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?
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.