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

[honorentheos]

You can't make this crap up. You seriously cannot.

Yet you just did.

To clarify, when you asked for an example I referred you back to the post directly above the one you quoted earlier. I entered the thread after a particular response that was part of a small mini-discussion within thread.

I could see how you may read that and not believe there is an example of what you define as asshole behavior. What's interesting to me is how you've invented an association with my posting and the OP in the other thread tied to the Analytics / Lem exchange. Until the last few days I'd made one comment in that thread which was this -

It would help the discussion if all parties recognize being an asshole may not always be a choice, but how one decides to respond when it's pointed out typically is a choice. The thread is a case study in asshole behavior justification.

The thread was not a case study of people being on top of the subject from the get go. It was a mess. Understandably so, but it was a mess. I agree that Analytics and Lem ended in a better place though I'll frankly point out it says something that you had to PM Lem to point out the apology you quoted at which time she extended an apology for her own decisions as well. All well and good, but don't portray that as something it wasn't.

I'm curious if your expectation for discussion aligns in your mind with the PM gossiping that loads conversations and establishes biases? I'd think a person who prefers dialog would recognize that open discussion isn't benefited from that.

Anyway, here's a non-feminism example of what I mean from this very thread.

And given the history of completely dysfunctional communication between Lem and me, I’d be crazy to get anywhere near a discussion of that nature.

As long as I've known you, you've been upset that you can't make me agree with you or post the way you want me to post. You are frustrated by that and I agree it is dysfunctional.

Note the pattern here. Res points out that they have a poor history of communication (shared ownership of the problem) and Lem rolls her eyes and deflects owning any part of it as it's all due to Res trying to control her.

That's asshole behavior.

[Lem]

Not even going to bother reading the broken record that is the previous poster.

[honorentheos]

Not even going to bother reading the broken record that is the previous poster.

Of course not. Being on brand is important.

[Lem]

[honorentheos]

There's the sexism topic, and there is being an asshole to others in the various threads involved and using excuses for doing it. The latter should be called out regardless of who does it or why. Good people use it to take a look at themselves and see if maybe they could be doing things differently that would help.

Pandering isn't helping.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Would you leave me out of this disgusting conflict? You acted like a crazed avenger and are trying to justify your bad behavior. This place was not designed as a combat arena for you to badmouth other posters.

No. You don't get to pop into a topic, post your nonsense, and then get to act like a victim who is now a moralist. GMAFB. You still haven't read the OP in question, nor my analogy, nor offered to take RI up on his offer, nor acknowledged your brain dead 'joke' on which you not only doubled, but TRIPLED down on, in addition to pulling this 'poor me' routine. You're the exact kind of clown Ms. Brown referenced, and whether or not my 'tone' is a matter to be discussed it doesn't change the FACT you shat all over and continue to crap all over the original point of these threads, which is to address using a woman's biology as a put down to put them in their place. You're too much a pig to feel any remorse for your attempt to mock Lemmie and to acknowledge your wrongdoing.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

You can't make this crap up. You seriously cannot.

Yet you just did.

Nope. Not made up. I was referring to the fact that the word asshole was used to describe two women in this forum. Lem for acting like one and myself, for asking for and/or supplying proof re:assertions for a second time.

To clarify, when you asked for an example I referred you back to the post directly above the one you quoted earlier. I entered the thread after a particular response that was part of a small mini-discussion within thread.

Not so. You referred me as follows:

The posts immediately before the one you quoted are the ones that ultimately motivated me to say something

.

I looked at the posts prior to the one I quoted. Not seeing exactly what you were referring to, I asked you to link and quote a glaring example.

[honorentheos]

Yet you just did.

Nope. Not made up. I was referring to the fact that the word asshole was used to describe two women in this forum. Lem for acting like one and myself, for asking for and/or supplying proof re:assertions for a second time.

To clarify, when you asked for an example I referred you back to the post directly above the one you quoted earlier. I entered the thread after a particular response that was part of a small mini-discussion within thread.

Not so. You referred me as follows:

The posts immediately before the one you quoted are the ones that ultimately motivated me to say something

.

I looked at the posts prior to the one I quoted. Not seeing exactly what you were referring to, I asked you to link and quote a glaring example.

What exactly would you like to discuss? I'm also curious where you see yourself being refered to as behaving like an asshole.

[Jersey Girl]

I'm also curious where you see yourself being refered to as behaving like an asshole.

I named the poster who made the remark. Now. You got a search feature and...I have to go.

[Res Ipsa]

And I generally agree with your description of laying some groundwork for a discussion to make sure we’re starting from some common ground. I don’t know how helpful it would have been in this context. ***shrugs***

Do you think it's possible that you don't know how helpful it would have been to lay groundwork (definition and terms) for this discussion when you yourself wouldn't entertain it? I tried, RI.

Of course. That's why I literally said "I don't know" and shrugged. If that came off as dismissive, I apologize. It was intended to emphasize that I don't know. If you're talking about helpful to me, I don't think so, only because I've had the discussion you propose over and over again. And my own experience is that they follow the same pattern, even among people who sincerely want to do something about sexism. Talking about the labels results in a protracted argument about the labels themselves. And, if the discussion involves men, they will inevitably endlessly debate and dissect every word of every definition, inject all kinds of issues to consider. And then someone will react to use of the label by getting angry and starting a pie fight. That usually ends with some kind of apology, but sometimes with angry stomping off. And the discussion never gets around to "ok, let's figure out how to stop stepping on your feet." And so we keep stepping on your feet.

And this discussion repeats itself over and over until some woman writes a column in which she is so sick and tired and frustrated of endless talk and endless promises and no action that she screams at her husband that she wants all men to die. And then the first thing about her column that gets discussed is whether she should have said that, as if there's some resemblance between Analytics' deliberate use of a sexist phrase and a woman who is so frustrated by lack of action that she has to shout something extreme just to try to get people to get off their collective asses and do something. Context is everything. The stereotype of women being irrational because of their menstrual cycle has been around longer than any of us can remember and has been an excuse for keeping women out of power and for dismissing their words outright that continues today. There is no equivalent stereotype that involves wishing all men dead that has damaged men for centuries. But that's what we seem to do when we discuss issues without context. Yes, in theory, one should avoid wishing for the deaths of fellow humans. In context, it's a perfectly understandable reaction to the frustration of someone who is in pain because someone is standing on her foot, and the someone listens and nods and says he's sorry and will change. But he never gets off her goddam foot.

The closest analogy I can think of is Zeno's Paradox. I want to cross the room, but before I can cross the room I have to go halfway across the room. But before that, I have to go 1/4 of the way across the room. But before that, I have to go 1/8 of the way across the room. But before that.... And so it becomes impossible for me to cross the room. The message I hear from feminists in general is the same same message communicated in the column: Stop dicking around and cross the room already.

You started a new topic thread to discuss: Thinking about feminism.

Yes, I did. I wanted to cross the room by talking to Schmo to try and persuade him to change his thinking from "you folks are crazy" to "Yeah, I can see there's a problem." I paid attention to how Lem defined the topic, concluded that it did not fit within the topic as she described it, and respected her by starting a new thread rather than derailing hers. I chose the title deliberately because I don't identify as a Feminist -- I identify as an ally of feminists. I don't speak for feminists, so I wouldn't start a discussion called Feminism. The topic I hoped for was how we could think about and discuss feminism in a way that led to action rather than endless discussion. It didn't happen. That's the way it goes on a message board.

Then changed the title of the thread to discuss: Thinking about how to stop sexist speech and behavior

Yes. Lem expressed an objection to use of the word "Feminism" in the context of the discussion that was occurring. I wasn't wedded to the title and debating whether the title of the thread was appropriate was the kind of distraction I was trying to avoid, so I changed it. Problem solved. No muss, no fuss, no derailment.

Sexist speech and behavior are products of sexism. Agreed?

No, but the reasons for the disagreement have no relevance to getting up and crossing the room. Even feminists disagree among themselves over terminology and mechanisms and tons of other details. None of that prevents me from agreeing that men should get off women's feet.

I made a post where I shared my own definition of Sexism and Feminism. Then asked what the function was of each. That lasted all of I dunno, 2 seconds.

Yes. And I apologize for not asking for clarification of who you were posing the questions to. I thought you were trying to bring others into the conversation, rather than posing the questions to me. And I don't know how to answer them, because I view both terms as labels for clusters of ideas. Their only function is a convenient way to talk about broad and complicated clusters of ideas. I define Feminism as what Feminists say and do, recognizing that even among Feminists, there are substantial areas of disagreement. I can give you my general understanding from listening to Feminists, but I leave defining the term to Feminists.

How do you suppose you can think about feminism or stop sexist speech and behavior before first defining your terms? How do you expect to stop a behavior (speech included) when you haven't identified what purpose it serves? And if you can't identify what purpose it serves, In other words, how people profit from it (their motivations), then again---how do you propose we stop something or solve a problem when we haven't even begun to seriously examine it?

If I need to stop my car, I don't need to know how the braking system works, or the history of cars, or how the different parts of the car function. All I need to do is now what stops the car (foot and/or handbrake) and to take action. I don't need to have endless debates and discussions over the patriarchy and power relationships hear my fellow human say "get off my foot" and to move my foot. Likewise, when I hear feminists say Fix It, I'm not going to respond by saying "Hold on there. I can't fix it until we define abstract terms and discuss who benefits and how it all functions." That's what's been happening for decades.

Like how? Just pitch darts through the intellectual fog and hope something lands?

Nope. The intellectual fog is of our own making. I'm suggesting we don't make it.

Instead of discussing either topic, this thread has largely turned into a discussion of personalities, who deserved what they got and who didn't. Is that what you hoped for?

Of course not. But I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not we define terms or discuss concepts. It's what people do. It's what happens in discussions about racism and sexism -- people get defensive and try to make the issue about personalities. It happens in discussions that start with discussing all the things you described. It's a natural defense mechanism. It's a problem that gets in the way of acting. So let's solve it.

As an ally, my role is to listen and to take action when asked. The asking has been loud and clear for quite a while now: men, get off our feet. You're hurting us. You're the problem. You need to fix it.

So this thread was me making an attempt to fix it. I have some ideas about how to talk to other men about how to adopt a perspective on sexism that doesn't trigger the defense mechanism that gets in the way. And it's possible that I might know a little more about how to talk to men than you do. I dunno.

But here's my experience on this thread. I got up, I started to cross the room. One woman responded by tone policing how I was going about trying to persuade another man. Another responded by telling me I couldn't possibly cross the room unless I crossed half the room first, but couldn't do that unless I crossed a quarter of the room first, etc. And the end result is still no discussion about how to get off your feet.

I'm in 100% agreement that this is a problem that is men's responsibility to solve. But I can't if my attempt to try something different instead of what hasn't worked for decades is derailed just as I'm getting started. If it's my responsibility, please, let me try. If you want to control the details, take the responsibility.

I'm shrugging, too.

I don't know what you mean by the shrug.