gemmaem
1yr ago
I take public transit a lot, often in New Zealand, but also a little bit back when I lived in Los Angeles. I have not been harassed as far as I can remember, although if the incident was minor then I might easily have forgotten it. There was quite a lot of street harassment in LA, and incidents from that context are thus more likely to have stuck in my memory than any small additional experiences during my less frequent public transit trips.
There are a number of possible explanations for the phenomenon that you outline. Without knowing more detail it's hard for me to guess which ones are more likely, but here are a few of them:
-
Some harassment is comparatively invisible. Groping can occur out of line of sight. Someone with astute social skills can box someone into a conversation out of politeness and then start quietly bringing up sexual topics after the rest of the car has got the impression that the conversation is polite chit-chat. And so on.
-
Harassment does not occur at random. If you are, in fact, an alert traveller, and this is visible to the people around you, and you look like someone who would intervene if you saw something, then you may be carrying a little anti-harassment field around with you. Thanks, if so! But this would mean that your experience would drastically undercount the level of harassment that occurs under other conditions.
-
Some of the women you are talking to may be conflating "I have heard stories of harassment on public transit" with "I have been harassed in public, although not on public transit, and do not wish to repeat the experience" and may therefore give replies like "I have experienced too much harassment to want to use public transit." This could be true, strictly speaking, even as it implies that they have been harassed on public transit when in fact they have not had that precise experience.
-
People often have a tendency to retell stories with themselves in the main role, even when they heard it from someone else. Think, like, urban legends, where people will retell it and swear it happened to them because that makes for a better story. This just seems to be a thing people do. Some people may therefore be telling you stories that are not, strictly speaking, their own.
gemmaem
8mo ago
I know I’m being an SJW, but I don’t think you should use African-American dialect pejoratively like this. I don’t think these are black people to begin with, and this wouldn’t be a good way to respond even if they were.
gemmaem
1yr ago
You're not wrong that a clear double standard seems to be opening up around accusing posters on here of being "groomers." I feel like naraburns crossed a line when he wrote:
Do you honestly advocate for distributing such things to children? If so, you're a groomer, too...
This is a shaming tactic: "If you disagree with me on this issue then you are a knowing accessory to child abuse." It's unworthy of this forum, and it's an example of a style of rhetoric that would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left. It's completely reasonable for you to be angry about this, particularly since it is coming from a moderator. When you're in charge of maintaining the rules, you'd best try not to break them.
With that said, I think the way you're going about trying to call it out is unproductive. I know it's frustrating to have to pay attention to fine distinctions when your interlocutor is going out of their way to blur them in order to smear you. The thing is, though, if you're going to try to make a post in favour of better enforcement of the rules then you, too, are going to be subject to greater scrutiny in your own behaviour, just as moderators are. So you need to not accuse naraburns of saying things he didn't say. The things he did say are the things you need to be complaining about. He didn't directly accuse people who disagree with him of being pedophiles, he accused them of being groomers. That's bad enough.
Of course, you may not actually be trying to call for better rule enforcement, here. You seem to simply be blowing off steam. That's a shame, because I would like to call for naraburns to commit to not calling people names for disagreeing with him, and, unfortunately, your post risks overshadowing my point.
gemmaem
8mo ago
There's a lot more stuff in there besides the two things you mention. For example:
Hispanic people, he wrote in a 2010 article in Counter-Currents, “don’t have the requisite IQ to be a productive part of a first world nation.” He then made an argument for ethnic cleansing, writing that “the ultimate goal should be to get all the post-1965 non-White migrants from Latin America to leave.”
“If we want to defend our liberty and property, a low-IQ group of a different race sharing the same land is a permanent antagonist,” he wrote.
Of course, many proponents of "HBD" do indeed consider racial antagonism to be part and parcel of that worldview. I'm not the first to note that "HBD" is a motte and bailey with dry statistics in the motte and outright racism in the bailey. But if you're going to fold remarks like this into "HBD" then you really are saying the quiet part out loud.
gemmaem
8mo ago
Like @raggedy_anthem, I do not believe you intended to sound Black. Because AAVE is an alternate dialect with different pronunciations and rules of grammar, and because it is primarily spoken by members of a socially disadvantaged class, the stereotypical “idiot” pronunciation has sometimes shifted towards that (actually fairly complicated and internal-rule-abiding) dialect. This isn’t on me or on you. It’s on the pre-existing history of seeing Black Americans as social inferiors.
Given the surrounding social environment here, I don’t expect to gain points for wokeness. I do think that it’s useful to avoid normalising racial caricature, even unintentionally.
gemmaem
8mo ago
Nonsense. Coerced sterilisation would be a human rights violation no matter who the target was. Removing a specific racial group from America is well outside the Overton Window. And even affirmative action is generally framed in terms of helping minorities, rather than justifying it with invective against white people.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Hm, let me make a list of measures that I would either directly recommend or seriously consider. Not all of these will inconvenience or disadvantage women particularly, but a few of them should satisfy that also.
-
Repealing the "Dear Colleague" letter requiring "preponderance of evidence" standards for campus rape cases. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that this has led to unjust outcomes, and that in general allowing campuses to set their own standards based on the way they see things playing out in their local community makes more sense.
-
Opening up some/most domestic violence shelters to men. I know many radical feminists would prefer them to be all-female spaces, and of course J. K. Rowling famously made one that excludes trans women, just to make it feel extra safe to women who fear men particularly. Keeping a few single-sex spaces does make sense, in areas where the population density can support more than one. But men sometimes need a place to go when they have been abused, too, and when they're dealt with separately this can make it harder to build infrastructure.
-
Local community measures to give men places to meet and socialise with other men, such as the "Men's Shed" initiatives in Australia.
-
More physical activity in schools, to make the learning environment easier for high-energy children (who are often disproportionately boys).
-
Anti-suicide measures aimed at men.
-
Housing measures that pay particular care to the needs of homeless men.
There are probably more, but hopefully this provides a decent spectrum.
Hanania’s “talk about race and crime” was fine with them. The problem is with his talk about eugenic sterilisation and justified racial discrimination and the necessity of getting Hispanic people to leave the US because of the inevitable antagonism between whites and racial minority groups with inferior intelligence, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
This is fundamentally a question about "What do left-wing people believe and why do they believe it?" To answer such a question, you need a qualitative appreciation of people's belief structure, rather than pure quantitative analysis of the type you seem to be suggesting.
As someone who watched the intersectional feminist critique of "liberal debate" developing in real time, I can give you some examples of the types of direct criticism of liberal debate norms that led to decreased appreciation for such procedural rules.
-
Blog comment moderation. Early on, in the blogosphere there was a substantial (or at least noisy) "free speech" contingent that contended that all blog comment sections ought to be unmoderated for "free speech" reasons. Feminists frequently had bad-faith people showing up in their comment sections to deliberately troll; they were also frequently discussing delicate topics such as rape. Comment moderation of some kind or other was thus a fairly universal practice, and the conflation of "free speech" with being against comment moderation contributed to a decline in appreciation for the (broad, non-first-amendment version of the) concept.
-
The devil's advocate. When someone says they are "playing devil's advocate," they're often asking people to debate them as an exercise without holding them responsible for any moral repugnance inherent in what they are suggesting. Feminists got tired of being asked to calmly refute ideas that they considered personally painful and morally unsupportable. They noted/claimed that there was often an inherent imbalance in who was being asked to "remain calm" while hearing something deeply threatening to them on a personal level.
-
Tone policing. When speaking about an emotionally resonant subject, being asked to speak calmly can mean censoring yourself. Thus, while the previous two claims are about how liberal norms are too permissive, this one is about how they are too restrictive. Sometimes being visibly angry is the only way to truthfully express yourself. Intersectional feminists also claim that variation in the social norms applied to different groups of people will lead to greater tone restrictions on women (in whom anger is less accepted) and on black people (in whom anger is seen as more threatening).
-
The ban on "emotion." If I may quote myself: "Disallowing "emotion" favours noncontroversial emotions over controversial ones, since noncontroversial emotions do not need to be vividly expressed in order to be understood and taken as meaningful." Feminists tend to believe that typically male emotions are accepted, where female ones are not, and thus that they will be disadvantaged as women under such a rule. Intersectional feminists take it further, and suggest that upper-class white male emotions are likely to be the noncontroversial, accepted ones that have weight without needing to actually be expressed strongly -- and which are therefore likely to carry the day under liberal "rules of debate."
I am personally very sympathetic to most of these critiques. Unfortunately, I don't think the most common solutions on offer actually lead to better outcomes overall. Nevertheless, my explanation of the trend that you identify would be that these liberal norms fell out of fashion because they genuinely were flawed, and that bringing them back will require re-working them to take some of these critiques into account while also preserving what was important about them.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I loved Ancillary Justice. It did not deserve to get dragged through the mud just because some people were mean to Larry Correia on the internet. It certainly starts out quite opaque, but it rewards attentive reading.
Given the publicity surrounding its use of feminine pronouns for every character, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is a book about gender. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that this is really a book that is not about gender. The Imperial Radch is a deeply flawed society with a great deal of systemic injustice -- and it doesn't have gender (as we understand it) and it doesn't have race (as we understand it). So it's a book about systemic injustice that has very carefully excised the main two identity markers that we usually associate with that sort of thing. It takes away the compass that the average social justice advocate would use, and asks readers to learn to navigate anew.
I thought the body horror aspects were excellently handled, creeping up on the reader precisely because they are so normal to the narrator. I also found Anaander Mianaai's troubles with herself to be predictable in the manner of a successful Chekhov's gun -- the sort of thing where you ask "but what if..." partway through the book and then learn later (to great readerly satisfaction) that, indeed, if. On the whole, there is a general theme of throwing the reader into the deep end of some massive cultural and technological differences. If you enjoy subtle clues and tricky empathy leaps, it's a really good book.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I do, in fact, generally respect exhaustion in my argumentative partners, you're not wrong about that. Unfortunately, in this case, you've made any number of statements that require answers. You accuse me of sneering, but you've been sneering at me this whole time, and suggesting taking away rights far more fundamental than a right to single-sex spaces. As for catty sniping, you're full of catty sniping! "I love the indignation here," you write. "And thanks for another illustration," you continue. It's true that I'm not spelling out my own object level ideas; I'm asking you to spell yours out because you keep leveling accusations at women that honestly seem far more true of you. Perhaps if you were better at engaging with women in good faith, you'd get more good faith in return.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Power of women specifically is the power to tank any political project they don't like (say, one increasing men's rights) and shut down a discussion they don't favor (say, one casting women in unflattering light) with a gratuitous refusal to compromise or engage in good faith;
Still a bit light on the details. Are you too afraid of my mean-girl power to explain which men's rights women are taking away, or would you be willing to elaborate?
As for "casting women in an unflattering light," well, your premise that women are too mean and irrational to be allowed to participate in politics certainly does that! And I suppose you will claim that any counterargument that I make is merely an appeal to "women are wonderful." But I think my conduct speaks for itself, to any reasonable observer. Your accusation of habitual bad-faith argumentation on my part is unfounded.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Right-wing media sources characterize it as an invasion of the capitol building to keep the state legislature from voting on legislation which would outlaw medical gender transition for minors.
This isn't quite accurate, since people who are between the ages of 18 and 26 are not minors, the bill that is the main object of protest would outlaw any kind of gender transition procedures or referrals for individuals under 26.
gemmaem
8mo ago
Even the examples you list aren’t as extreme as Hanania’s pseudonymous writing, though. “Decolonisation is not a metaphor” does not say “perhaps we could coercively sterilise the colonists and take our country back in a few generations,” and the authors probably aren’t secretly thinking it; note that I come from a country where giving back land is government policy. Metaphors about “whiteness” are still putatively about mindset rather than genetics, and the paper you list was by a white person, which isn’t a complete defence but it does complicate things. We don’t have to trust these people completely but it does matter that they don’t actually mirror Hanania’s pseudonym.
You might reasonably ask whether someone who had called for extremist anti-white policies that truly did mirror Hanania’s would be more easily forgiven if they repudiated their earlier stance. Probably. But I have never seen such policies advocated in the first place, and I think that extreme white supremacy is feared because it actually has a constituency. It certainly has one here on this website. OP of this thread calls it “nothing very shocking.” This person blithely refers to “implement[ing] a few eugenic policies” as a way of getting rid of a racial minority.This person thinks that Jim Crow and slavery were “sane, stable solutions to the problem of having a racial underclass.” At least that last one is getting pushback?
It remains to be seen whether this even will scuttle Hanania’s book deal. You’re right that it could, but it might not. I am not certain that it should, but I may as well admit that it scares me a little that it might not. Without the possibility of strong pushback, would Hanania have changed his mind in the first place? Even if he would have, others would not. You can see plenty of them right here.
Hanania should lose trust over this. He should lose status. I don’t think he should lose the opportunity to regain some trust, and his explanation does matter, but it’s important that he takes a hit for this. Moreover, we don’t have to trust him.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Thank you for sharing your experience. I've never actually looked at /r/egg_irl, but everything I hear about it makes it sound pretty terrible. I agree that many people right now are too quick to act as though being trans is an immutable and easily recognisable category. There are edge cases who are sort of in between being trans and not; there are odd cases (meaning no judgment) of people whose sense of gender simply fluctuates. Treating gender nonconforming people well requires acknowledging this complexity.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Be honest, you know you being a woman has nothing to do with how he is engaging in this conversation
Dase has made his opinion of women very clear, on multiple occasions. He thinks we are liars. He thinks we are mean. He thinks we habitually act in bad faith.
The style of sneering at female commenters personally that he is employing in this thread is very obviously coloured by his broader opinions.
Do you seriously think "has women franchisement gone too far" is too spicy relative to the other things the motte discusses?
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be allowed. I decided not to let it -- and the sneering alongside it -- go unchallenged.
So why add in that little snide at all if not for shaming purposes?
I meant it, sincerely. Good faith works best as a two way street. That's just a fact of human interaction.
I've been on the Motte since it was the Culture War Thread. I'm one of the left-most people here. I've never flamed out. I've garnered two mod notes over six years; never a ban. I stay for the charity, when I can get it; I stay to be challenged and to see views I wouldn't otherwise see. Sometimes, I admit, I stay for the fight. But I always argue in good faith, even when it leaves me vulnerable. If you can't access that side of me, you're not trying very hard.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Male power fantasies in fiction are still very common, I think you'll find. There's an entire section of literary criticism in which the ur-narrative is The Hero's Journey. Being the Son of Heaven or some other kind of Chosen One comes standard.
Reality is, ultimately, its own check on these things, I think. Most women know they aren't actually queen of very much. Time comes for us all, and most of us grow. Some of us still like to imagine being Batman now and then while we're at it, and that's okay.
I think it might actually be harder to mock women for not being powerful just because, unlike men, we're not failing in our gender role by lacking power. Which isn't fair to men, that they should be mocked for not aligning with a gender role, but I think some of the difference that you are seeing actually comes from there.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Gosh, people are writing pop songs that are power fantasies! Sometimes they even write them about women. What is the world coming to?
Come on, there's no substance here.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I think there are many, many people in the world who think they deserve more than they have, certainly. It's fair to say that those people's self-evaluation is frequently questionable. I don't think this tendency is confined to women, though, nor do I think it is more out of control in women than in men. There are some areas where it is more tolerated in men (especially if those men are already high status), and others where it is more tolerated in women (especially if those women are already high status).
gemmaem
1yr ago
Being violently attacked should not be "the consequences" of making unpopular policy, or of being the family of someone who has made policies that some people do not like. If you're worried about being smeared as supporting this kind of violent attack, then don't talk as if the attack was justified.
gemmaem
8mo ago
It does indeed depend on the social meaning to some extent. But, looking at reactions within Spain to this event, it seems like a lot of Spanish women agree that, according to their own social meanings, this was out of line.
gemmaem
1yr ago
When I want to talk about racism, I'm not held to the standard you're asking me to hold naraburns to. I don't get to call people "racist" just because they meet my definition of racism. I have to be very, very careful about using the word at all, and avoid the more disputed definitions thereof. If I can't say it in a nicer way than that, then I just don't get to say it.
With that said, you have yourself provided a less inflammatory way to say it:
"Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse, you're providing sexual material to children, therefore you are preparing children for abuse."
This refrains from using a disputed definition and is therefore much clearer in what it is saying. This makes it easier to respond to, because the assumptions are laid out and can be openly discussed. It's a much better comment, with much higher standards of expression.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I can agree with some of the things you ask for, here and there. For example, I agree that the top-down command to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard when evaluating campus rape cases has been shown to be a mistake, leading to unjust outcomes in some cases, perhaps particularly for men with social disadvantages of race and/or class.
There are also some places where I don't agree with your proposed remedy, but might agree with alternate ways to help men. For example, I don't agree with abolishing all female-only scholarships, but nor do I object to male-only scholarships, particularly in fields where men are underrepresented such as nursing or teaching.
Most importantly, though, I think there are some important consequences to the idea that everyone, including men, is deserving of a baseline level of sympathy. One of these is that we need to retire the idea that women don't have to work hard to understand what men are going through, because "society forces less powerful people (like women) to consider the point of view of more powerful people (like men)." That sort of statement is far too confident. Sympathy with someone who is different to you is actually quite hard. Moreover, not all men have power.
So, while I might not always agree with you on all of the issues you raise, I do agree that it's important for me to listen to your perspective as sympathetically as I can.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Thanks for the shout-out! The phenomenon you note is easily explained, of course. Most of the leftists on here who aren't deeply committed to charity have flamed out and left, already! Those of us who remain form a very specific subset.
I often feel an odd sense of fellow-sympathy with the honour-driven conservatives and religious traditionalists around here. It could be the shared virtue ethics, although Christian virtue ethics differs from the pseudo-Aristotelian kind in some pretty dramatic ways. But I think it's probably just that I, too, get tired of the edgy rightists and aloof centrists, and feel a certain solidarity with my ideologically-outnumbered fellows. You, too, are part of the ideological diversity of this place; every time you force the main flow of this place to deal with your more outsider-type views you're helping to establish that it's normal to encounter views on here that aren't perfectly aligned with local popular sentiment. And that means that when people encounter me they might be a little less likely to see me as an interloper to be resisted.
There is no level of status at which any man becomes attractive to every woman. The phenomenon in which high-status men sometimes get away with sexual harassment or assault was never win-win to begin with. Your comment doesn't even consider the possibility that sexual attention from a powerful man might at times be deeply unpleasant in itself, and that refusal is important for personal reasons rather than some kind of elaborate power play.
Boy band audiences, particularly those in the front row, can usually be assumed to be fans. That makes them a special case. Even then, it would be possible to go too far, I think.
More options
Context Copy link