2 ms·

> 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 re

> 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.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > 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. Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in. I wonder if either I'm not seeing something, or I'm in a bubble and my communities are actually better than most. Do you have any specific examples as they apply to feminist communities? I'd really like to find out whether I'm missing something.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in. I bet you're talking about people on screens and in media, when you say "people in power." (Perhaps administrators in school, or people in charge of organizations?) I'm talking about the more powerful people in your community that you actually talk to and interact with regularly. Basically the people who are actually relevant in the context of your ape dominance hierarchy ladder. Talking crap about distant figureheads of power doesn't count. EDIT: For example, when was the last time a poor white cis-hetero man tried to join in your group as a feminist, and how did it go for him?
        vertex-four 10y ago
        I'm not. I'm talking about the same people you are, I think? I'd really like some explanation of who precisely we're supposedly letting down, as this level of abstraction is getting to a level where either of us could say anything without evidence. EDIT: There's a handful of poor cis white hetero men in my specific feminist/SJ group. Their thing is mostly being pro-unionisation in a way that falls in nicely with the more socialist tendencies of modern feminism, or they're unemployable due to mental or physical disability and struggling with the abysmal benefits system and have come to disbelieve that society as it stands is ever going to fix that, or in one case he's blind, and we support them in their efforts and fold them into our own as best as we can. I can't vouch for the makeup of other groups.

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.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > 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. Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in. I wonder if either I'm not seeing something, or I'm in a bubble and my communities are actually better than most. Do you have any specific examples as they apply to feminist communities? I'd really like to find out whether I'm missing something.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in. I bet you're talking about people on screens and in media, when you say "people in power." (Perhaps administrators in school, or people in charge of organizations?) I'm talking about the more powerful people in your community that you actually talk to and interact with regularly. Basically the people who are actually relevant in the context of your ape dominance hierarchy ladder. Talking crap about distant figureheads of power doesn't count. EDIT: For example, when was the last time a poor white cis-hetero man tried to join in your group as a feminist, and how did it go for him?
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        I'm not. I'm talking about the same people you are, I think? I'd really like some explanation of who precisely we're supposedly letting down, as this level of abstraction is getting to a level where either of us could say anything without evidence. EDIT: There's a handful of poor cis white hetero men in my specific feminist/SJ group. Their thing is mostly being pro-unionisation in a way that falls in nicely with the more socialist tendencies of modern feminism, or they're unemployable due to mental or physical disability and struggling with the abysmal benefits system and have come to disbelieve that society as it stands is ever going to fix that, or in one case he's blind, and we support them in their efforts and fold them into our own as best as we can. I can't vouch for the makeup of other groups.