Although things seem, for the most part, to be moving in a positive direction, straight white men are still, for the most part, the deciders in our culture. They dominate politics and business, and culturally are expected to be in a position of decision-making.
One of the common side effects of this is an inability to step outside of that role when it would be appropriate to do so.
"Who do you think you are, telling me that I don't understand what it's like to be a black man in the south?"
"What do you mean, I don't understand what it's like to be a woman?"
"I know exactly what it's like to be a Hispanic lesbian single mother, don't tell me I don't."
"It just alienates me when you tell me I can't really understand what it's like to be a small castrated Asian prostitute."
"I don't want to just be an ally."
"I don't see why transsexuals should have a word for people of the same sex/gender alignment. I don't like being pigeonholed."
"Native Americans shouldn't view white guys with suspicion; we deserve to be viewed as innocent unless we actually fuck them over."
"I don't see why they want another label, don't they have enough already?"
"If they won't listen to my input on how they should feel, what they should want, and how they should react, then they've lost me."
Listen, white guys. You need to step off. You're being offensive, with your being offended. Your privilege is showing in the ugliest way possible, which is in the form of entitlement. If you really want equality, the first place to start is to let the people who aren't the deciders start making decisions for themselves, and you need to step out of your accustomed socially dictated role and let them.
Don't tell me that you understand what it's like to be me, when I'm pretty sure that you don't. And for fuck sake, if I tell you that I don't think you do, don't insist. I won't insist that I understand what it's like to fight in combat or to impregnate a woman and have no power over what she does with that pregnancy, because I don't. I can try, I can imagine it, but I can't really know, any more than you can really know what it's like to be pregnant. Insisting that you understand is entitlement, it's an attempt to exercise privilege, and it's also a theft; it's insisting that you know my experience better than I know it, to such an extent that YOU know what understanding my existence is better than I do. It's insulting, it's condescending, it's dismissive, and it's a COMPLETE DICK MOVE.
I don't know what it's like to have testicles. Nope. I really don't. I don't think that gets in the way of us understanding each other's basic humanity, but I can think of a few things that do, and insisting that you really do understand what it's like to be a woman is one of them. Unless you used to be one.
Can't argue with any of that.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
"Native Americans shouldn't view white guys with suspicion; we deserve to be viewed as innocent unless we actually fuck them over."
Yes, If I recall the Irish persecution of the Native Americans was quite brutal. Hoopy indians still shudder at the sight of the fierce white devil of Kilgarven.
I'm sorry ALL whites oppressed the Native Americans.
Bless this post with everything I have.
Exactly what Nigel said.
If I can't understand, than I am not justified in agreement or disagreement. Agreement would be smiling and nodding, feigning solidarity with a position I can't really understand. Disagreement, or even trying to add my two cents to the conversation, would be injecting my own beliefs into a conversation about which I am ignorant. So my only rational choice is to butt out.
If you want to have a conversation about what it's like to be oppressed, you can't really tell everyone who doesn't already know what it's like that they can't understand. If you want to have a discussion about how to fix that oppression, and you're not willing to entertain the idea that the oppressors will ever understand, then you have to either give equal weight to their experiences as to your own, or admit you and they have nothing to talk about, since you'll never understand each other anyway.
Some straight white males are the deciders....
There are plenty who are on the butt-end of decisions, including those shaped by black men (Obama), women (Congresswomen), gay men (Barney Frank), along with all of the straight white males who were born into the RIGHT straight white families.
This smells of politics of division, to me, and I think is the wrong direction to go in, IMO.
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 02:00:10 AM
If I can't understand, than I am not justified in agreement or disagreement. Agreement would be smiling and nodding, feigning solidarity with a position I can't really understand. Disagreement, or even trying to add my two cents to the conversation, would be injecting my own beliefs into a conversation about which I am ignorant. So my only rational choice is to butt out.
If you want to have a conversation about what it's like to be oppressed, you can't really tell everyone who doesn't already know what it's like that they can't understand. If you want to have a discussion about how to fix that oppression, and you're not willing to entertain the idea that the oppressors will ever understand, then you have to either give equal weight to their experiences as to your own, or admit you and they have nothing to talk about, since you'll never understand each other anyway.
You are not getting what Nige is saying. Like, at all. Sympathy and empathy, you can (and should) have. You may certainly have parallel experiences that make it much, much easier to understand what it's like but the actual, physical living it is not something you can actually do (short of doing something like
Black Like Me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me)).
You have one(?) kid, correct? You certainly don't seem like the kind of guy who would bail on his pregnant lady, so you were there for it, yes? Would you say you get what it's actually like to be pregnant (the kid sitting on your bladder, your hormones freaking out, etc.) or would you say you can sympathize what it's like because you were there and observed how uncomfortable actually
being pregnant is because you were there for your wife through hers?
You are not allowed to disagree with our experiences (any more than we are allowed to disagree with yours). If a trans* or genderqueer person tells you what it's like to be trans* or genderqueer and you say, "oh no, that's not how it is at all!" then you are doing it wrong. If a woman tells you what it's like to be a woman, and you say, "that's totally wrong!" then you are doing it wrong. If a black man tells you what it's like to be a black man in American society, and you say, "Nu uh! That's not what it's like!" then you are doing it wrong.
You will never hide your gender from someone. You will never live in a body that is seen as public property. You will never live in a society that views you as a criminal solely because you are a black man.
In short, you will never experience what these people experience because you cannot repeat it (which isn't a bad thing; it's just a straight up fact). That is the difference between getting it (knowing it's hard and that it sucks) and living it (knowing that saying something about being trans* or GQ can loose you
everyone you know, knowing that men who get handsy with you are much more likely to be praised or ignored than stopped, being viewed as expendable).
We want your input. We need your help solving the problems. This requires your empathy. It doesn't need you to say "I get it" in a way that means you've lived what we have (because you can't and you haven't).
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 20, 2012, 02:16:36 AM
Some straight white males are the deciders....
There are plenty who are on the butt-end of decisions, including those shaped by black men (Obama), women (Congresswomen), gay men (Barney Frank), along with all of the straight white males who were born into the RIGHT straight white families.
This smells of politics of division, to me, and I think is the wrong direction to go in, IMO.
On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go. Video games and movies and books and politics (who is being thrown under the bus this election in favor of gaining the SWM demographic's vote?) are all aimed at SWM (over all, and the ones that are not are very frequently condescending and still tainted by WSM's idea about what subordinate groups like).
Also, "yeah, some of us have to deal with decisions made by x groups" is kind of begrudging those groups their progress (particularly because those are individual people and not an entire culture). We've lived under the onerous (less so, the last fifty-ish years) yoke of white straight men (this comment is attacking the system, not anyone here because PD seems to be populated by people who get how shitty history is). Let us have our progress. Further, we are still, by
far, outweighed by the power of straight white men.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Totally tangential curiosity: the Great White Fathers - more apt version of the 'Fathers of American History' basically?
Less tangential curiosity: what class did these men come from? Because class is an
enormous deciding factor in nearly everything.
edited for clarity.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 20, 2012, 02:16:36 AM
Some straight white males are the deciders....
There are plenty who are on the butt-end of decisions, including those shaped by black men (Obama), women (Congresswomen), gay men (Barney Frank), along with all of the straight white males who were born into the RIGHT straight white families.
This smells of politics of division, to me, and I think is the wrong direction to go in, IMO.
To be more specific, Danny Glover couldn't get funding for
Toussaint (http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/people/2008/7/26/28807/Danny-Glovers-Haiti-film-lacked-white-heroes-producers-said) because it's a film about about a former slave and one of the fathers of Haiti's independence from France. Everyone in the US and Europe said things like, "awesome concept! but where are the white heroes? no one will come see a film with no white heroes."
You know how a lot of comericals hypersexualize women? That's to appeal to men.
Modern Family actually has a gay couple, right? But they're hella camp. They're stereotypes. And how many other shows have even one openly gay character? (ETA: besides, like, GLEE).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:25:22 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Totally tangential curiosity: the Great White Fathers - more apt version of the 'Fathers of American History' basically?
Presidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Father
Quote
Less tangential curiosity: what class did these men come from? Because class is an enormous deciding factor in nearly everything you do.
Lower class, obviously. Poor as fuck. But "white males" all the same.
But I've also known a lot of middle and upper class white guys who somehow managed to learn to see through the bullshit WITHOUT going through that particular treatment. We have some here.
Thanks!
Culturally speaking, those guys count for more than either you or I, Stellz. They're still Deciders, albeit less than middle or upperclass SWM.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:44:05 AM
Thanks!
Culturally speaking, those guys count for more than either you or I, Stellz. They're still Deciders, albeit less than middle or upperclass SWM.
So when I went to the dance hall with H. and the cops dragged him out by the hair and left me alone, he was a "decider"?
Individually? No. He wasn't. But SWM over all are Deciders, which sometimes plays out in the form of entitlement Nigel talked about in the OP.
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 02:00:10 AM
If I can't understand, than I am not justified in agreement or disagreement. Agreement would be smiling and nodding, feigning solidarity with a position I can't really understand. Disagreement, or even trying to add my two cents to the conversation, would be injecting my own beliefs into a conversation about which I am ignorant. So my only rational choice is to butt out.
If you want to have a conversation about what it's like to be oppressed, you can't really tell everyone who doesn't already know what it's like that they can't understand. If you want to have a discussion about how to fix that oppression, and you're not willing to entertain the idea that the oppressors will ever understand, then you have to either give equal weight to their experiences as to your own, or admit you and they have nothing to talk about, since you'll never understand each other anyway.
You have it backwards, which, ironically, makes me feel like you didn't really listen to what I was trying to say. You can listen, and you can gain cognitive and sympathetic (not empathetic) understanding from their description.
You can't tell THEM what their experiences are, any more than they can tell you what your experiences are.
The difference you'll tend to see is that they won't try to tell you what your experiences are, because that's not their role.
If you butt out, that's the same as deciding you don't give a fuck about oppression or equality, and the fact is that we need you. We just don't need you telling us you know us better than we do. During the Civil Rights protests, a really common scenario was white guys getting involved and then just naturally, with no ill will or malice, trying to take over at meetings and dictate the way they thought things should be done. There's a difference between input, and trying to take over. Unfortunately, straight white men in America are deeply enculturated to take charge. It's wrapped up with the cultural perception of manhood.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:58:19 AM
Individually? No. He wasn't. But SWM over all are Deciders, which sometimes plays out in the form of entitlement Nigel talked about in the OP.
I don't think "over all" did him fuckall good. I doubt he was sitting in jail with knots and shit on his head going "I'm the color of the big boss man! Yeah!" I don't think he EVER thought stuff like that. If he had, I wouldn't have hung out with him. And guilt by association doesn't cut it for me here.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Stella. It's a broad fucking statement from a broad fucking sociological perspective. It's meant to be applied to a broader cultural view. It's not meant to be applied to individuals or refuted with fucking PERSONAL ANECDOTES and I wish you would stop doing that.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 04:17:55 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:58:19 AM
Individually? No. He wasn't. But SWM over all are Deciders, which sometimes plays out in the form of entitlement Nigel talked about in the OP.
I don't think "over all" did him fuckall good. I doubt he was sitting in jail with knots and shit on his head going "I'm the color of the big boss man! Yeah!" I don't think he EVER thought stuff like that. If he had, I wouldn't have hung out with him. And guilt by association doesn't cut it for me here.
Are you trying to say white men are at an equal level of subjugation by The Man™. If so, how does your single anecdote supply evidence for that position?
I don think anyone is suggesting that white men somehow don't get fucked over. But the overwhelming power white men have in western culture is, you know I stayed out of these threads for a reason. Never mind.
Actually no.
Should there be a term for non trans people? Sure. Should it be used as a slur because people get caught up in the idea that they've been (hur hur) getting the shaft for a loooong time and man it feels good to be vindicated? No.
Clearly, many of these ideas are new to many white men who aren't fully aware of those issues. But we can't get anywhere without them. So yeah there's difficulty in getting lines of communication together so some real progress can be made. And that's hard, often unpleasant work. For both sides. Which, you know, really shouldn't be arguing amongst themselves because there is an actual, real, bona fide Enemy out there.
Which I think Roger tried to illustrate with that link.
YET, these conversations are crucial as they address and expose certain gaps in communication for which we have no bridges. Yet.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 04:18:29 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Stella. It's a broad fucking statement from a broad fucking sociological perspective. It's meant to be applied to a broader cultural view. It's not meant to be applied to individuals or refuted with fucking PERSONAL ANECDOTES and I wish you would stop doing that.
Stepping out of this thread, then. I don't do "white/black/whatever guys are this way (even though a lot of them aren't)" well.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 04:28:25 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 04:18:29 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Stella. It's a broad fucking statement from a broad fucking sociological perspective. It's meant to be applied to a broader cultural view. It's not meant to be applied to individuals or refuted with fucking PERSONAL ANECDOTES and I wish you would stop doing that.
Stepping out of this thread, then. I don't do "white/black/whatever guys are this way (even though a lot of them aren't)" well.
Well no one here, aside from you, is talking about that. I think you're having a wholly different conversation.
To begin: anecdotal exceptions to not prove or disprove dick.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 04:28:25 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 04:18:29 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
Yeah. Big difference in Great White Fathers, banksters, etc. and some of the white guys I've known, who might have gotten marginally more consideration from the "powers that be" than the local Black folks, but not enough to keep them from being worked over by the cops or held in jail for weeks on so-called charges like "suspicion". Kind of a broad brush.
Stella. It's a broad fucking statement from a broad fucking sociological perspective. It's meant to be applied to a broader cultural view. It's not meant to be applied to individuals or refuted with fucking PERSONAL ANECDOTES and I wish you would stop doing that.
Stepping out of this thread, then. I don't do "white/black/whatever guys are this way (even though a lot of them aren't)" well.
That's not what this thread is about, and it's not what ANY sociological or anthropological discussions are about. They're about trends within cultures. Black guys may, indeed, tend to be a certain way within a certain culture. So may white guys or women or Asians or people with freckles, because of societal norms. When you're addressing sociological issues such as race or gender inequity, you HAVE to use a broad brush, or you can't address anything at all.
Overall in Western cultures, white guys are in charge. Saying we can't speak to that because it's a "broad brush" is like saying we can't speak to the fact that Arab men are in charge in Saudi Arabia, that Chinese men are in charge in China, or that Nazis were in charge in Nazi Germany. The issue still exists, and the only way to address it is in generalizations because we're talking about a culture and its norms and pressures, not about individuals.
In other words, if my attempts at e-prime in the OP didn't make it clear, the fact that the cultural trend reinforces certain behavior doesn't automatically make it true of all white guys, and the whole point of this thread and others like it is to get people to think about whether that cultural norm is affecting them, and, if it is, to encourage them to opt out of it. But you can't opt out of behavior you aren't consciously aware of.
Privilege can actually be measured, in my experience. The easiest way to measure it is by how well dressed you have to be when you walk into a building with a turnstile and a guard.
White guy: Be clean, and wear clean clothes. Try not to be carrying a firearm. As a general rule, the more extreme your hairstyle is, the more expensive your shirt should be. Follow these rules, and nobody will ask who you are or where you're going.
Black guy: Be very clean. No facial hair. Wear a sport coat and an expensive shirt. No piercings. SHINY SHOES. Failure to meet any of these qualifications will earn you at least a short interrogation. Crazy hair is only permissible if you're famous - otherwise you will not be allowed, no matter how many forms of ID you show, unless the guard can call your destination and make sure you're OK.
White woman: Same rules as white man, except add 100% to the cost of your outfit. Also you will be asked where you're going. Usually this is not an indication of suspicion, but an indication that the guard assumes you need help. Women are a little air headed and get lost easily.
Black woman: Same rules as white woman, but add another 25-50% of your to the cost of your clothes. And you'll be asked for your destination AND your identity. You won't have too much more trouble than that, because the guard fears that you'll have one of those "black woman attitudes" if you get treated like a black man.
Asian man/woman: Same as white man/woman, unless you look poor. Then apply rules for black man/woman.
Native American man/woman: Uhh, we don't have firewater here, red man.
Non-seq, there, Vex.
Non-Seq is my middle name.
I think this can go here, it's a topic that's mightily spread out and, clearly, confusing for many of us.
The crux of this, as I see it:
It's pointless to say these terms are useless. It's pointless to say white men get fucked too. While it's very impotent to have these conversations it is not the goal.
The attempt to bridge the gap between what men who never have to worry about their sexuality THINK about what women experience daily is important, but only as a means of moving forward with The Plan. And like political agnoism, it's probably a good idea (and one which will combat fatigue) to assume a certain amount of conflict in these discussions and focus on that aspect.
Example I've posted before:
Drag queen complains about tranny not "passing" and that "If you can't make that shit look good you shouldn't even bother."
The only course of action is to bring this error in self-interest and understanding to light. You know what happens when you call out a drag queen for acting in a way that's hurtful? *shudder* It's NOT pleasant. And yet...it must be done. MUST be done. And me mocking some drag queen, which given the drag queen in question, I can handle, probably won't have an over effect.
Maybe a long term one. One mistake we shouldn't make is assuming that just because you put things in a logical sequence, and someone soaks that information in their brain meat, does not translate into full understanding. These are large, pervasive, and another fancy word that means big and complicated issues.
ALSO: We are still developing as humans, as a whole. We are likely not to have all the tools/perspective/language we need to get to where we want to go when we are in truly strange territory.
Stella, I'm sorry for being so bitchy. I think you're right and I'm overextended. I really need to mellow out.
If there's no way in hell I can possibly understand your thing then why in fuck have you dedicated your existence to trying to explain it to me?
Oh wait, that's right you're not trying to explain, you're just impotently bitching and whining? fine. Carry on.
(White) men cannot understand, but our help is needed. We have an obligation to help, partly because we recognize there is a problem and partly because we are the ones "in charge," so we are the only ones who can change things. At least, without a revolution. But we cannot be in charge of what needs to be done, and since we do not understand what it is like to be oppressed we cannot offer advice on what might mitigate that oppression if our advice has anything to do with changing the opinions or behaviors of the oppressed. We can only be of assistance in doing it. We are like lions, if a lion could be hired to guide a safari through lion territory.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Guess I'll just chew on this antelope leg and watch from the sidelines with detached amusement 8)
I'm not interested in feeding Pent, there, but I want point out that lions are probably a bad metaphor because lions are not actually very useful and eat their step kids.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 08:53:33 AM
I want point out that lions are probably a bad metaphor because lions are not actually very useful and eat their step kids.
I want to hang this quote up on my wall, sans context. It's beautiful.
:thanks:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 06:55:18 AM
Stella, I'm sorry for being so bitchy. I think you're right and I'm overextended. I really need to mellow out.
No problem, Nigel, it's all good.
Just came back to check what was happening here and glad I did, but still bowing out of this one. Not because of anything you said, really, except in the sense that it's part of the writing on the wall. Bowing out because this whole thing's turning to a clusterfuck.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 09:17:50 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 06:55:18 AM
Stella, I'm sorry for being so bitchy. I think you're right and I'm overextended. I really need to mellow out.
No problem, Nigel, it's all good.
Just came back to check what was happening here and glad I did, but still bowing out of this one. Not because of anything you said, really, except in the sense that it's part of the writing on the wall. Bowing out because this whole thing's turning to a clusterfuck.
Yep. I don't think I really want to talk about kyriarchy here anymore. Which is a shame.
Meh, I think the crux of this thread is still woefully misdirected politics of division. I'd love to have one of you go to some of the old French families inmy community, who have experienced GENERATIONAL poverty, with straight white male fathers/husbands, and tell them they are Deciders.
That's more than anecdote, there are whole neighborhoods full of these families, and they are in YOUR communities too,maybe they are Irish instead, or English, or whatever...
They aren't fucking Deciders. They've been getting the screws put to them for decades.
Broad brush fail!
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 20, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
Meh, I think the crux of this thread is still woefully misdirected politics of division. I'd love to have one of you go to some of the old French families inmy community, who have experienced GENERATIONAL poverty, with straight white male fathers/husbands, and tell them they are Deciders.
That's more than anecdote, there are whole neighborhoods full of these families, and they are in YOUR communities too,maybe they are Irish instead, or English, or whatever...
They aren't fucking Deciders. They've been getting the screws put to them for decades.
Broad brush fail!
No quite the reverse, actually. Broad brush WIN; why? Because you have just brought us right back to where this whole slew of threads /arguments discussions /misinterpretations started:-
Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 07:52:23 AM
If there's no way in hell I can possibly understand your thing then why in fuck have you dedicated your existence to trying to explain it to me?
Oh wait, that's right you're not trying to explain, you're just impotently bitching and whining? fine. Carry on.
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:27:33 AM
(White) men cannot understand, but our help is needed. We have an obligation to help, partly because we recognize there is a problem and partly because we are the ones "in charge," so we are the only ones who can change things. At least, without a revolution. But we cannot be in charge of what needs to be done, and since we do not understand what it is like to be oppressed we cannot offer advice on what might mitigate that oppression if our advice has anything to do with changing the opinions or behaviors of the oppressed. We can only be of assistance in doing it. We are like lions, if a lion could be hired to guide a safari through lion territory.
OK, good, the two of you have succeeded in convincing me that you're both complete fucking idiots with no interest in social change or understanding.
In closing, go fuck yourselves to death with sharp sticks. Congratulations on being part of the problem, DIAF. That is all.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 08:32:37 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought. Guess I'll just chew on this antelope leg and watch from the sidelines with detached amusement 8)
You, personally, are the biggest and most useless piece of shit since that fat retarded Republican that foams up the radio. You're useless, AND you seem to suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or similar cognitive development setbacks. It's too bad your country doesn't have more support for the weak, or that might have been preventable... but you probably deserved it.
QuoteQuote from: Gen. Disregard on August 20, 2012, 02:16:36 AM
Some straight white males are the deciders....
There are plenty who are on the butt-end of decisions, including those shaped by black men (Obama), women (Congresswomen), gay men (Barney Frank), along with all of the straight white males who were born into the RIGHT straight white families.
This smells of politics of division, to me, and I think is the wrong direction to go in, IMO.
On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.
Horseshit. Again, I'd love to see you try to sell that shit to a straight white male drowning in generational poverty. Please have a camera with you when you do, I really want to see what happens.
QuoteAlso, "yeah, some of us have to deal with decisions made by x groups" is kind of begrudging those groups their progress (particularly because those are individual people and not an entire culture).
Yet, somehow, the straight white men in power and their actions speak for all straight white males. That's some flimsy ass logic you are working with there.
QuoteWe've lived under the onerous (less so, the last fifty-ish years) yoke of white straight men (this comment is attacking the system, not anyone here because PD seems to be populated by people who get how shitty history is). Let us have our progress. Further, we are still, by far, outweighed by the power of straight white men.
Uh, no one wants to take progress away, but fuck, if you are going to deal in this broad politics of division, painting with such broad strokes, you are going to make future progress that much harder. If you are going to lump poor white men in with the 1%, how,do you think that's going to go over? Or maybe you don't care. But I don't find that to be very fairminded.
You are really not getting it. Advertising is aimed at SWM. Politicians throw the rest of the population under the bus to get their vote. Books and video games are aimed at SWM.
Your consumption determines societal output. Fucking read what I goddamn posted in the post right after that.
Quote from: MMIX on August 20, 2012, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 20, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
Meh, I think the crux of this thread is still woefully misdirected politics of division. I'd love to have one of you go to some of the old French families inmy community, who have experienced GENERATIONAL poverty, with straight white male fathers/husbands, and tell them they are Deciders.
That's more than anecdote, there are whole neighborhoods full of these families, and they are in YOUR communities too,maybe they are Irish instead, or English, or whatever...
They aren't fucking Deciders. They've been getting the screws put to them for decades.
Broad brush fail!
No quite the reverse, actually. Broad brush WIN; why? Because you have just brought us right back to where this whole slew of threads /arguments discussions /misinterpretations started:-
Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
What she said.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:04:01 AM
You are really not getting it. Advertising is aimed at SWM. Politicians throw the rest of the population under the bus to get their vote. Books and video games are aimed at SWM.
Your consumption determines societal output. Fucking read what I goddamn posted in the post right after that.
Being "The Deciders" for XBOX marketing isn't quite the same as being "The Deciders" for public policy. Again, I dare you to go tell some poor white kid that he is a "Decider" for the latter. And I'm not sure poor white kids are really at the top of the list for marketers either, since without the Almighty dollars, they can't actually Decide on jack shit.
Sure, I'll tell him.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:04:01 AM
You are really not getting it. Advertising is aimed at SWM. Politicians throw the rest of the population under the bus to get their vote. Books and video games are aimed at SWM.
Your consumption determines societal output. Fucking read what I goddamn posted in the post right after that.
Being "The Deciders" for XBOX marketing isn't quite the same as being "The Deciders" for public policy.
Yes one has a direct impact on the lives of millions and and enacts change over time, the other is public policy.
Quote from: Faust on August 21, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:04:01 AM
You are really not getting it. Advertising is aimed at SWM. Politicians throw the rest of the population under the bus to get their vote. Books and video games are aimed at SWM.
Your consumption determines societal output. Fucking read what I goddamn posted in the post right after that.
Being "The Deciders" for XBOX marketing isn't quite the same as being "The Deciders" for public policy.
Yes one has a direct impact on the lives of millions and and enacts change over time, the other is public policy.
:spittake:
Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.
In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.
His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".
:lulz: Fair enough.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 10:09:18 PM
Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.
In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.
His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".
This.
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 10:11:36 PM
:lulz: Fair enough.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 10:09:18 PM
Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.
In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.
His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".
This.
Agreed.
Representing one small subset of the disempowerd doesn't make sense the entirety of the ingrained power hierarchy needs to be attacked in order of those at the top to the bottom.
Quote from: Faust on August 21, 2012, 10:14:56 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 10:11:36 PM
:lulz: Fair enough.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 10:09:18 PM
Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.
In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.
His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".
This.
Agreed.
Representing one small subset of the disempowerd doesn't make sense the entirety of the ingrained power hierarchy needs to be attacked in order of those at the top to the bottom.
:spittake:
As a Somalist (Representing somalia), the least powerful large group of people I could quickly find
I demand an immediate redistribution of wealth and a power sharing operation be established with the following people
http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/
Also New York is to be given to Afganistan, like last week.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 10:09:18 PM
Somebody doesn't grasp that whole "sociology" concept.
In order to ascertain a median, you have to have a large sample of individuals, all of whom will fall on one side of the median or the other. You can't refute science with anecdotes; it doesn't work that way.
His argument basically boils down to "because some white kids are disempowered, there is no institutionalized power imbalance or culturally ingrained power hierarchy".
Some? :lulz:
Maybe it's different in the shangri-la of the Pacific Northwest but I can show you streets and streets of "some" here in Maine. They aren't "deciding" jack shit.
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
I don't know what to say, because it would be really, really hard to say with a straight face that I don't have privilege and a lot more options than any other demographic group.
For example, I have been given the ability to fail and then get right back up with relative ease. I can bounce back from a stupid mistake with less effort than could a woman or a Black person. Example: When I fuck up, it doesn't necessarily mean permanently losing prestige (woman in the workplace) or JAIL FOR LIFE (Black person).
I intellectually abhor privilege, in the same way a fish could intellectually abhor water, or the way an American could abhor slave labor...Loudly, on a piece of electronics made by slave children in Bangladesh.
And I'm definitely in the decider class. In my small world, I have the power to bind and to loose (read: hire & fire). I really only have to answer to one person in my workplace.
All of this is true. What, though, is to be done about it?
Interesting note: In the New Testament, Jesus goes on about this for WHOLE CHAPTERS.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
Point worth mentioning: The poor Whites with no power fought very hard for the South in the civil war, even though victory meant a static class system in which they could not advance. They would not, however, be on the BOTTOM of the shit heap, which was apparently enough motivation to go get blown to gobbets.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Hey. This addresses the new subject.
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:55:28 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
Point worth mentioning: The poor Whites with no power fought very hard for the South in the civil war, even though victory meant a static class system in which they could not advance. They would not, however, be on the BOTTOM of the shit heap, which was apparently enough motivation to go get blown to gobbets.
Okay but not-being-at-the-absolute-bottom =\= being a Decider.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
You can't not vote. You may decide not to cast a ballot, but that's still a vote. It is a vote for "I have no opinion, someone decide for me."
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
He makes sure his kid isn't a fag. He makes sure his wife knows her place. He lives a life prescribed by deciders because he thinks they're on the same side. And for as long as he does, they are.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:59:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:55:28 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
Point worth mentioning: The poor Whites with no power fought very hard for the South in the civil war, even though victory meant a static class system in which they could not advance. They would not, however, be on the BOTTOM of the shit heap, which was apparently enough motivation to go get blown to gobbets.
Okay but not-being-at-the-absolute-bottom =\= being a Decider.
I disagree. The Southern soldiers, for example, decided to enforce the will of the actual deciders. No politician, autocrat, or king can function without at least the tacit support of the population. Deciding to bow to that decider is to take part in that person's decisions.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
HEY, RWHN!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:59:49 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
You can't not vote. You may decide not to cast a ballot, but that's still a vote. It is a vote for "I have no opinion, someone decide for me."
I dunno, I haven't seen too many decision makers go into skid row to shake hands and campaign for the "not vote". They don't hold any power at all.
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:00:32 AM
He makes sure his kid isn't a fag. He makes sure his wife knows her place. He lives a life prescribed by deciders because he thinks they're on the same side. And for as long as he does, they are.
He goes to church, to be told how to act. He goes to the bar with his friends, to practice what he's learned when people like Garbo come in for a drink with friends. He does whatever he's told, to whomever is appropriate.
He's
Building The Dream. It just isn't
his dream.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:59:49 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
You can't not vote. You may decide not to cast a ballot, but that's still a vote. It is a vote for "I have no opinion, someone decide for me."
I dunno, I haven't seen too many decision makers go into skid row to shake hands and campaign for the "not vote". They don't hold any power at all.
As long as they don't vote, they are not exercising their power. That's not the same as not having it. And you don't have to go to skid row to find passive non-voters.
Did you motherfuckers put me on ignore, or something?
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
He makes sure his kid isn't a fag. He makes sure his wife knows her place. He lives a life prescribed by deciders because he thinks they're on the same side. And for as long as he does, they are.
A straight black man can do all of that. Like the straight black folks who voted against gay marriage in California, or the straight Latino men....
Look, my main argument here is that it is nonsense to throw around this stupid Decider label when it ignores the current and ACTUAL power structure in this society. It isn't poor straight white guys, fuck, it isn't middle class straight white guys. It's fat fucks in Washington, on Wall Street, on 5th Avenue, in Hollywood....
You are dividing the wrong people.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 22, 2012, 12:03:24 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:00:32 AM
He makes sure his kid isn't a fag. He makes sure his wife knows her place. He lives a life prescribed by deciders because he thinks they're on the same side. And for as long as he does, they are.
He goes to church, to be told how to act. He goes to the bar with his friends, to practice what he's learned when people like Garbo come in for a drink with friends. He does whatever he's told, to whomever is appropriate.
He's Building The Dream. It just isn't his dream.
He wears the right kind of clothes. He wouldn't get an earring, but if he did it would be on the correct side of his face.
RWHN, you seem to think that Deciders are strictly calling the shots. I don't think what Nigel was trying to illustrate was so literal. They decide what is right on a broad scale that nevertheless is applicable to the minutiae of people's lives.
These people decide that it's not okay to be gay, and legions of people back them up. It's the kind of thing people only vaguely hint they support (unless they're Palin or the like) from behind a podium, but make cracks about at the men's club.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 12:07:17 AM
Did you motherfuckers put me on ignore, or something?
No sorry, just a lot of posting going on today.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Hey. This addresses the new subject.
You said this before I said my thing, which is actually better said than what I said.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:09:12 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Actually, I think he's trying to focus on the "Some, but not all" position, rather than saying there's no institutionalized imbalance.
Its a true point, in that most people in a society don't actually control the society, even if they have the same color and shape of dangly bits that the people in charge have. However, from a broad perspective, there is a bias in society toward SWM. Its not so much that they are the Deciders, as it is that The Deciders are biased toward the SWM.
I think.
Yes. It's completely disingenuous, and frankly stupid, to call all straight white men Deciders when so many of them are deciding precisely zilch. If you want to talk broadly that straight white males, as a faceless cohort, have on balance had things a lot better over time than other cohorts, I can agree with that.
But don't sell me some bullshit that just because someone is straight white and male they are some Decider.
Frankly, it's insulting to those wading in the same abject poverty as other minority groups.
What about the continuation of harmful rhetoric by uneducated white men? What about when they enforce and apply world-views that keep fucking things up for everyone because those views also come from white males, whether they're rich or in poverty?
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
He makes sure his kid isn't a fag. He makes sure his wife knows her place. He lives a life prescribed by deciders because he thinks they're on the same side. And for as long as he does, they are.
A straight black man can do all of that. Like the straight black folks who voted against gay marriage in California, or the straight Latino men....
Look, my main argument here is that it is nonsense to throw around this stupid Decider label when it ignores the current and ACTUAL power structure in this society. It isn't poor straight white guys, fuck, it isn't middle class straight white guys. It's fat fucks in Washington, on Wall Street, on 5th Avenue, in Hollywood....
You are dividing the wrong people.
Yeah, because they're idiots. Wait. More. Gotta think.
Failure to cast a ballot is abdicating your measure of political power to the system itself, rather than to a direction for the system.
When some complete off-the-deep-end teatard, or some mindless treehugging hippy, or some levelheaded got-it-all-figured-out intellectual goes out and casts a ballot for the goon he likes best, he's telling the system what to go and do with itself. Maybe it's a bad direction, maybe you disagree with it. But casting that ballot is a small force exerted on the direction of the system at large.
If you just don't vote, your assigned political power still gets used. It just gets used by the system instead of by you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Hey. This addresses the new subject.
But they market that shit to SBM youth, SAM youth, basically Straight American Male youth. But what about the poor 40 year old straight white shlub? They aren't marketing anything to him. Is he a Decider? Fuck no, he's been left behind too.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 22, 2012, 12:04:31 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:59:49 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
How does a poor white guy enforce anything? Particularly if they are also NOT voting?
You can't not vote. You may decide not to cast a ballot, but that's still a vote. It is a vote for "I have no opinion, someone decide for me."
I dunno, I haven't seen too many decision makers go into skid row to shake hands and campaign for the "not vote". They don't hold any power at all.
As long as they don't vote, they are not exercising their power. That's not the same as not having it. And you don't have to go to skid row to find passive non-voters.
What Power? Even if they fucking voted they'd get jack shit in return, because as poor white males, they are the wrong people.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:12:35 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Hey. This addresses the new subject.
But they market that shit to SBM youth, SAM youth, basically Straight American Male youth. But what about the poor 40 year old straight white shlub? They aren't marketing anything to him. Is he a Decider? Fuck no, he's been left behind too.
I'd like to make another diagram, but I don't have access. But the 40SWS WANTS TO BE the SWMY. Because that's part of the Deciders marketing, too.
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:10:30 AM
RWHN, you seem to think that Deciders are strictly calling the shots. I don't think what Nigel was trying to illustrate was so literal. They decide what is right on a broad scale that nevertheless is applicable to the minutiae of people's lives.
I still call bullshit. It's patently absurd to call someone under the thumb of society a Decider just because they share the same skin tone, genitalia, and orientation of those who are ACTUALLY in charge. It's a stupid generalization and it kind of pisses me off when I work with so many in rough conditions who certainly did not Decide the lot in life they currently enjoy. It's an insulting label.
QuoteThese people decide that it's not okay to be gay, and legions of people back them up. It's the kind of thing people only vaguely hint they support (unless they're Palin or the like) from behind a podium, but make cracks about at the men's club.
Legions of people that include other skin tones and genders. It's a brush that is too broad.
I have to admit you've given me pause for thought.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 12:16:13 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:12:35 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Hey. This addresses the new subject.
But they market that shit to SBM youth, SAM youth, basically Straight American Male youth. But what about the poor 40 year old straight white shlub? They aren't marketing anything to him. Is he a Decider? Fuck no, he's been left behind too.
I'd like to make another diagram, but I don't have access. But the 40SWS WANTS TO BE the SWMY. Because that's part of the Deciders marketing, too.
The poor Somali kid in the neighborhood I work in wants to be the gangster black American kid because of the marketing he has been exposed to. But I suspect people here would not consider the straight black young men as Deciders, right?
There aren't any Deciders living here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,10495.0.html)
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:26:37 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:10:30 AM
RWHN, you seem to think that Deciders are strictly calling the shots. I don't think what Nigel was trying to illustrate was so literal. They decide what is right on a broad scale that nevertheless is applicable to the minutiae of people's lives.
I still call bullshit. It's patently absurd to call someone under the thumb of society a Decider just because they share the same skin tone, genitalia, and orientation of those who are ACTUALLY in charge. It's a stupid generalization and it kind of pisses me off when I work with so many in rough conditions who certainly did not Decide the lot in life they currently enjoy. It's an insulting label.
QuoteThese people decide that it's not okay to be gay, and legions of people back them up. It's the kind of thing people only vaguely hint they support (unless they're Palin or the like) from behind a podium, but make cracks about at the men's club.
Legions of people that include other skin tones and genders. It's a brush that is too broad.
I would agree with you if there was any such thing as someone who is "in charge" of society. Unfortunately, however, we are on a giant short bus, and nobody is driving it.
The Deciders aren't a secretive cabal of sadists plotting the demise of minorities or women or poor white guys from a bunker 10 stories underground. They are all of us, and the direction our society goes because of what happens between us. And the fact is that white guys enjoy a certain amount of -- yes -- privilege based on their genetics. But it isn't about the privilege, it's about what they
miss because of that privilege. They miss the fears of a woman trying to make it home from work after dark in the subway and past dark alleys. They miss the humiliation of the black man who has just been arrested for the crime of jaywalking while African. They miss the rational paranoia of the Hispanic family wondering if they'll be able to pay for food or rent if one of them is arrested during a routine traffic stop for no reason other than being on the wrong side of an imaginary line.
There is an entire America that white males never experience. A completely different life experience and in some cases a completely different set of resulting fears, concerns, and ethics. And while a white guy can come to terms with the fact that those things
exist, he will never really understand what it's like to
be there. So when he tries to offer his experience as "also oppressed" to those to whom he cannot relate on that level, he inevitably comes across as arrogant and
privileged.
It's like Mitt Romney telling you he understands how rough it is to be broke in college, because he and his wife were so broke in college they had to sell some of their stock. FFS. Not only is it not helpful, it's insulting.
And I think I just understood something important about the positions I've been taking in the last day or so.
RWHN, chill the fuck out. No one is attacking you.
Lemme try to lay of out for you, okay?
The crux of it is that swm are in one or another, as a part of broader demographics, who determine what life is like for all of us.
Culturally, swm of all ages and socio-economic statuses seriously impact the rest of us. Please see my comment about Danny Glover's film. Hollywood, et al. think that if there are no white heroes in a story, no one (aka, no white people) will come see it. That made it very, very hard for Glover to get funding for what looks like a fantastic story.
Straight white men are why white women are usually posed in submissive positions and why women of color are either exoticized as hypersexualized Others or deprived of their agency as Mammy.
The power of the white man is why men of color on crime shows always die of crime related violence and why the useless white girl is the one who survives horror movies.
The power of straight people is why gay people are either campy as fuck or non-existent in movies and tv shows (also Hollywood powerhouses are usually straight white men).
The power of the white man created the prison-industrial complex, imprisoning astronomical numbers men of color for the profit of rich white people.
Who writes policy? People who are mostly men, mostly white, and mostly straight.
Who mostly and usually sits in the halls of power? See the above.
Who is thrown under the bus in pursuit of the swm vote? Women, queers, PoC, and the poor (I should still write that essay about the curious alliance between the rich and poor whites, oughtn't I?)
Who are always part of the oppressive power?
Straight white men, in one form or another.
I should note that historically, rich white men have played their poorer counterparts off PoC (and women), in a very deliberate fashion, since Bacon's Rebellion in order to preserve the status quo but this does not change the fact that swm are still the broad determinors of our culture, because in order to do so required that they end up with a lot of power as a group.
I'll come back when I has actual interbutts instead of phone interbutts.
No, it's not like that at all where Romney has been set for life from the word go, while the poor white guy was scrounging for scraps from the day he was born.
The brush is too broad.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 01:07:24 AM
RWHN, chill the fuck out. No one is attacking you.
Lemme try to lay of out for you, okay?
The crux of it is that swm are in one or another, as a part of broader demographics, who determine what life is like for all of us.
Culturally, swm of all ages and socio-economic statuses seriously impact the rest of us. Please see my comment about Danny Glover's film. Hollywood, et al. think that if there are no white heroes in a story, no one (aka, no white people) will come see it. That made it very, very hard for Glover to get funding for what looks like a fantastic story.
Straight white men are why white women are usually posed in submissive positions and why women of color are either exoticized as hypersexualized Others or deprived of their agency as Mammy.
The power of the white man is why men of color on crime shows always die of crime related violence and why the useless white girl is the one who survives horror movies.
The power of straight people is why gay people are either campy as fuck or non-existent in movies and tv shows (also Hollywood powerhouses are usually straight white men).
The power of the white man created the prison-industrial complex, imprisoning astronomical numbers men of color for the profit of rich white people.
Who writes policy? People who are mostly men, mostly white, and mostly straight.
Who mostly and usually sits in the halls of power? See the above.
Who is thrown under the bus in pursuit of the swm vote? Women, queers, PoC, and the poor (I should still write that essay about the curious alliance between the rich and poor whites, oughtn't I?)
Who are always part of the oppressive power?
Straight white men, in one form or another.
I should note that historically, rich white men have played their poorer counterparts off PoC (and women), in a very deliberate fashion, since Bacon's Rebellion in order to preserve the status quo but this does not change the fact that swm are still the broad determinors of our culture, because in order to do so required that they end up with a lot of power as a group.
I'll come back when I has actual interbutts instead of phone interbutts.
Some, SWM. The ones with ACTUAL power and ACTUAL resources. The ones who have the lint in their pocket have NO power.
The brush is too broad.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 12:26:37 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 22, 2012, 12:10:30 AM
RWHN, you seem to think that Deciders are strictly calling the shots. I don't think what Nigel was trying to illustrate was so literal. They decide what is right on a broad scale that nevertheless is applicable to the minutiae of people's lives.
I still call bullshit. It's patently absurd to call someone under the thumb of society a Decider just because they share the same skin tone, genitalia, and orientation of those who are ACTUALLY in charge. It's a stupid generalization and it kind of pisses me off when I work with so many in rough conditions who certainly did not Decide the lot in life they currently enjoy. It's an insulting label.
QuoteThese people decide that it's not okay to be gay, and legions of people back them up. It's the kind of thing people only vaguely hint they support (unless they're Palin or the like) from behind a podium, but make cracks about at the men's club.
Legions of people that include other skin tones and genders. It's a brush that is too broad.
OK. I said it earlier in the thread but I guess you just didn't hear me, so I'm going to try again.
Its called the Patriarchy
I heard, doesn't change anything I've laid out in this thead. It is patently absurd and insulting to label the powerless Deciders. Do you REALLY think a 50 year old white guy who has been unemployed for ages really feels like some kind of Decider Patriarch? Of course the fuck not. He probably feels completely worthless and anything but powerful.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 01:19:35 AM
I heard, doesn't change anything I've laid out in this thead. It is patently absurd and insulting to label the powerless Deciders. Do you REALLY think a 50 year old white guy who has been unemployed for ages really feels like some kind of Decider Patriarch? Of course the fuck not. He probably feels completely worthless and anything but powerful.
So talk to his wife. A
Quote from: MMIX on August 22, 2012, 01:24:11 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 01:19:35 AM
I heard, doesn't change anything I've laid out in this thead. It is patently absurd and insulting to label the powerless Deciders. Do you REALLY think a 50 year old white guy who has been unemployed for ages really feels like some kind of Decider Patriarch? Of course the fuck not. He probably feels completely worthless and anything but powerful.
So talk to his wife. A
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
ZING. But also the correct motorcycle.
I thought about it, and the brush is indeed broad. It's not just white guys...anymore. Now it's rich male of any kind. But that's still where the focus is. Black people have no more sympathy for gay people do than any other people. Same goes for women, both ways. It comes down to individuals. HOWEVER, the overwhelming trend is dominated by males with power to...
Well, look at the GOP discourse, if you can call it that, on abortion recently. At the bare bottom of their rhetoric they take these things for granted, meanwhile I'm asking myself why we're wasting time even talking about that. Congress may as well stand around debating whether unicorns were on Noah's Ark or not.
Really, RWHN, you've helped to illustrate the problem more clearly. With a finer brush, you might say.
I just know, that if there is any progress to be made, it is going to be counterproductive to inappropriately label potential brothers-in-arms. And that is where I've been taking issue.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I just know, that if there is any progress to be made, it is going to be counterproductive to inappropriately label potential brothers-in-arms. And that is where I've been taking issue.
I fully agree with you. But when the enemy is the same as brothers-in-arms aside from their brain-meat and daily actions it becomes difficult to relay who is who at all. Which is why it's good when people who disagree with terminology speak up.
It feels to me that we're mixing things.
If were talking about discourse and agenda setting and the construction of normality, I see how we can say "white male heterosexuals" are setting that agenda in media etc. But in terms of real power, I think RWHN is, on it.
Also doesn't the agenda exist outside of the people maintaining it? I'm sure pleanty of white hetero men are challenging it, and a lot non white non straight females are unconsciously maintaining it.
OK OK, when you boys have finished working out why feminism is irrelevant and how the 50 yr old white unemployed guy trumps 50 + years of feminist research and is an appropriate put-down to Nigels excellent OP you give us a shout eh?
We'll be in the kitchen; barefoot and pregnant
I'm not even addressing feminism with my critique. I'm addressing inappropriately labeling people. It's not about anyone trumping anyone else. It's about insultingly supposing powerless people have power just because they share the same skin tone and reproductive devices as those who DO have power.
Quote from: MMIX on August 22, 2012, 02:08:28 AM
OK OK, when you boys have finished working out why feminism is irrelevant and how the 50 yr old white unemployed guy trumps 50 + years of feminist research and is an appropriate put-down to Nigels excellent OP you give us a shout eh?
We'll be in the kitchen; barefoot and pregnant
If you can't refrain from assuming people willing to engage in this kind of dialogue are boys are undoing feminism, how, exactly do you think it's going to work IRL? Well, is it? Anyone HERE calling you a silly girl because they don't like the way you're presenting your argument? No one is suggesting women do anything, ITT. What's presented is an arguement that you can't lump all straight white men together without harming the movement. At least, that's what I'm getting.
Any movement. Politics of division will work against any movement devoted to progress in society whether it is feminism, or any other kind of movement for cultural acceptance or equality.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 02:15:24 AM
I'm not even addressing feminism with my critique. I'm addressing inappropriately labeling people. It's not about anyone trumping anyone else. It's about insultingly supposing powerless people have power just because they share the same skin tone and reproductive devices as those who DO have power.
@Alty yeah I probably should have put a wink on that post.
You know if you want to talk about "inappropriate[] labelling" GD you might want to not suggest your examplar feels "completely worthless". From a feminist perspective this obviously derives from your patriarchal prejudice that he actually IS "completely worthless" because he has failed as a provider.
So,did you actually read what Nigel was saying? I've heard a lot of the sort of comments that Nigel was pillorying made on PD, sad but true. And what do you think your 50+ white unemployed man example man would say about gays getting married or women who get raped or black men in the south or any of the other stuff that has been brought up? Start thinking about your definitions of power, its not about being in the 1% it is the pervasive influence of patriarchal structures.
You make a good point, RWHN.
The most widespread and pervasive oppression involves economic class. Agreed.
But does this invalidate, excuse, or justify the idea that most straight white men still have privilege which ought to be examined?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 12:07:17 AM
Did you motherfuckers put me on ignore, or something?
No, I'm just unused to this much posting anymore, and I'm horribly, horribly lost.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
An excellent point, good sir.
Quote from: Net on August 22, 2012, 03:33:11 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
An excellent point, good sir.
^^^ That. Sorry, LMNO. Was on mah phone.
Until you realize who the powerholder in the game is, you are limited in your ability to fight back. Yes, it's super rich people who are the ULTIMATE deciders. But SWM are Deciders on a broad scale, too (and this does not make the SWM bad or whatever; it's just a fact). I've already gone through why, like three times, and I am not interested in repeating myself too much, but the top dog in the game (except for class, yes I know) is the straight white male.
And even within
class boundaries, the SWM is going to be better off than anyone else in that class demographic.
You (a generalized 'you') have race, sex/gender, and heterosexual privileges. Society as a whole (because it is dictated by the straight white male) puts more value on you than it does on any other demographic. You are the norm (how many tv shows center around someone who ISN'T a straight white dude? In tv shows that aren't about a SWM, how often do you see him being an extremely important character? How many times do you see non-SWM characters being stereotyped? how often are these other characters formally or informally subordinate to the SWM?). You are what society caters to. You are what the system is built to protect*.
I realize this may be difficult to accept, especially if you are not a rich Decider, but it is nevertheless true, and I'M NOT A DECIDER BECAUSE I'M NOT RICH! is really not a good answer. It's historically and factually incorrect.
*Again, even correcting for class, the system is supposed to protect straight white men at the expense of other groups.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 04:10:39 AM
And even within class boundaries, the SWM is going to be better off than anyone else in that class demographic.
With damn near no exceptions, this is true in America and Canada. I suspect mostly everywhere else, too.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 22, 2012, 04:12:05 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 04:10:39 AM
And even within class boundaries, the SWM is going to be better off than anyone else in that class demographic.
With damn near no exceptions, this is true in America and Canada. I suspect mostly everywhere else, too.
Yep, that.
It also occurs to me that we won't ever settle the class issue until we get our own house in order.
Hard to STICK IT TO THE MAN, when you're too busy sticking it to each other.
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Quote from: Faust on August 21, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 21, 2012, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:04:01 AM
You are really not getting it. Advertising is aimed at SWM. Politicians throw the rest of the population under the bus to get their vote. Books and video games are aimed at SWM.
Your consumption determines societal output. Fucking read what I goddamn posted in the post right after that.
Being "The Deciders" for XBOX marketing isn't quite the same as being "The Deciders" for public policy.
Yes one has a direct impact on the lives of millions and and enacts change over time, the other is public policy.
:spittake:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 11:47:46 PM
Is it possible that the disenfranchised SWM youth that the Deciders market to are choosing products that reinforce the Opression of She?
And if so, the passive acceptance of what the Deciders present contribute to and enforce the Opression.
Therefore, the SWMY are a crucial tool being used by the Deciders.
And so the SWMY need to be woken up to their dilemma -- they are not benefiting from the Patriarchy, but they are actively participating in it.
Yes, this, absolutely.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:53:06 PM
I don't know what to say, because it would be really, really hard to say with a straight face that I don't have privilege and a lot more options than any other demographic group.
For example, I have been given the ability to fail and then get right back up with relative ease. I can bounce back from a stupid mistake with less effort than could a woman or a Black person. Example: When I fuck up, it doesn't necessarily mean permanently losing prestige (woman in the workplace) or JAIL FOR LIFE (Black person).
I intellectually abhor privilege, in the same way a fish could intellectually abhor water, or the way an American could abhor slave labor...Loudly, on a piece of electronics made by slave children in Bangladesh.
And I'm definitely in the decider class. In my small world, I have the power to bind and to loose (read: hire & fire). I really only have to answer to one person in my workplace.
All of this is true. What, though, is to be done about it?
Interesting note: In the New Testament, Jesus goes on about this for WHOLE CHAPTERS.
And this, and what both you and Alty said in later posts.
From birth, in this society, men (particularly white men) are indoctrinated to Wear The Pants. Poor white men may not have control of the legislature, but who do you think is The Decider in the single-wide? Maybe domestic violence rates among the impoverished do a better job of illustrating that principle than I can.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Which jargon?
Quote from: MMIX on August 22, 2012, 02:08:28 AM
OK OK, when you boys have finished working out why feminism is irrelevant and how the 50 yr old white unemployed guy trumps 50 + years of feminist research and is an appropriate put-down to Nigels excellent OP you give us a shout eh?
We'll be in the kitchen; barefoot and pregnant
:lulz: Nailed it.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Thanks, man.
If I overjargon things, please do ask me to explain the jargon, because like most nerds I don't always know the difference between a specialized term and a term that's in common use.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 07:10:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Which jargon?
I think the term Deciders was stumbling me up.
As a term referring to individuals, it doesn't make sense to me. Obama is black, Clinton's a woman. So's Gillard, in my government. Not to mention our Government's Penny Wong who's Asian and lesbian. Saying they they count as 'non-deciders' but pointing to white straight men who lack basic literacy, numeracy and social skills and calling them Deciders makes NO sense to me.
BUT
I'm realizing (or at least I think this is what's being said) that 'Deciders' isn't referring to individuals, rather the dominant paradigm, whose values and world views are enforced through media and social expectation and who represent the baseline for 'normal'.
The fact that an
individual does or does not belong to this paradigm does NOT determine
whether or not they are served by it whether or not it translates to any meaningful form of power, but it certainly tips it in their favor.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 07:14:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Thanks, man.
If I overjargon things, please do ask me to explain the jargon, because like most nerds I don't always know the difference between a specialized term and a term that's in common use.
I have no idea if Deciders is a technical term or a Nigelism, but that's where I was getting tripped up.
EDIT: The strike-through.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 09:19:47 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 07:10:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Which jargon?
I think the term Deciders was stumbling me up.
As a term referring to individuals, it doesn't make sense to me. Obama is black, Clinton's a woman. So's Gillard, in my government. Not to mention our Government's Penny Wong who's Asian and lesbian. Saying they they count as 'non-deciders' but pointing to white straight men who lack basic literacy, numeracy and social skills and calling them Deciders makes NO sense to me.
BUT
I'm realizing (or at least I think this is what's being said) that 'Deciders' isn't referring to individuals, rather the dominant paradigm, whose values and world views are enforced through media and social expectation and who represent the baseline for 'normal'.
The fact that an individual does or does not belong to this paradigm does NOT determine whether or not they are served by it whether or not it translates to any meaningful form of power, but it certainly tips it in their favor.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 07:14:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Thanks, man.
If I overjargon things, please do ask me to explain the jargon, because like most nerds I don't always know the difference between a specialized term and a term that's in common use.
I have no idea if Deciders is a technical term or a Nigelism, but that's where I was getting tripped up.
EDIT: The strike-through.
Exactly, for instance the irish government is almost if not completely white, what with there being very few people born in Ireland who aren't.
Quote from: MMIX on August 22, 2012, 03:04:52 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 02:15:24 AM
I'm not even addressing feminism with my critique. I'm addressing inappropriately labeling people. It's not about anyone trumping anyone else. It's about insultingly supposing powerless people have power just because they share the same skin tone and reproductive devices as those who DO have power.
@Alty yeah I probably should have put a wink on that post.
You know if you want to talk about "inappropriate[] labelling" GD you might want to not suggest your examplar feels "completely worthless". From a feminist perspective this obviously derives from your patriarchal prejudice that he actually IS "completely worthless" because he has failed as a provider.
So,did you actually read what Nigel was saying? I've heard a lot of the sort of comments that Nigel was pillorying made on PD, sad but true. And what do you think your 50+ white unemployed man example man would say about gays getting married or women who get raped or black men in the south or any of the other stuff that has been brought up? Start thinking about your definitions of power, its not about being in the 1% it is the pervasive influence of patriarchal structures.
I dunno what he thinks until I talk to him, but neither do you, and that is yet another reason the label is inappropriate and offensive because it ends up making unfounded assumptions about individuals.
Quote from: Net on August 22, 2012, 03:10:00 AM
You make a good point, RWHN.
The most widespread and pervasive oppression involves economic class. Agreed.
But does this invalidate, excuse, or justify the idea that most straight white men still have privilege which ought to be examined?
It makes it incredibly nuanced and, IMO, does invalidate the idea as a broad, general label. Because it unfairly ascribes social values to individuals for whom the label doesn't fit. You can talk about the idea that on balance a certain demographic cohort have had it better over the long run, but that is different from actually ascribing a label to all of the individuals within that cohort. The OP does the latter and I believe that is wrong and offensive to those who have no privilege and no power.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 10:56:26 AM
Quote from: MMIX on August 22, 2012, 03:04:52 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 02:15:24 AM
I'm not even addressing feminism with my critique. I'm addressing inappropriately labeling people. It's not about anyone trumping anyone else. It's about insultingly supposing powerless people have power just because they share the same skin tone and reproductive devices as those who DO have power.
@Alty yeah I probably should have put a wink on that post.
You know if you want to talk about "inappropriate[] labelling" GD you might want to not suggest your examplar feels "completely worthless". From a feminist perspective this obviously derives from your patriarchal prejudice that he actually IS "completely worthless" because he has failed as a provider.
So,did you actually read what Nigel was saying? I've heard a lot of the sort of comments that Nigel was pillorying made on PD, sad but true. And what do you think your 50+ white unemployed man example man would say about gays getting married or women who get raped or black men in the south or any of the other stuff that has been brought up? Start thinking about your definitions of power, its not about being in the 1% it is the pervasive influence of patriarchal structures.
I dunno what he thinks until I talk to him, but neither do you, and that is yet another reason the label is inappropriate and offensive because it ends up making unfounded assumptions about individuals.
So ignore the label, its not really germane to the discussion anyhow; deal with the substantive material in the thread. And why are you getting so worked up and offended on behalf of a fictional guy you pulled out of your ass to use as an example?
Because what seemingly few people in this thread want to recognize is that you can't just consider all SWM's to be the same. They aren't all a bunch of ignorant rednecks who hate women, people who are gay, other races....
But that is what many of you are hinting at with some of your comments. I live in a very white state that has many, many SWM's. There are many of them in the community that I serve, and I know damn well that many of them are pretty powerless and are not any kind of Decider. They also aren't a bunch of nameless goons whomhave it in for women and people who are gay. Certainly there are some that do, but I'm not about to make assumptions and generalizations about people I don't know.
They are people.
They are individuals.
Honestly, I really feel there is some stereotyping going on here which I think is inappropriate.
The brush is too broad.
But who cares, right?
Because as we all know ALL SWM's are either privileged homophobic college fratboy jocks or gun toting racist rednecks, right?
It's not possible there could be people who have been just as forgotten as others in our society, right?
They must all forever suffer the sins of their WASP forefathers, right?
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 10:59:52 AM
Quote from: Net on August 22, 2012, 03:10:00 AM
You make a good point, RWHN.
The most widespread and pervasive oppression involves economic class. Agreed.
But does this invalidate, excuse, or justify the idea that most straight white men still have privilege which ought to be examined?
It makes it incredibly nuanced and, IMO, does invalidate the idea as a broad, general label. Because it unfairly ascribes social values to individuals for whom the label doesn't fit. You can talk about the idea that on balance a certain demographic cohort have had it better over the long run, but that is different from actually ascribing a label to all of the individuals within that cohort. The OP does the latter and I believe that is wrong and offensive to those who have no privilege and no power.
I'm with you here. SWM is a bit broad of a brush. Any one piece of that is fairly valid. Straight is generally a position of more privilege than gay, white more so than non-white, male more so than female--but when you lump all that together you come up with a cohort that isn't all that meaningful.
Your talk about the French in Maine reminds me of "Timber Folk" and "Ranchers" where my family is from. Whether you cut timber or ranched was a much more important indicator of privilege there than was SWM or otherwise. I would wager that there's a similar distinction in just about any region.
When people say SWM I think they tend to picture Ward Cleaver and forget all about Tom Joad. Yes, Tom's sister Rose probably has a whole set of considerations that Tom will never have to deal with, but that doesn't negate the fact that Tom and Rose have a hell of a lot more in common than Tom and Ward ever will.
I can see how being lumped in with the Ward Cleavers of the world might stick in a lot of people's craw.
Precisely. And I don't disagree with the idea that certain kinds of people will never completely experience things, fears, dangers, that other kinds of people will.
What I'm saying is that division actually goes a lot deeper than SWM, because even within SWM, there are different groups who experience/don't experience many things. A French kid in the poor neighborhoods here is never going to experience Bates College. The kid at Bates is never going to experience what it's like to scrounge for cans just to buy a loaf of bread.
They are both SWMs, but their worlds are VERY different.
RWHN, it if helps, think of it this way:
Assuming an otherwise broadly equal status, SWM are more powerful than compared to other social/ethic/gender groups, probabalistically speaking.
I don't think anyone would deny a black lesbian CEO is more powerful than a white, straight male making minimum wage. However, assuming broadly equitable socio-economic status, a straight white man is likely to have advantages that others do not. To continue the working class theme, a working class woman is more likely to suffer from low wages, violence, unequal treatment from police etc than working class men are. Relationships or power struggles between a white straight man of working class status and others of working class status will likely favour him.
Obviously, this highlights the importance of class and economic power within social relations, something I believe Pixie in particular has brought up, when she linked feminism with socialism.
Right...
...and on Nigel's OP, though, June Cleaver and Rose Joad share a whole set of knowledge and experience that Tom Joad, Ward Cleaver, Myself, Yourself and Wilford Brimley will never get. What I do get is how there are few things in the world that make me more stabby than being told what I should think, feel or do, by someone who doesn't have the first fucking clue what it's like to be me.
If you've never tried to get a job with a record then don't tell me how I should feel about workplace discrimination.
If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".
If you haven't spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence, don't tell me I shouldn't be such a fucking know-it-all.
I am, for all intents and purposes a SWM, but I wholly relate to the OP on the above point.
Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2012, 01:29:43 PM
RWHN, it if helps, think of it this way:
Assuming an otherwise broadly equal status, SWM are more powerful than compared to other social/ethic/gender groups, probabalistically speaking.
I don't think anyone would deny a black lesbian CEO is more powerful than a white, straight male making minimum wage. However, assuming broadly equitable socio-economic status, a straight white man is likely to have advantages that others do not. To continue the working class theme, a working class woman is more likely to suffer from low wages, violence, unequal treatment from police etc than working class men are. Relationships or power struggles between a white straight man of working class status and others of working class status will likely favour him.
Obviously, this highlights the importance of class and economic power within social relations, something I believe Pixie in particular has brought up, when she linked feminism with socialism.
I understand that, I just don't find it useful or helpful to, intentionally or unintentionally, use that as a cudgel against those SWMs who don't have the lives of the privileged SWMs. The way things have been phrased in the OP and in subsequent comments, it feels like it is being used as a cudgel.
That kind of generalization is all well and good when talking about broad social issues or policy, but when you start addressing real people, you need to get out a finer brush or you end ip insulting and alienating many who could be allies.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
If you've never tried to get a job with a record then don't tell me how I should feel about workplace discrimination.
If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".
If you haven't spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence, don't tell me I shouldn't be such a fucking know-it-all.
I am, for all intents and purposes a SWM, but I wholly relate to the OP on the above point.
raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" - check!
spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence - check!
tried to get a job with a record - negative
Damn, I'm only 2/3rds as oppressed as you. Guess I'm the privileged one then!
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".
Um. If I don't share your exact background, I have no right to comment on your current behavior? Is that what we're getting at here? Because that doesn't sound right.
Of course, I agree I have no right to tell you how to
feel about your experiences.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 01:46:18 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
If you've never tried to get a job with a record then don't tell me how I should feel about workplace discrimination.
If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".
If you haven't spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence, don't tell me I shouldn't be such a fucking know-it-all.
I am, for all intents and purposes a SWM, but I wholly relate to the OP on the above point.
raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" - check!
spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence - check!
tried to get a job with a record - negative
Damn, I'm only 2/3rds as oppressed as you. Guess I'm the privileged one then!
Congratulations on not getting caught :evil:
I've never counted myself as oppressed, but I do count my ass as annoyed when some fucktard starts spouting off about how "I'm doing it wrong" when they don't have the first fucking clue what I'm doing or why. I think that's kind of a universal sentiment.
EDIT: On that last third, I can testify that getting rejected for employment because of some completely fucking unrelated rap I caught a lifetime ago--especially when desperate for income, felt roughly like getting sucker-punched in the gut but worse because the pinche ass-hat that threw the blow wasn't around to punch back. I can only imagine how fucking rotten that would feel if it happened in 100 different ways all the time on the basis of my dangly bits, skin color, or who I liked to tickle.
What I wanted to do when it happened is join with others in the same boat and fight like a motherfucker--not as a human, not as a person who doesn't see color, gender, socio-economic class, or irrelevancies from a background check, but as AN EX-OFFENDER. Fuck you if you want to tell me that I should approach that situation as just an egalitarian everybody because I wasn't really given the fucking choice to do that.
Gay people aren't given the choice to see sexual orientation as irrelevant. Women aren't given the choice to see gender as irrelevant. "Colored folk" aren't given the choice to see race as irrelevant. It's just the truth. Telling them that they should see it that way, or should feel that way, is just, frankly, fucking ignorant--and yes, chiefly perpetrated from the SWM position of "all everything/everybody is exactly as I am", which is exactly the position that is fed back to them on the daily.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 02:07:56 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".
Um. If I don't share your exact background, I have no right to comment on your current behavior? Is that what we're getting at here? Because that doesn't sound right.
Of course, I agree I have no right to tell you how to feel about your experiences.
You can comment on my behavior, but don't assume that you
get my behavior based solely upon examining the reasons why you would be doing something that I am doing if you were the one doing it--if that makes any damned sense. Walk a mile and all that.
But the thing is we can't really walk a mile, can we? I will never be a female. I will never be gay. I will never be a lesbian midget eskimo albino. I do not have the ability to ever walk a mile in those shoes. Nor will the lesbian midget eskimo albino ever be able to walk a mile in mine.
That doesn't mean the LMEA has no right to tell me to cut that shit out if she sees me scrapping with some other dipshit on a Saturday night, but it does mean that she's a fucking moron if she assumes that my fisticuffs are an expression of my rage over not being able see over the counter at the whale-blubber bar rather than an expression of my wanting to have a good time (or more realistically some bullshit show of male bravado and machismo-GRRRRR).
--A better example, schoolyard scrap and getting pulled into the counselor's office afterwards to find ways to use our words to resolve our conflicts. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT, YOU WHINY LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG...there were only two kids who like to fucking throw-down from time to time and happened to find an excuse. We would have had at it and been done with it, instead we're made to feel embarrassed and ashamed for simply being who the fuck we are instead of who *THEY* think we should be. Now there's a conflict!
Tell me that if I get in a fight and break shit then you're going to rain down on me with a sack of bricks--that's respectable. Tell me that I shouldn't be who I am because who you are is the right way to be, then you can go fuck yourself.
This sounds like a probability matrix. Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).
Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?
I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.
Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact. But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.
I bristled at the term "Deciders" myself, at first...but I think that I read it now as this...
SWM are the "Deciders" of what the norm is, what the mainstream is. If I am in that category it's mighty easy to think that I can apply some universal standard of "doing it right" because to my mind everybody is everybody because I have, much more likely than not, come to understand "everybody" in terms of myself. That's just the way it comes down. Regardless of whether I'm sitting in a board room or a jail cell, as a SWM I'm considerably more likely than a non-SWM to consider my own thoughts and feelings to be "normal", "standard" or even "healthy".
Am I hearing that right, Nigel?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
This sounds like a probability matrix. Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).
Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?
I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.
Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact. But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.
Right, so you have one quadrant of SMWs as deciders, those who are SWM AND have economic and social power. But those at the ass-end of things, who have neither of those, are most certainly NOT deciders, despite being SWM.
That's why I say again the generalization is too broad and actually becomes alienating for the SWMs in that quadrant.
Ok, I'm thinking you might be getting stuck on the word "Decider".
No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:25:22 AM
On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.
I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.
Ah. I think I automatically changed that in my head to, "On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") the ones who decide how things will go are all white straight men."
But yeah, I see your point.
RWHN: How do you feel about the wording "the set of white straight men is the one that decides how things will go (as compared to any other set it does not intersect with)"?
(I hope it doesn't take too much logic geekery to get this, I just find basic set theory really useful for understanding things like this.)
EDIT: Actually I hope it does take too much logic geekery, since a bunch of y'all have been using references to some old American TV show I've never watched with total disregard to those who didn't grow up on that stuff. :argh!:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 03:39:55 PM
I bristled at the term "Deciders" myself, at first...but I think that I read it now as this...
SWM are the "Deciders" of what the norm is, what the mainstream is. If I am in that category it's mighty easy to think that I can apply some universal standard of "doing it right" because to my mind everybody is everybody because I have, much more likely than not, come to understand "everybody" in terms of myself. That's just the way it comes down. Regardless of whether I'm sitting in a board room or a jail cell, as a SWM I'm considerably more likely than a non-SWM to consider my own thoughts and feelings to be "normal", "standard" or even "healthy".
Am I hearing that right, Nigel?
Yes, that is a huge part of it; everyone tends to do that to some degree, and it's called false consensus. However, those who are considered normal by society have their false consensus culturally reinforced, to the point where it can be incredibly difficult for them to believe, let alone perceive, that other people have experiences that they are unaware of. In addition, from early childhood there is enormous social pressure on men, and on white men in particular, to take charge, be decisive, be a go-getter, make things happen. Our culture considers these highly desirable traits in men. Men are socially trained to communicate in order to make things happen, and far less to communicate to convey emotion or to enhance social bonding. You could see that illustrated here in another thread, in several reactions to the idea that women often communicate just to share their feelings. The adverse reaction was fascinating... to communicate solely for the purpose of sharing emotional reactions was called stupid, needy, and draining, among other things.
When you have a demographic who has been culturally reinforced to value taking charge, fixing things, and make things happen, it can be very difficult for its members to stop doing those things at times when it's not appropriate. It goes against a lifetime of conditioning. Many times, they can't even see the ways in which it disempowers/angers the people they are trying to "fix things" for.
Whoa, you just blew my mind. Because the combination of culturally-reinforced false consensus (nice term!) in a group socialized to be assertive and active explains so. damn. much. shit.
Quote from: VERBL on August 22, 2012, 04:31:43 PM
RWHN: How do you feel about the wording "the set of white straight men is the one that decides how things will go (as compared to any other set it does not intersect with)"?
(I hope it doesn't take too much logic geekery to get this, I just find basic set theory really useful for understanding things like this.)
EDIT: Actually I hope it does take too much logic geekery, since a bunch of y'all have been using references to some old American TV show I've never watched with total disregard to those who didn't grow up on that stuff. :argh!:
It's better in that it acknowledges that there are SWMs who have no power, but it doesn't take into consideration that there are nonSWMs with considerable power, But I suppose it works in a more general, long-range, broad-view conversation.
But it still holds potential landmines depending on who is part of the conversation.
At the end of the day, it shouldn't alienate anyone by conveying a scenario that is contrary to their real world, day-to-day experience. Otherwise, they will shut you off and not listen to anything you have to say, at which point, you are pretty much done as being considered a trusted communicator.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 09:19:47 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 07:10:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Which jargon?
I think the term Deciders was stumbling me up.
As a term referring to individuals, it doesn't make sense to me. Obama is black, Clinton's a woman. So's Gillard, in my government. Not to mention our Government's Penny Wong who's Asian and lesbian. Saying they they count as 'non-deciders' but pointing to white straight men who lack basic literacy, numeracy and social skills and calling them Deciders makes NO sense to me.
BUT
I'm realizing (or at least I think this is what's being said) that 'Deciders' isn't referring to individuals, rather the dominant paradigm, whose values and world views are enforced through media and social expectation and who represent the baseline for 'normal'.
The fact that an individual does or does not belong to this paradigm does NOT determine whether or not they are served by it whether or not it translates to any meaningful form of power, but it certainly tips it in their favor.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 07:14:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.
Thanks, man.
If I overjargon things, please do ask me to explain the jargon, because like most nerds I don't always know the difference between a specialized term and a term that's in common use.
I have no idea if Deciders is a technical term or a Nigelism, but that's where I was getting tripped up.
EDIT: The strike-through.
I made it up on the fly when trying to decide what to call the thread. It seems like a lot of people are hung up on it and are reading the OP as if I'm saying that all straight white men are in charge, rather than looking at it as a social trend. I think, based on the number of times here and in other threads, that I can probably explain myself blue in the face and use the most general language possible, and those same people are never going to accept/understand the sociological perspective I'm trying to convey, so I went for more color and illustration, and less dry "social trends indicate" type verbiage.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 04:15:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
This sounds like a probability matrix. Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).
Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?
I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.
Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact. But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.
Right, so you have one quadrant of SMWs as deciders, those who are SWM AND have economic and social power. But those at the ass-end of things, who have neither of those, are most certainly NOT deciders, despite being SWM.
That's why I say again the generalization is too broad and actually becomes alienating for the SWMs in that quadrant.
MY BEST GUESS, COMING FROM A GENUINE ATTEMPT TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS.
I think that "Decider" is not a definitive word here, it's a descriptive one. Also the OP
is talking about "general social terms" even though it is phrased as a one-on-one or one-to-many declarative. It sounds rough but that's the intention. It needs to sound rough to bring attention to the fact that the *WM demographic is, because of society's expectations and traditions, inherently (yes,
inherently) immune from most of the "I can see what you are and can make a judgment call about your character before you say or do anything" kind of oppression.
Yes, there are many kinds of oppression and discrimination. Race, gender, economic, educational, and otherwise. The *WM can experience all of them, too -- including race discrimination -- depending on where he is, what he's trying to do, etc. Nobody is saying, as far as I can read into it, that he is immune to all forms of discrimination, or that he is invariably "powerful." What's being said is that because of the general tilt of society, he lacks a perspective that qualifies him from telling women or minorities what it's really like to be oppressed because of their
genetics, because of what they are.
*WM can be oppressed, and indeed many if not most of us are in one way or another. But our oppression lacks a key component of their oppression: whether we are oppressed by circumstance, or money, or political power, we could jump into a fancy suit and nobody would be the wiser. For them it's not that simple. They encounter rudeness, unwanted advances, muttered slurs, unfair assumptions and general disregard (no pun intended)
no matter how well they dress or speak or how affluent they look -- or indeed how affluent they really are. Society brands them as a "known quantity" before they even walk through the door, and that robs them of at least
part of their right to define themselves.
White men simply do not have that disadvantage -- to claim we do is both ignorant and arrogant. While any one of those things might happen to you or me, and we can surely produce an anecdote to "identify" with how it feels to be written off before we've had a chance, that isn't the same as living in a society that is
built around doing that to us. And to say we have been there so we know how to fix the problem is disingenuous at best. Sometimes when we try to "fix" a problem we do it by trying to maintain the smooth running of a
system that is
wrong to begin with. Worst of all, because of our background, we
don't even realize that, which makes our attempts both patronizing and privileged.
Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2012, 01:29:43 PM
RWHN, it if helps, think of it this way:
Assuming an otherwise broadly equal status, SWM are more powerful than compared to other social/ethic/gender groups, probabalistically speaking.
I don't think anyone would deny a black lesbian CEO is more powerful than a white, straight male making minimum wage. However, assuming broadly equitable socio-economic status, a straight white man is likely to have advantages that others do not. To continue the working class theme, a working class woman is more likely to suffer from low wages, violence, unequal treatment from police etc than working class men are. Relationships or power struggles between a white straight man of working class status and others of working class status will likely favour him.
Obviously, this highlights the importance of class and economic power within social relations, something I believe Pixie in particular has brought up, when she linked feminism with socialism.
Yes.
A "decider" may not be the one in charge of the country, but men, particularly white men, are
socially expected to be in charge in their own households, in their personal echelons.
Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised to find I agree 100% with Vex. He's on the right motorcycle.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 04:25:19 PM
No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:25:22 AM
On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.
I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.
:roll: Yes, you do. I have already gone through extensive examples why and I am not actually interested in repeating myself for a fifth time. Your tastes and your expectations and the policies put forth to attract your vote affect the rest of us. Yes, (AGAIN) the super rich are the ultimate Deciders, but the tastes and expectations and policies of SWM as a broad demographic touch everyone else.
As you actually ARE a SWM (a middle class one, yes?) you may not experience this, but believe me, we do (are you going to specifically answer my points? if you want to be able to make an effective argument, instead of I'M NOT A RICH WHITE MAN I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A DECIDER!, you probably ought to)
Also, also, I want to point out (AGAIN) that SWM of all socio-economic demographics tend to be better off than the others in the same class. Yes, it's harder for NoLe to get a job because of his record than it is for someone without a record, but that's having a record at all. A MoC with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. A woman with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. Someone who cannot hide how queer they are/appear to be (or chooses not to) with the same record is going to have it harder than he does.
Pent, you have no record, yes? Look at the stats for people who aren't straight white men in similar circumstances. For a fairly extreme example, look, let's say, at the lives of transwomen of all races (their murder, homelessness, rape, and unemployment stats are
appalling).
TBH, I think we lost sight of part of the purpose of this thread, which specifically involved stepping outside your privilege and letting those of us who have not ever had a chance to
really make our own decisions (culturally, as Nigel pointed out, and individually, in terms of having SWM interpret our experiences (see below)) make our own decisions.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 03:39:55 PM
I bristled at the term "Deciders" myself, at first...but I think that I read it now as this...
SWM are the "Deciders" of what the norm is, what the mainstream is. If I am in that category it's mighty easy to think that I can apply some universal standard of "doing it right" because to my mind everybody is everybody because I have, much more likely than not, come to understand "everybody" in terms of myself. That's just the way it comes down. Regardless of whether I'm sitting in a board room or a jail cell, as a SWM I'm considerably more likely than a non-SWM to consider my own thoughts and feelings to be "normal", "standard" or even "healthy".
Am I hearing that right, Nigel?
Yes, that is a huge part of it; everyone tends to do that to some degree, and it's called false consensus. However, those who are considered normal by society have their false consensus culturally reinforced, to the point where it can be incredibly difficult for them to believe, let alone perceive, that other people have experiences that they are unaware of. In addition, from early childhood there is enormous social pressure on men, and on white men in particular, to take charge, be decisive, be a go-getter, make things happen. Our culture considers these highly desirable traits in men. Men are socially trained to communicate in order to make things happen, and far less to communicate to convey emotion or to enhance social bonding. You could see that illustrated here in another thread, in several reactions to the idea that women often communicate just to share their feelings. The adverse reaction was fascinating... to communicate solely for the purpose of sharing emotional reactions was called stupid, needy, and draining, among other things.
^^^^ This
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
When you have a demographic who has been culturally reinforced to value taking charge, fixing things, and make things happen, it can be very difficult for its members to stop doing those things at times when it's not appropriate. It goes against a lifetime of conditioning. Many times, they can't even see the ways in which it disempowers/angers the people they are trying to "fix things" for.
Roger and I talked about the latter part a little bit in his Hear Me Out thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33068.msg1201531.html#msg1201531). (teal deer, people from enfranchised groups who want to help the disempowered tend to basically say, "oh, you poor women/PoC/queers! Here, let me do it for you/protect you/etc." instead of asking how to help)
I've already addressed the experience discussion point and that I believe it goes much deeper than SWM. There are subsets within SWM, SBM, SWF, SBF, etc., etc. that have different experiences from each other. If youmare going to suggest or imply that SWM as a whole has one cohesive quality of experience, you alienate those who have had a different set of experiences.
Say, for example, SWMs with behavioral health issues. SWMs who have had substance abuse issues. SWMs that grew up in one of THOSE neighborhoods, etc.
Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.
The communication needs to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
I've already addressed the experience discussion point and that I believe it goes much deeper than SWM. There are subsets within SWM, SBM, SWF, SBF, etc., etc. that have different experiences from each other. If youmare going to suggest or imply that SWM as a whole has one cohesive quality of experience, you alienate those who have had a different set of experiences.
Say, for example, SWMs with behavioral health issues. SWMs who have had substance abuse issues. SWMs that grew up in one of THOSE neighborhoods, etc.
Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.
The communication needs to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.
I specifically said SWM are not all the same but as I have pointed out, the ultimate difference is class and as Vex said, put on a nice suit and it's much, much harder to tell you aren't one of the Ultimate Deciders.
If you're ceding the "broad cultural discussion" thing, then why are we arguing? Because that's, um, my point. And has been my point since my first post.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:01:06 PM
Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised to find I agree 100% with Vex. He's on the right motorcycle.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 04:25:19 PM
No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:25:22 AM
On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.
I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.
::) Yes, you do. I have already gone through extensive examples why and I am not actually interested in repeating myself for a fifth time. Your tastes and your expectations and the policies put forth to attract your vote affect the rest of us. Yes, (AGAIN) the super rich are the ultimate Deciders, but the tastes and expectations and policies of SWM as a broad demographic touch everyone else.
As you actually ARE a SWM (a middle class one, yes?) you may not experience this, but believe me, we do (are you going to specifically answer my points? if you want to be able to make an effective argument, instead of I'M NOT A RICH WHITE MAN I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A DECIDER!, you probably ought to)
Also, also, I want to point out (AGAIN) that SWM of all socio-economic demographics tend to be better off than the others in the same class. Yes, it's harder for NoLe to get a job because of his record than it is for someone without a record, but that's having a record at all. A MoC with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. A woman with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. Someone who cannot hide how queer they are/appear to be (or chooses not to) with the same record is going to have it harder than he does.
Pent, you have no record, yes? Look at the stats for people who aren't straight white men in similar circumstances. For a fairly extreme example, look, let's say, at the lives of transwomen of all races (their murder, homelessness, rape, and unemployment stats are appalling).
TBH, I think we lost sight of part of the purpose of this thread, which specifically involved stepping outside your privilege and letting those of us who have not ever had a chance to really make our own decisions (culturally, as Nigel pointed out, and individually, in terms of having SWM interpret our experiences (see below)) make our own decisions.
Honestly, it really feels to me that you aren't able to step outside of your life experience to appreciate how many SWMs you are alienating with your lone of thought. It really feels like you are ignoring and not honestly considering the very real world in which some SWMs live where they have absolutely NO power, privilege, or position to "decide" anything, other than how they are going to muste up the scarce capacity to be able to have lunch. I think you are somdeep into this cause and argument that it is limiting your vision and ability to empathize with the kind of people I've been describing.
You are not going to get very far by alienating people.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 02:08:52 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 01:46:18 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
If you've never tried to get a job with a record then don't tell me how I should feel about workplace discrimination.
If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".
If you haven't spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence, don't tell me I shouldn't be such a fucking know-it-all.
I am, for all intents and purposes a SWM, but I wholly relate to the OP on the above point.
raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" - check!
spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence - check!
tried to get a job with a record - negative
Damn, I'm only 2/3rds as oppressed as you. Guess I'm the privileged one then!
Congratulations on not getting caught :evil:
I've never counted myself as oppressed, but I do count my ass as annoyed when some fucktard starts spouting off about how "I'm doing it wrong" when they don't have the first fucking clue what I'm doing or why. I think that's kind of a universal sentiment.
EDIT: On that last third, I can testify that getting rejected for employment because of some completely fucking unrelated rap I caught a lifetime ago--especially when desperate for income, felt roughly like getting sucker-punched in the gut but worse because the pinche ass-hat that threw the blow wasn't around to punch back. I can only imagine how fucking rotten that would feel if it happened in 100 different ways all the time on the basis of my dangly bits, skin color, or who I liked to tickle.
What I wanted to do when it happened is join with others in the same boat and fight like a motherfucker--not as a human, not as a person who doesn't see color, gender, socio-economic class, or irrelevancies from a background check, but as AN EX-OFFENDER. Fuck you if you want to tell me that I should approach that situation as just an egalitarian everybody because I wasn't really given the fucking choice to do that.
Gay people aren't given the choice to see sexual orientation as irrelevant. Women aren't given the choice to see gender as irrelevant. "Colored folk" aren't given the choice to see race as irrelevant. It's just the truth. Telling them that they should see it that way, or should feel that way, is just, frankly, fucking ignorant--and yes, chiefly perpetrated from the SWM position of "all everything/everybody is exactly as I am", which is exactly the position that is fed back to them on the daily.
Holy shit, all of this... so much! Especially the bolded part.
As far as the convict stigma goes, there's a whole conversation to be had there, because there's a whole layer of oppression going on there that's utterly fucked-up. It's the creation of a whole new underclass... you may not be visibly an ex-con, but trying to find work or housing with a criminal record can be terribly difficult, even if the conviction was decades ago for something that has no bearing on either. If it's a drug conviction you're even more screwed, and are denied housing assistance, food assistance, and Federal financial aid for college. The only way this system makes sense is if it's
designed to keep people in prison.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:05:57 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
I've already addressed the experience discussion point and that I believe it goes much deeper than SWM. There are subsets within SWM, SBM, SWF, SBF, etc., etc. that have different experiences from each other. If youmare going to suggest or imply that SWM as a whole has one cohesive quality of experience, you alienate those who have had a different set of experiences.
Say, for example, SWMs with behavioral health issues. SWMs who have had substance abuse issues. SWMs that grew up in one of THOSE neighborhoods, etc.
Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.
The communication needs to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.
I specifically said SWM are not all the same but as I have pointed out, the ultimate difference is class and as Vex said, put on a nice suit and it's much, much harder to tell you aren't one of the Ultimate Deciders.
If you're ceding the "broad cultural discussion" thing, then why are we arguing? Because that's, um, my point. And has been my point since my first post.
I'm not ceding anything, I just quoted you earlier where you said ALL SWMs were deciders. That's different than a broad discussion of SWMs generally over time having more advantages. The former statement includes SWMs who don't actually fit that criteria. You probably need to be more careful with the statements you make and the language you use if you aren't intending to label ALL SWMs.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 05:09:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:01:06 PM
Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised to find I agree 100% with Vex. He's on the right motorcycle.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 22, 2012, 04:25:19 PM
No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:25:22 AM
On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.
I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.
::) Yes, you do. I have already gone through extensive examples why and I am not actually interested in repeating myself for a fifth time. Your tastes and your expectations and the policies put forth to attract your vote affect the rest of us. Yes, (AGAIN) the super rich are the ultimate Deciders, but the tastes and expectations and policies of SWM as a broad demographic touch everyone else.
As you actually ARE a SWM (a middle class one, yes?) you may not experience this, but believe me, we do (are you going to specifically answer my points? if you want to be able to make an effective argument, instead of I'M NOT A RICH WHITE MAN I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A DECIDER!, you probably ought to)
Also, also, I want to point out (AGAIN) that SWM of all socio-economic demographics tend to be better off than the others in the same class. Yes, it's harder for NoLe to get a job because of his record than it is for someone without a record, but that's having a record at all. A MoC with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. A woman with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. Someone who cannot hide how queer they are/appear to be (or chooses not to) with the same record is going to have it harder than he does.
Pent, you have no record, yes? Look at the stats for people who aren't straight white men in similar circumstances. For a fairly extreme example, look, let's say, at the lives of transwomen of all races (their murder, homelessness, rape, and unemployment stats are appalling).
TBH, I think we lost sight of part of the purpose of this thread, which specifically involved stepping outside your privilege and letting those of us who have not ever had a chance to really make our own decisions (culturally, as Nigel pointed out, and individually, in terms of having SWM interpret our experiences (see below)) make our own decisions.
Honestly, it really feels to me that you aren't able to step outside of your life experience to appreciate how many SWMs you are alienating with your lone of thought. It really feels like you are ignoring and not honestly considering the very real world in which some SWMs live where they have absolutely NO power, privilege, or position to "decide" anything, other than how they are going to muste up the scarce capacity to be able to have lunch. I think you are somdeep into this cause and argument that it is limiting your vision and ability to empathize with the kind of people I've been describing.
You are not going to get very far by alienating people.
Please see what I have emphasized and then read below.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:05:57 PM
I specifically said SWM are not all the same but as I have pointed out, the ultimate difference is class and as Vex said, put on a nice suit and it's much, much harder to tell you aren't one of the Ultimate Deciders.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
This sounds like a probability matrix. Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).
Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?
I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.
Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact. But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.
And also, yes, this. But there's more, which is the cultural indoctrination angle, which can make it hard for the SWM (most men, really, but straight white men have the most power, culturally speaking) to, if all else is equal in terms of class, step down so that the BML can be in charge. Anyone who doubts that should try being a woman in a workplace... unless you're in a highly sensitive, heavily female environment (like social work, for example) most women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society. Women in the workplace often find that they have to be extremely aggressive in order to counteract this tendency.
There's a reason more men are promoted into management than women, and it's that tendency to "take charge". To deny that it exists is to deny the entire history of sociological and cultural studies in the West. For many years it was considered to be innate; as we make progress, though, and understand enculturation and neuroscience better, consensus has shifted toward it being a social norm, not a biological norm.
Yes, that's right, the ultimate decider IS class. So if you want to amend your label to Upper Class Straight White Males, we can talk. But if you are going to make a statement that ALL SWMs are the deciders in society, I can't get on board with that because it simply isn't true.
And the audience of your message is key. The broad discussion is okay for a broad audience, but when it is specifically addressed to an audience of SWMS, which the OP is, then it becomes more important to be nuanced in your labelling less you risk alienating and insulting part of your audience.
Quote from: VERBL on August 22, 2012, 04:39:44 PM
Whoa, you just blew my mind. Because the combination of culturally-reinforced false consensus (nice term!) in a group socialized to be assertive and active explains so. damn. much. shit.
Thanks! :)
At some point toward the end of my schooling, when I have more of the pieces of the puzzle of human behavior put together, I plan to write a book about why we do things that are counterproductive to our own well-being.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 05:12:10 PM
Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.
In other words, we need to not tell straight white males that we find some of their behaviors alienating, because it will alienate them?
I think you are illustrating my point very well, RWHN.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
This sounds like a probability matrix. Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).
Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?
I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.
Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact. But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.
And also, yes, this. But there's more, which is the cultural indoctrination angle, which can make it hard for the SWM (most men, really, but straight white men have the most power, culturally speaking) to, if all else is equal in terms of class, step down so that the BML can be in charge. Anyone who doubts that should try being a woman in a workplace... unless you're in a highly sensitive, heavily female environment (like social work, for example) most women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society. Women in the workplace often find that they have to be extremely aggressive in order to counteract this tendency.
There's a reason more men are promoted into management than women, and it's that tendency to "take charge". To deny that it exists is to deny the entire history of sociological and cultural studies in the West. For many years it was considered to be innate; as we make progress, though, and understand enculturation and neuroscience better, consensus has shifted toward it being a social norm, not a biological norm.
This is interesting. Can't say I'm sold but it certainly warrants investigation.
Quotemost women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society.
Not so sold on this, tho. I'm not ruling it out completely, just thinking about the testosterone-factor which I think figures in there as well. In an all male environment, all things equal, the biggest, loudest one will generally take charge.
I am really motherfucking tired of arguing with you over your ridiculous quibbling, RWHN.
Ultimate Deciders are, yes, the wealthy white men who run our society from top to bottom.
But Deciders (in again, broad cultural strokes, a point you have conceded) are still SWM. When you enfranchise the rest of us, we can fucking talk.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 05:36:18 PM
Quotemost women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society.
Not so sold on this, tho. I'm not ruling it out completely, just thinking about the testosterone-factor which I think figures in there as well. In an all male environment, all things equal, the biggest, loudest one will generally take charge.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, Pent.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 05:36:18 PM
Quotemost women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society.
Not so sold on this, tho. I'm not ruling it out completely, just thinking about the testosterone-factor which I think figures in there as well. In an all male environment, all things equal, the biggest, loudest one will generally take charge.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, Pent.
What I'm getting at is that, even without whatever ammount of indoctrination, I think men would try to take over anyway. i'm not arguing that there is no cultural element at play, just that I think at least part of it is down to the way men are wired.
Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:49:00 PM
Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.
Yes. That's what I'm arguing against. I think it's a mixture of both.
I think I see what's up. The biology is there, but it's encouraged and enforced by culture. In a culture that did not reward that kind of behavior, the hormonal drives would be channeled into a behavior that IS rewarded.
Or something.
No.
I can't remember the name of the group, but there's one where the man/woman roles are 100% reversed. Men are supposed to be "soft", women are supposed to be stoic and aggressive.
It's cultural wiring. Not the shit you're born with (in fact, your culture is the thing that does a lot of the wiring in the first place).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
I think I see what's up. The biology is there, but it's encouraged and enforced by culture. In a culture that did not reward that kind of behavior, the hormonal drives would be channeled into a behavior that IS rewarded.
Or something.
Zing! How do you think the culture got that way in the first place? It's chicken and egg. This is an important thing to get straight because I suspect the solution will be quite different in both cases.
Seriously. No.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:59:10 PM
Seriously. No.
Empirically?
Empirically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100803113150.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29 (taken from a legit journal)
http://www.cordeliafine.com/delusions_of_gender.html (some elements of this book need to be read critically, though)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:05:59 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:59:10 PM
Seriously. No.
Empirically?
Empirically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100803113150.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29 (taken from a legit journal)
http://www.cordeliafine.com/delusions_of_gender.html (some elements of this book need to be read critically, though)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain
So your contention is that biology has no effect on behaviour? It's all culturally programmed? is that right?
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 05:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 05:12:10 PM
Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.
In other words, we need to not tell straight white males that we find some of their behaviors alienating, because it will alienate them?
I think you are illustrating my point very well, RWHN.
Sure, if a SWM is alienating you with their behavior call em out on it. But I don't think it is fair to call out the entire demographic nor is it fair to infer they are something they are not, that being someone who has power and influence when they feel very powerless and uninfluential due to their life circumstances.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
I can't get my head around that. Why does society want them that way? Society happened because of us, not the other way around.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:41:27 PM
I am really motherfucking tired of arguing with you over your ridiculous quibbling, RWHN.
Ultimate Deciders are, yes, the wealthy white men who run our society from top to bottom.
But Deciders (in again, broad cultural strokes, a point you have conceded) are still SWM. When you enfranchise the rest of us, we can fucking talk.
Oh, so now we have two levels of Deciders?
Which one is the poor SWM?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:49:00 PM
Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.
I don't know that that can be said definitively.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
Ok, I notice I am confused.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm going to say what I thought I knew:
Testosterone is linked to aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Males tend to produce higher amounts of testosterone (often significantly higher) than women.
Ergo, men have a greater probability of aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Additionally, the links you provided were related to a connection between neural pathways and culture, not about hormone production.
What am I getting wrong, here?
I don't have an answer for that (ATM, since I gotta scoot for class in a second), except to point out that there are societies where men, or an entire gender made of males, don't act like that.
*shrug* I'll do some research when I get out of class.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
I can't get my head around that. Why does society want them that way? Society happened because of us, not the other way around.
That's a very complex, ancient problem (and society happens TO us, demanded by the circumstances in which people find themselves in). TBH, I'm not entirely sure, but possibly bigger + upper body strength = better suited for killing/taking things and people. That + marriage patterns (polygyny is far and away the preferred marriage pattern) + female infanticide (in farming communities, depending on the crop, because males can do more heavy work (I wouldn't say much about hunter-gatherer societies because I don't know) and the usefulness of men in protecting territory) + land inheritance patterns (first-born gets it all, etc.) = not enough women and land to go around. That leads to "we need more women and land!" which leads to kidnapping women of neighboring groups and war for territory. Which leads to women trying to make their boys more aggressive in an attempt to protect themselves from kidnapping (things usually do not go well for kidnapped women) and to protect their territories.
And then it went from there? IDK. That's my sort partially informed thoughts.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:49:00 PM
Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.
I don't know that that can be said definitively.
I think it can, or mostly so, given the variety of societies humans have created for themselves. I already linked to sources, on top of that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 22, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:41:27 PM
I am really motherfucking tired of arguing with you over your ridiculous quibbling, RWHN.
Ultimate Deciders are, yes, the wealthy white men who run our society from top to bottom.
But Deciders (in again, broad cultural strokes, a point you have conceded) are still SWM. When you enfranchise the rest of us, we can fucking talk.
Oh, so now we have two levels of Deciders?
Which one is the poor SWM?
Broad level. Duh.
Also, that's not a "now" thing. Go re-read my posts.
I still believe that is categorically wrong for reasons I've already laid and to which others seem to have agreed or at least considered a point worth pondering, but it makes little sense to continue to debate the point with you
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:45:30 PM
I don't have an answer for that (ATM, since I gotta scoot for class in a second), except to point out that there are societies where men, or an entire gender made of males, don't act like that.
See, I can believe that, because the culture probably doesn't encourage or reward the risky/selfish behavior. But that's not really addressing whether behavior... is... ah. Language trouble again.
Ok, we're going to need one term for biologically/hormonally driven behavior, and one for cultural.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
Ok, I notice I am confused.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm going to say what I thought I knew:
Testosterone is linked to aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Males tend to produce higher amounts of testosterone (often significantly higher) than women.
Ergo, men have a greater probability of aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Additionally, the links you provided were related to a connection between neural pathways and culture, not about hormone production.
What am I getting wrong, here?
There's a TED talk that touches on this topic. Anthropologists were studying a group of baboons. The group males were split between the dominant males and the not dominant ones. The Alphas showed typical aggressive behavior and the others showed a typical more altruistic behavior. Due to accidental food poisoning the Alpha males all died out, leaving only the not-so-aggressive males, females and babies. Long term observation showed that the whole group of baboons actually changed in their behavior. The males tended to be more altruistic and less aggressive. When new males tried to join the pack, only those that were less aggressive were accepted.
Its a single study, but one that indicates that MAYBE there is a very strong cultural component to some things we thought were purely biological.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html)
Also, I love Sapolsky's hair :D
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
True Older women actually have more testosterone then men and they aren't aggressive.
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:19:48 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
True Older women actually have more testosterone then men and they aren't aggressive.
This is not true. My Grandma could be
mean. But I think it less to do with testosterone and more to do with the fact that my Grandpa was an grumpy old fart who never heard anything she said unless it was followed by a walker to the temple.
Society is a meta product of biological evolution, not the other way around.
It would logically follow that a social impetus toward gender roles would be a result of biology.
Because of our emergent consciousness, human society has, to an extent, grown along arbitrary lines dictated by consciousness, rather than underlying biology.
This appears to have resulted in a feedback loop whereby brain function can be influenced by social conditioning.
It does not logically follow that gender behaviour is entirely dictated by society.
it does, however, logically follow that there could be instances where social conditioning and biological imperative would be in conflict.
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?
Of course aggression is still necessary. Have you not been listening to Todd Akin?
IF THERE IS NO AGGRESSION, HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE RAPE IS LEGITIMATE?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 08:22:10 PM
IF THERE IS NO AGGRESSION, HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE RAPE IS LEGITIMATE?
:horrormirth:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Society is a meta product of biological evolution, not the other way around.
It would logically follow that a social impetus toward gender roles would be a result of biology.
Don't forget the environmental effect, but yes.
Are you arguing for the gender binary, in effect? Because no. Obviously doesn't exist.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Because of our emergent consciousness, human society has, to an extent, grown along arbitrary lines dictated by consciousness, rather than underlying biology.
This appears to have resulted in a feedback loop whereby brain function can be influenced by social conditioning.
It does not logically follow that gender behaviour is entirely dictated by society.
it does, however, logically follow that there could be instances where social conditioning and biological imperative would be in conflict.
I would agree here.
Okay, although I'm going to point out that a fair amount of the wiring is the product of your culture.
Explain?
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?
Aggression = FUCK YOU THAT'S MY FEMALE/FOOD/TERRITORY. GTFO OR I KILL YOU. (also explains Othering) = increased survival
I want to answer no, but I'm not entirely sure that's right.
IN our culture, as it is today... stereotypical male aggression doesn't appear to be as necessary as it perhaps once was. However, I think that is thanks (in large part) to the Machine, the System, the Society, the culture. That means that should the society fail, aggression may once again be necessary. The comments about anarchy boiling down to "Gimme your sammich!" has some merit and should society collapse, aggression may once again be necessary for survival.
We like to think we've evolved, but it wouldn't take all that much to send us running back into the trees (metaphorically speaking)
Is it possible that the cultural expectation for men/males to behave in an aggressive manner might be influencing their testosterone levels?
I found one article on it (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12608929), but I'm not entirely sure it's relevant as a) it's medical in intention and b) far too limited.
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 09:18:41 PM
Is it possible that the cultural expectation for men/males to behave in an aggressive manner might be influencing their testosterone levels?
Wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of feedback between mood and physiology.
This whole thing about "necessary" is it's not really the pertinent question, in my mind. Do we need it? I could imagine a society that worked a treat without it but the problem is that the cat is out the bag and the facts of the matter boil down to it's there and it's fucking effective. Anyone can employ it. How in the name of fuck do you stop it?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 09:29:31 PM
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 09:18:41 PM
Is it possible that the cultural expectation for men/males to behave in an aggressive manner might be influencing their testosterone levels?
Wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of feedback between mood and physiology.
This whole thing about "necessary" is it's not really the pertinent question, in my mind. Do we need it? I could imagine a society that worked a treat without it but the problem is that the cat is out the bag and the facts of the matter boil down to it's there and it's fucking effective. Anyone can employ it. How in the name of fuck do you stop it?
I wouldn't think there would be much point in trying to "stop" it. We're not going to eliminate aggression, and I'm not sure it would be a good thing if we did. I'm not sure that there needs to be
more aggression on the part males than females, but I think aggression in general is something we don't want to eliminate from society. At least I don't. It gives us an edge, even if it isn't in hunting or warfare. I think the question shouldn't be how to stop it, but how to redirect it into something constructive that doesn't have the side effect of reinforcing inequality in the social order.
We are as likely to remove aggression from society as we are our brains. Male of female, we are and always will be aggressive. To a point. It's really only by miracle of our ability to reason that we don't resort to it immediately.
But humans being status seeking animals, we use aggression to propel ourselves forward. We've only just become very refined in applying it. I think female aggression is merely expressed differently due to circumstance, but I think it's cause is the same.
Nature needs violence to protect itself from attack. Makes perfect sense that the violence business is taken care of by the biggest one. Spiders have it round the other way.
But we've already established that our complex society would function much smoother without it. Now violence is effective as hell in resolving disputes in your favour but it doesn't fit in with morality. According to morality, only defensive violence is really acceptable and that dictates that there'll be no offensive violence so the whole thing is moot.
Then we have the real world where violence is the norm and the whole thing is just bad motherfuckers, taking care of business, in huge, armed gangs, right down to some guy punching some other guy out cos he stole his parking space. The language, the way we hold discussions, everything is violence, driven as much by chemicals squirting around in our bloodstream as our evolved consciousnesses.
How do you change that?
Much like the gender roles we've inherited through the same process, I think it's best to embrace our propensity for aggression and expand our understanding of it. That's the basis for my own Discordia.
I've always been a teensy bit on the angry side. And for years I looked for ways to get around it. There isn't any. You either bottle it up and let it explode, tell yourself you're somehow better than that (passive-aggressives), or make friends with it. Try to control it, but first acknowledge that your control over it is minimal.
I don't think we've ever left aggression behind. I think we just sharpened it, made a pretty hilt, and decorated it with jewels. We've made a cunning tool of aggression. Lets keep doing that.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 22, 2012, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 05:49:00 PM
Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.
I don't know that that can be said definitively.
Men and women are biologically different and have different behavioral tendencies which are rooted in biology. However, from what science is able to find out so far with our very recent ability to measure and understand what happens in the brain and in the endocrine system, and how events and pressures during our development affect the brain and personality, human behavior is much, much more adaptive than it is innate.
There is also a huge danger in falling back on the "it's biology" argument, which is that it assumes to deprive men of a crucial element of their humanity; the ability to choose for themselves what kind of person they want to be.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:45:30 PM
I don't have an answer for that (ATM, since I gotta scoot for class in a second), except to point out that there are societies where men, or an entire gender made of males, don't act like that.
See, I can believe that, because the culture probably doesn't encourage or reward the risky/selfish behavior. But that's not really addressing whether behavior... is... ah. Language trouble again.
Ok, we're going to need one term for biologically/hormonally driven behavior, and one for cultural.
Innate behavior (anthropologists believe in innate/instinctive drives, but not innate behavior, in humans) and adaptive (aka learned) behavior.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 22, 2012, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
Ok, I notice I am confused.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm going to say what I thought I knew:
Testosterone is linked to aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Males tend to produce higher amounts of testosterone (often significantly higher) than women.
Ergo, men have a greater probability of aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Additionally, the links you provided were related to a connection between neural pathways and culture, not about hormone production.
What am I getting wrong, here?
There's a TED talk that touches on this topic. Anthropologists were studying a group of baboons. The group males were split between the dominant males and the not dominant ones. The Alphas showed typical aggressive behavior and the others showed a typical more altruistic behavior. Due to accidental food poisoning the Alpha males all died out, leaving only the not-so-aggressive males, females and babies. Long term observation showed that the whole group of baboons actually changed in their behavior. The males tended to be more altruistic and less aggressive. When new males tried to join the pack, only those that were less aggressive were accepted.
Its a single study, but one that indicates that MAYBE there is a very strong cultural component to some things we thought were purely biological.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html)
Also, I love Sapolsky's hair :D
That guy is awesome! I hope he's a member of the long luxuriant hair club for scientists.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 10:20:24 PM
Now violence is effective as hell in resolving disputes in your favour but it doesn't fit in with morality. According to morality, only defensive violence is really acceptable and that dictates that there'll be no offensive violence so the whole thing is moot.
Violence isn't very effective if the dispute in question can be resolved without it. That's why it's a method of last resorts—it opens the door to someone seeking revenge, reduces the likelihood of forming an ally, and can permanently remove the possibility of ever trading goods with that person in the future.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 10:20:24 PM
The language, the way we hold discussions, everything is violence, driven as much by chemicals squirting around in our bloodstream as our evolved consciousnesses.
How do you change that?
You can't choose your biology very easily but you can choose the way you use language, as well as how you conduct yourself in discussions.
If women are "supposed" to be placating and passive, watching the children as opposed to creating creating civilization in any other way, while men use physical strength and endurance and violence to acquire food where does that leave us in a culture that women are more or less capable of choosing when to get pregnant? Why do you suppose women care so much about being able to make that choice?
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?
Of course aggression is still necessary. Have you not been listening to Todd Akin?
I try not to follow American politics.
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".
Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?
Quote from: Net on August 23, 2012, 12:12:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".
Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?
Patriarchy-flavored fatalism?
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 12:21:29 AM
Quote from: Net on August 23, 2012, 12:12:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".
Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?
Patriarchy-flavored Fatalism Chips!
Mmmmmmmantastic!
I'm so sorry for fixing this.
Quote from: Alty on August 23, 2012, 12:35:30 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 12:21:29 AM
Quote from: Net on August 23, 2012, 12:12:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".
Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?
Patriarchy-flavored Fatalism Chips!
Made from 100% organic privilege!
I'm so sorry for fixing this.
Double fixed.
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?
Of course aggression is still necessary. Have you not been listening to Todd Akin?
I try not to follow American politics.
Your mistake. America's lunacy TODAY is Europe's lone nut TOMORROW.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 22, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
IN our culture, as it is today... stereotypical male aggression doesn't appear to be as necessary as it perhaps once was. However, I think that is thanks (in large part) to the Machine, the System, the Society, the culture. That means that should the society fail, aggression may once again be necessary. The comments about anarchy boiling down to "Gimme your sammich!" has some merit and should society collapse, aggression may once again be necessary for survival.
We like to think we've evolved, but it wouldn't take all that much to send us running back into the trees (metaphorically speaking)
I'm gonna suggest that we're just apes with some latex paint on us that looks like civilization.
We're the weaponized ape. It's not what we do, it's what we
are.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 23, 2012, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 22, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 07:11:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 22, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.
It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.
I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.
I can agree with this statement.
Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.
Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?
Of course aggression is still necessary. Have you not been listening to Todd Akin?
I try not to follow American politics.
Your mistake. America's lunacy TODAY is Europe's lone nut TOMORROW.
I'm aware, its just that I barely get to keep up with Irelands politics alone, let alone europes and the rest of the world.
I too am a man pissed off by this bullshit innateness talk.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Society is a meta product of biological evolution, not the other way around.
It would logically follow that a social impetus toward gender roles would be a result of biology.
Yeah, just like biological evolution is all based on the principles of organic chemistry!
And as has been mentioned several, fucking, times, by many different people in these many fucking threads, OTHER CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT GENDER ROLES. Hence GENDER ROLES ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED. Is it so hard to get one's cranium out of one's anus and
give some serious thought to the existence of cultures different from our own?!
Yeah, it's nice and cozy to think of (an aspect of) your culture as "just natural", and this is a position seriously taken by Western scholars for centuries, but it only works so long as you ignore less familiar cultures.
I heard a talk from a biologist-cum-Marxist-gender-theorist a couple of months ago, about gender and capitalism, and he basically started by saying that whenever you think of something as completely natural, you have to get suspicious and give it some serious scrutiny, because "naturalness" is itself a
socially-dictated concept.
I also heard from a friend I trust, who had read some of that guy's stuff, that there's apparently a separate genome for the part of your cells that interpret DNA, and it evolves within the organism's lifespan and affects its progeny. There was something about rat experiments, where one generation of rats were starved a little, and their
grandchildren had a statistically-significant tendency for obesity. Unfortunately, I couldn't confirm any of this with a quick google search, but the moral of the story is supposed to be that it's possible, based on some relatively new biology, that culture can affect biological evolution directly, within single lifetimes. My friend said it's conceivable that we've already physically adapted to the gender binary and to the dominant economic structures. I can't verify any of this right now, but it seemed pretty relevant.
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 09:47:59 AM
I too am a man pissed off by this bullshit innateness talk.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 22, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Society is a meta product of biological evolution, not the other way around.
It would logically follow that a social impetus toward gender roles would be a result of biology.
Yeah, just like biological evolution is all based on the principles of organic chemistry!
And as has been mentioned several, fucking, times, by many different people in these many fucking threads, OTHER CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT GENDER ROLES. Hence GENDER ROLES ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED. Is it so hard to get one's cranium out of one's anus and give some serious thought to the existence of cultures different from our own?!
Yeah, it's nice and cozy to think of (an aspect of) your culture as "just natural", and this is a position seriously taken by Western scholars for centuries, but it only works so long as you ignore less familiar cultures.
I heard a talk from a biologist-cum-Marxist-gender-theorist a couple of months ago, about gender and capitalism, and he basically started by saying that whenever you think of something as completely natural, you have to get suspicious and give it some serious scrutiny, because "naturalness" is itself a socially-dictated concept.
I also heard from a friend I trust, who had read some of that guy's stuff, that there's apparently a separate genome for the part of your cells that interpret DNA, and it evolves within the organism's lifespan and affects its progeny. There was something about rat experiments, where one generation of rats were starved a little, and their grandchildren had a statistically-significant tendency for obesity. Unfortunately, I couldn't confirm any of this with a quick google search, but the moral of the story is supposed to be that it's possible, based on some relatively new biology, that culture can affect biological evolution directly, within single lifetimes. My friend said it's conceivable that we've already physically adapted to the gender binary and to the dominant economic structures. I can't verify any of this right now, but it seemed pretty relevant.
You seem to be arguing that because culture
can affect biology that culture is the sole driving force behind biology? The fact that it's "conceivable that we've already physically adapted to the gender binary and to the dominant economic structures" means it's inconceivable that we did it for some other reason? Or maybe it was a mixture of reasons?
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
Is heterosexuality biologically driven or experience driven?
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
Is heterosexuality biologically driven or experience driven?
That's what I am asking.
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
Is heterosexuality biologically driven or experience driven?
That's what I am asking.
Nope. You're asking about homosexuality, specifically, which is quite different to asking about sexual orientation in general.
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
Is heterosexuality biologically driven or experience driven?
That's what I am asking.
Nope. You're asking about homosexuality, specifically, which is quite different to asking about sexual orientation in general.
I asked it because of the powder keg associated with it, if I had asked about hetrosexuality I don't think it would get the desired effect.
So I'll ask it now, is sexuality biologically driven or experience driven?
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So males fit their gender role, bigger, stronger more aggressive, because of our culture, which programmed the biology? I can't get my head around this part. I'm sure you're not, but I'm reading it as there's no such thing as "natural" everything that happens in biology was agreed in a meeting. That's Intelligent Design?
I'm not accusing you of being that dumb, so please don't take this as an insult or me being obstinate. I'd just appreciate if you could try to explain to me where the line ends. Specifically I'm wondering if you're saying that, at some point in the past society took over from natural selection as the driving force behind biology? Cos that's interesting in itself. A couple of generations of planning and we could grow wings?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So males fit their gender role, bigger, stronger more aggressive, because of our culture, which programmed the biology? I can't get my head around this part. I'm sure you're not, but I'm reading it as there's no such thing as "natural" everything that happens in biology was agreed in a meeting. That's Intelligent Design?
I'm not accusing you of being that dumb, so please don't take this as an insult or me being obstinate. I'd just appreciate if you could try to explain to me where the line ends. Specifically I'm wondering if you're saying that, at some point in the past society took over from natural selection as the driving force behind biology? Cos that's interesting in itself. A couple of generations of planning and we could grow wings?
It also implies sexuality is learned behaviour and that everyones sexuality is a choice, am I missing something here?
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.
And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
So males fit their gender role, bigger, stronger more aggressive, because of our culture, which programmed the biology?
I'm saying that gender roles aren't biology in the first place. They're likely affected by biology in ways that are difficult to understand, but they are not determined by our genome. They are determined by our culture, directly, not through culture shaping our genetics.
For instance, being stronger isn't pure biology. Boys are expected to like and do activities that build up muscles. Girls are expected to be less physically active. Again, these being tendencies, not absolutes. And these being culturally-determined biases.
There's also stuff like how dudes are expected to be stronger, hence they're in charge of lifting heavy things. Trains their muscles while keeping the dudettes from training theirs. It's self-reinforcing.
So biology apparently does determine how easily our muscles get big and bulky, but women have the potential to be just as strong as guys; culture stops many of them from getting there.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
I can't get my head around this part. I'm sure you're not, but I'm reading it as there's no such thing as "natural" everything that happens in biology was agreed in a meeting. That's Intelligent Design?
The meeting thing isn't serious, right? Because we've been talking for literally
hundreds of over a hundred pages about how this cultural stuff is emergent, carried around and carried out by people who have no idea what they're doing, not at all conscious decision-making. That's clear, right?
Cultural patterns evolve, kind of like organisms, but not in the sense that our genomes dictate our culture (an adopted Japanese baby growing up in Israel is going to be just as rude as the bunch of us, not constantly brimming with politeness and deference, despite generations of DNA behind them coming from people whose culture required a lot of politeness and deference to authority.)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Specifically I'm wondering if you're saying that, at some point in the past society took over from natural selection as the driving force behind biology? Cos that's interesting in itself. A couple of generations of planning and we could grow wings?
No, not at all what I'm saying, and I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm saying that gender roles, and quite a lot of our behavior, is determined
directly by culture, without going through biology. I'm also saying that socialization is responsible for a lot of things we're socialized to believe are "natural", i.e. biologically innate. And in this post I'm also pointing out that conscious planning has practically diddly-squat to do with any of this.
EDITED to replace "decide" terminology with "determine" in the first paragraph of this post.
And again because of grammar feyl.
And again to remove unintentional exaggeration (see strikethrough)
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 11:23:05 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So males fit their gender role, bigger, stronger more aggressive, because of our culture, which programmed the biology? I can't get my head around this part. I'm sure you're not, but I'm reading it as there's no such thing as "natural" everything that happens in biology was agreed in a meeting. That's Intelligent Design?
I'm not accusing you of being that dumb, so please don't take this as an insult or me being obstinate. I'd just appreciate if you could try to explain to me where the line ends. Specifically I'm wondering if you're saying that, at some point in the past society took over from natural selection as the driving force behind biology? Cos that's interesting in itself. A couple of generations of planning and we could grow wings?
It also implies sexuality is learned behaviour and that everyones sexuality is a choice, am I missing something here?
I'm no Keirsley scholar, but wasn't his main deal with Homosexuality that it worked like a spectrum? So the idea that sexuality is culturally driven makes sense to me, with there being some people who have an absolute preference for same sex partners regardless of what society says, then the absolute same on the heterosexual side and then a lot in the middle who I suspect make a lot of their choices, maybe subconsciously, determined by what society deems as normal.
I suspect sexuality has choice attached to it but not as black and white as 'I choose to be straight/gay/bi.'
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.
And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.
But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 23, 2012, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 11:23:05 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So males fit their gender role, bigger, stronger more aggressive, because of our culture, which programmed the biology? I can't get my head around this part. I'm sure you're not, but I'm reading it as there's no such thing as "natural" everything that happens in biology was agreed in a meeting. That's Intelligent Design?
I'm not accusing you of being that dumb, so please don't take this as an insult or me being obstinate. I'd just appreciate if you could try to explain to me where the line ends. Specifically I'm wondering if you're saying that, at some point in the past society took over from natural selection as the driving force behind biology? Cos that's interesting in itself. A couple of generations of planning and we could grow wings?
It also implies sexuality is learned behaviour and that everyones sexuality is a choice, am I missing something here?
I'm no Keirsley scholar, but wasn't his main deal with Homosexuality that it worked like a spectrum? So the idea that sexuality is culturally driven makes sense to me, with there being some people who have an absolute preference for same sex partners regardless of what society says, then the absolute same on the heterosexual side and then a lot in the middle who I suspect make a lot of their choices, maybe subconsciously, determined by what society deems as normal.
I suspect sexuality has choice attached to it but not as black and white as 'I choose to be straight/gay/bi.'
I suspect something similar but I wouldn't be confident enough in my understanding of them to say the same thing.
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.
And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
So males fit their gender role, bigger, stronger more aggressive, because of our culture, which programmed the biology?
I'm saying that gender roles aren't biology in the first place. They're likely affected by biology in ways that are difficult to understand, but they are not determined by our genome. They are determined by our culture, directly, not through culture shaping our genetics.
For instance, being stronger isn't pure biology. Boys are expected to like and do activities that build up muscles. Girls are expected to be less physically active. Again, these being tendencies, not absolutes. And these being culturally-determined biases.
There's also stuff like how dudes are expected to be stronger, hence they're in charge of lifting heavy things. Trains their muscles while keeping the dudettes from training theirs. It's self-reinforcing.
So biology apparently does determine how easily our muscles get big and bulky, but women have the potential to be just as strong as guys; culture stops many of them from getting there.
Fair enough. It seems far fetched to me, given the testosterone thing - the biggest differentiating factor involved in muscle mass development. Culture is capable of changing the ammount of testosterone produced by women?
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
I can't get my head around this part. I'm sure you're not, but I'm reading it as there's no such thing as "natural" everything that happens in biology was agreed in a meeting. That's Intelligent Design?
The meeting thing isn't serious, right? Because we've been talking for literally hundreds of over a hundred pages about how this cultural stuff is emergent, carried around and carried out by people who have no idea what they're doing, not at all conscious decision-making. That's clear, right?
Cultural patterns evolve, kind of like organisms, but not in the sense that our genomes dictate our culture (an adopted Japanese baby growing up in Israel is going to be just as rude as the bunch of us, not constantly brimming with politeness and deference, despite generations of DNA behind them coming from people whose culture required a lot of politeness and deference to authority.)
Sorry, man, seems I can't talk about fucking anything without slipping a joke in there somewhere. Although, I am seeing a logical progression, given that culture seems to me to be more in the mental domain than the physical, so maybe consciously deciding is the next logical step?
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Specifically I'm wondering if you're saying that, at some point in the past society took over from natural selection as the driving force behind biology? Cos that's interesting in itself. A couple of generations of planning and we could grow wings?
No, not at all what I'm saying, and I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm saying that gender roles, and quite a lot of our behavior, is determined directly by culture, without going through biology. I'm also saying that socialization is responsible for a lot of things we're socialized to believe are "natural", i.e. biologically innate. And in this post I'm also pointing out that conscious planning has practically diddly-squat to do with any of this.
EDITED to replace "decide" terminology with "determine" in the first paragraph of this post.
And again because of grammar feyl.
And again to remove unintentional exaggeration (see strikethrough)
Okay I think I'm getting there now. Still a lot of fuzzy lines for me in the "gender roles" area but I should be able to wrap my head around this
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 12:23:57 PM
But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.
By socially determined, I certainly do not mean that someone consciously decided to make it so at any point. I think this is clear though.
I guess what I'm getting at is that when you're socialized to believe, act, think in certain ways (i.e. grown into your own BIP), it's very difficult to even recognize what things you've been socialized into (recognize your bars). And that's the prerequisite for changing your socialization (bars), which is no easier, perhaps even much more difficult.
So yes, I'd agree that
on the individual level, the patterns that result from socialization can potentially be changed. It's not a choice to be socialized in the first place, but you can in principle make the choice to change it. But that it's
very, very hard, even when it's just a small change. Cumulatively, you tend to be saddled with your socialization for life. On a societal level, it's practically absolute; not many people even try to see through their own socialization, not all who try succeed, not all who succeed try to change it, and not all who try that succeed. I could throw in made-up numbers for the sake of illustration, but I think you get it: Reaching the ultimate point of significantly rejigging a significant proportion of your own socialization is something so few people do, on the societal level it might as well be impossible.
Now, the societal level is extremely important here, because socialization, as the name suggests, is done to you by society, not by individuals. It's done unconsciously rather than consciously, to boot. If your parents are part of the tiny, statistically insignificant minority that's rejigged itself to a significant degree, well, there's still a limit to how much they can stop you being socialized by the rest of the world. And even they are always at risk of being dragged back into more common patterns by the people around them.
I guess what I'm getting at is that socialization is such an overwhelming force that it just doesn't matter very much what innate factors are involved. I take it that innate stuff is usually a matter of tendency and or potential, anyway, not the kind of robot programming it's often portrayed as. So I don't mind conceding that males have a stronger tendency or greater potential for aggression or physical strength than females do, because it doesn't matter all that much; males are pushed to fulfill that potential, regardless of their personal tendencies and preferences. Females are expected not to work on that area of themselves. If it were the other way around, and women were in charge of the (literal) heavy lifting, strife, etc., we would have a bunch of males who have a significant innate potential for aggression and physical strength but are nonetheless "total whimps", and females whose lower potential for those traits has nonetheless been maxed out due to their socialization and can break the guys in half without breaking a sweat or shedding a tear.
Is this making more sense to you now?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 12:38:30 PM
Fair enough. It seems far fetched to me, given the testosterone thing - the biggest differentiating factor involved in muscle mass development. Culture is capable of changing the ammount of testosterone produced by women?
I honestly don't know enough about testosterone and muscle mass to say anything for sure. I have heard, kind of anecdotally, that in some farming communities where the physical work is taken on by women just as much as men, there's no significant difference in strength despite the differences in muscle mass.
And it seems to me plausible that hormone production is affected by culture/socialization, since it affects your psychology and that can affect your physiology – but I'm talking out of my ass here, I don't know that much about hormones at all.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 23, 2012, 12:38:30 PM
Sorry, man, seems I can't talk about fucking anything without slipping a joke in there somewhere. Although, I am seeing a logical progression, given that culture seems to me to be more in the mental domain than the physical, so maybe consciously deciding is the next logical step?
No need to apologize about joking. I miss on jokes sometimes IRL, the medium makes it worse.
Anyhoo, mental is not at all the same as conscious. A whole lot of mental stuff goes on un- or sub-consciously. But like I wrote above, I do think that mental programming (socialization) can potentially be changed by conscious decision (though it's ridiculously difficult). But as I already said before, I'm not trying to argue that the mental stuff completely determines the biological stuff, so there's still definitely a limit to what you can be socialized to do (or not do) or could decide to do (or not do). But since physical habits have a remarkable effect on the body, and habits are generally something that goes through the brain one way or another, socialization can have a totally palpable effect on people's bodies.
Are you getting me now?
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
No need to apologize about joking. I miss on jokes sometimes IRL, the medium makes it worse.
Anyhoo, mental is not at all the same as conscious. A whole lot of mental stuff goes on un- or sub-consciously. But like I wrote above, I do think that mental programming (socialization) can potentially be changed by conscious decision (though it's ridiculously difficult). But as I already said before, I'm not trying to argue that the mental stuff completely determines the biological stuff, so there's still definitely a limit to what you can be socialized to do (or not do) or could decide to do (or not do). But since physical habits have a remarkable effect on the body, and habits are generally something that goes through the brain one way or another, socialization can have a totally palpable effect on people's bodies.
Are you getting me now?
yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page, which I wasn't sure about before. I still disagree on your "almost impossible" take on breaking socialization. IMO, Simply being aware of any programmed behaviour, thereby bringing it under conscious scrutiny and making the effort to keep it there (the hard part) eventually brings the behaviour under conscious control.
Yes it's hard but I think you consider it an order of magnitude harder and a lot less common IRL than I do?
Well, considering socialization encompasses more or less every detail of life, and consciously noticing it has to be done more or less one thing at a time, yeah, on a societal level it seems to me near impossible (except for very slow, very gradual change – like what feminism has been doing for decades.) On an individual level, since I've been practicing it myself for almost a decade (since I was a teenager) I know it's very doable... But I also notice that it requires a lot of sustained effort to avoid relapse. The patterns we're socialized into seem to function as a default or comfort zone, and that only really changes after years of reconstruction. That's a lot of effort to just move one bar, and the patriarchy is part of a goodly proportion of all our bars – it's not just one process of recognition-deconstruction-reconstruction, it's a lot of different processes, big and small, and every bar left unmoved seems to make other, related bars harder to recognize and move. (Hope I haven't stretched the BIP metaphor too far here.)
Quote from: Net on August 23, 2012, 12:41:25 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 23, 2012, 12:35:30 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 12:21:29 AM
Quote from: Net on August 23, 2012, 12:12:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on August 22, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 11:52:34 PM
I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.
I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.
Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".
Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?
Patriarchy-flavored Fatalism Chips!
Made from 100% organic privilege!
I'm so sorry for fixing this.
Double fixed.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality isn't a gender role. :?
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 05:00:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality isn't a gender role. :?
Obviously. Are you are saying they ARE biologically determined then, or are they a a social construct, or something inbetween?
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
The reasons for homosexuality as a phenomenon is poorly understood, but some scientists believe that it may be a combination of genetic factors and social/environmental factors that trigger the activation of certain genes during fetal development.
People tend to hear "biology" and think "oh, genetics!" but the two are not interchangeable. All genetics is biology but not all biology is genetics, and biology can be changed by social and environmental (adaptive) pressures.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
The reasons for homosexuality as a phenomenon is poorly understood, but some scientists believe that it may be a combination of genetic factors and social/environmental factors that trigger the activation of certain genes during fetal development.
People tend to hear "biology" and think "oh, genetics!" but the two are not interchangeable. All genetics is biology but not all biology is genetics, and biology can be changed by social and environmental (adaptive) pressures.
Yes, so it is likely a largely immutable part of someone's personality if it is genetic.
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.
And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.
But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.
It is very possible that most depression is also the result of adaptive pressure, believe it or not. Our environment affects our biology, and our society shapes our environment, and the high rates of depression in certain societies compared with very low rates in others, as well as shifting rates of depression over time in certain societies, indicates that the biological switch that is flipped to cause depression is actually flipped by a certain social environment.
Sexuality is not static and often changes over time in a person.
Most of these questions just don't have a simple answer.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 05:13:01 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.
And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.
But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.
It is very possible that most depression is also the result of adaptive pressure, believe it or not. Our environment affects our biology, and our society shapes our environment, and the high rates of depression in certain societies compared with very low rates in others, as well as shifting rates of depression over time in certain societies, indicates that the biological switch that is flipped to cause depression is actually flipped by a certain social environment.
Sexuality is not static and often changes over time in a person.
Most of these questions just don't have a simple answer.
Change based on environment and social pressures. So it is feasible that a persons sexuality could be changed through social factors just like any other outlook. Positive or negative like aggressive or sexist behaviour.
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 05:10:52 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 23, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 10:22:33 AM
No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.
EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
Homosexuality is not gender roles.
Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.
Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.
The reasons for homosexuality as a phenomenon is poorly understood, but some scientists believe that it may be a combination of genetic factors and social/environmental factors that trigger the activation of certain genes during fetal development.
People tend to hear "biology" and think "oh, genetics!" but the two are not interchangeable. All genetics is biology but not all biology is genetics, and biology can be changed by social and environmental (adaptive) pressures.
Yes, so it is likely a largely immutable part of someone's personality if it is genetic.
Well, yes and no. It's not that simple. Even though I spoke about "flipping a switch" earlier, it isn't always just an on-off switch. It might be a dimmer switch. Genetics and the role genes play in biological expression are really complicated. So is the role biochemistry plays in genetic expression. If someone is expressing a trait that all of their family members carry but don't express, clearly they had no choice in that expression, and they most likely have no choice in the level it expresses itself at. However, "immutable" is probably the wrong word to use because sometimes traits don't appear until late in life, or disappear late in life, or simply shift over time.
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 23, 2012, 05:13:01 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: VERBL on August 23, 2012, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?
A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.
And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.
But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.
It is very possible that most depression is also the result of adaptive pressure, believe it or not. Our environment affects our biology, and our society shapes our environment, and the high rates of depression in certain societies compared with very low rates in others, as well as shifting rates of depression over time in certain societies, indicates that the biological switch that is flipped to cause depression is actually flipped by a certain social environment.
Sexuality is not static and often changes over time in a person.
Most of these questions just don't have a simple answer.
Change based on environment and social pressures. So it is feasible that a persons sexuality could be changed through social factors just like any other outlook. Positive or negative like aggressive or sexist behaviour.
It's not at all rare for a person's sexual expression to be changed by positive or negative associations. In many cases it may be a type of repression, where the person is simply repressing one aspect of their sexuality in favor of expressing another. Girls and boys who are molested may become hypersexualized toward the gender of the person who molested them, if the molestation aroused them at the time, whereas if it was a fearful or violent experience with no associated pleasure, or if they experience an overwhelming sense of shame, they may completely shut off towards the gender of the person who molested them, and express sexuality only toward the other gender.
A woman who is raped may afterwards become a lesbian. A man may get out of a lengthy marriage with a wife who never cared about his sexual pleasure and find that his sexual experiences with men are much more pleasurable and satisfying. People change, and environment, including social environment, affects that.
None of that, by the way, is meant to explain the causes of homosexuality. It is just some examples of pressures which can influence a shift in sexual expression.
Sex, by the way, is a drive. It's one of the very, very few things that anthropologists consider instinctive. However, they don't consider the ways in which we express it to be instinctive, but rather, learned.
Ok, I that sounds about right.
I totally forgot about this thread. Verb was ON FIRE toward the end.
And apparently RWHN doesn't believe in white male privilege in the US, which is actually unsurprising, yet something I totally did not remember.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 23, 2014, 05:45:41 AM
I totally forgot about this thread. Verb was ON FIRE toward the end.
And apparently RWHN doesn't believe in white male privilege in the US, which is actually unsurprising, yet something I totally did not remember.
If it was anyone other than RWHN, I'd say they didn't understand - as I didn't understand - privilege.
But it was RWHN, and so it is the fault of CHEATING BITCHES AND SLUTS WHO MAKE HIM BE THAT WAY. Only he dated a hot Black woman at work. So hot. Much Black. And then one day he hadn't. Which to me says he never had, and said he had until that BITCH
turned him down.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 01:02:22 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
"Native Americans shouldn't view white guys with suspicion; we deserve to be viewed as innocent unless we actually fuck them over."
Yes, If I recall the Irish persecution of the Native Americans was quite brutal. Hoopy indians still shudder at the sight of the fierce white devil of Kilgarven.
I'm sorry ALL whites oppressed the Native Americans.
Hi Faust from 2012, we have a thing now called "Not all men", you might not understand it, or why your message was retarded, but you will.
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 01:02:22 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
"Native Americans shouldn't view white guys with suspicion; we deserve to be viewed as innocent unless we actually fuck them over."
Yes, If I recall the Irish persecution of the Native Americans was quite brutal. Hoopy indians still shudder at the sight of the fierce white devil of Kilgarven.
I'm sorry ALL whites oppressed the Native Americans.
Hi Faust from 2012, we have a thing now called "Not all men", you might not understand it, or why your message was retarded, but you will.
I sometimes dread looking through old threads, exactly for that reason...
I used to, then I realised its an argument he cant win.
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2014, 09:47:13 PM
I used to, then I realised its an argument he cant win.
:lol: Good point.