In Which Res Ipsa Abandons the Illusion of Control Over What People Post In a Thread f/k/a Thinking About ...

[Res Ipsa]

So, if you want to promote a debate with long-form discussion, wouldn't you want to approach any issue with a strategy to invite participation as opposed to discouraging it? Do you think belittling Moksha's posting style and sense of humor advanced your goal of a long-form discussion and debate?

Actually, yes. You and others are participating. Moksha had four posts belittling the idea of sexist language and showed no interest in engaging in the topic to learn or debate his statements, as evidenced by his decision to not take you up on a conversation. My decision to to break the bird off was to illustrate that there wasn’t actually a joke happening, that couching sexist language under the guise of ‘joking around’ was just a strategy to get away with being a dick, and that the underlying motivation was narcissism, i.e., them womens are too sensitive and just looking for a fight so it can’t possibly be MY problem. Plenty of people have put me on ignore or choose not to respond to me, and Moksha had those options available to him, and frankly if I popped in to join the conversation on the thread you asked me to not do so, I probably would’ve honored your request.

Back to Ms. Brown’s demand:

In the centuries of feminist movements that have washed up and away, good men have not once organized their own mass movement to change themselves and their sons or to attack the mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture. Not once. Bastards. Don’t listen to me. Listen to each other. Talk to each other. Earn your power for once.

... if we do not demand that men do more than just listen ...

There’s a time for diplomacy. There’s a time for policing. And there’s a time for war. Some tried diplomacy. That failed. Some tried policing. That failed. I tried war. Perhaps that failed, too. However, sometimes nothing works and so people eventually just pick a camp and hunker down. In this case, I don’t expect Moksha to change his stripes or spots or however the saying goes. I’m unlikely to change much, either.

So, we’re left with the observers. Some may hate how I treated Moksha. Some may have thought it was awesome. It’s kind of like Xanax and some of the others that used to post on this board. He’s not going to change. You can choose how to engage him, and Imma do me. Whatever the case may be is Xanax has become a rhetorical device for posters on this board. If Moksha wants to be an active participant on a topic he disagrees with, and avoid becoming a device through which posters reach the broader audience, then he’s going to have to go the route honor has chosen, and defend his point of view with a bit of spine instead of trying to make himself into a victim. That may work on some folks, but it’s a lazy and transparent attempt to shield his opinion and himself against criticism.

So. To summarize. On this particular topic, sexist language, I think Lemmie, Ms. Brown, and Jersey Girl did an effective job stating and defending their positions. The men not so much. I’m compelled to side with the people who persuasively made their arguments. If a dude jumps in and herps the “F” out after they put in that kind of effort, of course I’m going to spaz out. Herping and derping is supremely disrespectful if you didn’t even bother to read the OP, or WORSE if you read it and you came away with, “wOmEn iZ lAnDmInEz!”

- Doc

Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. When I ask a question like that, it usually means it's a question I've been asking myself, so it's valuable to hear how someone else thinks through the same issues. I have one more, if you don't mind. When Ms. Brown says this: "mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture," do you think that includes "going to war" against each other?

[Lem]

Wow, what a surprise. Welcome to my world, dude! Have you read honor’s last 25 posts?

Sereiously, though, I am sorry you are hurt because my opinion about this specific reference you just posted is different. I don’t see how you can take that as a “repeated description of my acts and intent that I think is both negative and unfair.” I am not posting any differently than you do, in terms of voicing my opinion. Please see recent threads you have participated on, if you need examples.

Maybe it would help to consider that you and I are both entitled to express our opinions, and simply having a different opinion doesn’t need to be interpreted by you as hurtful, but rather simply, a different opinion.

When you express an opinion that differs from mine, it doesn't hurt me. When you tell me you disagree with me, it doesn't hurt me. Do you want me to show you an example of what does?

I’m sure we both have MANY examples of where we think the other person has been hurtful. There’s no point in hashing that out here, unless you are also willing to listen to my examples about you. Based on past experience, I doubt that VERY VERY MUCH, so let’s just stick to the topics.

For example, you didn’t comment on the main point of what I actually wrote, so I am reposting it here, for another try at conversation:

This is fascinating. It truly never occurred to me that when I point out a sexist comment, the other person thinks I am saying they are a bad person. What I am saying is "please don't use this sexist phrase, because it is hurtful to me as a woman." If they apologize and say sorry, I accept that apology, and if they stop using it, I certainly don't go forward thinking "that person is sexist." I simply assume they took my point, about a phrase that is likely to have been used in the past without realizing the damage. And hopefully, they learned something, and they won't say it again.

So many phrases and comments are habitual that it takes a while to get them out of our vernacular. As a woman, I point out very few of the sexist comments made here, or those made in my professional life, or those made in my social life, or those made by family members, or those I read in current newspapers and stories, etc. etc. etc., but I do appreciate having learned through this experience how incredibly hurt some people may feel when their sexist phrases are pointed out. It certainly explains why women who speak up are so viciously attacked.

Do those saying sexist things feel as much hurt as those receiving the crude sexist slaps in the face feel?

Do you have a comment about any of that?

[Res Ipsa]

Lem. Nope. Thanks for answering my questions. I got what I needed.

Take care.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

When Ms. Brown says this: "mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture," do you think that includes "going to war" against each other?

Why did I know you were going to seize on that while not acknowledging Moksha’s behavior? I’m sure my post falls under that rubric. I’m not going to defend my postings - I’ll own it. In fact, I think I’ve owned it the entire time. Look. Again. You do you. I’m still not quite sure what you’re getting at. I think, if I’m reading you correctly, is that you just want people to be less defensive, not make it about themselves, and to be civil with one another. Perhaps as Ms. Brown said, “If we do not raise boys to walk humbly and care deeply” about their impact on others we’ll all drown in the flood. <- That process, however, is fraught with lots social and political issues since we’re essentially denaturing boys and plugging them into a paradigm we’ve never tried before that I’m aware of. In the meantime, perhaps the endless quest for yuks at the expense of women, THAT’S what you should be focusing on, not tone, or words, or how I verbally fishhooked Moksha. You know. Since we’re talking about sexist language and not how men act amongst men.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

But when you explain your rationale for your posts to Lem, this is what I hear: I'm justified in intentionally inflicting harm on a fellow human because doing so might improve the culture. To me, that's taking culture in the wrong direction. That kind of thinking justifies any degree of harm to any number of fellow humans simply by invoking "the greater good" as an excuse.

Interesting. I didn't mean to convey my responses are intended to improve culture because I don't believe in free will. I believe in free won't, which means the automatic responses to stimuli can be interrupted even if we aren't choosing the original reaction. The key to doing so is having the internal reason-based reflection on why one reacts as one does to get the seeds for free won't planted so they can sprout. Over time, I do believe individuals can "change the program" but not alone. It requires a certain amount of outsider's perspective to be able to see what one can't see on one's own, and then be willing to engage in self-observation and critique enough to grapple with the outsider's perspective.

In a way, what you describe is how I read the meta-discusssion going on about why men can't engage an individual woman's behavior in a critical way if culture demands change to the extent bad behavior can be excused. Here's a quote that Lem brought in from Chap earlier on that I think exemplifies the kind of enabling I am referencing:

My experience of listening carefully to highly intelligent and reflective women talking about sharing discursive space with men has taught me that quite a few of them have a significant accumulation of irritation (or worse) with the way us men sometimes talk and behave. I don't feel that way at all about women (in fact I tend to prefer their company to that of men), but I think that if I had to live as a woman I would probably feel the way they sometimes do about men.

Such women have usually learned, however, that it is better not to let that irritation out in the open very often - if they do that they are humorless, over sensitive, aggressive, shrill and so on. But sometimes it just overflows.

Lem quoted it a few times in the other thread when someone critqued her. Why? Because apparently it doesn't matter how she responds, the above justified it.

So, I don't get it. It sounds to me like a very thin veneer of rationalization to justify a desire to control the behavior of another adult human or to lash out and hurt a fellow human that one is angry at.

Convince me otherwise.

So we're back to the meta-discussion issue. See, you notice how you see in my response a personal motive? Tone overcoming substance? An individual seeking to justify their own reactions as valid and "lashing out" with intention to hurt? That's all exactly the problem with the format. You can't help doing. Not when discussing subjects where the participants aren't able to hold it at a remove.

So there's the rub.

[Lem]

....In the meantime, perhaps the endless quest for yuks at the expense of women, THAT’S what you should be focusing on, not tone, or words, or how I verbally fishhooked Moksha. You know. Since we’re talking about sexist language and not how men act amongst men.

- Doc

That’s what I thought we were talking about also.

[Lem]

Lem. Nope. Thanks for answering my questions. I got what I needed.

Take care.

Res Ipsa. Got it. You want to give me examples of how I am hurtful, and when I note we both have such examples and instead request to stick to the topic you decline. That gives me a pretty clear picture of your intent.

Take care.

[Res Ipsa]

But when you explain your rationale for your posts to Lem, this is what I hear: I'm justified in intentionally inflicting harm on a fellow human because doing so might improve the culture. To me, that's taking culture in the wrong direction. That kind of thinking justifies any degree of harm to any number of fellow humans simply by invoking "the greater good" as an excuse.

Interesting. I didn't mean to convey my responses are intended to improve culture because I don't believe in free will. I believe in free won't, which means the automatic responses to stimuli can be interrupted even if we aren't choosing the original reaction. The key to doing so is having the internal reason-based reflection on why one reacts as one does to get the seeds for free won't planted so they can sprout. Over time, I do believe individuals can "change the program" but not alone. It requires a certain amount of outsider's perspective to be able to see what one can't see on one's own, and then be willing to engage in self-observation and critique enough to grapple with the outsider's perspective.

In a way, what you describe is how I read the meta-discusssion going on about why men can't engage an individual woman's behavior in a critical way if culture demands change to the extent bad behavior can be excused. Here's a quote that Lem brought in from Chap earlier on that I think exemplifies the kind of enabling I am referencing:

My experience of listening carefully to highly intelligent and reflective women talking about sharing discursive space with men has taught me that quite a few of them have a significant accumulation of irritation (or worse) with the way us men sometimes talk and behave. I don't feel that way at all about women (in fact I tend to prefer their company to that of men), but I think that if I had to live as a woman I would probably feel the way they sometimes do about men.

Such women have usually learned, however, that it is better not to let that irritation out in the open very often - if they do that they are humorless, over sensitive, aggressive, shrill and so on. But sometimes it just overflows.

Lem quoted it a few times in the other thread when someone critqued her. Why? Because apparently it doesn't matter how she responds, the above justified it.

So, I don't get it. It sounds to me like a very thin veneer of rationalization to justify a desire to control the behavior of another adult human or to lash out and hurt a fellow human that one is angry at.

Convince me otherwise.

So we're back to the meta-discussion issue. See, you notice how you see in my response a personal motive? Tone overcoming substance? An individual seeking to justify their own reactions as valid and "lashing out" with intention to hurt? That's all exactly the problem with the format. You can't help doing. Not when discussing subjects where the participants aren't able to hold it at a remove.

So there's the rub.

Fair enough. I kinda got carried away in hyperbole. But I find the free won’t issue confusing in this context. Are you choosing how to respond to Lem?

[MeDotOrg]

Sexism, Racism, Ageism...all are part of the human vernacular. There is a quote about God and human evolution that I'm fond of:

Blowing through heaven and earth, and in our hearts and the heart of every living thing, is a gigantic breath - a great Cry - which we call God...

...Human beings are centaurs; their equine hoofs are planted in the ground, but their bodies from breast to head are worked on and tormented by the merciless Cry. They have been fighting, again for thousands of eons, to drag themselves, like a sword, out of their animalistic scabbard. They are also fighting - this is their new struggle - to draw themselves out of their human scabbard. The human being calls in despair, "Where can I go: I have reached the pinnacle, beyond is the abyss". And the Cry answers, "I am beyond. Stand up!"
Nikos Kazantzakis, 'Report to Greco'

(by the way, I'm not providing the quote as an argument for the existence of a Supreme Being. Whatever the impetus, human consciousness seemed to be evolving, if not progressing.)

People say 'Abolish Racism' or 'Abolish Sexism', as if it can be legislated by a governmental caveat. It's the left's equivalent of Nancy Reagan's 'Just say no'. I've talked about this point in other posts, but racism is not simply a spigot that you turn off. Here's the dilemma: You don't want to provide a public forum for the perpetuation of racism or sexism, but at the same time if racists and sexists are just taught to sit on their feelings, they simply get pushed underground into chat rooms of like-minded people. And if you ask me, it is there that racism and sexism find their most virulent forms.

It's part of the blessing and the curse of the internet age. We all want to live in groups that justify our comfort zone. If enough people have the same toxic comfort zone, they can form a group for self-validation on the internet.

It seems unfair for me to bring up this problem and not offer a solution, but I don't know what it is. Racists and Sexists and Liberals and Conservatives have more avenues of communication than ever before, but the reality is that in this global age we are still tribal, but our tribes are becoming less geographical and more ideological. We're losing the ability to speak meaningfully with one another, because our perception of reality is based upon entirely different news sources. People become increasingly desensitized and cynical, fertile ground for a Great Leader with an easy solution.

So the only thing I can suggest is that the solution is to get out of your comfort zone and speak honestly and without fear. So what are my secret thoughts?

The desire to have sex seems to be different in most men and women. In many cultures, using a man's sexual desire as a form of capital was the only power a woman had. A man's power is generally more overt: physical, educational, economic. Survival in such a culture for some women meant an obsession with physical appearance. That part of our culture may not be as prevalent, but it is alive and well. The fashion industry, cosmetics, plastic surgery, the obsession to deny aging...I think these are negative self-perpetuating facets of our culture that need more examination.



So what am I saying here, as an admittedly privileged WASP dude? My secret belief is that, very understandably, oppressed groups may pick up survival mechanisms that are not productive when they are no longer oppressed.

I think of a story, years ago, when attorney Gloria Allred led a group of women for a night out a Chippendale's the male strip club. She said that the reason it was okay for women to watch men strip and not vice versa was that women did not have the economic power to seek other employment, whereas men did.

What I see here is human beings being reduced to sociological stereotypes. She implies that all men have other choices. If you are a young, good looking man without a lot of brains, Chippendale's might be your best opportunity to make money.

And I would imagine that there are at least a few women, who enjoy stripping. At the same time I acknowledge that a greater percentage strip because there are no other jobs available that offer that kind of money.

My perception of human nature tells me that if human beings every achieve social and economic equality, some men and women would still choose to strip or to be sex workers. I am not for a minute saying that women should not be saved from the hopeless lives of sexual slavery that they are forced to live. I'm saying should we should recognize the the Kardashian Kulture an effective money maker and creator of power, but it is based upon self-perpetuating and negative aspects of our shallow obsession with women's physical beauty.

[Res Ipsa]

When Ms. Brown says this: "mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture," do you think that includes "going to war" against each other?

Why did I know you were going to seize on that while not acknowledging Moksha’s behavior? I’m sure my post falls under that rubric. I’m not going to defend my postings - I’ll own it. In fact, I think I’ve owned it the entire time. Look. Again. You do you. I’m still not quite sure what you’re getting at. I think, if I’m reading you correctly, is that you just want people to be less defensive, not make it about themselves, and to be civil with one another. Perhaps as Ms. Brown said, “If we do not raise boys to walk humbly and care deeply” about their impact on others we’ll all drown in the flood. <- That process, however, is fraught with lots social and political issues since we’re essentially denaturing boys and plugging them into a paradigm we’ve never tried before that I’m aware of. In the meantime, perhaps the endless quest for yuks at the expense of women, THAT’S what you should be focusing on, not tone, or words, or how I verbally fishhooked Moksha. You know. Since we’re talking about sexist language and not how men act amongst men.

- Doc

Because Moksha’s not here. I agree with you that we’re each responsible for our own behavior. Moksha is responsible for his own behavior. I have no control over that. The most I can do, maybe, is persuade.

I’m perfectly fine with you doing you. But if the way to handle issues is long form debate, why isn’t the assumption that going to war with other peeps on a message board is a productive tactic something that can be discussed?

In my opinion, nature hasn’t much of an opportunity to do its thing Homo sapiens for quite a while. Given the current state of things around here, it might be worthwhile to give some thought to whether natures that evolved on the plains of Africa are what we should be sticking to today.

Where I’m coming from is that, based on the state of the nation, we’re in a world of hurt. That’s leading me to question all sorts of assumptions, including how I interact with people. I asked you one of the many hard questions I’m asking myself because I wanted to hear your answer. You think about lots of things differently than I do, so it’s helpful for me to hear a different viewpoint.

So, thanks for putting up with my questions. I understand your point of view better.