3 ms·

From what I've seen of my communities, I don't generally believe this, but it could be the case in other communities I'm unaware of. Definitely, in the dominan

From what I've seen of my communities, I don't generally believe this, but it could be the case in other communities I'm unaware of. Definitely, in the dominant societal structure, if you want to get laid you have to be confident, powerful, and successful. You're not going to go out to a club and get laid unless you meet certain requirements, or are capable of faking meeting them. However, there are subcultures which do tend to turn that on its head. And if you're the sort of person who understands and does some basic research on modern feminist/queer issues vs pretending to respect women to get laid, you're likely to find them. Also, the behaviours of rich, successful male feminists get called into question by feminists all the time. That you don't see this suggests a bubble you're in.

stcredzero 10y ago
Also, the behaviours of rich, successful male feminists get called into question by feminists all the time. Where did I say that I never see this? (Hint, I don't. You projected this onto me.) The thing is, though, that it's usually much harder to have such attacks stick against the powerful. Also, men who are in positions of power in such environs generally know how to navigate them. It's not that powerful men don't get challenged. It's that they weather the challenges, enjoy prestige and power, and get to mate. That you don't see this suggests a bubble you're in. Then go out on a limb and project what that might be. I'll give you a hint: Generally people imagine that I'm on the other end of the political spectrum from them, and they're generally wrong. I've had people vilify me for being a lefty hippy-dippy. I've had people call me a yuppie scum. I've had dozens of contradictory stereotypes ascribed to me. Basically, people like to dislike me because I don't subscribe to their ideology in the groupthink/jingoistic manner that's expected of most people. Instead, I see most such things as apes bludgeoning each other with ideological weapons -- because that's mostly what it is.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  > The thing is, though, that it's usually much harder to have such attacks stick against the powerful. Sure, I'd agree with that. People with power can more reasonably say "fuck this label, it brings me too much criticism, I'm picking another one". Is the solution not to question anyone for harmful beliefs and actions? Feminists criticise each other as a matter of course - if your goal is to avoid people questioning your behaviour, it's not a label you want. But that's an entirely different thing from being "powerful, confident, and successful".
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    People with power can more reasonably say "fuck this label, it brings me too much criticism, I'm picking another one". Not how they usually spin it. Is the solution not to question anyone for harmful beliefs and actions? The solution is to treat ideas and principles more as ideas and principles and less as emotionally based ideological bludgeons. if your goal is to avoid people questioning your behaviour Where the heck did this guff about this "goal" and labels come from? (I certainly wasn't intending that.) I'm all for questioning. My original observation is the different treatment the powerful get from the not-powerful, even when the questioning is ideological. Especially when the questioning is ideological. You can think of it this way: I'm questioning the self-awareness behind such questioning as practiced, not the notion of questioning itself.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > My original observation is the different treatment the powerful get from the not-powerful, even when the questioning is ideological. I don't think you've shown that the powerful get different treatment from the not-powerful. In fact, as far as I can tell, you've agreed that the powerful do come under criticism, just that they handle it better?
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        Are you trying to steer me towards a fallacy like this? -- Both men and women are paid for work, therefore they are equal. Powerful men and not-powerful men receive very different treatment when they are subject to ideological questioning. Powerful men tend to be believed when they claim ideas and emotional states. Not-powerful men tend to be not-believed, or accused of lying. Sometimes, even surface signals can be sufficient "proof" that certain emotional states or ideas apply to them. In fact, as far as I can tell, you've agreed that the powerful do come under criticism, just that they handle it better? I'm saying that the system is generally rigged for the powerful, even if "the system" is a social/subcultural context strongly influenced by progressive women.
        10y ago

stcredzero 10y ago

Also, the behaviours of rich, successful male feminists get called into question by feminists all the time. Where did I say that I never see this? (Hint, I don't. You projected this onto me.) The thing is, though, that it's usually much harder to have such attacks stick against the powerful. Also, men who are in positions of power in such environs generally know how to navigate them. It's not that powerful men don't get challenged. It's that they weather the challenges, enjoy prestige and power, and get to mate. That you don't see this suggests a bubble you're in. Then go out on a limb and project what that might be. I'll give you a hint: Generally people imagine that I'm on the other end of the political spectrum from them, and they're generally wrong. I've had people vilify me for being a lefty hippy-dippy. I've had people call me a yuppie scum. I've had dozens of contradictory stereotypes ascribed to me. Basically, people like to dislike me because I don't subscribe to their ideology in the groupthink/jingoistic manner that's expected of most people. Instead, I see most such things as apes bludgeoning each other with ideological weapons -- because that's mostly what it is.

vertex-four 10y ago
> The thing is, though, that it's usually much harder to have such attacks stick against the powerful. Sure, I'd agree with that. People with power can more reasonably say "fuck this label, it brings me too much criticism, I'm picking another one". Is the solution not to question anyone for harmful beliefs and actions? Feminists criticise each other as a matter of course - if your goal is to avoid people questioning your behaviour, it's not a label you want. But that's an entirely different thing from being "powerful, confident, and successful".
- stcredzero 10y ago
  People with power can more reasonably say "fuck this label, it brings me too much criticism, I'm picking another one". Not how they usually spin it. Is the solution not to question anyone for harmful beliefs and actions? The solution is to treat ideas and principles more as ideas and principles and less as emotionally based ideological bludgeons. if your goal is to avoid people questioning your behaviour Where the heck did this guff about this "goal" and labels come from? (I certainly wasn't intending that.) I'm all for questioning. My original observation is the different treatment the powerful get from the not-powerful, even when the questioning is ideological. Especially when the questioning is ideological. You can think of it this way: I'm questioning the self-awareness behind such questioning as practiced, not the notion of questioning itself.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > My original observation is the different treatment the powerful get from the not-powerful, even when the questioning is ideological. I don't think you've shown that the powerful get different treatment from the not-powerful. In fact, as far as I can tell, you've agreed that the powerful do come under criticism, just that they handle it better?
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Are you trying to steer me towards a fallacy like this? -- Both men and women are paid for work, therefore they are equal. Powerful men and not-powerful men receive very different treatment when they are subject to ideological questioning. Powerful men tend to be believed when they claim ideas and emotional states. Not-powerful men tend to be not-believed, or accused of lying. Sometimes, even surface signals can be sufficient "proof" that certain emotional states or ideas apply to them. In fact, as far as I can tell, you've agreed that the powerful do come under criticism, just that they handle it better? I'm saying that the system is generally rigged for the powerful, even if "the system" is a social/subcultural context strongly influenced by progressive women.
      - 10y ago