I'm just an optimist, I still think it could work either way :/

Maybe meaningless labels are the future

xx
edd

"Eglatarian" is anything but meaningless.

It is merely shifty in that it's hard for people to attack without attacking their own mythology.

Guerilla Poetry is one of our staples, no?  This is no different. 

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:55:47 AM

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:44:09 AM
I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

THAT.

There's a set of assumptions that goes with a label, too. You might not know in advance what all those assumptions are goin to be, but do you really want a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys making more assumptions than they do already?

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 02:53:51 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:55:47 AM

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:44:09 AM
I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

THAT.

There's a set of assumptions that goes with a label, too. You might not know in advance what all those assumptions are goin to be, but do you really want a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys making more assumptions than they do already?

Personally, I want them thinking that I'm a rather dim loudmouth asshole who can't be bothered to think.

That way, someone else gets blamed for the horrible sneaky shit I do.  Usually it's the dumbass with the tie-dye hairdo, the ANARCHIST label tattooed on his forehead, and the cranial piercing who's desperate to show how clever he is in public.  Thanks for the camouflage, asshole!

I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:59:38 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 02:53:51 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:55:47 AM

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:44:09 AM
I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

THAT.

There's a set of assumptions that goes with a label, too. You might not know in advance what all those assumptions are goin to be, but do you really want a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys making more assumptions than they do already?

Personally, I want them thinking that I'm a rather dim loudmouth asshole who can't be bothered to think.

That way, someone else gets blamed for the horrible sneaky shit I do.  Usually it's the dumbass with the tie-dye hairdo, the ANARCHIST label tattooed on his forehead, and the cranial piercing who's desperate to show how clever he is in public.  Thanks for the camouflage, asshole!

That guy would be shot on sight here.  :lol:

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:05:53 AM
I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

Actually, I think it's more that they don't FEEL like the gender they were born with.  My daughter is in this catagory.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the classic sense of the term, or in society's expectations, it's that she would have much rather had a male body.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 03:08:32 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:59:38 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 02:53:51 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:55:47 AM

Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 01:44:09 AM
I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

THAT.

There's a set of assumptions that goes with a label, too. You might not know in advance what all those assumptions are goin to be, but do you really want a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys making more assumptions than they do already?

Personally, I want them thinking that I'm a rather dim loudmouth asshole who can't be bothered to think.

That way, someone else gets blamed for the horrible sneaky shit I do.  Usually it's the dumbass with the tie-dye hairdo, the ANARCHIST label tattooed on his forehead, and the cranial piercing who's desperate to show how clever he is in public.  Thanks for the camouflage, asshole!

That guy would be shot on sight here.  :lol:

Happens once a month.  There's some guy running around in the principia subforum this week.

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:41:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:33:03 AM
Until I snapped at Roger, I was not being hostile. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

Privilege is something that exists in the fucking West, too, at all levels, and it needs to be dealt with. If you're saying, "hey the UN is the only one who can talk about race and sex relations in America (or where ever)" then you need to remember that change happens on the ground. Roger learned something, Roger changed something about his vocabulary, because we talked about male privilege. I'm sure he's not the only one, he's just the most vocal about it. I know that I learned what my asshole behavior was through these kinds of discussions. I changed because I learned about privilege. All this shit happened on the ground.

Yes some small ground has been made, I wont argue that there is more that can be done, a larger audience reached and a greater impact wrought, because any progress is progress.
It would be negative and standing in the way of progress, messages and teaching to tell someone they are incapable of understanding based on their situation in life.
And I don't think you understood my UN comment, I don't believe the UN makes any progress at all.

Second part is not something relevant or mentioned in this thread. I also still think the gentlemen here are really not getting the fine but valid differences between empathy/getting it and living it. However, I really don't think the discussion of empathy/UR A MAN is going to be good for this thread and I would like to stay on topic for at least a couple pages.
I got that (and I agree. UN; good for establishing which side of the strait you should sail on, bad for dealing with human rights). Which is why I was kind of offended.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 03:47:04 AM

Second part is not something relevant or mentioned in this thread. I also still think the gentlemen here are really not getting the fine but valid differences between empathy/getting it and living it.

Please name a practical difference, other than some weird form of status.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:10:45 AM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:05:53 AM
I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

Actually, I think it's more that they don't FEEL like the gender they were born with.  My daughter is in this catagory.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the classic sense of the term, or in society's expectations, it's that she would have much rather had a male body.

I think the ex has said that, and some guy down at Hat's has said it too. 

I actually don't have a problem with labels provided the function is not to reduce a person to nothing but a label.

I think there are some legitimate reasons for labels;

To better know ones self. By coming across a label that fits me, it gives me a chance to understand myself better. This was my experience with the myerbriggs test, finding my type listed as INTP. Reading the description, it was the first time I actually understood that I wasnt socially incompetent. I'm sure that coming across a label that describes ones quirks or compulsions and provides a community of people who have experienced similar things, is helpful to many, including those with uncommon inclinations in gender or sexuality.

To form tribal connections. Either informally (a Discordian hanging with Discordians) or formally (official groups or associations) labelling oneself as part of a larger group as a social signifier.

To attract desired attention or behaviour. Easiest example is if I put straight, bi or gay on a dating profile.

To compress complex ideas. While my views on any issue may be complex, and not easily summed up by any label, I can call myself feminist, left-leaning, objectivist, deist our any other label if I want to quickly convey a set of complex or time intensive ideas in one word. This also givs these idea sets greater spreadability.

The key point for me is that labels can help if you use them, not if you let them use you, not if you become them.

I think maybe tags and labels are useful in the context of a task with roles but using them for anything other than that is dehumanizing and simplifying a person.

We're building a house (task), im Jack and im "the" carpenter (role regarding task), Jill is "the" plumber (role regarding task).

When we are not building the house (no task) then im simply Jack, and shes simply Jill.

So maybe if the task is "promoting equality in society" the proper labels would indeed be "egalitarian" with "X (feminist), Y (human rights) or Z (anti-exclusion)" orientation/perspective.

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 05:50:12 AM

I think maybe tags and labels are useful in the context of a task with roles but using them for anything other than that is dehumanizing and simplifying a person.

We're building a house (task), im Jack and im "the" carpenter (role regarding task), Jill is "the" plumber (role regarding task).

When we are not building the house (no task) then im simply Jack, and shes simply Jill.

So I should reject simple ways of articulating my gender, political persuasion, sexuality, beliefs etc because it's inherently dehumanising?

I have never understood this.

You can make use of labels or titles without becoming them.

Although theres an important distinction between using labels for v oneself or for another.

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 05:54:14 AM

So maybe if the task is "promoting equality in society" the proper labels would indeed be "egalitarian" with "X (feminist), Y (human rights) or Z (anti-exclusion)" orientation/perspective.

Thing is, these labels get used because theyre short, simple ways of expressing things. If someone asks me why Twilight sucks, I'm not going to say "well, from an egalitarian human rights feminist perspective..."

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

I liked the way that was put.

Also, by fact and nomenclature, "I am" Mexican, but by fuck do i identify as one.

"16 de septiembre" is coming up when everyone celebrates their "Mexicanity"... yes, let us all REJOICE in being citizens in a nation full of corruption.

Also, im a man, as in, i have a dick, but whats the point of stating it unless someone is interested in sexy times with me? There is no point, other than if i engage in a conversation, devalue my argument with something among the lines "you just say that because privilege", a crude attribution of cause, when a female could very well be making the same argument and be attributed to "omg brainwash"; but if we know if they are female or male, it gives us a nice representation and data point to work around with, frame the debate, assume groupality allegiances, which ultimately sums up to not listening.

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

Well put. However for me it is an affirmation. I do believe it one can use labels without becoming the label.

It seems odd to not identify with a group because of nut jobs. It's not like any (sane) person hates on Richard Dawkins because of Mao Tse Tung (though of course this could just be because theres much better reasons to hate on Dawkins).

Actually speaking of Dawkins, the Brights movement is a good example of a lable used to compress a complex set of ideas into something thats simple enough to spread.

"We are brights, you are dim, as in dim-witted, this justifies us filtering anything you say as stupid."

Labels are unavoidable. It's how the human brain is wired to think. Without labels we'd be dribbling on our shoes and crossing our eyes constantly and we'd never learn anything.

However, labels are also a trap. Labels acquire connotations. When a label acquires enough connotations it becomes a pidgeonhole. It becomes a prison (for both the labeller and the labelee) It becomes a tool of oppression and/or a wedge between the subject and understanding.

This is true not only of labels we apply to our fellow primates but of all labels. Labels for inanimate objects. Labels for abstract systems. Labels for pretty much fucking anything.

Here's how it works. Once upon a time someone invented a label to describe these funky new people they'd discovered. These people were a different colour from the people who discovered them. "holy fuck!" said the bold explorers "these people are different from us. Quick, we need a label"

So they called them "Niggers"

At the point where they did this they had no preconceptions of what a "nigger" actually was. The term merely meant dark coloured people. It was later that the label took on a life of it's own. I probably don't have to explain what happened next but I'd like to point out that what did happen next was the pitfall of labels.

It eventually got so bad that most of the human race (even Richard Pryor, FFS) realised that it was getting us nowhere so, in a godlike display of making the same mistake over and over, we decided to replace the label with "people of colour"

Genius! Because of course it was the spelling that caused all the problems in the first place.

Prediction - 20 years from now calling someone a "person of colour" will be just as bad as calling them a nigger - you heard it here first.

So yeah, use labels, you can't help it but what you can help is to always look behind the labels. Don't get tied up in them. Work out for yourself when it's appropriate to apply them and when it's retarded.

If you don't then you're going to become a bigot and, because labels are so fucking insidious when they're working against you, you'll be utterly blind to this fact and everybody will be laughing at you behind your back on account of the "Asshole" label

Most labels can be used as euphemisms, as in, apparently neutral words that denote something, but in reality theres an underlying signification.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:42:35 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
:lulz: :lulz: Of course.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:32:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

Again, it's been said several times that you CAN recognize those memes. You, specifically, have already done so at least once in the last couple days (and I, at least, never thought you were dim or incapable of being introspective).
It's really more like I think/thought that a lot of people haven't had to try to name an annoyingly persistent "what the fuck is this?" bar (and okay, I can surrender this specific argument within the labels discussion - there are people who have had to do that or rebuild their BiP who choose to reject labels still).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 04:19:34 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 03:47:04 AM

Second part is not something relevant or mentioned in this thread. I also still think the gentlemen here are really not getting the fine but valid differences between empathy/getting it and living it.

Please name a practical difference, other than some weird form of status.

It's not a damn status thing. Jesus.


Practical difference? Sure. You can't actually experience the fear and anxiety that comes with being a woman/female. Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:
- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)
- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)
-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)
--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)
- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)
- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)
- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)
- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)
Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

I waited for close to half an hour, out of their sight, and without even thinking about it I angled myself to watch the door, despite the fact that because A and the BF were coming from the freeway, they were much more likely to be coming from the other direction.
It's possible I was more anxious than necessary and I'm sure most of those men were harmless and not going to hurt me. But that's my gut reaction to lots of older men when I'm alone and in that type of situation (younger men would mean the anxiety was close to maybe six or seven)

Do you sympathize with this? I sure as fuck hope so. But you can't experience the anxiety and fear.

* from invading my space and trying to rub my shoulders, to "hey, be my sugar baby"/"you should wash my car in a bikini", to "pretty girls should expect to be stalked"/aggressive, possessive behavior/following me to my car (which is why I will harangue a male friend into walking with me if necessary)

I will come back and answer more of this thread in the actual morning.

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:30:32 AM

Also, by fact and nomenclature, "I am" Mexican, but by fuck do i identify as one.

"16 de septiembre" is coming up when everyone celebrates their "Mexicanity"... yes, let us all REJOICE in being citizens in a nation full of corruption.

Also, im a man, as in, i have a dick, but whats the point of stating it unless someone is interested in sexy times with me? There is no point, other than if i engage in a conversation, devalue my argument with something among the lines "you just say that because privilege", a crude attribution of cause, when a female could very well be making the same argument and be attributed to "omg brainwash"; but if we know if they are female or male, it gives us a nice representation and data point to work around with, frame the debate, assume groupality allegiances, which ultimately sums up to not listening.

Exactly. As we know from arguing with people online. :lol:

And I like "I'm tall". I'm stealing that.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 08:37:03 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:42:35 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
:lulz: :lulz: Of course.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:32:15 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Seriously, Roger, chill the fuck out. You're getting all wound up and putting words in our mouths.

Maybe.  Or maybe you don't realize the impact of the words that are actually coming out of your mouths.

These are sensitive issues. I have tried very hard to treat them as such (CMT aside, which I have already and repeatedly apologized for) with a disclaimer ("this is not aimed at you") for a good portion of my posts. Apparently I was not delicate enough. Sorry.

I'm not torqued up about the CMT thing.  What's got me riled is that I have explained my case, and I am still told that I can reject labels because of privilege, not because I may think differently or have different experiences than you or people you know.

It basically translates out to "You THINK you have an opinion, but you are running on nothing but false memetic consciousness, driven by memes you aren't capable of recognizing."  Part of that might be caused because people who don't know me very well assume that because I'm loud, I can't possibly be introspective.  They may assume that because I'm dense, that I am also DIM.

Again, it's been said several times that you CAN recognize those memes. You, specifically, have already done so at least once in the last couple days (and I, at least, never thought you were dim or incapable of being introspective).
It's really more like I think/thought that a lot of people haven't had to try to name an annoyingly persistent "what the fuck is this?" bar (and okay, I can surrender this specific argument within the labels discussion - there are people who have had to do that or rebuild their BiP who choose to reject labels still).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 04:19:34 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 03:47:04 AM

Second part is not something relevant or mentioned in this thread. I also still think the gentlemen here are really not getting the fine but valid differences between empathy/getting it and living it.

Please name a practical difference, other than some weird form of status.

It's not a damn status thing. Jesus.


Practical difference? Sure. You can't actually experience the fear and anxiety that comes with being a woman/female. Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:
- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)
- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)
-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)
--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)
- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)
- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)
- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)
- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+2 to anxiety)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)
Total:
2 wariness
15 anxiety
1 FML

I waited for close to half an hour, out of their sight, and without even thinking about it I angled myself to watch the door, despite the fact that because A and the BF were coming from the freeway, they were much more likely to be coming from the other direction.
It's possible I was more anxious than necessary and I'm sure most of those men were harmless and not going to hurt me. But that's my gut reaction to lots of older men when I'm alone and in that type of situation (younger men would mean the anxiety was close to maybe nine)

Do you sympathize with this? I sure as fuck hope so. But you can't experience the anxiety and fear.

Garbo, bars and creepers and oglers are annoying as fuck, but yeah, you were more anxious than necessary.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 08:37:03 AM

Practical difference? Sure. You can't actually experience the fear and anxiety that comes with being a woman/female. Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:
- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)
- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)
-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)
--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)
- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)
- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)
- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)
- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)
Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

I waited for close to half an hour, out of their sight, and without even thinking about it I angled myself to watch the door, despite the fact that because A and the BF were coming from the freeway, they were much more likely to be coming from the other direction.
It's possible I was more anxious than necessary and I'm sure most of those men were harmless and not going to hurt me. But that's my gut reaction to lots of older men when I'm alone and in that type of situation (younger men would mean the anxiety was close to maybe nine)

Do you sympathize with this? I sure as fuck hope so. But you can't experience the anxiety and fear.

* from invading my space and trying to rub my shoulders, to "hey, be my sugar baby"/"you should wash my car in a bikini", to "pretty girls should expect to be stalked"/aggressive, possessive behavior/following me to my car (which is why I will harangue a male friend into walking with me if necessary)

You do realise that practically all of this was in your head, right? And that's not dismissive, trust me I know all about "in your head" I was locked up and tortured by mine for years. Thing is, tho, it was your labels (pretty much exclusively) that made the whole thing so nerve wrackingly possible. A lot of other women, who don't share those particular labels which you hold so dear, would have walked in, ordered a beer and thought nothing of it.

Creepy, scary behavior from older men has happened to me for years (like, close to a decade). I don't think I'm excessively out of line when it comes to being anxious about them and outside of being around lots of older men by myself, I am not a particularly anxious person. Although I do admit some of it is probably overly paranoid since I do have some fucked up brain chemistry and I do tend to make plans to deal with the worst. It's sort of my nature.


I also realize this probably compromises some of my general validity. *shrug* I seem to be doing a lot of that lately

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
Creepy, scary behavior from older men has happened to me for years (like, close to a decade). I don't think I'm excessively out of line when it comes to being anxious about them and outside of being around lots of older men by myself, I am not a particularly anxious person. Although I do admit some of it is probably overly paranoid since I do have some fucked up brain chemistry and I do tend to make plans to deal with the worst. It's sort of my nature.


I also realize this probably compromises some of my general validity. *shrug* I seem to be doing a lot of that lately

Trust me, we're on the same page. I just happen to be the lucky one that got past it. PTSD is a fuck of a thing, tho. You lose all sense of proportion. Something that helped me was repeating, like a mantra, "most people don't get murdered"

Eventually you start believing it, which is cool cos, statistically speaking, it's true.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
Creepy, scary behavior from older men has happened to me for years (like, close to a decade). I don't think I'm excessively out of line when it comes to being anxious about them and outside of being around lots of older men by myself, I am not a particularly anxious person. Although I do admit some of it is probably overly paranoid since I do have some fucked up brain chemistry and I do tend to make plans to deal with the worst. It's sort of my nature.


I also realize this probably compromises some of my general validity. *shrug* I seem to be doing a lot of that lately

Trust me, we're on the same page. I just happen to be the lucky one that got past it. PTSD is a fuck of a thing, tho. You lose all sense of proportion. Something that helped me was repeating, like a mantra, "most people don't get murdered"

Eventually you start believing it, which is cool cos, statistically speaking, it's true.

Yep.

And chances are slim to none of actually getting raped in there. Creeps can smell fear anyway, you don't want to project it. Fake being ballsy until it's real. Look 'em in the eye and tell 'em to fuck off if they get too close or say something wrong. Even if you're scared. Just fake it.

They're kind of my one lapse in that. Cat calling is rare for that reason (cat calling is not the same as the kind of shit I'm talking about, btw, and I spend more of my time around people my age anyway).
I'm aware of the likelihood of rape or whatever in bars being low, since I am perfectly aware of who most rapists are (men you already know). It's just a giant WHAT IF AND YOU DIDN'T PREPARE that looms.

I should also note it's men who are total strangers that freak me out. I would be comfortable hanging out with just EOT. Roger extended an invite to stay with at his place last spring; if I had been able to go, I would have accepted it and Freeky's presence had nothing to do with it because I'd be fine with it if she wasn't there (if I do ever get down there and it's still open, I'd accept it). The older guys here (except for BH, but that's more because he's disgusting) I would be fine with.

Also also, these experiences are part of why I, at this point, totally trust my first impression of a person. If you ding the creeper bells, I avoid the fuck out of you forever because I learned the hard way not to ignore it.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
Creepy, scary behavior from older men has happened to me for years (like, close to a decade). I don't think I'm excessively out of line when it comes to being anxious about them and outside of being around lots of older men by myself, I am not a particularly anxious person. Although I do admit some of it is probably overly paranoid since I do have some fucked up brain chemistry and I do tend to make plans to deal with the worst. It's sort of my nature.


I also realize this probably compromises some of my general validity. *shrug* I seem to be doing a lot of that lately

Trust me, we're on the same page. I just happen to be the lucky one that got past it. PTSD is a fuck of a thing, tho. You lose all sense of proportion. Something that helped me was repeating, like a mantra, "most people don't get murdered"

Eventually you start believing it, which is cool cos, statistically speaking, it's true.

Murder is way not the same as American rape stats. And then there's socialization added on top of that. Just sayin'. I don't have PTSD nor is mine as bad as I'm getting the idea yours was. I think mine is more anxiety + urge to figure out how to deal with the worst case scenario (because again, it's strange older men who make me anxious. Dudes my age and dudes I know, I'm fine with, and "worst case scenario" extends to mundane shit like "what if I get a flat tired somewhere remote? I should probably learn how to fix that and make sure the car is stocked with appropriate items to deal with it. What if the kitchen catches on fire? I should buy more baking soda" and so on).

Garbo, maybe you are relying too much on profiling as a defensive measure in said example?

Maybe take some martial arts and self defense classes? Carry a knife? Try to go out with friends rather than alone?

And im not being dismissive of your feelings, for example, theres certain black markets around here where u can get good stuff for cheap, but its located in a sketchy and dangerous part of the city where the merchants have almost complete control of the locality and they are known for being criminals (where do you think the nice cheap things come from?)

So if i go there, it doesnt matter how accurate is my profiling early warning systems, truth of the matter is that if im targeted for assault and or robbery, im fucked, one simply tries to not get into that kind of positions.

Theres also a whole subculture here that people generally are wary of, "reguetoneros", for their symbolic ties and idealization of crime, and i think the prejudice is fair, just as one would be wary of "hell's angels" or whatever, but thats because they chose a label and a uniform that is signaling something to others.

You are in a sense prejudicing against a group of men within an age group due to bad experiences, that doesnt mean its all of them.

You're probably right. *shrug*

I do go out with friends, nearly always (I can think of one time in the last couple years I went out by myself, which was to see a shitty movie in the place near my house). Although not going places by yourself is something pretty much every woman/female does.

I also noted that I know most of them are harmless. Knee-jerk, is what it is.

Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

Proved a point perfectly from where I'm sitting. Problem was it the opposing argument from the one you were trying to prove. Maybe us dumb fucks have a point worth considering after all?

Which was?

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:36:24 AM
Which was?

That labels can be a bad thing?

Ugh. I seem to be fucking up every thread I touch because I'm eight shades of retard this week.


I'm gonna back out for a while, I think. Net, gimme a PM when the pic for the colab has been selected?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 10:37:50 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:36:24 AM
Which was?

That labels can be a bad thing?

I haven't gone through the LABELS- the thread! posts since I tried to go to sleep earlier, so maybe it's been eviscerated already, but label-lessness got us into the this situation in the first place, so I don't know how not using labels (particularly to talk about power inequalities) is going to be useful.

Try this:

Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:

- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)

Moving to a well-lit public space (-1 Wariness, -1 to anxiety)

- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)


Passed by a group of potential witnesses/ support if I get in trouble (-4 to anxiety)

-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)

They react to my presence. Good - this means they are biologically alive and conscious. This will help if I need their assitance for any reason (-2 to anxiety)

--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)

One of them is attracted to me. Too bad, I'm out of his league and he knows it but he makes a show in front of his friends as some pathetic attempt to save face. (+1 to ego)

- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)

Check reflection in door window - yup, I'm hawt!  (+2 to ego)

- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)

Bar is empty. Result -  I'm first in the queue!


- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)

Two doors leading in, I sit in the corner so I have an eye on both. All the glassware and possibly a baseball bat and/or shotgun behind the bar. If anything kicks off in this empty place then that's where I'm headed. Sitrep: Area secure. (-4 to anxiety)

- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)

Check bag - Can of mace! Something out the ordinary goes down I should have it covered

Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

Total:
-1 wariness
-11 anxiety
+3 ego

-- all I did was change the labels and swap proactive for paranoid

Something that's just occurred to me.

A new label to describe labels, if you will - "Bricks"

Bricks in the wall of your own personal BIP?

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

No, but I have perpetual, low-level anxieties of my own.  The flavor is different, the effect is the same.

Neither set of fears means that there is a "practical difference" in our motivation or ability to advance eglatarianism, which is about the only thing that should matter in terms of the various discussions we've been having.

People fall into the following catagories, more or less:

1.  Elgatarians/feminists.
2.  Non-Eglatarians/feminists (usually because they have misconceptions about what this means_.
3.  Anti-eglatarians/feminists.

You already have group 1.  There is no need to "close the sale", they're already on your side.  A need to educate them or drive home "essential differences" is a losing strategy.

You can't reach group 3, at least not without disproportionate effort.  The most you can do is refuse to tolerate their bullshit.

Group 2 is your market.  "You need to reach them with a message that counters the lies of group 3.  No, eglatarians are not out to castrate you, dude."  "No, lady, being a feminist does not mean you can't dress up sexy for your husband or BF or whatever if that's what you want to do."  "No, your pastor is wrong...Read the Aprocrypha, particularly Ben & Ruth".  Marginalize "jokes" and yahoo behavior.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 01:45:08 PM
Something that's just occurred to me.

A new label to describe labels, if you will - "Bricks"

Bricks in the wall of your own personal BIP?

With the obvious allusion to Pink Floyd and the themes of separation between people who in turn become more and more remote from each other?

And I don't intend to harp on the subject, Garbo, but let's just turn that around.

I'm 43 and sitting in a bar with my friends Roscoe (35) and Anthony (25).  Someone else walks into the bar, so we look at who entered (I sure as hell am).  It turns out to be a young lady.  I give a friendly smile, and turn back to my conversation.  She scoots for a corner table like I was about to attack her on the spot.

I don't know what's going through her head, but I'm wondering what the hell I did wrong.  I was just being polite.  I would have done the same exact thing if it had been a 60 year old man who walked in.

Another example, this one happened recently:

I'm walking out of Barnes & Noble, to my car in the parking lot.  A 50-ish Black man is about 20 feet ahead of me, dressed like a lawyer or a doctor on his day off.  He's carrying a bag of books in each hand.  As he walks toward his car, passes by a lady waiting in her SUV...Who hits all the door locks as he goes past the front of her vehicle.  It's fairly quiet in the parking lot, and even I can hear the sound, even though I'm a good 30 feet away.  I start laughing fit to split a gut.  The guy looks back at me and chuckles, with the "what can you say?" look on his face.  He then walks past her car, loads his books in the trunk, and departs.

Did she hit the locks because he was a man?  Or because he was a Black man?  I don't know (though in Oro Valley, I can make a pretty good guess), but I know what the guy was thinking, based on the look on his face. 



Now, I'm not saying to stop being cautious.  I am NOT by any means saying there aren't a bunch of creepers out there.  What I AM saying is that caution is a good thing, but outright fear is something to be conquered.  99% of the time, the people you are worried about would be honestly puzzled as to why.

The other half of that is that, given a situation in which creepers are actually present, the other 1% of the time, a visible fear response is a really, really bad thing.  It's what the predator type is scanning for.  Replace the fear with anger.

Lastly, okay, so you're a good-looking younger woman in a bar.  You're getting the leer.  What do?

1.  Look him in the eye, snort derisively, go back to what you were doing.  The "snorting derisively" thing is the important bit, because you're acting dismissive, which puts you in the powerful position, which isn't what creepers are looking for.  He'll find someone else to hassle.

2.  If a situation becomes physical, or even seriously LOOKS like it's about to become physical, be the first to react.  Shout, don't scream (anger & threat posture, not fear response)...And advance, don't cringe.  Mace the piss out of the guy, if he actually attempts to touch you.  Or just glass the bastard¹.  Most crimes occur to people who A)  Look like a victim and B) Fail to react because they can't get it through their head that something is actually happening.  The jackass is kind of counting on that. 




¹  I suggest this one.  Even the smallest fist is credible if there's a rock in it.  A beer stein is even better.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE BOTTLE OR GLASS FIRST UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IT, or the ER nurse will be fishing bits of glass out of your hand for hours.

This is actually relevant to the labels thing, because a label can also be the way you present yourself.

People tend to act either in a dominant or submissive way.  Submissive behavior says "I'm a victim".  Dominant behavior says "Find someone else to bother, asshole, or you'll wish you had."

Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."


Dominant behavior:
Eye contact or dark glasses that make people feel like you're making eye contact in a negative way.
Aggressive smile and leaning forward while feeling threatened.
Hands are knuckles forward while striding, as opposed to walking.  Default hand position is a fist.
While seated, hands are on the table, knuckles up.
"What the fuck are YOU looking at?"

Funny part is, the label you wear affects YOU, too.  In the first case, you have fear.  In the second case, you don't, at least after doing this a while.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

It says "I want to be left alone, but I cannot enforce it.  I rely on your manners and good behavior."

In some situations, that's appropriate.  If there is danger present, your posture should instead say "Leave me the fuck alone or I'll ruin your night."

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

I'm like this a lot of the time, its something I consciously want to get rid of when I am at work, I think it is detrimental to how people perceive you and the work you do.

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 03:13:56 PM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

I'm like this a lot of the time, its something I consciously want to get rid of when I am at work, I think it is detrimental to how people perceive you and the work you do.

It is.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

It says "I want to be left alone, but I cannot enforce it.  I rely on your manners and good behavior."

In some situations, that's appropriate.  If there is danger present, your posture should instead say "Leave me the fuck alone or I'll ruin your night."

That would probably tie into advice that I've been given to "fake it" even if I'm not feeling it (regarding confidence).
Dealing with social situations is taking a whole lot of work to get my head around.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:15:39 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 03:13:56 PM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

I'm like this a lot of the time, its something I consciously want to get rid of when I am at work, I think it is detrimental to how people perceive you and the work you do.

It is.

Trouble is I get nervous and feel like I'm doing something wrong even when its someone else. Not sure how to train that out of myself.

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:18:50 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

It says "I want to be left alone, but I cannot enforce it.  I rely on your manners and good behavior."

In some situations, that's appropriate.  If there is danger present, your posture should instead say "Leave me the fuck alone or I'll ruin your night."

That would probably tie into advice that I've been given to "fake it" even if I'm not feeling it (regarding confidence).
Dealing with social situations is taking a whole lot of work to get my head around.

A better view is "fake it til you make it".

Passive < aggressive < assertive.

But you can't make it in one jump.  By the way, the easiest part is one of the most effective parts.  Knuckles forward when you walk, like an ape.  You look like you're both ready and used to trouble.  Stride, don't walk.  It looks like you're moving with a purpose, and people tend to barge through things when they have a purpose.

Also, manners can be the enemy.  If a stranger asks you for a light or for change, blow past him and CHECK BEHIND YOU.  If he's being overly nice or familiar while he's doing it, or if he advances while he does it, it's Trouble, and he has a friend nearby.  Behind you.

So what do you do when there's Trouble?  There's a limited number of options.  The BEST option is to be prepared in advance (the classes Cain referred to are priceless, not for technique, but for reaction).

However, lacking that:

1.  SHOUT, do not scream.  Bellow out a challenge, lean forward.
2.  If you cannot run, attack.  Do not defend.  Trouble counts on you pretending that nothing is wrong.
3.  Mace.  Lots and lots of mace.  Aim for the forehead, not the eyes.

 

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 03:25:31 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:15:39 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 03:13:56 PM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

I'm like this a lot of the time, its something I consciously want to get rid of when I am at work, I think it is detrimental to how people perceive you and the work you do.

It is.

Trouble is I get nervous and feel like I'm doing something wrong even when its someone else. Not sure how to train that out of myself.

Re-read The Schoedinger's Cat trilogy.  Pay attention to the narrator, not the dialogue.

whether is a serial rapist or just the office bully, they're not looking for a challenge, they're looking for a victim. Whether or not they can articulate how it works, most people speak fluent body-language. It's rooted in a much older set of neural pathways than verbal communication and is a lot more powerful because of that.

Learning the rules of assertive body language and then actually changing to using it will actually make you feel more confident. Your brain follows you're body's message. Stand up straight, shoulders back, head upright, look people in the eye. If you want to up the ante - move into their personal space, lean forward, maintain eye contact, smirk.

Of course if it gets to that stage it's a good idea to have some ass kicking skills to back that up  :wink:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 03:36:49 PM
whether is a serial rapist or just the office bully, they're not looking for a challenge, they're looking for a victim. Whether or not they can articulate how it works, most people speak fluent body-language. It's rooted in a much older set of neural pathways than verbal communication and is a lot more powerful because of that.

Learning the rules of assertive body language and then actually changing to using it will actually make you feel more confident. Your brain follows you're body's message. Stand up straight, shoulders back, head upright, look people in the eye. If you want to up the ante - move into their personal space, lean forward, maintain eye contact, smirk.

Of course if it gets to that stage it's a good idea to have some ass kicking skills to back that up  :wink:

But that's almost never actually necessary, because as you say, they're looking for labels that say  "easy mark".

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
And I don't intend to harp on the subject, Garbo, but let's just turn that around.

I'm 43 and sitting in a bar with my friends Roscoe (35) and Anthony (25).  Someone else walks into the bar, so we look at who entered (I sure as hell am).  It turns out to be a young lady.  I give a friendly smile, and turn back to my conversation.  She scoots for a corner table like I was about to attack her on the spot.

I don't know what's going through her head, but I'm wondering what the hell I did wrong.  I was just being polite.  I would have done the same exact thing if it had been a 60 year old man who walked in.

Another example, this one happened recently:

I'm walking out of Barnes & Noble, to my car in the parking lot.  A 50-ish Black man is about 20 feet ahead of me, dressed like a lawyer or a doctor on his day off.  He's carrying a bag of books in each hand.  As he walks toward his car, passes by a lady waiting in her SUV...Who hits all the door locks as he goes past the front of her vehicle.  It's fairly quiet in the parking lot, and even I can hear the sound, even though I'm a good 30 feet away.  I start laughing fit to split a gut.  The guy looks back at me and chuckles, with the "what can you say?" look on his face.  He then walks past her car, loads his books in the trunk, and departs.

Did she hit the locks because he was a man?  Or because he was a Black man?  I don't know (though in Oro Valley, I can make a pretty good guess), but I know what the guy was thinking, based on the look on his face. 



Now, I'm not saying to stop being cautious.  I am NOT by any means saying there aren't a bunch of creepers out there.  What I AM saying is that caution is a good thing, but outright fear is something to be conquered.  99% of the time, the people you are worried about would be honestly puzzled as to why.

The other half of that is that, given a situation in which creepers are actually present, the other 1% of the time, a visible fear response is a really, really bad thing.  It's what the predator type is scanning for.  Replace the fear with anger.

Lastly, okay, so you're a good-looking younger woman in a bar.  You're getting the leer.  What do?

1.  Look him in the eye, snort derisively, go back to what you were doing.  The "snorting derisively" thing is the important bit, because you're acting dismissive, which puts you in the powerful position, which isn't what creepers are looking for.  He'll find someone else to hassle.

2.  If a situation becomes physical, or even seriously LOOKS like it's about to become physical, be the first to react.  Shout, don't scream (anger & threat posture, not fear response)...And advance, don't cringe.  Mace the piss out of the guy, if he actually attempts to touch you.  Or just glass the bastard¹.  Most crimes occur to people who A)  Look like a victim and B) Fail to react because they can't get it through their head that something is actually happening.  The jackass is kind of counting on that.




¹  I suggest this one.  Even the smallest fist is credible if there's a rock in it.  A beer stein is even better.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE BOTTLE OR GLASS FIRST UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IT, or the ER nurse will be fishing bits of glass out of your hand for hours.

I can attest to the effectiveness of this I don't even KNOW how many times over.  :lulz:

And I want to add that if he even LOOKS like wanting to come at you for fucking up his face (which is RARE, 99.99% of the time they're just shocked) OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT BAR, INCLUDING HIS OWN FRIENDS, WILL GRAB HIS ASS AND PULL HIM AWAY. BEFORE HE DOES ANYTHING.

There are reasons for this. Some people are decent and don't want to see a woman smacked around. Some people are assholes and won't want to see the creeper go to jail. Some people will be trying to make brownie points with the barender and/or owner, (alkies like being in with bartenders and bar owners, there's an occsional free drink in it) who doesn't want to risk getting shut down. Some people are tryingto be your knight in shining armor, which you may not want, but these types aren't often grabby.

I know a secret - you're usually safer in a bar than you are in your own home, if you live alone or the people you live with are away. The real danger of bars is people FOLLOWING you home.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."

This describes me in any social situation ever.
I always thought it was a good indicator of wanting to be left alone, just in a more quiet way. Need to think on that.

It says "I want to be left alone, but I cannot enforce it.  I rely on your manners and good behavior."

In some situations, that's appropriate.  If there is danger present, your posture should instead say "Leave me the fuck alone or I'll ruin your night."

Sita, that's being a sitting duck.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32930.msg1196220.html#msg1196220

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:31:13 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:23:16 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:49:35 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:33:45 PM

The point is that you HAVE boxes you didn't have to search for years for; they were given to you and that's a privilege some people don't have. You didn't spend years struggling with a vital part your identity in the same way some people, myself among them, did.

No.  Just every single day of my life since 1996.  Doesn't count, I suppose.  :kingmeh:

Does count. It's not something I was aware of.

And that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.  In the other thread, Faust just made a statement about how "nobody here has ever been oppressed", because we all have one form of privilege or another.  And BOTH of you are FULL OF SHIT.  Oppression and privilege are in no way connected, except that privilege makes oppressing other people slightly easier.

Your identity problems are based on cis/trans whatever.  Mine are based on something grimmer and far more basic, but MY issues in no way invalidate YOUR issues, and the other way around.  You live with the fear of rape and being seconded based on your sex and gender orientation, and I live with a 16 ton weight on my conscience.

You look at men walking by, and worry that they may have designs on your body.  I look at people walking by, and worry that they might suddenly point and shout "PARIAH!  KILLER!  MURDERER!  FUCKING ANIMAL!"  Both are at the same time reasonable and paranoid.  Both are still very real fears.

To claim that one is greater than the other is to claim that it's okay to be hanged, if they use a golden rope.

I'm late to this party, but I wanted to say that this is completely spot-on. Oppression and privilege are not mutually exclusive, and they come in a multitude of types, none of which invalidate the others.

One of the things that has led me in the direction I'm going in is the question of why, when I've had so many shitty things happen in my life, I came out of it relatively OK. Why is it that so many other people have had similar setbacks, and either turned into shitty people or were just unable to pull themselves out of it? Part of the answer comes down to privilege. Privileges I have that I am aware of: Both my parents are highly educated, I was raised with a keen awareness of my own intelligence, and although I was raised in poverty, my family background is not impoverished, so I had expectations of a different lifestyle; I was not raised within the cycle of despair. I was taught how to budget, garden, and cook at a very early age, and about nutrition and the importance of exercise. My parents were athletic.

So when I look at someone who I KNOW could do as well for themselves as I have, when it is tempting to despise their weakness (and it IS tempting; I am a human being, and human beings tend to do that) I try to remind myself that I am viewing them through the filters of MY privilege, and I need to step back and recognize those filters, and see what I have been granted as a matter of privilege that she hasn't been granted. Otherwise I run the risk of allowing myself to oppress her further, from my position of privilege, by invalidating her.

Roger, in terms of your oppression, I don't know what it's like to walk around with that weight on me. I can have sympathetic understanding for it, but god willing I will never have empathetic understanding of it. And honestly, I don't want you to ever have empathetic understanding of mine. I would rather nobody did.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:10:45 AM

Quote from: Sita on August 17, 2012, 03:05:53 AM
I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

Actually, I think it's more that they don't FEEL like the gender they were born with.  My daughter is in this catagory.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the classic sense of the term, or in society's expectations, it's that she would have much rather had a male body.

I felt that way as a child and young woman, but in my middle adulthood came to realize that my feeling was mostly a reaction to cultural gender expectations. It's not just that I wanted to have a penis; it's that I wanted to be treated and viewed the way people with penises were treated and viewed.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 17, 2012, 05:21:40 AM
I actually don't have a problem with labels provided the function is not to reduce a person to nothing but a label.

I think there are some legitimate reasons for labels;

To better know ones self. By coming across a label that fits me, it gives me a chance to understand myself better. This was my experience with the myerbriggs test, finding my type listed as INTP. Reading the description, it was the first time I actually understood that I wasnt socially incompetent. I'm sure that coming across a label that describes ones quirks or compulsions and provides a community of people who have experienced similar things, is helpful to many, including those with uncommon inclinations in gender or sexuality.

To form tribal connections. Either informally (a Discordian hanging with Discordians) or formally (official groups or associations) labelling oneself as part of a larger group as a social signifier.

To attract desired attention or behaviour. Easiest example is if I put straight, bi or gay on a dating profile.

To compress complex ideas. While my views on any issue may be complex, and not easily summed up by any label, I can call myself feminist, left-leaning, objectivist, deist our any other label if I want to quickly convey a set of complex or time intensive ideas in one word. This also givs these idea sets greater spreadability.

The key point for me is that labels can help if you use them, not if you let them use you, not if you become them.

We also can't help categorizing things. It's a human being thing; a fundamental survival trait. They key is to accept the categorizations, AND to think past them. Our brains instantly, automatically categorize absolutely everything that we experience. Sometimes we categorize wrong and have to adjust later. This happens constantly, thousands of millions of time every day; it's the only way our brains are free to think about things that are personally important. We are only having these conversations now because our brains are automatically categorizing everything going on in our immediate surroundings, and will automatically alert us if something falls into the category "potentially dangerous".

Everybody is already labeling everyone else all the time, and we can't stop. What we can do is consciously think past labels, when we have the time and opportunity to think. We can't make everyone else do so as well, but we can do what we're doing, which is talk about it to make it more likely that other people will pick up the idea (another thing  that human beings do naturally and automatically) and spread it around some more.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 08:12:58 AM
Labels are unavoidable. It's how the human brain is wired to think. Without labels we'd be dribbling on our shoes and crossing our eyes constantly and we'd never learn anything.

However, labels are also a trap. Labels acquire connotations. When a label acquires enough connotations it becomes a pidgeonhole. It becomes a prison (for both the labeller and the labelee) It becomes a tool of oppression and/or a wedge between the subject and understanding.

This is true not only of labels we apply to our fellow primates but of all labels. Labels for inanimate objects. Labels for abstract systems. Labels for pretty much fucking anything.

Here's how it works. Once upon a time someone invented a label to describe these funky new people they'd discovered. These people were a different colour from the people who discovered them. "holy fuck!" said the bold explorers "these people are different from us. Quick, we need a label"

So they called them "Niggers"

At the point where they did this they had no preconceptions of what a "nigger" actually was. The term merely meant dark coloured people. It was later that the label took on a life of it's own. I probably don't have to explain what happened next but I'd like to point out that what did happen next was the pitfall of labels.

It eventually got so bad that most of the human race (even Richard Pryor, FFS) realised that it was getting us nowhere so, in a godlike display of making the same mistake over and over, we decided to replace the label with "people of colour"

Genius! Because of course it was the spelling that caused all the problems in the first place.

Prediction - 20 years from now calling someone a "person of colour" will be just as bad as calling them a nigger - you heard it here first.

So yeah, use labels, you can't help it but what you can help is to always look behind the labels. Don't get tied up in them. Work out for yourself when it's appropriate to apply them and when it's retarded.

If you don't then you're going to become a bigot and, because labels are so fucking insidious when they're working against you, you'll be utterly blind to this fact and everybody will be laughing at you behind your back on account of the "Asshole" label

Hah, if I'd read further on I'd have seen that you already said what I just said.  :)

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
Creepy, scary behavior from older men has happened to me for years (like, close to a decade). I don't think I'm excessively out of line when it comes to being anxious about them and outside of being around lots of older men by myself, I am not a particularly anxious person. Although I do admit some of it is probably overly paranoid since I do have some fucked up brain chemistry and I do tend to make plans to deal with the worst. It's sort of my nature.


I also realize this probably compromises some of my general validity. *shrug* I seem to be doing a lot of that lately

When you've actually had bad shit happen to you, it does increase your anxiety when you're in a similar situation. Yeah, it might be "in your head" but it's still real, and still a symptom of a fucked-up society in which bad shit can easily happen to a woman just because she's female, and other people will sit around and watch it happen and then blame you for it afterward.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
Try this:

Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:

- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)

Moving to a well-lit public space (-1 Wariness, -1 to anxiety)

- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)


Passed by a group of potential witnesses/ support if I get in trouble (-4 to anxiety)

-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)

They react to my presence. Good - this means they are biologically alive and conscious. This will help if I need their assitance for any reason (-2 to anxiety)

--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)

One of them is attracted to me. Too bad, I'm out of his league and he knows it but he makes a show in front of his friends as some pathetic attempt to save face. (+1 to ego)

- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)

Check reflection in door window - yup, I'm hawt!  (+2 to ego)

- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)

Bar is empty. Result -  I'm first in the queue!


- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)

Two doors leading in, I sit in the corner so I have an eye on both. All the glassware and possibly a baseball bat and/or shotgun behind the bar. If anything kicks off in this empty place then that's where I'm headed. Sitrep: Area secure. (-4 to anxiety)

- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)

Check bag - Can of mace! Something out the ordinary goes down I should have it covered

Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

Total:
-1 wariness
-11 anxiety
+3 ego

-- all I did was change the labels and swap proactive for paranoid

You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:06:21 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:31:13 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 12:23:16 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:49:35 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:33:45 PM

The point is that you HAVE boxes you didn't have to search for years for; they were given to you and that's a privilege some people don't have. You didn't spend years struggling with a vital part your identity in the same way some people, myself among them, did.

No.  Just every single day of my life since 1996.  Doesn't count, I suppose.  :kingmeh:

Does count. It's not something I was aware of.

And that is EXACTLY what I am talking about.  In the other thread, Faust just made a statement about how "nobody here has ever been oppressed", because we all have one form of privilege or another.  And BOTH of you are FULL OF SHIT.  Oppression and privilege are in no way connected, except that privilege makes oppressing other people slightly easier.

Your identity problems are based on cis/trans whatever.  Mine are based on something grimmer and far more basic, but MY issues in no way invalidate YOUR issues, and the other way around.  You live with the fear of rape and being seconded based on your sex and gender orientation, and I live with a 16 ton weight on my conscience.

You look at men walking by, and worry that they may have designs on your body.  I look at people walking by, and worry that they might suddenly point and shout "PARIAH!  KILLER!  MURDERER!  FUCKING ANIMAL!"  Both are at the same time reasonable and paranoid.  Both are still very real fears.

To claim that one is greater than the other is to claim that it's okay to be hanged, if they use a golden rope.

I'm late to this party, but I wanted to say that this is completely spot-on. Oppression and privilege are not mutually exclusive, and they come in a multitude of types, none of which invalidate the others.

One of the things that has led me in the direction I'm going in is the question of why, when I've had so many shitty things happen in my life, I came out of it relatively OK. Why is it that so many other people have had similar setbacks, and either turned into shitty people or were just unable to pull themselves out of it? Part of the answer comes down to privilege. Privileges I have that I am aware of: Both my parents are highly educated, I was raised with a keen awareness of my own intelligence, and although I was raised in poverty, my family background is not impoverished, so I had expectations of a different lifestyle; I was not raised within the cycle of despair. I was taught how to budget, garden, and cook at a very early age, and about nutrition and the importance of exercise. My parents were athletic.

So when I look at someone who I KNOW could do as well for themselves as I have, when it is tempting to despise their weakness (and it IS tempting; I am a human being, and human beings tend to do that) I try to remind myself that I am viewing them through the filters of MY privilege, and I need to step back and recognize those filters, and see what I have been granted as a matter of privilege that she hasn't been granted. Otherwise I run the risk of allowing myself to oppress her further, from my position of privilege, by invalidating her.

Roger, in terms of your oppression, I don't know what it's like to walk around with that weight on me. I can have sympathetic understanding for it, but god willing I will never have empathetic understanding of it. And honestly, I don't want you to ever have empathetic understanding of mine. I would rather nobody did.

And THAT is something I can live with, as the definitive statement of "answers coming from privilege."

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:25:41 PM
When you've actually had bad shit happen to you, it does increase your anxiety when you're in a similar situation. Yeah, it might be "in your head" but it's still real, and still a symptom of a fucked-up society in which bad shit can easily happen to a woman just because she's female, and other people will sit around and watch it happen and then blame you for it afterward.

There is no doubt about the truth of this. 

QuoteYou do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

Well, we DO live in The World As It Is, not The World We Wish We Had.  So while we should work towards the world we wish we had, it is still important to remain sane and alive in the world we actually have at the moment.

You can't live in fear all the time and remain sane.  You can't rely on safety gained merely by demanding it.

What is required is individual strength.  Strength of character, strength of nerve, and the strength with which to defend yourself to the best of your ability, should it become necessary.  One of society's most insidious labels is the "woman in need of a defender", when the woman should look to her own defense FIRST, before considering the possibility of some "white knight" coming to the rescue.  Women CAN do this, because women are strong as fuck when they're not conditioned out of it, despite the difference in body mass and upper body strength between the average male & female.

Carry a rock in your fist, figuratively or literally, and you've solved The Fear and the issue of physical safety.

I'm not an expert on anthropology or anything, but I think you'll find that strong people will make the world we wish we had.

I mean, there is a place for that kind of advice, and it is useful survival advice, but I don't think a discussion like this one is the place.

Roger, if I walk into a bar and a guy I don't know smiles at me, I mentally mark him as likely to approach me later and maintain awareness of his location. I wouldn't react with automatic, visible fear, but if some chick has recently been assaulted, she might. It may hurt your feelings, and that right there is a good example of how rape culture also hurts men. Because some asshole assaulted her, or because she's justifiably afraid of someone assaulting her, you get robbed of your personhood in that interaction. It sucks for everyone.

Bars: I can't tell  you how many times I've had guys get weird on me in bars, or follow me out of bars. I was assaulted summer before last by a guy who followed me out of a bar, and I should have followed my gut and went right back in but I thought he was probably harmless and didn't want to hurt his feelings by seeming suspicious or scared.

What's alarming is how often predator types will act like they're in control of a situation if you get upset at them, and how often bystanders will just accept that and ignore it. Last summer, when my ex-friend grabbed my shoulder and tried to restrain me in a crowd of our friends, nobody intervened. NOBODY. Because they were under the impression that he had some kind of "right" to me, that we were just having a spat, and that he was in control of the situation. I've even had complete strangers use that manouver... I'm yelling at them to back off, people are staring, and the guy looks around, raises his hands, and says "everything's OK!" and people assume it's just a spat and go back to what they were doing. At that point, they've bought in, so even if you start screaming and yelling they are likely to assume that you're just unreasonable and out of control, and you may be asked to leave.

IME the best thing to do if someone is getting handsy and won't leave you alone is to go directly to the bartender, and refuse to leave the bar until you can get someone to escort you home.

The thing is, we shouldn't HAVE to do that. It's fucked up.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:45:14 PM
I mean, there is a place for that kind of advice, and it is useful survival advice, but I don't think a discussion like this one is the place.

As I said earlier, the way you carry yourself is just as much of a label as anything else.  Even more, actually, because no verbal interaction is necessary to convey the label.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:45:14 PM
Roger, if I walk into a bar and a guy I don't know smiles at me, I mentally mark him as likely to approach me later and maintain awareness of his location. I wouldn't react with automatic, visible fear, but if some chick has recently been assaulted, she might. It may hurt your feelings, and that right there is a good example of how rape culture also hurts men. Because some asshole assaulted her, or because she's justifiably afraid of someone assaulting her, you get robbed of your personhood in that interaction. It sucks for everyone.

No argument.  I was just putting a guy's side out there.  The woman in the example definitely has the shitty end of the stick...I'm just puzzled and wondering if there's a booger hanging out of my nose or something.  I'm not in fear.

QuoteWhat's alarming is how often predator types will act like they're in control of a situation if you get upset at them, and how often bystanders will just accept that and ignore it. Last summer, when my ex-friend grabbed my shoulder and tried to restrain me in a crowd of our friends, nobody intervened. NOBODY. Because they were under the impression that he had some kind of "right" to me, that we were just having a spat, and that he was in control of the situation.

That's right up there, morally-speaking, with people who don't believe "spousal rape" is actually rape.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:45:14 PM
I've even had complete strangers use that manouver... I'm yelling at them to back off, people are staring, and the guy looks around, raises his hands, and says "everything's OK!" and people assume it's just a spat and go back to what they were doing. At that point, they've bought in, so even if you start screaming and yelling they are likely to assume that you're just unreasonable and out of control, and you may be asked to leave.

"THE HELL IT IS!  I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY!"  Now he's in a world of shit, perhaps.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:45:14 PM
IME the best thing to do if someone is getting handsy and won't leave you alone is to go directly to the bartender, and refuse to leave the bar until you can get someone to escort you home.

The thing is, we shouldn't HAVE to do that. It's fucked up.

Yes, it certainly is.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 07:40:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:25:41 PM
When you've actually had bad shit happen to you, it does increase your anxiety when you're in a similar situation. Yeah, it might be "in your head" but it's still real, and still a symptom of a fucked-up society in which bad shit can easily happen to a woman just because she's female, and other people will sit around and watch it happen and then blame you for it afterward.

There is no doubt about the truth of this. 

QuoteYou do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

Well, we DO live in The World As It Is, not The World We Wish We Had.  So while we should work towards the world we wish we had, it is still important to remain sane and alive in the world we actually have at the moment.

You can't live in fear all the time and remain sane.  You can't rely on safety gained merely by demanding it.

What is required is individual strength.  Strength of character, strength of nerve, and the strength with which to defend yourself to the best of your ability, should it become necessary.  One of society's most insidious labels is the "woman in need of a defender", when the woman should look to her own defense FIRST, before considering the possibility of some "white knight" coming to the rescue.  Women CAN do this, because women are strong as fuck when they're not conditioned out of it, despite the difference in body mass and upper body strength between the average male & female.

Carry a rock in your fist, figuratively or literally, and you've solved The Fear and the issue of physical safety.

I'm not an expert on anthropology or anything, but I think you'll find that strong people will make the world we wish we had.

Yeah. The creepy-rapey assholes don't give a fuck about dialogue or being educated out of it or any of that.
They modify their behavior if they think the risk outweighs the potential payoff.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
Try this:

Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:

- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)

Moving to a well-lit public space (-1 Wariness, -1 to anxiety)

- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)


Passed by a group of potential witnesses/ support if I get in trouble (-4 to anxiety)

-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)

They react to my presence. Good - this means they are biologically alive and conscious. This will help if I need their assitance for any reason (-2 to anxiety)

--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)

One of them is attracted to me. Too bad, I'm out of his league and he knows it but he makes a show in front of his friends as some pathetic attempt to save face. (+1 to ego)

- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)

Check reflection in door window - yup, I'm hawt!  (+2 to ego)

- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)

Bar is empty. Result -  I'm first in the queue!


- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)

Two doors leading in, I sit in the corner so I have an eye on both. All the glassware and possibly a baseball bat and/or shotgun behind the bar. If anything kicks off in this empty place then that's where I'm headed. Sitrep: Area secure. (-4 to anxiety)

- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)

Check bag - Can of mace! Something out the ordinary goes down I should have it covered

Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

Total:
-1 wariness
-11 anxiety
+3 ego

-- all I did was change the labels and swap proactive for paranoid

- It's a bar. Outside was still bright enough to be comfortable, inside, no (the patio is tucked under the roof). (I have concluded I'm not going to this bar (because it's still my favorite), or any bar, until it's busy because busy = safer)
- Men rarely help women or females in need. In fact, they're much more likely to berate any man who does.
- A guy who sets off my creeper bells, who seems to be attracted to me, will make me nervous. End of story. Expecting me to ignore them is not okay because it's denying me the right to listen to my intuition (which is usually right about people).
- First in line is nice, but it's a Wednesday night anyway and doesn't make up for the rest of the situation.
- I don't have that much control over the set up of the room. The best I could have done was sit at the inside bar against the wall, which is right next to the men who were making me wary.
- Yes, I do need to buy some CS gas.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:56:06 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

No, but I have perpetual, low-level anxieties of my own.  The flavor is different, the effect is the same.

That's exactly our point. You get it, but that's not the same as living it (I have no idea what your anxieties are, but I doubt my experiences are similar enough for me to say "I live it" or whatever).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:56:06 PM
Neither set of fears means that there is a "practical difference" in our motivation or ability to advance eglatarianism, which is about the only thing that should matter in terms of the various discussions we've been having.

People fall into the following catagories, more or less:

1.  Elgatarians/feminists.
2.  Non-Eglatarians/feminists (usually because they have misconceptions about what this means_.
3.  Anti-eglatarians/feminists.

You already have group 1.  There is no need to "close the sale", they're already on your side.  A need to educate them or drive home "essential differences" is a losing strategy.

You can't reach group 3, at least not without disproportionate effort.  The most you can do is refuse to tolerate their bullshit.

Group 2 is your market.  "You need to reach them with a message that counters the lies of group 3.  No, eglatarians are not out to castrate you, dude."  "No, lady, being a feminist does not mean you can't dress up sexy for your husband or BF or whatever if that's what you want to do."  "No, your pastor is wrong...Read the Aprocrypha, particularly Ben & Ruth".  Marginalize "jokes" and yahoo behavior.

Never did I say there was a difference in motivation (I just said empathy is not the same as living it) or ability to advance egalitarianism (you as a man have a louder voice than we do, which you ought to use to help get others to listen to us; we frame the debate and you help us carry it through because more people are going to take YOU seriously than they will us).

Agreed on the markets, though.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
- Men rarely help women or females in need. In fact, they're much more likely to berate any man who does.

I have only anecdotal shit on my side, here, but that hasn't been true so far as I've seen.  I may be looking at anamolous data, or you may just live in the shittiest city in America.

Of course, I do hang out with a low crowd, and we do tend to be more likely to jump into this sort of thing that the scum up in Oro Valley, because we're all opinionated, pushy bastards. 

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
Never did I say there was a difference in motivation (I just said empathy is not the same as living it) or ability to advance egalitarianism (you as a man have a louder voice than we do, which you ought to use to help get others to listen to us; we frame the debate and you help us carry it through because more people are going to take YOU seriously than they will us).

Agreed on the markets, though.

I can't do that.  I mean, I can and I will, but I can't be everywhere, and neither can anyone else.  You have to be loud yourself.  You've got to make them take you seriously.  It's been done before, in much rougher circumstances than this...the sufferagettes, etc.  Those are big boots to fill, but nobody said this shit was easy.

It isn't true in my part of the world either.  I have often seen men help women with flat tires, pick up items that have spilled, get high things in the grocery store, etc.  I've NEVER seen any of the, get berated.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
- Yes, I do need to buy some CS gas.

Bear spray.

Or a 316 stainless blunt spike.  Use it as a keychain.  It's the best friend a normally non-violent person can have in a bad spot.

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 09:27:56 PM
It isn't true in my part of the world either.  I have often seen men help women with flat tires, pick up items that have spilled, get high things in the grocery store, etc.  I've NEVER seen any of the, get berated.

Still, anecdotal.  I don't have enough data to agree or disagree with Garbo's statement.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
- Men rarely help women or females in need. In fact, they're much more likely to berate any man who does.

I have only anecdotal shit on my side, here, but that hasn't been true so far as I've seen.  I may be looking at anamolous data, or you may just live in the shittiest city in America.

Of course, I do hang out with a low crowd, and we do tend to be more likely to jump into this sort of thing that the scum up in Oro Valley, because we're all opinionated, pushy bastards. 

This is pretty much universal, from what I've seen and heard. If you listen to the stories women will tell you about men who got grabby, most of them will either tell you no one helped or if a guy did, that he caught shit for it.
Maybe your low crowd is populated by decent people?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:27:19 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
Never did I say there was a difference in motivation (I just said empathy is not the same as living it) or ability to advance egalitarianism (you as a man have a louder voice than we do, which you ought to use to help get others to listen to us; we frame the debate and you help us carry it through because more people are going to take YOU seriously than they will us).

Agreed on the markets, though.

I can't do that.  I mean, I can and I will, but I can't be everywhere, and neither can anyone else.  You have to be loud yourself.  You've got to make them take you seriously.  It's been done before, in much rougher circumstances than this...the sufferagettes, etc.  Those are big boots to fill, but nobody said this shit was easy.

We're not asking that you be everywhere, but that you do what you can (which you already do). And we are loud already. We've been screaming ourselves hoarse for a long time. Society just says, "Oh, OF COURSE a woman would say things like that!" or "silly ladies!" or men (market 3, mostly, although market 2 sometimes does this a little) act like we're threatening their privilege when we ask to be treated the same as they are.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
And I don't intend to harp on the subject, Garbo, but let's just turn that around.

No worries. :)

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
I'm 43 and sitting in a bar with my friends Roscoe (35) and Anthony (25).  Someone else walks into the bar, so we look at who entered (I sure as hell am).  It turns out to be a young lady.  I give a friendly smile, and turn back to my conversation.  She scoots for a corner table like I was about to attack her on the spot.

I don't know what's going through her head, but I'm wondering what the hell I did wrong.  I was just being polite.  I would have done the same exact thing if it had been a 60 year old man who walked in.

We don't know what's going through your head and we can't assume you're a safe man to be around. We are socialized to act like this, because if you were the kind of man to attack her (and I know you're not), she'd be blamed for a "lapse". This is another way the patriarchy and kyriarchy fuck you over, too, because our reactions aren't really your fault (or ours, exactly).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
Another example, this one happened recently:

I'm walking out of Barnes & Noble, to my car in the parking lot.  A 50-ish Black man is about 20 feet ahead of me, dressed like a lawyer or a doctor on his day off.  He's carrying a bag of books in each hand.  As he walks toward his car, passes by a lady waiting in her SUV...Who hits all the door locks as he goes past the front of her vehicle.  It's fairly quiet in the parking lot, and even I can hear the sound, even though I'm a good 30 feet away.  I start laughing fit to split a gut.  The guy looks back at me and chuckles, with the "what can you say?" look on his face.  He then walks past her car, loads his books in the trunk, and departs.

Did she hit the locks because he was a man?  Or because he was a Black man?  I don't know (though in Oro Valley, I can make a pretty good guess), but I know what the guy was thinking, based on the look on his face. 

Black man. The "white womanhood myth" lingers in some ways, painting black men as rapists (remember, it wasn't all that long ago we were lynching black men for whistling at white women). If it were a white guy, she'd probably just have watched him carefully in her rear view mirror instead of slamming the locks.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
Now, I'm not saying to stop being cautious.  I am NOT by any means saying there aren't a bunch of creepers out there.  What I AM saying is that caution is a good thing, but outright fear is something to be conquered.  99% of the time, the people you are worried about would be honestly puzzled as to why.

The other half of that is that, given a situation in which creepers are actually present, the other 1% of the time, a visible fear response is a really, really bad thing.  It's what the predator type is scanning for.  Replace the fear with anger.

Lastly, okay, so you're a good-looking younger woman in a bar.  You're getting the leer.  What do?

1.  Look him in the eye, snort derisively, go back to what you were doing.  The "snorting derisively" thing is the important bit, because you're acting dismissive, which puts you in the powerful position, which isn't what creepers are looking for.  He'll find someone else to hassle.

2.  If a situation becomes physical, or even seriously LOOKS like it's about to become physical, be the first to react.  Shout, don't scream (anger & threat posture, not fear response)...And advance, don't cringe.  Mace the piss out of the guy, if he actually attempts to touch you.  Or just glass the bastard¹.  Most crimes occur to people who A)  Look like a victim and B) Fail to react because they can't get it through their head that something is actually happening.  The jackass is kind of counting on that. 




¹  I suggest this one.  Even the smallest fist is credible if there's a rock in it.  A beer stein is even better.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE BOTTLE OR GLASS FIRST UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IT, or the ER nurse will be fishing bits of glass out of your hand for hours.

I'll keep that in mind when dealing with older men (since, again, dudes in my age bracket aren't the ones who make me anxious and I will get in the face of a guy my age who acts like that).

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 09:27:56 PM
It isn't true in my part of the world either.  I have often seen men help women with flat tires, pick up items that have spilled, get high things in the grocery store, etc.  I've NEVER seen any of the, get berated.

Helping with stuff like that is not the same as telling a guy who's getting handsy with a scared-looking woman to fuck off at all. "YOU'RE MAKING US LOOK BAD!" is apparently a common response.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:29:18 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
- Yes, I do need to buy some CS gas.

Bear spray.

Or a 316 stainless blunt spike.  Use it as a keychain.  It's the best friend a normally non-violent person can have in a bad spot.

I'll look into that.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
This is actually relevant to the labels thing, because a label can also be the way you present yourself.

People tend to act either in a dominant or submissive way.  Submissive behavior says "I'm a victim".  Dominant behavior says "Find someone else to bother, asshole, or you'll wish you had."

Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."


Dominant behavior:
Eye contact or dark glasses that make people feel like you're making eye contact in a negative way.
Aggressive smile and leaning forward while feeling threatened.
Hands are knuckles forward while striding, as opposed to walking.  Default hand position is a fist.
While seated, hands are on the table, knuckles up.
"What the fuck are YOU looking at?"

Funny part is, the label you wear affects YOU, too.  In the first case, you have fear.  In the second case, you don't, at least after doing this a while.

Eye contact + smiling in even a friendly way = permission to come pester you.

Those aggressive behaviors are what I do when harassed by men my age, but next time I have to deal with older men again, I'll keep that in mind.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Maybe your low crowd is populated by decent people?

No.  Decent people always to rotten shit to other people.  I wouldn't hang out with them.

QuoteSociety just says, "Oh, OF COURSE a woman would say things like that!" or "silly ladies!"

Nobody ever said that about Angela Davis.

QuoteWe don't know what's going through your head and we can't assume you're a safe man to be around. We are socialized to act like this, because if you were the kind of man to attack her (and I know you're not), she'd be blamed for a "lapse". This is another way the patriarchy and kyriarchy fuck you over, too, because our reactions aren't really your fault (or ours, exactly).

No argument whatsoever.

QuoteBlack man. The "white womanhood myth" lingers in some ways, painting black men as rapists (remember, it wasn't all that long ago we were lynching black men for whistling at white women). If it were a white guy, she'd probably just have watched him carefully in her rear view mirror instead of slamming the locks.

Yeah.  I'm fairly convinced that she did it out of malice, not fear.

QuoteI'll keep that in mind when dealing with older men (since, again, dudes in my age bracket aren't the ones who make me anxious and I will get in the face of a guy my age who acts like that).

Interesting distinction.  You might want to drive that around inside your head for a while.  The younger guys are more CAPABLE of doing you harm. 

QuoteI'll look into that.

I can make you one, if you'd like.  They're perfectly legal to mail and to carry.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:41:07 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
This is actually relevant to the labels thing, because a label can also be the way you present yourself.

People tend to act either in a dominant or submissive way.  Submissive behavior says "I'm a victim".  Dominant behavior says "Find someone else to bother, asshole, or you'll wish you had."

Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."


Dominant behavior:
Eye contact or dark glasses that make people feel like you're making eye contact in a negative way.
Aggressive smile and leaning forward while feeling threatened.
Hands are knuckles forward while striding, as opposed to walking.  Default hand position is a fist.
While seated, hands are on the table, knuckles up.
"What the fuck are YOU looking at?"

Funny part is, the label you wear affects YOU, too.  In the first case, you have fear.  In the second case, you don't, at least after doing this a while.

Eye contact + smiling in even a friendly way = permission to come pester you.

Those aggressive behaviors are what I do when harassed by men my age, but next time I have to deal with older men again, I'll keep that in mind.

Wrong kind of eye contact.  Wrong kind of smile.  You have to smile like one of the Nigels.

Also, we're bred to be super polite (any time I don't act like what my old man thinks of as "lady-like behavior", he gets really pushy and aggressive with me. I'm getting better about telling him to fuck off, too, which is hard since he's been physically and emotionally abusive my entire life).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:47:12 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:41:07 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
This is actually relevant to the labels thing, because a label can also be the way you present yourself.

People tend to act either in a dominant or submissive way.  Submissive behavior says "I'm a victim".  Dominant behavior says "Find someone else to bother, asshole, or you'll wish you had."

Submissive behavior:
No eye contact.
Smiling in a concilatory manner or looking panicked and ducking head when feeling threatened, cringing.
Hands out of sight or brought in front of your stomach.
"Leave me alone, please."


Dominant behavior:
Eye contact or dark glasses that make people feel like you're making eye contact in a negative way.
Aggressive smile and leaning forward while feeling threatened.
Hands are knuckles forward while striding, as opposed to walking.  Default hand position is a fist.
While seated, hands are on the table, knuckles up.
"What the fuck are YOU looking at?"

Funny part is, the label you wear affects YOU, too.  In the first case, you have fear.  In the second case, you don't, at least after doing this a while.

Eye contact + smiling in even a friendly way = permission to come pester you.

Those aggressive behaviors are what I do when harassed by men my age, but next time I have to deal with older men again, I'll keep that in mind.

Wrong kind of eye contact.  Wrong kind of smile.  You have to smile like one of the Nigels.

:lulz: Okay, point.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Maybe your low crowd is populated by decent people?

No.  Decent people always to rotten shit to other people.  I wouldn't hang out with them.

Not Decent People, but, y'know, people who have some sort of biped-ery.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM

QuoteSociety just says, "Oh, OF COURSE a woman would say things like that!" or "silly ladies!"

Nobody ever said that about Angela Davis.

I assure you they did.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM

QuoteBlack man. The "white womanhood myth" lingers in some ways, painting black men as rapists (remember, it wasn't all that long ago we were lynching black men for whistling at white women). If it were a white guy, she'd probably just have watched him carefully in her rear view mirror instead of slamming the locks.

Yeah.  I'm fairly convinced that she did it out of malice, not fear.

Mhm.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM

QuoteI'll keep that in mind when dealing with older men (since, again, dudes in my age bracket aren't the ones who make me anxious and I will get in the face of a guy my age who acts like that).

Interesting distinction.  You might want to drive that around inside your head for a while.  The younger guys are more CAPABLE of doing you harm.

Oh, I know. But again, they've never made me actually scared for my safety. They don't try to take the same liberties with me that I've had older men do (also, older men have yet more power than I do, while men my age are still seen as superior to me, but they're closer to my level).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM

QuoteI'll look into that.

I can make you one, if you'd like.  They're perfectly legal to mail and to carry.

I'd appreciate it.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 03:36:49 PM
whether is a serial rapist or just the office bully, they're not looking for a challenge, they're looking for a victim. Whether or not they can articulate how it works, most people speak fluent body-language. It's rooted in a much older set of neural pathways than verbal communication and is a lot more powerful because of that.

Learning the rules of assertive body language and then actually changing to using it will actually make you feel more confident. Your brain follows you're body's message. Stand up straight, shoulders back, head upright, look people in the eye. If you want to up the ante - move into their personal space, lean forward, maintain eye contact, smirk.

Of course if it gets to that stage it's a good idea to have some ass kicking skills to back that up  :wink:

I have that down pat in any situation but "just me and older men in a small, enclosed spaces".

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 05:20:28 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
And I don't intend to harp on the subject, Garbo, but let's just turn that around.

I'm 43 and sitting in a bar with my friends Roscoe (35) and Anthony (25).  Someone else walks into the bar, so we look at who entered (I sure as hell am).  It turns out to be a young lady.  I give a friendly smile, and turn back to my conversation.  She scoots for a corner table like I was about to attack her on the spot.

I don't know what's going through her head, but I'm wondering what the hell I did wrong.  I was just being polite.  I would have done the same exact thing if it had been a 60 year old man who walked in.

Another example, this one happened recently:

I'm walking out of Barnes & Noble, to my car in the parking lot.  A 50-ish Black man is about 20 feet ahead of me, dressed like a lawyer or a doctor on his day off.  He's carrying a bag of books in each hand.  As he walks toward his car, passes by a lady waiting in her SUV...Who hits all the door locks as he goes past the front of her vehicle.  It's fairly quiet in the parking lot, and even I can hear the sound, even though I'm a good 30 feet away.  I start laughing fit to split a gut.  The guy looks back at me and chuckles, with the "what can you say?" look on his face.  He then walks past her car, loads his books in the trunk, and departs.

Did she hit the locks because he was a man?  Or because he was a Black man?  I don't know (though in Oro Valley, I can make a pretty good guess), but I know what the guy was thinking, based on the look on his face. 



Now, I'm not saying to stop being cautious.  I am NOT by any means saying there aren't a bunch of creepers out there.  What I AM saying is that caution is a good thing, but outright fear is something to be conquered.  99% of the time, the people you are worried about would be honestly puzzled as to why.

The other half of that is that, given a situation in which creepers are actually present, the other 1% of the time, a visible fear response is a really, really bad thing.  It's what the predator type is scanning for.  Replace the fear with anger.

Lastly, okay, so you're a good-looking younger woman in a bar.  You're getting the leer.  What do?

1.  Look him in the eye, snort derisively, go back to what you were doing.  The "snorting derisively" thing is the important bit, because you're acting dismissive, which puts you in the powerful position, which isn't what creepers are looking for.  He'll find someone else to hassle.

2.  If a situation becomes physical, or even seriously LOOKS like it's about to become physical, be the first to react.  Shout, don't scream (anger & threat posture, not fear response)...And advance, don't cringe.  Mace the piss out of the guy, if he actually attempts to touch you.  Or just glass the bastard¹.  Most crimes occur to people who A)  Look like a victim and B) Fail to react because they can't get it through their head that something is actually happening.  The jackass is kind of counting on that.




¹  I suggest this one.  Even the smallest fist is credible if there's a rock in it.  A beer stein is even better.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE BOTTLE OR GLASS FIRST UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IT, or the ER nurse will be fishing bits of glass out of your hand for hours.

I can attest to the effectiveness of this I don't even KNOW how many times over.  :lulz:

And I want to add that if he even LOOKS like wanting to come at you for fucking up his face (which is RARE, 99.99% of the time they're just shocked) OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT BAR, INCLUDING HIS OWN FRIENDS, WILL GRAB HIS ASS AND PULL HIM AWAY. BEFORE HE DOES ANYTHING.

There are reasons for this. Some people are decent and don't want to see a woman smacked around. Some people are assholes and won't want to see the creeper go to jail. Some people will be trying to make brownie points with the barender and/or owner, (alkies like being in with bartenders and bar owners, there's an occsional free drink in it) who doesn't want to risk getting shut down. Some people are tryingto be your knight in shining armor, which you may not want, but these types aren't often grabby.

I know a secret - you're usually safer in a bar than you are in your own home, if you live alone or the people you live with are away. The real danger of bars is people FOLLOWING you home.

I've had older men follow me to my car. This is one of the reasons why the scared monkey takes over when dealing with them.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:19:46 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 17, 2012, 05:21:40 AM
I actually don't have a problem with labels provided the function is not to reduce a person to nothing but a label.

I think there are some legitimate reasons for labels;

To better know ones self. By coming across a label that fits me, it gives me a chance to understand myself better. This was my experience with the myerbriggs test, finding my type listed as INTP. Reading the description, it was the first time I actually understood that I wasnt socially incompetent. I'm sure that coming across a label that describes ones quirks or compulsions and provides a community of people who have experienced similar things, is helpful to many, including those with uncommon inclinations in gender or sexuality.

To form tribal connections. Either informally (a Discordian hanging with Discordians) or formally (official groups or associations) labelling oneself as part of a larger group as a social signifier.

To attract desired attention or behaviour. Easiest example is if I put straight, bi or gay on a dating profile.

To compress complex ideas. While my views on any issue may be complex, and not easily summed up by any label, I can call myself feminist, left-leaning, objectivist, deist our any other label if I want to quickly convey a set of complex or time intensive ideas in one word. This also givs these idea sets greater spreadability.

The key point for me is that labels can help if you use them, not if you let them use you, not if you become them.

We also can't help categorizing things. It's a human being thing; a fundamental survival trait. They key is to accept the categorizations, AND to think past them. Our brains instantly, automatically categorize absolutely everything that we experience. Sometimes we categorize wrong and have to adjust later. This happens constantly, thousands of millions of time every day; it's the only way our brains are free to think about things that are personally important. We are only having these conversations now because our brains are automatically categorizing everything going on in our immediate surroundings, and will automatically alert us if something falls into the category "potentially dangerous".

Everybody is already labeling everyone else all the time, and we can't stop. What we can do is consciously think past labels, when we have the time and opportunity to think. We can't make everyone else do so as well, but we can do what we're doing, which is talk about it to make it more likely that other people will pick up the idea (another thing  that human beings do naturally and automatically) and spread it around some more.

This, and what Pent said, are also largely arguments I made in the OP.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

THIS. This is a trap I think men who do want to help (like Pent, because I think he has good intentions and does genuinely want to help), sometimes fall into. "Here, let me give you a list of behaviors you need to change in order to be safe" without talking about why a fear is valid and how to change society so the scared monkey has fewer reasons to come out.


And actually, re: getting aggressive with creepy old men, I feel like it's going to escalate the situation beyond something I can control and I will end up being hurt.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:54:04 PM
Also, we're bred to be super polite (any time I don't act like what my old man thinks of as "lady-like behavior", he gets really pushy and aggressive with me. I'm getting better about telling him to fuck off, too, which is hard since he's been physically and emotionally abusive my entire life).

Go for it; you'll feel better.  My great-great aunt Connie was a Victorian "spinster" adventurer.  When she was older, though, she berated my mother with "you'll never be a lady" (which apparently involves hunting big game in Africa and India, lol).  Then, when my mother started working for a battered women's shelter, Aunt Connie told her off for "minding other folks' business".  My mother told her to take a flying fuck at rolling donut, and my Aunt Connie was tickled to death, and never gave her shit again.  Who knows how your old man will react?  In any case, you're not a child anymore, and it's time he understood that.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Not Decent People, but, y'know, people who have some sort of biped-ery.

Oh, yes.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
I assure you they did.

Twice?   :lulz:

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM
Yeah.  I'm fairly convinced that she did it out of malice, not fear.

Mhm.

It's hard to describe Oro Valley to anyone who hasn't been there.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Oh, I know. But again, they've never made me actually scared for my safety. They don't try to take the same liberties with me that I've had older men do (also, older men have yet more power than I do, while men my age are still seen as superior to me, but they're closer to my level).

Point.  There's a level of squick there that's sort of hard to fathom.  Or would be, if  I didn't have a habit of screeching laughter at people my age trying to get into Club Vaudville.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
I'd appreciate that.

Pretty sure I have the round stock kicking around.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:03:07 PM
I've had older men follow me to my car. This is one of the reasons why the scared monkey takes over when dealing with them.

Christ.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:09:42 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

THIS. This is a trap I think men who do want to help (like Pent, because I think he has good intentions and does genuinely want to help), sometimes fall into. "Here, let me give you a list of behaviors you need to change in order to be safe" without talking about why a fear is valid and how to change society so the scared monkey has fewer reasons to come out.


And actually, re: getting aggressive with creepy old men, I feel like it's going to escalate the situation beyond something I can control and I will end up being hurt.

You're a hiker, you're in shape.  Consider taking some self-defense courses, if you haven't already.  Men are easy to deal with, in more than the obvious way.  Especially older guys.

And I don't think it's a trap to counsel preparedness or aggression-at-need.  It's not right that you should have to, but the world ain't right, if you catch my drift.  Deal with the world as it is, while you work toward the world as you'd like it to be.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:19:31 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:03:07 PM
I've had older men follow me to my car. This is one of the reasons why the scared monkey takes over when dealing with them.

Christ.

Is it so surprising? I have found when it comes to people who really set my alarm bells off, 9/10 times it's someone over 30, particularly 35+. I thought being wary or outright afraid of older guys was a normal thing.

I am wondering if being bombarded with advertising that proclaim "Because you deserve it" and "you'll get hot young women" and "women need to be hunted, this thing is perfect bait" and more "You really do deserve it. Isn't it about time you grabbed it?"  doesn't have something to do with it.

Eta: it meaning older guys being more creepy.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
- Men rarely help women or females in need. In fact, they're much more likely to berate any man who does.

I have only anecdotal shit on my side, here, but that hasn't been true so far as I've seen.  I may be looking at anamolous data, or you may just live in the shittiest city in America.

Of course, I do hang out with a low crowd, and we do tend to be more likely to jump into this sort of thing that the scum up in Oro Valley, because we're all opinionated, pushy bastards.

I've had guys jump in a number of times. The ONE time nobody did, I was getting my ass stomped by a then-boyfriend (not at a bar, at a party with people who were supposedly "friends"), who another (male) friend later threw out of a window on general principle. That finally got him to leave. :lulz: But strangers have always done it on the spot in a bar scenario. It usually went like this:

Asshole walks up and starts talking. Grabs a tit. I smack him in the mouth with a bottle. He looks stunned for a minute, realizes I broke his tooth, then gets outraged and starts to come at me. Five or so other guys grab his ass. He gets thrown out, everybody laughs at what I did to him and I get more free drinks than I know what to do with.  :lol:

(ETA: Oops, repeated myself. Catching up...  :oops: )

I'm not one of those teeny little cutie pie women that guys instantly want to protect, BTW. I'm 5'8". I couldn't get "cutie pie" to work if I'd been raised by Betty Boop. But guys generally don't let me get my ass stomped.

Y'know, I hate to break it to you, but the real danger in bars is women. Some women will take ANY interaction with their husbands or boyfriends (including walking past them and saying "excuse me") as you making advances and they'll run up behind you if you're not paying attention and grab your hair and try to suckerpunch you. The bottle trick usually stops them in their tracks, though. You won't need any help.  :lol:

As far as people following you to your car, that's OUTSIDE the bar. Get somebody to escort you or call a cab. As long as you're IN the bar, it's safe.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:28:39 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:19:31 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:03:07 PM
I've had older men follow me to my car. This is one of the reasons why the scared monkey takes over when dealing with them.

Christ.

Is it so surprising? I have found when it comes to people who really set my alarm bells off, 9/10 times it's someone over 30, particularly 35+. I thought being wary or outright afraid of older guys was a normal thing.

I am wondering if being bombarded with advertising that proclaim "Because you deserve it" and "you'll get hot young women" and "women need to be hunted, this thing is perfect bait" and more "You really do deserve it. Isn't it about time you grabbed it?"  doesn't have something to do with it.

No, I don't think it's weird.

What I find weird is the response.  You know me, I have a very limited number of responses to shit like that.  To me, the appropriate response to something like that happening would be bearspray + the engineer boot fandango.  Or simply to blow a few holes in him.

It's hard for me to understand people who don't resort to violence when violence is clearly appropriate.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:23:12 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:09:42 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

THIS. This is a trap I think men who do want to help (like Pent, because I think he has good intentions and does genuinely want to help), sometimes fall into. "Here, let me give you a list of behaviors you need to change in order to be safe" without talking about why a fear is valid and how to change society so the scared monkey has fewer reasons to come out.


And actually, re: getting aggressive with creepy old men, I feel like it's going to escalate the situation beyond something I can control and I will end up being hurt.

You're a hiker, you're in shape.  Consider taking some self-defense courses, if you haven't already.  Men are easy to deal with, in more than the obvious way.  Especially older guys.

And I don't think it's a trap to counsel preparedness or aggression-at-need.  It's not right that you should have to, but the world ain't right, if you catch my drift.  Deal with the world as it is, while you work toward the world as you'd like it to be.

A sad but true point. I don't think the 'answer' is for women to learn to be tough. The 'answer' is for human society to evolve past this kind of shit. However, its not going to happen overnight, probably not even in our lifetime. Maybe it will improve some, but not to the point that women won't ever get raped... some men are useless pieces of shit. I don't think there's anything wrong with women learning to take control of a situation and learning how to bust a guy in the face if necessary. It's not the answer, but its a stopgap until we get to the answer.

At any rate, I think this is a tangent from the point on labels. Labeling "risk/danger" is part of human survival... I don't think its the same as labeling sexual preference, gender role, religion, skin color, job description etc.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:54:04 PM
Also, we're bred to be super polite (any time I don't act like what my old man thinks of as "lady-like behavior", he gets really pushy and aggressive with me. I'm getting better about telling him to fuck off, too, which is hard since he's been physically and emotionally abusive my entire life).

Go for it; you'll feel better.  My great-great aunt Connie was a Victorian "spinster" adventurer.  When she was older, though, she berated my mother with "you'll never be a lady" (which apparently involves hunting big game in Africa and India, lol).  Then, when my mother started working for a battered women's shelter, Aunt Connie told her off for "minding other folks' business".  My mother told her to take a flying fuck at rolling donut, and my Aunt Connie was tickled to death, and never gave her shit again.  Who knows how your old man will react?  In any case, you're not a child anymore, and it's time he understood that.

Your aunt sounds like she was a badass.
There's no "deviating from the social norms" pattern with him like there sounds like there was with her.
I don't let him treat me like a kid. He doesn't get to monopolize on my time (which he tries to), I tell him no when he tries to bully me into moving across the country with him and re-direct the conversation, and it's not like his "ACT LIKE A LADY NOT AN ITALIAN BOY" has ever done anything, even when I lived with him.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
I assure you they did.

Twice?   :lulz:

The same person twice? Probably not.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 09:45:44 PM
Yeah.  I'm fairly convinced that she did it out of malice, not fear.

Mhm.

It's hard to describe Oro Valley to anyone who hasn't been there.

I bet.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Oh, I know. But again, they've never made me actually scared for my safety. They don't try to take the same liberties with me that I've had older men do (also, older men have yet more power than I do, while men my age are still seen as superior to me, but they're closer to my level).

Point.  There's a level of squick there that's sort of hard to fathom.  Or would be, if  I didn't have a habit of screeching laughter at people my age trying to get into Club Vaudville.

Yeah.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
I'd appreciate that.

Pretty sure I have the round stock kicking around.

Cool. Still got my address?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 07:40:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:25:41 PM
When you've actually had bad shit happen to you, it does increase your anxiety when you're in a similar situation. Yeah, it might be "in your head" but it's still real, and still a symptom of a fucked-up society in which bad shit can easily happen to a woman just because she's female, and other people will sit around and watch it happen and then blame you for it afterward.

There is no doubt about the truth of this. 

QuoteYou do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

Well, we DO live in The World As It Is, not The World We Wish We Had.  So while we should work towards the world we wish we had, it is still important to remain sane and alive in the world we actually have at the moment.

You can't live in fear all the time and remain sane.  You can't rely on safety gained merely by demanding it.

What is required is individual strength.  Strength of character, strength of nerve, and the strength with which to defend yourself to the best of your ability, should it become necessary.  One of society's most insidious labels is the "woman in need of a defender", when the woman should look to her own defense FIRST, before considering the possibility of some "white knight" coming to the rescue.  Women CAN do this, because women are strong as fuck when they're not conditioned out of it, despite the difference in body mass and upper body strength between the average male & female.

Carry a rock in your fist, figuratively or literally, and you've solved The Fear and the issue of physical safety.

I'm not an expert on anthropology or anything, but I think you'll find that strong people will make the world we wish we had.

Uh huh, and I try to deal with the WAII. But not talking about how to change society so men of any age don't think it's okay to get grabby or possessive or aggressive or scare the shit out of women doesn't do anything. All it is is, "here, change your behavior so they won't think you're prey," without telling men not to treat us prey and enforcing it if necessary. It's not all that different than victim blaming to some extent, I think, because not displaying those behaviors, in some ways, excuses men who act like that because I didn't act the way I should have to ward that fucker off. "You didn't get in his face enough when he got grabby, that's why he did x to you."
At least, that's kind of how it's coming off to me.

White knights are not welcome by anyone.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:23:12 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:09:42 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

THIS. This is a trap I think men who do want to help (like Pent, because I think he has good intentions and does genuinely want to help), sometimes fall into. "Here, let me give you a list of behaviors you need to change in order to be safe" without talking about why a fear is valid and how to change society so the scared monkey has fewer reasons to come out.


And actually, re: getting aggressive with creepy old men, I feel like it's going to escalate the situation beyond something I can control and I will end up being hurt.

You're a hiker, you're in shape.  Consider taking some self-defense courses, if you haven't already.  Men are easy to deal with, in more than the obvious way.  Especially older guys.

And I don't think it's a trap to counsel preparedness or aggression-at-need.  It's not right that you should have to, but the world ain't right, if you catch my drift.  Deal with the world as it is, while you work toward the world as you'd like it to be.

Yeah, I've been trying to find something that isn't a McDojo for a while.
It can become a trap, which I discussed above.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:31:28 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:28:39 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:19:31 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:03:07 PM
I've had older men follow me to my car. This is one of the reasons why the scared monkey takes over when dealing with them.

Christ.

Is it so surprising? I have found when it comes to people who really set my alarm bells off, 9/10 times it's someone over 30, particularly 35+. I thought being wary or outright afraid of older guys was a normal thing.

I am wondering if being bombarded with advertising that proclaim "Because you deserve it" and "you'll get hot young women" and "women need to be hunted, this thing is perfect bait" and more "You really do deserve it. Isn't it about time you grabbed it?"  doesn't have something to do with it.

No, I don't think it's weird.

What I find weird is the response.  You know me, I have a very limited number of responses to shit like that.  To me, the appropriate response to something like that happening would be bearspray + the engineer boot fandango.  Or simply to blow a few holes in him.

It's hard for me to understand people who don't resort to violence when violence is clearly appropriate.

:lulz: You are ALLOWED to have that response. I have to work myself out of +20 years of "girls don't hit back!" and the reminents of a fairly crappy childhood. I'm still working on that.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 17, 2012, 10:35:26 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:23:12 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:09:42 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

THIS. This is a trap I think men who do want to help (like Pent, because I think he has good intentions and does genuinely want to help), sometimes fall into. "Here, let me give you a list of behaviors you need to change in order to be safe" without talking about why a fear is valid and how to change society so the scared monkey has fewer reasons to come out.


And actually, re: getting aggressive with creepy old men, I feel like it's going to escalate the situation beyond something I can control and I will end up being hurt.

You're a hiker, you're in shape.  Consider taking some self-defense courses, if you haven't already.  Men are easy to deal with, in more than the obvious way.  Especially older guys.

And I don't think it's a trap to counsel preparedness or aggression-at-need.  It's not right that you should have to, but the world ain't right, if you catch my drift.  Deal with the world as it is, while you work toward the world as you'd like it to be.

A sad but true point. I don't think the 'answer' is for women to learn to be tough. The 'answer' is for human society to evolve past this kind of shit. However, its not going to happen overnight, probably not even in our lifetime. Maybe it will improve some, but not to the point that women won't ever get raped... some men are useless pieces of shit. I don't think there's anything wrong with women learning to take control of a situation and learning how to bust a guy in the face if necessary. It's not the answer, but its a stopgap until we get to the answer.

At any rate, I think this is a tangent from the point on labels. Labeling "risk/danger" is part of human survival... I don't think its the same as labeling sexual preference, gender role, religion, skin color, job description etc.

I'm not going to operate on what "should" happen, or depend on a bunch of squicky old creepers to evolve. Maybe I "shouldn't" have to think a certain way, but sitting down and talking about my feelings and having somebody say "yes, your anxiety is valid" or whatever doesn't DO anything in the outside world. Bottles and dogs and baseball bats and CS gas and a loud mouth DO.

There is NO satisfaction like watching some old married fuck run like a rabbit when you put what he's trying to do on blast.  :lulz:

Letting people get away with shit like this FUCKS YOU UP. Better to get mad NOW then let it build up. Some people let a TON of this shit build up, and they flip. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to Aileen Wuornos.   

FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

That's something that can come up when they get you alone. If by some chance I got cornered in some isolated place by somebody I had reason to think would kill me and probably get away with it, it's another ballgame. In a bar, or any place where there's witnesses, we have an edge.

No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

This. And I am not a small person, but scared monkey doesn't calculate that very well.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 10:59:35 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

That's something that can come up when they get you alone. If by some chance I got cornered in some isolated place by somebody I had reason to think would kill me and probably get away with it, it's another ballgame. In a bar, or any place where there's witnesses, we have an edge.

I was in a situation where it was ALL older men, remember. The side walk was empty (and this bar is tucked away off the main street, which is part of why I like it), bartender was an older dude, too, etc.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
Cool. Still got my address?

You were on the Horrible Letters mailing list, so probably.  I'll have to dig out the file and see.

QuoteAll it is is, "here, change your behavior so they won't think you're prey," without telling men not to treat us prey and enforcing it if necessary. It's not all that different than victim blaming to some extent, I think, because not displaying those behaviors, in some ways, excuses men who act like that because I didn't act the way I should have to ward that fucker off. "You didn't get in his face enough when he got grabby, that's why he did x to you."
At least, that's kind of how it's coming off to me.

Not at all.  What I'm saying is that there is only ONE person at fault - the creep - but that's no consolation for the girl who gets attacked.

Quote:lulz: You are ALLOWED to have that response. I have to work myself out of +20 years of "girls don't hit back!" and the reminents of a fairly crappy childhood. I'm still working on that.

You are allowed to have any response you deem appropriate.  Yes, I know that you're dealing with a shitload of conditioning, but you aren't "not allowed" to do SHIT.  You're a person, not a gender.

Oh, and a McDojo is better than nothing.  So is a boxing school, or even a class at the Y.  My personal advice is a kickboxing outfit.  Women don't tend to be punchers, due to body shape, but a hiker is going to kick through a brick wall and STILL slice this tomato (Ancient Ronco commercial joke, for you younguns).

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Yeah, people - not just women - are taught to think that way.

Survive first, worry about everything else later.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

This. And I am not a small person, but scared monkey doesn't calculate that very well.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 10:59:35 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

That's something that can come up when they get you alone. If by some chance I got cornered in some isolated place by somebody I had reason to think would kill me and probably get away with it, it's another ballgame. In a bar, or any place where there's witnesses, we have an edge.

I was in a situation where it was ALL older men, remember. The side walk was empty (and this bar is tucked away off the main street, which is part of why I like it), bartender was an older dude, too, etc.

The bartender isn't going to let anything happen. Part of his job is not letting the Liquor Control Board or whatever it's called in your state shut the place down. If somebody who's been sitting there drinking starts harrassing a woman who just walked in, guess who's getting thrown out? I'd have bellied right up to the bar in that situation.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:05:59 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
Cool. Still got my address?

You were on the Horrible Letters mailing list, so probably.  I'll have to dig out the file and see.

QuoteAll it is is, "here, change your behavior so they won't think you're prey," without telling men not to treat us prey and enforcing it if necessary. It's not all that different than victim blaming to some extent, I think, because not displaying those behaviors, in some ways, excuses men who act like that because I didn't act the way I should have to ward that fucker off. "You didn't get in his face enough when he got grabby, that's why he did x to you."
At least, that's kind of how it's coming off to me.

Not at all.  What I'm saying is that there is only ONE person at fault - the creep - but that's no consolation for the girl who gets attacked.

Quote:lulz: You are ALLOWED to have that response. I have to work myself out of +20 years of "girls don't hit back!" and the reminents of a fairly crappy childhood. I'm still working on that.

You are allowed to have any response you deem appropriate.  Yes, I know that you're dealing with a shitload of conditioning, but you aren't "not allowed" to do SHIT.  You're a person, not a gender.

Oh, and a McDojo is better than nothing.  So is a boxing school, or even a class at the Y.  My personal advice is a kickboxing outfit.  Women don't tend to be punchers, due to body shape, but a hiker is going to kick through a brick wall and STILL slice this tomato (Ancient Ronco commercial joke, for you younguns).

SO THIN YOUR INLAWS WILL NEVER COME BACK! BUT WAIT! IF YOU CALL NOW YOU ALSO GET...  :lulz:

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

Torch is a sweetheart, but she has spent her entire life perfecting the art of the victim.  Victim of circumstances, victim of abuse, victim of her own screwed up decision-making processes.  It's not because she's a woman, because I know loads of guys who are the same way.  It's the person who knows how to make things worse, if you catch my drift.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 11:11:19 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:05:59 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
Cool. Still got my address?

You were on the Horrible Letters mailing list, so probably.  I'll have to dig out the file and see.

QuoteAll it is is, "here, change your behavior so they won't think you're prey," without telling men not to treat us prey and enforcing it if necessary. It's not all that different than victim blaming to some extent, I think, because not displaying those behaviors, in some ways, excuses men who act like that because I didn't act the way I should have to ward that fucker off. "You didn't get in his face enough when he got grabby, that's why he did x to you."
At least, that's kind of how it's coming off to me.

Not at all.  What I'm saying is that there is only ONE person at fault - the creep - but that's no consolation for the girl who gets attacked.

Quote:lulz: You are ALLOWED to have that response. I have to work myself out of +20 years of "girls don't hit back!" and the reminents of a fairly crappy childhood. I'm still working on that.

You are allowed to have any response you deem appropriate.  Yes, I know that you're dealing with a shitload of conditioning, but you aren't "not allowed" to do SHIT.  You're a person, not a gender.

Oh, and a McDojo is better than nothing.  So is a boxing school, or even a class at the Y.  My personal advice is a kickboxing outfit.  Women don't tend to be punchers, due to body shape, but a hiker is going to kick through a brick wall and STILL slice this tomato (Ancient Ronco commercial joke, for you younguns).

SO THIN YOUR INLAWS WILL NEVER COME BACK! BUT WAIT! IF YOU CALL NOW YOU ALSO GET...  :lulz:

A MUZZLE VELOCITY SO HIGH, WE CAN'T SAY IT ON TEEVEE!  OUR CHAIN REACTIONS ARE 99% EFFICIENT, AND NO CIVILIANS LEFT UNCARBONIZED!  NOW HOW MUCH WOULD YOU PAY!

DON'T ANSWER YET!  YOU ALSO GET UNCLE JOE STALIN'S PATENTED "KULACK-BE-GONE!"

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 11:09:47 PM
The bartender isn't going to let anything happen. Part of his job is not letting the Liquor Control Board or whatever it's called in your state shut the place down. If somebody who's been sitting there drinking starts harrassing a woman who just walked in, guess who's getting thrown out? I'd have bellied right up to the bar in that situation.

Bartenders can be just as fucking stupid as anyone else.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Out of proportion/overreaction is fine when you're getting used to something new. The pendulum was waaaaay of to one side, sometimes you have to pull it way to the other side to get it to end up in the middle.  :wink:

Knucks forward, Garbo.  8)

Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:15:59 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 11:09:47 PM
The bartender isn't going to let anything happen. Part of his job is not letting the Liquor Control Board or whatever it's called in your state shut the place down. If somebody who's been sitting there drinking starts harrassing a woman who just walked in, guess who's getting thrown out? I'd have bellied right up to the bar in that situation.

Bartenders can be just as fucking stupid as anyone else.

Yeah, it's a possibility. But the odds are better with a guy who has a job to lose, and is less likely to be shitfaced.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 11:17:15 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Out of proportion/overreaction is fine when you're getting used to something new. The pendulum was waaaaay of to one side, sometimes you have to pull it way to the other side to get it to end up in the middle.  :wink:

Knucks forward, Garbo.  8)

Maybe some people can't or won't do that.  I don't know.

Or maybe can't or won't yet.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:20:23 PM
Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Yeah, but the wrong people.

And here's the thing:  Nobody has to be an asshole, but everyone should be CAPABLE of being an asshole if circumstances demand it.  I don't mean violence, necessarily, but the ability to break out of the "ladylike behavior" bullshit.  Or the "good citizen" bullshit.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating...Being a good citizen only works if you live in a good society.  We don't.

We desperately need a thread split, but I can't figure out where.

Garbo, what post # should be the first one to be split?  We WERE talking about labels, but we're WAY off target now.

I know I'm me and not my gender (which is, ftr, not "woman" anyway because that word's not complex enough), and it's less the gender training I got anyway that's the problem, so much as the shitty childhood. Which I've been working on.

I'll check out the kickboxing.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:21:45 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 11:17:15 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Out of proportion/overreaction is fine when you're getting used to something new. The pendulum was waaaaay of to one side, sometimes you have to pull it way to the other side to get it to end up in the middle.  :wink:

Knucks forward, Garbo.  8)

Maybe some people can't or won't do that.  I don't know.

Or maybe can't or won't yet.

Yeah.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:24:32 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:20:23 PM
Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Yeah, but the wrong people.

And here's the thing:  Nobody has to be an asshole, but everyone should be CAPABLE of being an asshole if circumstances demand it.  I don't mean violence, necessarily, but the ability to break out of the "ladylike behavior" bullshit.  Or the "good citizen" bullshit.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating...Being a good citizen only works if you live in a good society.  We don't.

I'm not good at the physical part in some situations, but Imma work on it.

It never quite worked and the only time I ever did the lady-like thing was when I was around him. Which, since I see him maybe once a year these days, isn't terribly relevant.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:27:42 PM
We desperately need a thread split, but I can't figure out where.

Garbo, what post # should be the first one to be split?  We WERE talking about labels, but we're WAY off target now.

Split it at my "this bar is full of people who bring out the inner scared monkey"?

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:28:13 PM
I know I'm me and not my gender (which is, ftr, not "woman" anyway because that word's not complex enough),

You'll have to bear with an old fart, here.  I'm still a little at sea on this whole thing.   :lulz:

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:29:00 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:27:42 PM
We desperately need a thread split, but I can't figure out where.

Garbo, what post # should be the first one to be split?  We WERE talking about labels, but we're WAY off target now.

Split it at my "this bar is full of people who bring out the inner scared monkey"?

Post number, please?  I'm gonna do it when I get back to the house.  I'm just about to leave the office.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:24:32 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:20:23 PM
Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Yeah, but the wrong people.

And here's the thing:  Nobody has to be an asshole, but everyone should be CAPABLE of being an asshole if circumstances demand it.  I don't mean violence, necessarily, but the ability to break out of the "ladylike behavior" bullshit.  Or the "good citizen" bullshit.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating...Being a good citizen only works if you live in a good society.  We don't.

True enough I guess.

#78/http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33039.msg1199856.html#msg1199856

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:30:00 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:28:13 PM
I know I'm me and not my gender (which is, ftr, not "woman" anyway because that word's not complex enough),

You'll have to bear with an old fart, here.  I'm still a little at sea on this whole thing.   :lulz:

:lulz: No worries. Not directed at you anyway, lol.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:32:25 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 11:24:32 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:20:23 PM
Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Yeah, but the wrong people.

And here's the thing:  Nobody has to be an asshole, but everyone should be CAPABLE of being an asshole if circumstances demand it.  I don't mean violence, necessarily, but the ability to break out of the "ladylike behavior" bullshit.  Or the "good citizen" bullshit.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating...Being a good citizen only works if you live in a good society.  We don't.

True enough I guess.

Believe it or not, I prefer being nice.

I just can't do it with everybody.  :lulz:

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:20:23 PM
Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Then start one. :)

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 01:10:40 AM
The problem with labels is they aren't, and can't be, all encompassing.  They ignore tons of bars in our cell.  That's different than, say, descriptors, where you can prioritize bars for another person, you can say those are bars that are REALLY important to you, but it is acknowledged that there are still many other bars that inform the makeup of the individual. 


There are all kinds of descriptors for me.  The Husband.  The Preventionist, The Straight Male, but no single one of those labels defines, or comes close to defining me, the entire person.


That's why labels are useless and pointless.

I think we're on different pages here, a little bit. I'm using labels the same way you're using the word "descriptors" (I'm the Eldest Daughter, Older Sister, Feminist, People-Positive, etc.). Labels are not intended to define ALL of you, at least the way I'm using them. Maybe facets of you, your bars, or whatever, but not the whole shebang.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:59:40 PM

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 01:10:40 AM
The problem with labels is they aren't, and can't be, all encompassing.  They ignore tons of bars in our cell.  That's different than, say, descriptors, where you can prioritize bars for another person, you can say those are bars that are REALLY important to you, but it is acknowledged that there are still many other bars that inform the makeup of the individual. 


There are all kinds of descriptors for me.  The Husband.  The Preventionist, The Straight Male, but no single one of those labels defines, or comes close to defining me, the entire person.


That's why labels are useless and pointless.

I think we're on different pages here, a little bit. I'm using labels the same way you're using the word "descriptors" (I'm the Eldest Daughter, Older Sister, Feminist, People-Positive, etc.). Labels are not intended to define ALL of you, at least the way I'm using them. Maybe facets of you, your bars, or whatever, but not the whole shebang.

Thus the difference between selecting descriptors for yourself and being labeled in a category with others.
"I describe myself as ..."
vs.
"He is a ... "
or
"You are a ... and therefore..."

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 01:28:39 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 11:08:07 PM
I ignore them, for the most part. I don't need "lapsed Jesuit straight CIS caucasian former drug addict professional artist felon american right-handed blah blah blah" when "Joe" will do.

I also see that most of us here who could be considered "CIS" don't LIKE "CIS". So what happened to self-determination? When I use a term, I use the ones people generally WANT to be called. Labels that people don't want to be called are known as "slurs". If a label's going to get hung on ME from somewhere else, of COURSE I'm going to swat it off.

Those labels tell Joe's story. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I like knowing people's stories.

I'd rather hear stories from people, not labels. Labels don't tell me what I need to know, anyway, I have to get that from observation. "Professional artist" could mean anything from "creative/successful", to "creative/underappreciated" to "bum". "Felon" only tells me he got popped for who knows what, maybe decades ago. It doesn't tell me what he's like now. Etc.

Saying people are "CIS" has already resulted in the CIS tears debacle and gotten Roger shoved in a box with some fat politician's kid whose darkest hour was probably the time he ended up screaming at the housekeeper for arranging his sock drawer wrong. It's retarded.

QuoteCis doesn't lock you into anything, precisely. What you do with you, or what "woman" means to you, or whatever, is still what you determine. If you don't like cis, well, *shrug* I'm going to find another word that means "born into a female body, identifies as a woman" because that's, so far as I know, what your story is. Mostly because I'm not and I need a word that describes people who are. Which I realize and respect that you don't like it, but I need to be able to explain how I'm different and that requires that I understand and can describe how most other people are.

I'm not sure how putting labels on other people helps with your identity. Self-determination.

QuoteAm I making sense here? Like, I'm not using the word to box you in (you're still Stella, lady who lives in a town populated by 'you werkin'?' robots) but I need to be able to describe how I, and other people, are different than the dominant set of gender identities, which you, so far as I know identify with, in order to explain myself to myself.

"Now the Star-Bellied Sneeches had bellies with stars,
But the Plain-Bellied Sneeches had none upon thars..."

And then a guy came to town with machines to attach and remove labels until nobody knew who was who, just that they were all broke as fuck.

I'm no stranger to identity issues - I was adopted, remember? My lifetime up through my early adulthood was spent wondering who the fuck I was. But labels don't fix that.

You're not your family.

You're not a label.

You're not a sex, or a gender, or a sex or gender with qualifiers.

I didn't have a word for what my gender is and it wasn't something I could ignore, because I kept catching on it any time someone referred to me in the third person, and like I said, I found not having a name for the weirdly shaped thing that kept poking me in the face unsettling (you should know your BiP inside and out, yes? - I like having words that describe the shape of the bar "this word looks like that bar, this one doesn't have a name but that's okay, this one also doesn't have a name but I want to name it", etc.).

In order to figure out a word for the stupid bar, I had to learn what the bars on other people's cages looked like, get a feel for the experiences that come along with it, etc. Because there are, I would argue, categories of bars, of which we all have some - even if you're gonna dump all the bars that come with gender and sexuality in our society (which should be interesting to observe, because reshaping the BiP reshapes the experience, yes? Are you dumping the descriptor/label of those bars or are you actually hauling them out? how are you going to do the latter? is that a void or new vista?), there's still a slot where they used to go, or would go if you ever had any of a specific set of them and not everyone does). Which meant I needed to have words to sticky-note on those other people's bars to for my own reference ("Okay, I keep catching on feminine pronouns, and I've noticed my nature shifting along the Western masculine-feminine spectrum a lot, which means that bar is not a woman's bar. Where do I go from here?").
This process didn't pin down for me what it meant for other people to be whatever gender they are, because those bars are criss-crossed with all sorts of other things (culture, race, sex, general tendency to say I DO WHAT I WANT, etc.) but gave me a way to quantify what one bar in my BiP looks like and why it kept poking me in the face.

Does my explanation make any sense to you now, Stellz?


Hmm, I'm somehow suspecting this is going to lead to a "what is gender?" discussion.


I'll come back tomorrow to keep catching up.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 18, 2012, 12:06:28 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:59:40 PM

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 01:10:40 AM
The problem with labels is they aren't, and can't be, all encompassing.  They ignore tons of bars in our cell.  That's different than, say, descriptors, where you can prioritize bars for another person, you can say those are bars that are REALLY important to you, but it is acknowledged that there are still many other bars that inform the makeup of the individual. 


There are all kinds of descriptors for me.  The Husband.  The Preventionist, The Straight Male, but no single one of those labels defines, or comes close to defining me, the entire person.


That's why labels are useless and pointless.

I think we're on different pages here, a little bit. I'm using labels the same way you're using the word "descriptors" (I'm the Eldest Daughter, Older Sister, Feminist, People-Positive, etc.). Labels are not intended to define ALL of you, at least the way I'm using them. Maybe facets of you, your bars, or whatever, but not the whole shebang.

Thus the difference between selecting descriptors for yourself and being labeled in a category with others.
"I describe myself as ..."
vs.
"He is a ... "
or
"You are a ... and therefore..."

I feel like it's an issue of semantics. Are you gonna say, "I describe myself as a man/heterosexual/whatever" or "I'm a man/heterosexual/whatever"? Because I'm saying the latter (in situations where's it's relevant because broadcasting "I'm x" ALL THE TIME, ON EVERY CHANNEL is a uniform), but each of these words still doesn't describe all of me. They're not supposed to.

Pardon my brashness but I think this whole fucking discussion is a big ball of semantics.  I mean, what's the point?  Labels feel, to me, very arbitrary.  I mean, the PD tells us, using gender as a specific example, it's all just arbitrary.  Fuck labels.  I'm me. 


I'm not an X.
I'm not a Y.
I'm not a Z.


I'm a bunch of things we can talk about over a cup of joe, or over the course of a one week conference.


Maybe I'm just dense, but I just don't get it.

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:30:32 AM

Also, by fact and nomenclature, "I am" Mexican, but by fuck do i identify as one.

"16 de septiembre" is coming up when everyone celebrates their "Mexicanity"... yes, let us all REJOICE in being citizens in a nation full of corruption.

Also, im a man, as in, i have a dick, but whats the point of stating it unless someone is interested in sexy times with me? There is no point, other than if i engage in a conversation, devalue my argument with something among the lines "you just say that because privilege", a crude attribution of cause, when a female could very well be making the same argument and be attributed to "omg brainwash"; but if we know if they are female or male, it gives us a nice representation and data point to work around with, frame the debate, assume groupality allegiances, which ultimately sums up to not listening.

JohNyx wins the thread.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 17, 2012, 08:07:05 AM

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

Well put. However for me it is an affirmation. I do believe it one can use labels without becoming the label.

It seems odd to not identify with a group because of nut jobs. It's not like any (sane) person hates on Richard Dawkins because of Mao Tse Tung (though of course this could just be because theres much better reasons to hate on Dawkins).

Actually speaking of Dawkins, the Brights movement is a good example of a lable used to compress a complex set of ideas into something thats simple enough to spread.

It's also a perfect example of the trap of labels. The Brights may have all the "right" values, but the very name of the group is so fucking arrogant and off-putting that it makes me want to smear poop all over their bedsheets just for having the temerity to call themselves that. And I'm the very pinnacle of logic and reason. There are no shortage of monkeys who would find it just as insulting as I do and wouldn't hesitate to actively oppose those values just to spite some effete leftist asshole.

I was wondering how long you could restrain your bile gland, ECH.   :lulz:

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 18, 2012, 12:54:09 AM

Quote

Thus the difference between selecting descriptors for yourself and being labeled in a category with others.
"I describe myself as ..."
vs.
"He is a ... "
or
"You are a ... and therefore..."

I feel like it's an issue of semantics. Are you gonna say, "I describe myself as a man/heterosexual/whatever" or "I'm a man/heterosexual/whatever"? Because I'm saying the latter (in situations where's it's relevant because broadcasting "I'm x" ALL THE TIME, ON EVERY CHANNEL is a uniform), but each of these words still doesn't describe all of me. They're not supposed to.

Oy, I should have worded that differently, it led to the wrong focus...

It wasn't "describe" vs "is/are" that was so important. It was the I/Myself vs He/You. If you want to call yourself a other-gendered, xenite, phibblethrop, that's up to you. If instead you say "You are an other-gendered, xenite, phibblethrop and therefore..." you have confused the map with the territory.


On a General Semantic tack the is vs describe as is important, but I wasn't trying to go there  :lulz:

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

Okay.

But I have to ask, is feminism mostly about rape, somewhat about rape, or only a little bit about rape?

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:17:35 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

Okay.

But I have to ask, is feminism mostly about rape, somewhat about rape, or only a little bit about rape?

Depends on who you ask.

To me, it's somewhat about rape in the sense that rape culture plays a huge part in the day-to-day lives of women. But I'm also a SlutWalk organiser, so it's going to play a bigger part in my interactions with feminism than in other peoples'.

Ask five feminists and you'll get five different answers, though :)

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

And so what is the fucking point?  I'm going to wager that you never experienced the constant fear of being tortured and killed that my MALE, Somali friend had when he was in Somalia.  Have you experienced that?


Ok, so are you now going to assert that one fear is "worse" than the other?  Sure, my Somali friend might not have had the experience of fearing rape but you havent't had his fear of being on the business end of horrific war crimes.


So then where are we?


That's why this is all pointless.  It really feels like scorekeeping.

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 18, 2012, 02:20:34 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

And so what is the fucking point?  I'm going to wager that you never experienced the constant fear of being tortured and killed that my MALE, Somali friend had when he was in Somalia.  Have you experienced that?


Ok, so are you now going to assert that one fear is "worse" than the other?  Sure, my Somali friend might not have had the experience of fearing rape but you havent't had his fear of being on the business end of horrific war crimes.


So then where are we?


That's why this is all pointless.  It really feels like scorekeeping.

I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 18, 2012, 02:20:34 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

And so what is the fucking point?  I'm going to wager that you never experienced the constant fear of being tortured and killed that my MALE, Somali friend had when he was in Somalia.  Have you experienced that?


Ok, so are you now going to assert that one fear is "worse" than the other?  Sure, my Somali friend might not have had the experience of fearing rape but you havent't had his fear of being on the business end of horrific war crimes.


So then where are we?


That's why this is all pointless.  It really feels like scorekeeping.

I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

So?

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Your post seems to be utterly meaningless in the context of being able to understand someone else's fear, which IS what we were talking about.

And I don't understand the need some people have to differentiate "this specific fear" vs. "that specific fear".

I mean, so fucking what? Fear is fucking fear, and anyone who can't understand THAT is probably a pompous and overwrought jackass that needs to pull their head out of a textbook and try sticking it up some REAL GODDAMNED LIFE once in a while.

Because the world is already fucking full of assholes who love to take a strong and meaningful stand for The Right Values just so they've got something to nit-pick and intellectually masturbate over with other basement-dwellers, y'know? Who the fuck needs more of that?

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

You're using labels to frame the question, which is kind of a dishonest maneuver in a debate where the use of labels themselves is the theme. Women, as a specific subset of the population, encounter a lot of things that add to their anxiety and are unique to their gender. So do men. So do LGBTBBQ people. So do children. So do the elderly, immigrants, Blacks, Hispanics, and on and on and on. Every single person can claim to be a member of at least one group who is persecuted, oppressed, or generally less save than other groups on a specific criteria. It could be rape, or mugging, or gang violence, or a genetic predisposition for cancer, or any number of other things. There is not a living person who is not in some kind of danger solely because of who they are. And with relatively few exceptions there is not a single living person who is not in some way privileged over somebody else.

As for "socio-economic group" that's just another label. Most people, regardless of race, gender, or social status, experience the same emotions as other people*. It isn't in the causes of those emotions where we find unity, but in the experience of those emotions. I can't say I identify with you on the basis of a fear of rape; but I know fear, I know danger, and I can identify with you on that level. Claiming to be special because of what gives rise to what is ultimately a shared experience with other humans is maybe a little arrogant.

Everyone has something to feel picked on about, and of course we should do everything we can to fix that for everyone. As for rape, what can I do? I don't laugh at bullshit sexist jokes, and when I see one on the street I don't make eye contact because I'd hate for her to think I'm a rapist. Beyond that, what?

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

I want to know the feminist position on magick.

Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2012, 03:11:31 AM
I want to know the feminist position on magick.

This is exactly what I was talking about, of course.   :lulz:

And to truly square the circle, we then need an authoritative right-libertarian pagan take on the Pussy Riot trial.

Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2012, 03:26:53 AM
And to truly square the circle, we then need an authoritative right-libertarian pagan take on the Pussy Riot trial.

I'm not ready to trash the subject yet, if we can discuss new angles to the issue.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
Try this:

Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:

- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)

Moving to a well-lit public space (-1 Wariness, -1 to anxiety)

- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)


Passed by a group of potential witnesses/ support if I get in trouble (-4 to anxiety)

-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)

They react to my presence. Good - this means they are biologically alive and conscious. This will help if I need their assitance for any reason (-2 to anxiety)

--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)

One of them is attracted to me. Too bad, I'm out of his league and he knows it but he makes a show in front of his friends as some pathetic attempt to save face. (+1 to ego)

- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)

Check reflection in door window - yup, I'm hawt!  (+2 to ego)

- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)

Bar is empty. Result -  I'm first in the queue!


- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)

Two doors leading in, I sit in the corner so I have an eye on both. All the glassware and possibly a baseball bat and/or shotgun behind the bar. If anything kicks off in this empty place then that's where I'm headed. Sitrep: Area secure. (-4 to anxiety)

- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)

Check bag - Can of mace! Something out the ordinary goes down I should have it covered

Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

Total:
-1 wariness
-11 anxiety
+3 ego

-- all I did was change the labels and swap proactive for paranoid

You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

TITCM. Proper equality would mean freedom of movement without having to purposefully alter cognitive patterns and bluff the bravado to get over the fear. Proper equality would not being grabbed or leered at.

I will admit that I used to do things to make myself look bulkier when I was proper skinny and had big boobs, like the oversized leather biker jacket that hid boobs, always look like you know where you are going even when you are lost(BTW that one even worked when walking past crack dealers on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, just me and another lassie), singing loudly in the street (that one stops a hell of a lot of street harrassment, tip is to appear fucking crazy, I also enjoyed singing and not giving a shit, so that one is a lot less of a puffer fish or balled hedgehog kinda response), and these days if guys do get grabby with me I turn on a fucking sixpence and channel my inner Scottish Radge "fuck off and keep your hands to yourself, pal" or a variation on it.

Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:26:28 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 17, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
Try this:

Here's my thought process from Wednesday night, when I beat my friend A and her boyfriend to the bar:

- by myself, female, and young (+1 wariness, +1 to anxiety)

Moving to a well-lit public space (-1 Wariness, -1 to anxiety)

- A bunch of older men are on the patio, which is between me and the actual bar. The youngest of these men was maybe 35. (Men between 35 and 60 are the ones who actually scare me, since the most disrespectful, degrading, and downright terrifying advances* I have ever endured have been from this age bracket, since men my age are either more subtle or don't make a move at all) (+4 to anxiety)


Passed by a group of potential witnesses/ support if I get in trouble (-4 to anxiety)

-- most of these men turn to look at me as I scan the situation (+2 to anxiety because, again, men in this age bracket are fucking scary)

They react to my presence. Good - this means they are biologically alive and conscious. This will help if I need their assitance for any reason (-2 to anxiety)

--- there is a creeper already leering at me (+1 to wariness)

One of them is attracted to me. Too bad, I'm out of his league and he knows it but he makes a show in front of his friends as some pathetic attempt to save face. (+1 to ego)

- *Checks clothing* *concludes nothing can be construed as "asking for it"* (+0 to anxiety)

Check reflection in door window - yup, I'm hawt!  (+2 to ego)

- No one, especially another female, is in the actual bar (+2 to anxiety)

Bar is empty. Result -  I'm first in the queue!


- The only back way out that won't set off an alarm is in the club attached to the bar, which I would have to go toward the front of the bar and therefore toward these men to get to. Said exit leads me to an alleyway, which is not a good thing. Bathrooms do not guarantee refuge in the event I need it. (+4 to anxiety)

Two doors leading in, I sit in the corner so I have an eye on both. All the glassware and possibly a baseball bat and/or shotgun behind the bar. If anything kicks off in this empty place then that's where I'm headed. Sitrep: Area secure. (-4 to anxiety)

- If I go in, by myself, and a guy follows me in and gets grabby (a possibility I have to account for and I have already dealt with a similar situation once), I have absolutely no backup (+1 to FML)
- If I go in by myself and a guy gets grabby, I'll be told "Why were you in a bar full of guys? Don't you know any better?" (+1 to FML)

Check bag - Can of mace! Something out the ordinary goes down I should have it covered

Total:
2 wariness
14 anxiety
2 FML

Total:
-1 wariness
-11 anxiety
+3 ego

-- all I did was change the labels and swap proactive for paranoid

You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

TITCM. Proper equality would mean freedom of movement without having to purposefully alter cognitive patterns and bluff the bravado to get over the fear. Proper equality would not being grabbed or leered at.

I will admit that I used to do things to make myself look bulkier when I was proper skinny and had big boobs, like the oversized leather biker jacket that hid boobs, always look like you know where you are going even when you are lost(BTW that one even worked when walking past crack dealers on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, just me and another lassie), singing loudly in the street (that one stops a hell of a lot of street harrassment, tip is to appear fucking crazy, I also enjoyed singing and not giving a shit, so that one is a lot less of a puffer fish or balled hedgehog kinda response), and these days if guys do get grabby with me I turn on a fucking sixpence and channel my inner Scottish Radge "fuck off and keep your hands to yourself, pal" or a variation on it.

You have a roommate.

Roommate never does dishes, even though they're "supposed" to. There is not a clean plate, fork, or pan in the house. You're starved. You have no money to dine out. There is plenty of food in the house, but everything requires at least some cooking.

Until you can get rid of the roommate or move, do you:

A) Make up a new label and starve

B) Go to women's groups and talk about how this makes you FEEL so people can validate your feelings and starve

C) Wash ALL the dishes, every night, because somebody told you when you were growing up that if you don't, you're "not nice"

D) Wash what you need to make yourself something and throw it back in the sink when you're done.

E) Leave all dishes on room mates bed and take some money from their wallet for pizza.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 18, 2012, 04:44:33 AM
E) Leave all dishes on room mates bed and take some money from their wallet for pizza.

I like that one.  :lulz:

D, because I'm already doing that, and am waiting for Payne's payrise before I kick the complete asshole out, and the lesser asshole is getting better at the whole cleaning thing.

I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the fear related to going out and about on my own, and how I've had to hack my own circuits just to get past the anxiety.

Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:54:29 AM
D, because I'm already doing that, and am waiting for Payne's payrise before I kick the complete asshole out, and the lesser asshole is getting better at the whole cleaning thing.

I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the fear related to going out and about on my own, and how I've had to hack my own circuits just to get past the anxiety.

Welcome to the human condition.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:54:29 AM
D, because I'm already doing that, and am waiting for Payne's payrise before I kick the complete asshole out, and the lesser asshole is getting better at the whole cleaning thing.

I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the fear related to going out and about on my own, and how I've had to hack my own circuits just to get past the anxiety.

We all have to hack our own circuits.... Not all because of rape specifically, but for a billion different reasons, all of them bad.

Jesus makes a good point (and again with his bump) the behavior seems far more valuable than the cause. When humans are free then humankind will be free (to steal from Mal-2). Each of us have to free ourselves, that's how everyone gets to be free.

Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:54:29 AM
D, because I'm already doing that, and am waiting for Payne's payrise before I kick the complete asshole out, and the lesser asshole is getting better at the whole cleaning thing.

I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the fear related to going out and about on my own, and how I've had to hack my own circuits just to get past the anxiety.

Because a lot of assholes are always going to be assholes.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 18, 2012, 05:12:30 AM

Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:54:29 AM
D, because I'm already doing that, and am waiting for Payne's payrise before I kick the complete asshole out, and the lesser asshole is getting better at the whole cleaning thing.

I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the fear related to going out and about on my own, and how I've had to hack my own circuits just to get past the anxiety.

Because a lot of assholes are always going to be assholes.

Ok. fairy muff.

I should probably sleep. My dad is picking me up in 4 hours and I haven't seen him for about 2 months, and no doubt he's going to be an asshole about something, if its to me, my sister or my mum.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
- Men rarely help women or females in need. In fact, they're much more likely to berate any man who does.

I have only anecdotal shit on my side, here, but that hasn't been true so far as I've seen.  I may be looking at anamolous data, or you may just live in the shittiest city in America.

Of course, I do hang out with a low crowd, and we do tend to be more likely to jump into this sort of thing that the scum up in Oro Valley, because we're all opinionated, pushy bastards.

I'm going to ask you to listen, for this one. What you've seen and experienced is going to be different from what we've seen and experienced, because you're not in the same position. Sort of like whoever it was who was questioning whether racism is really worse in the south, because he as a white man hadn't seen it as worse.

It makes it really sticky because most rapist-types, especially in an environment like Portland, work hard to come across as "nice guys" who are just trying to be friendly and helpful. I don't think most of them see themselves as rapists, either. I think most of them think they're just being assertive, pushing boundaries, doing PUA shit. The result is that other people don't tend to take you seriously when you go to them and say "Nate is making me really uncomfortable, he's following me around and won't stop trying to hug me". They just go "Awwww, he's a really nice guy and he's just kind of drunk, don't let it bother you"

Uhhhh

It IS bothering me, that's why I'm trying to get the fuck away from it and looking for some backup, dude.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 17, 2012, 09:47:12 PM

Wrong kind of eye contact.  Wrong kind of smile.  You have to smile like one of the Nigels.

Yeah, people reeeeally don't like that, for some reason.  :lol:

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:03:07 PM
I've had older men follow me to my car. This is one of the reasons why the scared monkey takes over when dealing with them.

It's true. It's been a long time since I've been that young, but I remember the weirdly predatory manner that older men (I'm talking men in their 30's, who seem like anxious eager puppies to me now) would treat me with. It was fucking scary. Men (boys?) my own age seemed to view me as more of an equal, I didn't get that power-imbalance vibe from them. It was creepy as fuck. I look pretty young so I've had some men approach me with that kind of vibe, especially in a bar where they can't seethe gray hair, but I don't find them as generically threatening now... I think I take men in that age bracket more seriously as rape threats, but I am also better equipped to deal with them as such.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 17, 2012, 10:35:26 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 10:23:12 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:09:42 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
You do realize that what this is, EXACTLY what it is, is a discussion of how the woman should change her behavior and thinking so she's less scared, rather then a discussion of how society should change so that women have less reason to be scared, right?

THIS. This is a trap I think men who do want to help (like Pent, because I think he has good intentions and does genuinely want to help), sometimes fall into. "Here, let me give you a list of behaviors you need to change in order to be safe" without talking about why a fear is valid and how to change society so the scared monkey has fewer reasons to come out.


And actually, re: getting aggressive with creepy old men, I feel like it's going to escalate the situation beyond something I can control and I will end up being hurt.

You're a hiker, you're in shape.  Consider taking some self-defense courses, if you haven't already.  Men are easy to deal with, in more than the obvious way.  Especially older guys.

And I don't think it's a trap to counsel preparedness or aggression-at-need.  It's not right that you should have to, but the world ain't right, if you catch my drift.  Deal with the world as it is, while you work toward the world as you'd like it to be.

A sad but true point. I don't think the 'answer' is for women to learn to be tough. The 'answer' is for human society to evolve past this kind of shit. However, its not going to happen overnight, probably not even in our lifetime. Maybe it will improve some, but not to the point that women won't ever get raped... some men are useless pieces of shit. I don't think there's anything wrong with women learning to take control of a situation and learning how to bust a guy in the face if necessary. It's not the answer, but its a stopgap until we get to the answer.

At any rate, I think this is a tangent from the point on labels. Labeling "risk/danger" is part of human survival... I don't think its the same as labeling sexual preference, gender role, religion, skin color, job description etc.

The problem with resorting to violence (which I am not at all opposed to, for the record) is that in a fight, the weight advantage is almost everything. I am strong as fuck, but I am also 5'3" and 140# after a heavy meal. I can do some damage, and I know I can, but odds are that if a determined 5'10" 180# guy is going to be able to overpower and subdue me pretty easily. In fact, I know he can from experience. There is also a significant risk of enraging your attacker and ending up with broken bones and teeth, or dead instead of just raped. Let's be realistic, here.

Last time I was assaulted, I got away by laughing at him. He had me; he could have fucked me up pretty good. But when he told me what I "had" to do, I threw my head back and laughed, and said "no, I don't". And he let me go. That wasn't strategy. That was because I looked fucking crazy, and it scared him the same way pushy guys scare women, because you don't know what the fuck a crazy person might be capable of. The reason my aggression works for me is because it's intimidating, not because I could actually fight my way out of a corner.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 11:09:47 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
No, it doesn't make the outside world different, but validating my feelings makes responding easier. Otherwise, it's hard to shake the feeling that my response will be out of proportion. *shrug*

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

This. And I am not a small person, but scared monkey doesn't calculate that very well.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 10:59:35 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
FUCKING PHONE. HOUSE PHONE RANG AND BUMPED THE INTERNET JUST AS I POSTED.


Short form: violence doesn't come easy to women, since we're trained to not hit ever, never be aggressive. Men, especially older men gone to seed, are stronger and have a lot more weight. The terror there is if the guy is serious, there is nothing we can do to stop it coming. Nothing.

And then I had an example of tough as nails torch being so manipulated by shayne that she couldn't have fended him off with an army behind her.

That's something that can come up when they get you alone. If by some chance I got cornered in some isolated place by somebody I had reason to think would kill me and probably get away with it, it's another ballgame. In a bar, or any place where there's witnesses, we have an edge.

I was in a situation where it was ALL older men, remember. The side walk was empty (and this bar is tucked away off the main street, which is part of why I like it), bartender was an older dude, too, etc.

The bartender isn't going to let anything happen. Part of his job is not letting the Liquor Control Board or whatever it's called in your state shut the place down. If somebody who's been sitting there drinking starts harrassing a woman who just walked in, guess who's getting thrown out? I'd have bellied right up to the bar in that situation.

Yes. The bartender is ALWAYS your friend. And you know, even if the bartender secretly isn't really on your side (but they usually are; every one I've met has been) one thing they really, really don't want is the cops showing up.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 02:03:12 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:55:53 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:22:25 AM
Wow. This was a spectacularly shitty way to prove a point. Bad, bad example. Sorry Roger. D:

But anyway, women spend their entire lives trying to stay safe (go find Pixie's comment string in OH NOEZ on the subject, since I have effectively proven myself to be neurotic). We're socialized to deal with Schrodinger's rapist (we have no idea who is and who is not, but we have to prevent him from doing it anyway).
That's not something men have to live with. You can empathize, but you don't actually live with a perpetual, low-level fear of rape.

You might or might not have thought of this by this point, since I'm obviously just catching up on this thread, but you're implying that perpetual fear of rape is somehow different than perpetual fear of any number of other horrifying things. You don't have to be a woman and have had the specific fear of rape to understand EXACTLY how it feels to be constantly fearful.

But are there things -- and I'm not being facetious, I'm generally unsure -- that men generally have to fear that women generally don't have to fear? And I am speaking in general, all-other-things-being-equal terms.

Men can absolutely understand how it feels to be constantly fearful, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just wondering whether or not women in a particular socio-economic group are constantly fearful of everything men are in that same socio-economic group, with the added fear of the possibility of being raped.

Okay, women are now up by 1 point.

Score stands at:

Men:  89,000,000 fears.
Women:  89,000,001 fears.

Wasn't really the point of my post, but okay. I was just trying to figure out where ECM was coming from.

But anyway, I do that that a perpetual fear of rape is different to a perpetual fear of other things. But so is a perpetual fear of violent (non-sexual) assault. Or a perpetual fear of earthquakes. A perpetual and genuine fear of any one thing is going to be different to a perpetual and genuine fear of any other thing. Anyone can understand what it feels like to be constantly fearful, but not everyone can understand what it's like to be fearful of that specific thing.

Indian men in North Dakota stand an absolutely insanely disproportionate chance of being murdered. I am horrified by this, I feel awful about it, I can try to put myself in those shoes based on my internal comparison with how it feels to be always on guard against assault, but I don't really know what it's like because I've really never experienced anything quite like it. It sounds horrible.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 01:48:53 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 17, 2012, 08:07:05 AM

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

Well put. However for me it is an affirmation. I do believe it one can use labels without becoming the label.

It seems odd to not identify with a group because of nut jobs. It's not like any (sane) person hates on Richard Dawkins because of Mao Tse Tung (though of course this could just be because theres much better reasons to hate on Dawkins).

Actually speaking of Dawkins, the Brights movement is a good example of a lable used to compress a complex set of ideas into something thats simple enough to spread.

It's also a perfect example of the trap of labels. The Brights may have all the "right" values, but the very name of the group is so fucking arrogant and off-putting that it makes me want to smear poop all over their bedsheets just for having the temerity to call themselves that. And I'm the very pinnacle of logic and reason. There are no shortage of monkeys who would find it just as insulting as I do and wouldn't hesitate to actively oppose those values just to spite some effete leftist asshole.

Yes, good point.

Also thanks Nigel for replying and everyone for a damn good discussion. And I'm liking seeing more of Sita.

This concludes my Friendship is Magic announcement. Please return to your scheduled conversations.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 11:38:58 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 11:20:23 PM
Regarding garbo's first point in reply #149:

Oh holy shit.  That needs a thread all on it's own.

Even decent human beings buy the whole "You're a woman, and I don't understand why you're being so emotional, ergo you are overreacting."

Everybody does it and it is always bullshit. Everybody, even ourselves, which feeds into doubting our perceptions, and gives credence to victim blaming, and arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh arrgh.

Also, Torch doesn't afraid to beat the shit out of people.

Then start one. :)

I'd probably title it something like "Bitches be Crazy? :/"

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 17, 2012, 07:40:25 PM

I'm not an expert on anthropology or anything, but I think you'll find that strong people will make the world we wish we had.

THIS²

Strong people are the only ones capable of behaving like everyone is saying people should behave like "if the world was different"

Strong people don't wait for the world to be different. They're strong enough not to need it to be.

Strong people aren't necessarily born that way.

As usual, the thread's gone off on a totally different tangent by the time I managed to catch up, but FWIW:

It seems to me like a lot of this discussion on labels is falling into a trap, a misperception really, of the relation between the words we use and the structure of our thoughts.

Some of you may know the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which, to generalize – there are a few versions – says that the language(s) you speak shape(s) habits and structures of thought. One very strong version of SWH would be that your thoughts are limited to that which you can express in your native language(s). Even though this idea has gained a lot of traction in a pop-sci kind of way (think of Orwell's concept of Newspeak and its purpose) linguists have basically mostly moved away from SWH altogether. There is some new and fascinating research based on a very moderate SWH (basically, that language affects cognitive processes, but only a little and not in very important ways - like how we perceive differences in colors). Strong versions of SWH are ridiculously easy to falsify – just try to recall the last time you wanted to say something but had a hard time finding quite the right words. That this is even possible basically invalidates strong SWH: If your thoughts were structured using your language (or mirroring it), you would have thought the words in some less-than-conscious way and had no problem simply sending that information to your brain's language centers for making into sounds/letters/signs.

Of course having a label for something makes it easier to relate thoughts to that group of things/people/experiences, and makes it easier to think in a way that over-generalizes, simply by giving you a linguistic anchor to attach a bunch of thoughts to. But adopting a term or label for yourself or for others does not mahdjickully make you less sensitive to diversity amongst entities carrying that label. At most it, makes particular sentences you say less sensitive to it.

Seems like a few people keep saying that using a label for some group of people somehow forces you to oversimplify in thinking about them. It really doesn't. It doesn't even force you to oversimplify when you're talking, since you can THINK FOR YOURSELF and consciously choose when to use a generalization. Which is incidentally why it is appropriate to take someone to task when they abuse a label or use it to abuse someone.

But having the label doesn't force you to think using it to the exclusion of subtlety. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. I don't categorically reject the use of the term "Jew", though I do seriously take issue with it being applied to me in irrelevant ways. My family is Jewish and almost everyone I knew growing up is, and I can appreciate, reflect upon, and discuss the many intricacies of Jewish life, Jewishness, and Jewish history. I use the term Jew(ish) carefully because I am aware of these intricacies, but I sure as hell often end up using it, e.g. in describing political situations in Israel.

In just that way, I am GLAD for a label like "cis" allowing me to speak about a certain group of people/experiences when it is expedient, relevant, fair, and non-violent. Again we're talking about a label which could reasonably be applied to me – when it's expedient, relevant, fair, and non-violent. Having this word in my vocabulary does not make me forget that being cisgender itself has quite a lot of diversity to it, that there can be totally different cisgender people. It actually helps reflect on that, in thought and in conversation. Just like being able to reflect on Jews as a historical and contemporary group-entity allows me to pay attention to particular differences between entities within them. Having to say "the collection of religious groupings historically and/or spiritually associated with the Hebrews described in a particular set of canons of religious texts referred to within these groupings as the Bible" makes it pretty damn inconvenient to even being thinking about what is unique about the different religious groupings and the different individuals comprising them. Which is, again, analogous to having to talk/think using such strings as "people who self-identify with their biological sex (or is it asigned gender?)" when discussing/reflecting on how different life is for different sub-groupings and individuals with that definition.

TL;DR: New words are useful for giving serious attention to things you weren't previously used to referring to. They do not automatically become a bar.


On an entirely tangential note:

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM
... some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.
...

Say what now? Who what whaaa??

Not entirely accurate. He came and spammed his wobsite on one page.

Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 12:11:50 AM
As usual, the thread's gone off on a totally different tangent by the time I managed to catch up, but FWIW:

It seems to me like a lot of this discussion on labels is falling into a trap, a misperception really, of the relation between the words we use and the structure of our thoughts.

Some of you may know the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which, to generalize – there are a few versions – says that the language(s) you speak shape(s) habits and structures of thought. One very strong version of SWH would be that your thoughts are limited to that which you can express in your native language(s). Even though this idea has gained a lot of traction in a pop-sci kind of way (think of Orwell's concept of Newspeak and its purpose) linguists have basically mostly moved away from SWH altogether. There is some new and fascinating research based on a very moderate SWH (basically, that language affects cognitive processes, but only a little and not in very important ways - like how we perceive differences in colors). Strong versions of SWH are ridiculously easy to falsify – just try to recall the last time you wanted to say something but had a hard time finding quite the right words. That this is even possible basically invalidates strong SWH: If your thoughts were structured using your language (or mirroring it), you would have thought the words in some less-than-conscious way and had no problem simply sending that information to your brain's language centers for making into sounds/letters/signs.

Of course having a label for something makes it easier to relate thoughts to that group of things/people/experiences, and makes it easier to think in a way that over-generalizes, simply by giving you a linguistic anchor to attach a bunch of thoughts to. But adopting a term or label for yourself or for others does not mahdjickully make you less sensitive to diversity amongst entities carrying that label. At most it, makes particular sentences you say less sensitive to it.

Seems like a few people keep saying that using a label for some group of people somehow forces you to oversimplify in thinking about them. It really doesn't. It doesn't even force you to oversimplify when you're talking, since you can THINK FOR YOURSELF and consciously choose when to use a generalization. Which is incidentally why it is appropriate to take someone to task when they abuse a label or use it to abuse someone.

But having the label doesn't force you to think using it to the exclusion of subtlety. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. I don't categorically reject the use of the term "Jew", though I do seriously take issue with it being applied to me in irrelevant ways. My family is Jewish and almost everyone I knew growing up is, and I can appreciate, reflect upon, and discuss the many intricacies of Jewish life, Jewishness, and Jewish history. I use the term Jew(ish) carefully because I am aware of these intricacies, but I sure as hell often end up using it, e.g. in describing political situations in Israel.

In just that way, I am GLAD for a label like "cis" allowing me to speak about a certain group of people/experiences when it is expedient, relevant, fair, and non-violent. Again we're talking about a label which could reasonably be applied to me – when it's expedient, relevant, fair, and non-violent. Having this word in my vocabulary does not make me forget that being cisgender itself has quite a lot of diversity to it, that there can be totally different cisgender people. It actually helps reflect on that, in thought and in conversation. Just like being able to reflect on Jews as a historical and contemporary group-entity allows me to pay attention to particular differences between entities within them. Having to say "the collection of religious groupings historically and/or spiritually associated with the Hebrews described in a particular set of canons of religious texts referred to within these groupings as the Bible" makes it pretty damn inconvenient to even being thinking about what is unique about the different religious groupings and the different individuals comprising them. Which is, again, analogous to having to talk/think using such strings as "people who self-identify with their biological sex (or is it asigned gender?)" when discussing/reflecting on how different life is for different sub-groupings and individuals with that definition.

TL;DR: New words are useful for giving serious attention to things you weren't previously used to referring to. They do not automatically become a bar.

This whole comment is very, very good.

 :oops:

Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 12:11:50 AM

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM
... some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.
...

Say what now? Who what whaaa??

What ever happened with that guy, anyway?

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I vote "don't have anything else to say on the subject'...it's been kinda going in circles.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 01:13:14 AM

Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 12:11:50 AM

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 17, 2012, 07:01:11 AM
... some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.
...

Say what now? Who what whaaa??

What ever happened with that guy, anyway?

Preliminary hearing in March 2013.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/

And nobody should go here:

http://www.facebook.com/supportakin?ref=ts

Whoops. I didn't go there. And I'm sure I won't be accused of being a "Dem operative" in a few minutes.

Comments seem to stay up longer there than they do on Rick Perry's page. His facebook lackeys must be in church.  :lol:

You shouldn't send me to places like that PrototypeJesus.

Quote from: Alty on August 19, 2012, 06:28:05 PM
You shouldn't send me to places like that PrototypeJesus.

He said you SHOULDN'T GO. Who are you to disobey? {/mind laZrz}

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:27:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/

What's your point? Is it that we shouldn't be wasting time talking about things like rape and gender inequality and trying to come to a point of mutual understanding and communication, because there are other fucked-up issues that need to be addressed?

Well fuck it. I don't belong on this board at all. I should be narrowing down my concerns to the one most important injustice, and focusing on that exclusively.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

Never noticed a general trend but I can't say that's my MO. I will only ever advise the victim to try something different, regardless of whether they have tits or not. Yes I can sympathise. Yes the aggressor is in the wrong. Changes nothing - either you do something to stop being a victim or you'll be a victim. It's injust and wrong and everybody sympathises. And that's a whole bunch of pointless words that doesn't make the bruises stop happening.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 07:40:17 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

Never noticed a general trend but I can't say that's my MO. I will only ever advise the victim to try something different, regardless of whether they have tits or not. Yes I can sympathise. Yes the aggressor is in the wrong. Changes nothing - either you do something to stop being a victim or you'll be a victim. It's injust and wrong and everybody sympathises. And that's a whole bunch of pointless words that doesn't make the bruises stop happening.

The thing about unsolicited advice is that it may be useful/well received, but the judgement call of whether to offer it should probably take the context of the conversation into consideration, or you may come across as condescending or dismissive.

For example, if I'm trying to convey how I felt or reacted in a situation and am not specifically asking for adbice, and my listener responds with "Well, you should have done x instead of y", most likely my response is going to be "And you should go fuck yourself, you condescending prick... but thanks for assuming I'm an incompetent idiot".

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:49:14 PM
For example, if I'm trying to convey how I felt or reacted in a situation and am not specifically asking for adbice, and my listener responds with "Well, you should have done x instead of y", most likely my response is going to be "And you should go fuck yourself, you condescending prick... but thanks for assuming I'm an incompetent idiot".

This accidentally hits on a recurring relationship issue I've had with my wife. I don't necessarily think it's a "sexism" thing, but it may be a gender thing (I don't know, that could be a colossally ignorant assumption). But we tend to clash on this kind of thing, because when she's trying to get me to empathize with something that's bugging her, my immediate reaction is to try to find a solution to the problem. She would appreciate it more if I would just empathize and leave it at that, but my brain for whatever reason can't do that. I see a problem, my top priority is resolving it, not helping her feel sorry about it.

Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 08:00:17 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:49:14 PM
For example, if I'm trying to convey how I felt or reacted in a situation and am not specifically asking for adbice, and my listener responds with "Well, you should have done x instead of y", most likely my response is going to be "And you should go fuck yourself, you condescending prick... but thanks for assuming I'm an incompetent idiot".

This accidentally hits on a recurring relationship issue I've had with my wife. I don't necessarily think it's a "sexism" thing, but it may be a gender thing (I don't know, that could be a colossally ignorant assumption). But we tend to clash on this kind of thing, because when she's trying to get me to empathize with something that's bugging her, my immediate reaction is to try to find a solution to the problem. She would appreciate it more if I would just empathize and leave it at that, but my brain for whatever reason can't do that. I see a problem, my top priority is resolving it, not helping her feel sorry about it.

There is definitely a strong gender difference in communication; men are more likely to tend to try to "fix" things, while women are more likely to tend to try to communicate feelings. It can lead to some really frustrating interactions. Note that this is just a tendency; men also try to communicate feelings, and women also try to "fix" things.

It's also a social communication thing; people with better social skills are better able to make the judgement call of when to offer advice, and when unsolicited advice is likely to be unwanted/insulting.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:49:14 PM
For example, if I'm trying to convey how I felt or reacted in a situation and am not specifically asking for adbice, and my listener responds with "Well, you should have done x instead of y", most likely my response is going to be "And you should go fuck yourself, you condescending prick... but thanks for assuming I'm an incompetent idiot".

At that point, I agree, it's too late for "should have" and they "should have" STFU.

But I actually prefer "Next time try doing this..." to "aw, that must have been just awful". It gives me something I can use.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 08:10:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:49:14 PM
For example, if I'm trying to convey how I felt or reacted in a situation and am not specifically asking for adbice, and my listener responds with "Well, you should have done x instead of y", most likely my response is going to be "And you should go fuck yourself, you condescending prick... but thanks for assuming I'm an incompetent idiot".

At that point, I agree, it's too late for "should have" and they "should have" STFU.

But I actually prefer "Next time try doing this..." to "aw, that must have been just awful". It gives me something I can use.

I find it helps to try "aw, that must have been awful" before trying "next time try this," though. People (regardless of gender) tend to appreciate advice once they know it's coming from someone who's on their side, or at least who understands their predicament from their perspective.

Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 08:12:13 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 08:10:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:49:14 PM
For example, if I'm trying to convey how I felt or reacted in a situation and am not specifically asking for adbice, and my listener responds with "Well, you should have done x instead of y", most likely my response is going to be "And you should go fuck yourself, you condescending prick... but thanks for assuming I'm an incompetent idiot".

At that point, I agree, it's too late for "should have" and they "should have" STFU.

But I actually prefer "Next time try doing this..." to "aw, that must have been just awful". It gives me something I can use.

I find it helps to try "aw, that must have been awful" before trying "next time try this," though. People (regardless of gender) tend to appreciate advice once they know it's coming from someone who's on their side, or at least who understands their predicament from their perspective.

True, as long as it's sincere and not that fake sad face that news anchors tend to put on when they're talking about apartment fires.  :x
Both together are the way to go. I was kind of looking at it like having to make a choice between one or the other, though.

I've never, to the best of my knowledge, had a guy relate an incident to me with the express purpose of conveying how it made him feel. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, related an incident to someone with the express purpose of conveying how it made me feel.

Now that I'm thinking about this, tho, I'm pretty sure my GF does this all the time. I'm pretty sure a lot of women do. I'm not imagining this? Women actually tell me stories and the sole purpose in telling me is so that I will know how it made them feel?

That's fucking ridiculous. Why the fuck would someone do something like that?

holy fuck! If this is a real thing then it's a total game changer  :eek:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 08:25:18 PM
I've never, to the best of my knowledge, had a guy relate an incident to me with the express purpose of conveying how it made him feel. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, related an incident to someone with the express purpose of conveying how it made me feel.

Now that I'm thinking about this, tho, I'm pretty sure my GF does this all the time. I'm pretty sure a lot of women do. I'm not imagining this? Women actually tell me stories and the sole purpose in telling me is so that I will know how it made them feel?

That's fucking ridiculous. Why the fuck would someone do something like that?

holy fuck! If this is a real thing then it's a total game changer  :eek:

Women tend to study emotions, I think. I can see a fleeting expression on a person's face that lasted maybe a split second, and spend a long time contemplating what it might have meant.

But that said, PLEASE don't let this thread turn into a "Men are from mars, women are from venus" clusterfuck.

Doesn't make sense to me, whether it's a gender specific thing or not.

"I got punched in the face on the way to work"

Holy fuck. Why? What happened? Did you punch them back?

"I felt like sad puppy with sore face"

Well, duh!

I have felt the need to have my emotions recognized in the past. Sometimes knowing you're not bat shit crazy because of how something made you feel helps in the process of getting past it. As long as "getting past it" is the ultimate goal, and not some kind of weird validation for its own sake, I don't see a problem.

Yeah. I'd hate to assume that every time I related some story, people would just think, "Oh, she's a woman, she just wants me to tell her I understand how she FEELS. Women are such EMOTIONAL creatures."

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:35:12 PM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:27:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/

What's your point? Is it that we shouldn't be wasting time talking about things like rape and gender inequality and trying to come to a point of mutual understanding and communication, because there are other fucked-up issues that need to be addressed?

Well fuck it. I don't belong on this board at all. I should be narrowing down my concerns to the one most important injustice, and focusing on that exclusively.

I don't have a point. 

Look, I seem to be pissing people off with every comment I make.  Nothing I say is right...More to the point, everything I say is offensive.

For the good of the conversation, I'm bowing out.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 08:25:18 PM
I've never, to the best of my knowledge, had a guy relate an incident to me with the express purpose of conveying how it made him feel. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, related an incident to someone with the express purpose of conveying how it made me feel.

Now that I'm thinking about this, tho, I'm pretty sure my GF does this all the time. I'm pretty sure a lot of women do. I'm not imagining this? Women actually tell me stories and the sole purpose in telling me is so that I will know how it made them feel?

That's fucking ridiculous. Why the fuck would someone do something like that?

holy fuck! If this is a real thing then it's a total game changer  :eek:

Uh, yeah dude. It's a real thing. Many people, especially women, communicate with the intent of conveying emotion, so they can be understood.

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 09:18:29 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:35:12 PM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:27:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/

What's your point? Is it that we shouldn't be wasting time talking about things like rape and gender inequality and trying to come to a point of mutual understanding and communication, because there are other fucked-up issues that need to be addressed?

Well fuck it. I don't belong on this board at all. I should be narrowing down my concerns to the one most important injustice, and focusing on that exclusively.

I don't have a point.

Uh, as it turns out, you do.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php?m=1

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 09:52:55 PM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 09:18:29 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:35:12 PM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:27:25 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/

What's your point? Is it that we shouldn't be wasting time talking about things like rape and gender inequality and trying to come to a point of mutual understanding and communication, because there are other fucked-up issues that need to be addressed?

Well fuck it. I don't belong on this board at all. I should be narrowing down my concerns to the one most important injustice, and focusing on that exclusively.

I don't have a point.

Uh, as it turns out, you do.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php?m=1

Someone else can run with it.  I'm just a little tired of being snarled at.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 09:42:01 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 08:25:18 PM
I've never, to the best of my knowledge, had a guy relate an incident to me with the express purpose of conveying how it made him feel. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, related an incident to someone with the express purpose of conveying how it made me feel.

Now that I'm thinking about this, tho, I'm pretty sure my GF does this all the time. I'm pretty sure a lot of women do. I'm not imagining this? Women actually tell me stories and the sole purpose in telling me is so that I will know how it made them feel?

That's fucking ridiculous. Why the fuck would someone do something like that?

holy fuck! If this is a real thing then it's a total game changer  :eek:

Uh, yeah dude. It's a real thing. Many people, especially women, communicate with the intent of conveying emotion, so they can be understood.

Going to have to think about this some. I'm beginning to think I must have fucking assburgers or something. The whole concept makes no fucking sense to me but, now that I think about it, I've seen it a million times and it just never registered.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 10:28:38 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 09:42:01 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 08:25:18 PM
I've never, to the best of my knowledge, had a guy relate an incident to me with the express purpose of conveying how it made him feel. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, related an incident to someone with the express purpose of conveying how it made me feel.

Now that I'm thinking about this, tho, I'm pretty sure my GF does this all the time. I'm pretty sure a lot of women do. I'm not imagining this? Women actually tell me stories and the sole purpose in telling me is so that I will know how it made them feel?

That's fucking ridiculous. Why the fuck would someone do something like that?

holy fuck! If this is a real thing then it's a total game changer  :eek:

Uh, yeah dude. It's a real thing. Many people, especially women, communicate with the intent of conveying emotion, so they can be understood.

Going to have to think about this some. I'm beginning to think I must have fucking assburgers or something. The whole concept makes no fucking sense to me but, now that I think about it, I've seen it a million times and it just never registered.

This is starting to remind me of those Star Trek episodes where Spock or Data try to get their minds around emotional stuff.  :p

ETA: You don't have assburgers. Or android brains, or Vulcan ones. People who are dumping feelings probably need to clarify that sometimes.

I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Pent, I think what you're starting to see there is a way in which the differences in how boys and girls are socialized result in seriously different understandings of communication. (All of it being a tendency, though, not an absolute.) What you're channeling right now is what seems to me a very dudeish understanding of communication, one which totally makes sense to me as a guy, but clearly isn't the same understanding everyone has, and apparently women specifically tend to see it differently.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Actually, I seldom do. Shitty people use things like that and good people don't need to be saddled with it.

This fread was bolloxed a long time ago.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Actually, I seldom do. Shitty people use things like that and good people don't need to be saddled with it.

This fread was bolloxed a long time ago.

Using the personality model, different people also put different value on their feeling/thoughts. So thinking People will value clarity in thought, Feelers value clarity in feeling, and both try to hone those skills in relationships and discussion.

Not to say thinkers are unfeeling or feelers are unthinking, but this is one of the four divides that tends to be noticable.

Now that I think about it, I recently was in the situation of having to tell some people something just so they know how I felt, oddly enough.
To cut a looong story short, I was the subject of a lot of email drama and some personal attacks within a group related to an organization I've been heavily involved in. It was resolved within a few days to the point that I didn't have any hard feeling for the people who attacked me and they had all taken their attacks back. And others overwhelmingly responded in my favor once the shit and fan had met. But for months I had this feeling of having been slapped in the face by the whole group because they allowed such a thing to happen. And it was very important to me to make sure that some of them, those I had worked closely with especially, knew how the whole thing had made me feel and still made me feel.

The weird thing was, before that point I had a few conversations with a few (mostly cisgal) friends in that group, where it seemed to me more important to agree on how crappy, unacceptable, and factually incorrect the attacks were, but my friends responded only to my emotional state, which was weird and confusing but still helpful in overcoming it.

In retrospect I've thought that what was actually going on was that I was in desperate need of consolation from people close enough to me and to the drama to understand both, but I wasn't able to admit that to myself and instead thought I need to make sure people understand how what happened and what was said about me was wrong. In other words, I needed the "how to fix things" angle in order to make the conversation legitimate to me, in order to allow myself to express what was going on. I consciously only wanted to talk to people who I was close with, though, which kinda tells me that looking for sympathy was a bigger part of it than I realized at the time.

I might just be blabbering here, but maybe this is helpful in the communication expectations part of the discussion.

Umm I think I may have gotten side-tracked and forgotten to mention what was supposed to be the point in that last one.

Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 11:32:02 PM
And it was very important to me to make sure that some of them, those I had worked closely with especially, knew how the whole thing had made me feel and still made me feel.

It was very important to me because I had previously always been really glad to donate my time and effort in this group, and after the drama stuff I wasn't interested in doing that at all. I knew that people were relying on my availability and engagement for certain things, to some extent, and needed them to understand how things had changed.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Understanding. Because you can't really understand why someone reacts unless you understand how they feel.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Fuck yes. This x 1000.

Regardless of what bits you have dangling between your legs, communication solely for the purpose of emotional validation is fucking retarded. Learn to deal with your own head and save conversing with me for when you have something interesting or relevant to relay.

I disagree somewhat. I don't have a problem with people communicating because they want some emotional validation (PD.com may not be the right venue for that though). A lot of communication is "I'm Here. Are you there?"

If you're with friends, it might be "I'm here feeling bad/funky/screwed up. Are you there, to help me through this?"

Note though, in my experience at pd.com its: "I'm here feeling bad/funky/screwed up. Are you there, ready to beat my emotions into a pulp and get my head out of this spot with sarcasm, jokes, WOMPS and other assorted tools?"

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 20, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
I disagree somewhat. I don't have a problem with people communicating because they want some emotional validation (PD.com may not be the right venue for that though). A lot of communication is "I'm Here. Are you there?"

I would always be cautious of that. Would you write about your personal emotional experiences on the bathroom wall or in front of an audience of thousands without knowing their motives or intentions?

As a forum we don't provide a safe platform for that and we never can.

Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 05:40:06 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 20, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
I disagree somewhat. I don't have a problem with people communicating because they want some emotional validation (PD.com may not be the right venue for that though). A lot of communication is "I'm Here. Are you there?"

I would always be cautious of that. Would you write about your personal emotional experiences on the bathroom wall or in front of an audience of thousands without knowing their motives or intentions?

As a forum we don't provide a safe platform for that and we never can.

Very true. I think there are valid places for that kind of communication... I just dunno if the Internet, or specifically a forum filled with the load of kooks we have here, is the right place.  :lulz:

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Actually, I seldom do. Shitty people use things like that and good people don't need to be saddled with it.

That's a really fucked up thing to say, both of you.

How so? I wouldn't feel safe doing it, I have no way of making it safe for anyone else, would you preferred I lied?

Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
How so? I wouldn't feel safe doing it, I have no way of making it safe for anyone else, would you preferred I lied?

I'm not talking about interbutts, I agree that it isn't a good place for that. I'm talking about the disgust and contempt for people who need to talk about their their feelings that pent and Stella seem to hold. 

I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 20, 2012, 06:21:12 PM

Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
How so? I wouldn't feel safe doing it, I have no way of making it safe for anyone else, would you preferred I lied?

I'm not talking about interbutts, I agree that it isn't a good place for that. I'm talking about the disgust and contempt for people who need to talk about their their feelings that pent and Stella seem to hold.

Sorry, on my phone quotes are collapsed.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 20, 2012, 06:04:31 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Actually, I seldom do. Shitty people use things like that and good people don't need to be saddled with it.

That's a really fucked up thing to say, both of you.

Let me guess, it makes your inner child weep little rainbow coloured tears of desperation?  :lulz:

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Fuck yes. This x 1000.

Regardless of what bits you have dangling between your legs, communication solely for the purpose of emotional validation is fucking retarded. Learn to deal with your own head and save conversing with me for when you have something interesting or relevant to relay.

But Hustle, the delicate little snowflakes shouldn't have to learn to deal. The world should be nice and fluffy and unicorns and shit and, until we make it like that for them, we should listen to them whining like little bitches, cos that makes them feel all better.

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

It makes sense to me! Thanks for being far more articulate than I can ever manage about this stuff, Pixie.

I was counting you in the "will most probably know what the fuck I am talking about crowd."

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

I think that there are two separate lines of thinking happening...

On the one hand, I agree completely with you that people shouldn't need to modify who/what they are in order to avoid harassment.
On the other hand, we live in a shitty society and 'should' rarely translates into anything real.

Of course anyone who wants to should feel safe wearing a hoodie, a miniskirt or whatever they damn well please. Unfortunately, that's not how it works today, even though most of us here agree that is how it should work.

Tangible actions and solutions for the problem would be a good idea. I think, though, that many of the responding guys were thinking about tangible actions and solutions NOW (ie be tough, carry a sharp point thing and know how to use it, etc). I think, perhaps, the women were more interested in discussing tangible actions that would influence society at large, reducing or eradicating the guys that act like assholes.

That leads us to the second layer of the issue; the overall jaded view most of the people at PD.com have of the world in general. I.E. A just, equal, egalitarian society may be highly desired, but given the large number of monkeys... its something difficult to even conceive of in a realistic way.

I can see how that might feel dismissive to the women, while feeling realistic to the guys.

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 09:15:16 PM
I was counting you in the "will most probably know what the fuck I am talking about crowd."

:lol:

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

You're equating telling people to be loud and assertive when the situation calls for it to telling black kids not to wear hoodies or they might be shot?

At what point did anybody say ""I am urging the parents of female youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing miniskirts. I think the miniskirt is as much responsible for rape as rapists are."?

Where is this "anything but assertiveness" coming from, anyway? It does nothing to advance women, or anyone else.

Yea, immediate solutions to the way it is now is something most women have covered anyway, so telling us "that's just how it is" seems to shut off the conversation as to HOW TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL DYNAMIC THAT CAUSES THE BULLSHIT, because we already know and have already been doing the things suggested, and telling US how to fix it without looking in yourself to see if you can contribute to a change in the situation isn't going to do shit and is going to make you seem like a condescending, patronising menstrual cramp.

I've never been under any impression that change is going to happen overnight if dudes just did as we told them, just that there is a dynamic maybe that hasn't been considered, and to work on it in your personal sphere of influence is how to spread the idea that racist/sexist/homophobia/ableism/any other ism you can think of isn't something you will tolerate in your personal space and in that of those around you, and the scripts for dealing with these situations, and affect a creep towards a less shitty situation.

After all, it was only 150 years ago we were pouring grains into male and female skulls and measuring intelligence based on brain size, and all the racist and sexist notions of those times and those paternalistic superiority of the white dude just HAD to be proved by science.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 09:34:03 PM

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

You're equating telling people to be loud and assertive when the situation calls for it to telling black kids not to wear hoodies or they might be shot?

At what point did anybody say ""I am urging the parents of female youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing miniskirts. I think the miniskirt is as much responsible for rape as rapists are."?

Where is this "anything but assertiveness" coming from, anyway? It does nothing to advance women, or anyone else.

No, at no point have I advocated not encouraging assertiveness,  but if that's all we are suggesting then the problem isn't going to go away, is it?

When the rock hits me or grabs my ass, I am going to fucking well holler.  Doesn't mean the perp will change his attitude or stop the behaviour. That kind of instruction or change is going to come from someone that the perp respects, which obviously isn't women or he wouldn't behave that way. 

But the "don't wear that skirt" sentiment is rife outside of PeeDee, in the world at large, otherwise we wouldn't have had the SlutWalk movement.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 08:10:12 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Fuck yes. This x 1000.

Regardless of what bits you have dangling between your legs, communication solely for the purpose of emotional validation is fucking retarded. Learn to deal with your own head and save conversing with me for when you have something interesting or relevant to relay.

But Hustle, the delicate little snowflakes shouldn't have to learn to deal. The world should be nice and fluffy and unicorns and shit and, until we make it like that for them, we should listen to them whining like little bitches, cos that makes them feel all better.

Wow.

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it completely.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 20, 2012, 09:23:42 PM

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

I think that there are two separate lines of thinking happening...

On the one hand, I agree completely with you that people shouldn't need to modify who/what they are in order to avoid harassment.
On the other hand, we live in a shitty society and 'should' rarely translates into anything real.

Of course anyone who wants to should feel safe wearing a hoodie, a miniskirt or whatever they damn well please. Unfortunately, that's not how it works today, even though most of us here agree that is how it should work.

Tangible actions and solutions for the problem would be a good idea. I think, though, that many of the responding guys were thinking about tangible actions and solutions NOW (ie be tough, carry a sharp point thing and know how to use it, etc). I think, perhaps, the women were more interested in discussing tangible actions that would influence society at large, reducing or eradicating the guys that act like assholes.

That leads us to the second layer of the issue; the overall jaded view most of the people at PD.com have of the world in general. I.E. A just, equal, egalitarian society may be highly desired, but given the large number of monkeys... its something difficult to even conceive of in a realistic way.

I can see how that might feel dismissive to the women, while feeling realistic to the guys.

There are two categories of solutions.

Category A is the category of solutions that are coping mechanisms. That's the category you address when the discussion is NOT about changing culture/society, or trying to make the world a better place, but rather simply of trying to get along as well as you can under the existing circumstances.

Category B is the category of solutions that are social change; of making the world less fucked-up so that the coping mechanisms in category A are less necessary.

For example, a black man in 1940's Mississippi would have been well-advised to cross the street and keep his eyes averted if he sees a white woman come down the sidewalk, to avoid being hanged for "eyeball rape". The same black man would be well-advised to grin and yassuh and be cringingly obsequious to any white man who addressed him. These are category A solutions to avoid being the target of violence.

In a discussion of category B solutions (social change), suggesting category A solutions (status quo coping mechanisms) is not only circular and irrelevant, but also insulting. We know about the coping mechanisms; we want social change. If you are not interested in discussing social change, why take part in the discussion? It is the equivalent of going into a Civil Rights movement meeting and saying "Y'all just need to shuck and bob some more; this is the way the world IS, you need to be realistic".

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 08:10:12 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Fuck yes. This x 1000.

Regardless of what bits you have dangling between your legs, communication solely for the purpose of emotional validation is fucking retarded. Learn to deal with your own head and save conversing with me for when you have something interesting or relevant to relay.

But Hustle, the delicate little snowflakes shouldn't have to learn to deal. The world should be nice and fluffy and unicorns and shit and, until we make it like that for them, we should listen to them whining like little bitches, cos that makes them feel all better.

That's actually pretty needlessly insulting, and also not at all what I was trying to say so I hope nobody conflates my post with yours. Remember, I was talking about communication SOLELY for the purpose of emotional validation.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 10:27:51 PM

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it completely.

No one (here at PD) has said "don't act/think/dress like that" as advice on how to fix the problem. That happens, yes. It should be stopped. But it doesn't happen here. What we have here is one group of people says "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways," and another group that says... "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways." Two equally uncompromising groups who, when we aren't specifically discussing this topic, don't actually cross these lines very often.

What is the point of this discussion? One month ago, nobody here was assumed to be sexist or anti-woman. Now, we have a number of people who are racing for that line because of the nature of the Internet, where arguments become very extreme as quickly as possible. So this discussion, about improving gender relations in society at large, has effectively caused a schism roughly along gender lines in the immediate society. If this is not typical Human behavior I don't know what is.

This is why it is my belief that forcing the issues of one or another gender, however technically necessary it may be, is a bad idea compared to everyone pretending that gender doesn't fucking exist. There's no reason that won't work, except for a dwindling number of assholes who are going to die out anyway.

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 10:52:09 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 10:27:51 PM

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it completely.

No one (here at PD) has said "don't act/think/dress like that" as advice on how to fix the problem. That happens, yes. It should be stopped. But it doesn't happen here. What we have here is one group of people says "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways," and another group that says... "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways." Two equally uncompromising groups who, when we aren't specifically discussing this topic, don't actually cross these lines very often.

What is the point of this discussion? One month ago, nobody here was assumed to be sexist or anti-woman. Now, we have a number of people who are racing for that line because of the nature of the Internet, where arguments become very extreme as quickly as possible. So this discussion, about improving gender relations in society at large, has effectively caused a schism roughly along gender lines in the immediate society. If this is not typical Human behavior I don't know what is.

This is why it is my belief that forcing the issues of one or another gender, however technically necessary it may be, is a bad idea compared to everyone pretending that gender doesn't fucking exist. There's no reason that won't work, except for a dwindling number of assholes who are going to die out anyway.

P3nt did. Just because you missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Yep.

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 10:52:09 PM

No one (here at PD) has said "don't act/think/dress like that" as advice on how to fix the problem. That happens, yes. It should be stopped. But it doesn't happen here. What we have here is one group of people says "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways," and another group that says... "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways." Two equally uncompromising groups who, when we aren't specifically discussing this topic, don't actually cross these lines very often.

What is the point of this discussion? One month ago, nobody here was assumed to be sexist or anti-woman. Now, we have a number of people who are racing for that line because of the nature of the Internet, where arguments become very extreme as quickly as possible. So this discussion, about improving gender relations in society at large, has effectively caused a schism roughly along gender lines in the immediate society. If this is not typical Human behavior I don't know what is.

This is why it is my belief that forcing the issues of one or another gender, however technically necessary it may be, is a bad idea compared to everyone pretending that gender doesn't fucking exist. There's no reason that won't work, except for a dwindling number of assholes who are going to die out anyway.

Also, v3x, I am utterly floored that your takeway from what I said is "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways".

As women, we alter our behavior constantly, profoundly, in order to minimize the chances of violence. We chat about this casually on the bus, in the office... it's just a fact of life. How on EARTH did you get that from a dialogue about changing society so that we can stop altering our behavior so much as a coping mechanism for a dangerous environment?

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 10:46:14 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 08:10:12 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Fuck yes. This x 1000.

Regardless of what bits you have dangling between your legs, communication solely for the purpose of emotional validation is fucking retarded. Learn to deal with your own head and save conversing with me for when you have something interesting or relevant to relay.

But Hustle, the delicate little snowflakes shouldn't have to learn to deal. The world should be nice and fluffy and unicorns and shit and, until we make it like that for them, we should listen to them whining like little bitches, cos that makes them feel all better.

That's actually pretty needlessly insulting, and also not at all what I was trying to say so I hope nobody conflates my post with yours. Remember, I was talking about communication SOLELY for the purpose of emotional validation.

For the record, I would have been shocked if you'd agreed with that statement, because I know that is NOT what you were saying.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 10:57:42 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 10:52:09 PM

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 10:27:51 PM

Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 08:46:11 PM

Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
I don't think it's contempt, I think it's just phrased that way. Personally I think if all you want to do is "talk about your feelings," they have therapists, drum circles, and spouses for that. I don't particularly care what Random Person X from City XYZ "feels" about anything. When it comes to that scale of things, I care that the police don't fuck with me too much, that trains run on time, and that I can afford food and shelter. I do not care about the inner child of any person I don't personally know and that is because the people I do know are already standing in line for the limited number of fucks I have to give about that kind of thing.

If we're going to have Public Discourse about something, please, for the love of Christ, let its goal be action and tangible changes to society, not a grand intercontinental effort to talk about building the world's largest clothesline so we can all air our dirty laundry on it.

You can't control the interpretation of what you write, though.

There were 4 of us who came up to this wall about how a certain aspect of being female fucking sucks, we were all pretty much saying the same thing about that aspect.

We didn't even get a fucking chance to get to get to tangible actions and solutions, related to the case of creepy dudes and street harassment/sexual assault because the snarky disregard shown to how living this situation makes us feel on a day to day basis.  If a portion of society feels that certain behaviours are intimidating that come from another group, isn't that what the meat and bones of systematic racism or sexism is all about? The lived experience of the group in question?

Draw a parallel between street harassment of women by random assholes and stop-and-search of people of colour.  We all get het up about racial profiling by police here, and rightly so.  If instead we all told people of colour not to look/act/dress in a certain way to avoid getting stopped, or that the problem was how they responded to this threat and to change the way thinking of it, there would be an epic shitstorm.  Both of these situations are experienced emotionally by the target, and make them feel that freedom of movement and the ability to just go out and do this whole life thing without fear or frustration isn't something that either of these groups can currently do as it stands.

telling women/ POC to act/dress/think about it differently doesn't solve the root of the problem, and if it is a scenario that doesn't affect you and you say this shit and you aren't taking on how the emotional or experiential aspect is part of the result of oppressive actions by the group with the power and laying it down at the feet of those with the direct experience, like Geraldo telling POC not to wear hoodies in the wake of the egregious shit that happened to Trayvon Martin.

Does my parallel make any sense to anyone but me? (I'm predicting Nigel will get it, possibly Freeky and a couple of other bods.)

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it completely.

No one (here at PD) has said "don't act/think/dress like that" as advice on how to fix the problem. That happens, yes. It should be stopped. But it doesn't happen here. What we have here is one group of people says "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways," and another group that says... "I am going to continue behaving the way I have been and shouldn't be told to change my ways." Two equally uncompromising groups who, when we aren't specifically discussing this topic, don't actually cross these lines very often.

What is the point of this discussion? One month ago, nobody here was assumed to be sexist or anti-woman. Now, we have a number of people who are racing for that line because of the nature of the Internet, where arguments become very extreme as quickly as possible. So this discussion, about improving gender relations in society at large, has effectively caused a schism roughly along gender lines in the immediate society. If this is not typical Human behavior I don't know what is.

This is why it is my belief that forcing the issues of one or another gender, however technically necessary it may be, is a bad idea compared to everyone pretending that gender doesn't fucking exist. There's no reason that won't work, except for a dwindling number of assholes who are going to die out anyway.

P3nt did. Just because you missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Can't speak for p3nt but I'd be inclined to think he's trying to get a reaction more than stating his honest opinion. But even if that is his honest opinion, it would make him one of those dwindling number of assholes.

What we need is a growing disregard for gender. We do not need to be reminded that women are out there and have been oppressed. We need to be taught that gender is a non-factor. We don't need special "how to handle a black person" training; we need to be taught that race does not matter. Or, better yet, we need to eliminate the sources of education that gender and race do matter - since these are learned prejudices, not natural ones.

This is why my philosophy calls not only giving no fucks about race, gender, sexual orientation, but proactively wrestling fucks away from other people* so that they cannot give any, either. But it has nothing to do with focusing on gender or race, because such a focus is entirely antithetical to the fundamental principles of egalitarianism.






* "Wrestling fucks away from other people" is clumsy wording, not a reference to rape.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 08:07:22 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 20, 2012, 06:04:31 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:09:16 PM
I get feelings. I'm not like a robot or spock or some shit. I see someone who's obviously fucking pissed off about something, I'll be all like "What's up" and they tell me that someone did something shitty at work or their cat's dead or something and I'll be all sympathetic and shit, like genuinely sympathetic, not like I have to simulate it and, if they want advice I'll give em anything I can come up with and, yeah, sometimes I'll be the asshole that gives unsolicited advice. But if you're telling me the only reason they told me the cat story is so's I'd know they were feeling down, that's retarded. Their face told me that - it's why I asked in the first place.

And why the fuck would you feel the need to tell someone how some shit made you feel is beyond me. Feelings are personal, they're what you feel. Why tell someone who, in all probability, would feel completely differently in the same situation? What's in it for either party?

Actually, I seldom do. Shitty people use things like that and good people don't need to be saddled with it.

That's a really fucked up thing to say, both of you.

Let me guess, it makes your inner child weep little rainbow coloured tears of desperation?  :lulz:

Well, at least you have enough integrity to mock me for being different from you, and not be a hypocrite about it. That's okay though, I'd rather be capable of having empathy for people who are feeling bad than have respect from the likes of you.