Existence of the Patriarchy

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby sevenperforce » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:56 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
The difference is that in the Israeli case the law would allow men to accuse their victims of statutory rape, which is nonsensical; the Indian case is about rape in general.


again... that seems to be your... very loose interpretation of the article and nothing I see there implies that. it lists rape and statutory rape separately based on the circumstances. If you've got a more detailed breakdown, again, I'd be interested.

That was the specific explanation given in every article about it.

as to the rest... are you just playing devils advocate or are those your actual opinions?

Those are my actual opinions. Note, however, that I didn't say the feminist groups in India were right. I said that in certain circumstances, for a particular immediate goal, in certain cultural contexts, it might be necessary. Maybe.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:01 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Seriously, I can provide quotes


Given you can't even get his name right.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2119

Aaronson wrote:If you’ve been following this at all, then please, please, please read Scott Alexander’s tour-de-force post. To understand what it was like for me to read this, after all I’ve been through the past few days, try to imagine Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the American Declaration of Independence, John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women, and Clarence Darrow’s closing arguments in the Scopes trial all rolled into one, except with you as the protagonist. Reason and emotion are traditionally imagined as opposites, but that’s never seemed entirely right to me: while, yes, part of reason is learning how to separate out emotion, I never experience such intense emotion as when, like with Alexander’s piece, I see reason finally taking a stand, reason used to face down a thousand bullies and as a fulcrum to move the world.


Aaronson wrote:I could to get people to see me as I was, rather than according to some preexisting mental template of a “privileged, entitled, elite male scientist.” And many responded by pressing down the template all the more firmly, twisting my words until they fit, and then congratulating each other for their bravery in doing so.



You. You.You are exactly the kind of bully the article is aimed at but sadly you appear utterly unable to "get it". You can never be anything but the hero of your own story.

How have you not seen anything to imply that when it's in the bloody article. You've even posted a quote containing an argument along those lines.


please quote. re-reading the full article nothing there directly implies that unless reading with both eyes closed and imagination on full drive.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:12 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:please quote, re-reading the full article nothing there directly implies that unless reading with both eyes closed and imagination on full drive.


(Assuming you're talking about Aaronson instead of the law coverage, as I was referencing with that quote, since otherwise your post doesn't make sense to me.) Here you go:
The first concession is that, as Laurie Penny maintained, my problems weren’t caused by feminism, but rather by the Patriarchy. One thing I’ve learned these last few days is that, as many people use it, the notion of “Patriarchy” is sufficiently elastic as to encompass almost anything about the relations between the sexes that is, or has ever been, bad or messed up—regardless of who benefits, who’s hurt, or who instigated it. So if you tell such a person that your problem was not caused by the Patriarchy, it’s as if you’ve told a pious person that a certain evil wasn’t the Devil’s handiwork: the person has trouble even parsing what you said, since within her framework, “evil” and “Devil-caused” are close to synonymous. If you want to be understood, far better just to agree that it was Beelzebub and be done with it. This might sound facetious, but it’s really not: I believe in the principle of always adopting the other side’s terms of reference, whenever doing so will facilitate understanding and not sacrifice what actually matters to you.

Smash the Patriarchy!

The second concession is that, all my life, I’ve benefited from male privilege, white privilege, and straight privilege. I would only add that, for some time, I was about as miserable as it’s possible for a person to be, so that in an instant, I would’ve traded all three privileges for the privilege of not being miserable. And if, as some suggested, there are many women, blacks, and gays who would’ve gladly accepted the other side of that trade—well then, so much the better for all of us, I guess. “Privilege” simply struck me as a pompous, cumbersome way to describe such situations: why not just say that person A’s life stinks in this way, and person B’s stinks in that way? If they’re not actively bothering each other, then why do we also need to spread person A’s stink over to person B and vice versa, by claiming they’re each “privileged” by not having the other one’s?

However, I now understand why so many people became so attached to that word: if I won’t use it, they think it means I think that sexism, racism, and homophobia don’t exist, rather than just that I think people fixated on a really bad way to talk about these problems.

He admits that he was mistaken on not benefitting from privelege, and that it wasn't feminism attacking him.

However, if he has made other statements clarifying that that is the wrong interpretation to what he has said, and is maintaining that "shy male nerds" face special oppression that shy female nerds don't have to deal with, then...well, the nicest way to put it is that he's operating under extreme confirmation bias, and doesn't have an accurate view of reality. Yes, he's in pain, but that doesn't automatically make a person right.

However, since he's at least seemingly made it clear that "feminism isn't out to get him", we should be able to establish that the original claim made by Alexander, the one that got us here, that feminists like to use "feminism = equality" as a buzzword to surreptitiously pass "equality = woman superiority" is woefully unsupported and almost certainly false. Whatever are disagreements are on whether Aaronson was right or not, can we at least get that on-topic point resolved?

[TRIGGER WARNING]
You. You.You are exactly the kind of bully the article is aimed at but sadly you appear utterly unable to "get it". You can never be anything but the hero of your own story.

Also: dude? I was a shy male nerd too, and had a date set to off myself because I believed I was so worthless. Where Aaronson said he went to a doctor and requested castration, I actually attempted the act. I've even made posts in this forum at the tail end of my believing that women, as a group, saw me as worthless. I understand exactly where Aaronson is coming from with each statement he makes, it's just that I also understand exactly what proved me wrong on those claims in my own life, and have the ability to say "hold up, that's not quite right." (which is also not "calling him names")

I've lived through the same damn pain as Aaronson, if not worse, so we kind of have to discard your apparent assumption of "his claims must be accurate because of the pain he went through", because it would lead to a contradiction, neh? The main difference is that I never had so large of a platform for when I said something, well, dumb, that the entire internet got up in arms about it. And now I've grown up, and realized the mistake I was making.

(For what it's worth, on the claim that Aaronson is still holding as of the Lavina Collins post, I can prove that one wrong as well -- when I finally found love, it was exactly because she initiated, proving him wrong in his claim that women simply never do that.

Also for what it's worth, the backdraft I did get, from individual posters instead of whole communities, was actually extremely helpful for me getting rid of my self-hating delusion, the one I shared with Aaronson. Tone policing it honestly would have been detrimental.)

EDIT: Corrected spelling of his name, sorry about that.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Domnikareoro and 13 guests