4 ms·

Women: No shit. Men: I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!! Just watch. That's exactly what will happen here. edit: And the downvotes pour down like rain. No shit.

by beat 8y ago

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
You're not getting downvoted for the reason you think. You're getting downvoted because you're generalizing about an entire gender and don't realize the irony of that as it relates to your point.
- beat 8y ago
  I think I covered that with "I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!" It's not "ironic". It's a basic rhetoric technique in discussions of racism and sexism. If a generalization is made that doesn't specifically (preferably personally) exclude some dude, then suddenly it's all about him and how offended he is to be lumped in with this thing that of course he doesn't do. And then the conversation degenerates into said dude(s) howling about the offense to his sacred honor, and the original topic is lost. Sit back and watch any online discussion about sexism, you will see this pattern repeated. Saying the downvotes are because I'm generalizing is missing the point entirely. That's just an excuse for the downvote. The reason for the downvote is I pointed out the nasty, toxic, sexist crap, so I'm getting punished for it.
  - kinghajj 8y ago
    If that were true, then why are other posts discussing the topic constructively getting upvoted? Maybe your original post was just slightly alienating.
    - beat 8y ago
      Alienating to whom? In the interest of the Socratic method, do you think women would be more likely to downvote the OP, or men?
      - kinghajj 8y ago
        Alienating to men, obviously. I don't see the point of that question.
        beat 8y ago
        Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. But if it was merely an uncomfortable truth, then it should only be alienating to men - specifically men who take offense at having the general nature of sexism and their specific toxic reaction pattern to it called out. As I've said before, "I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!" is a redirection, a way of changing the subject and reversing the roles of attacker and victim. Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. Let's get Socratic again. Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No. But the real question is... is what I said untrue? As a generalization, are women likely to find this study unsurprising? Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? You seem to be agreeing with this - "alienating to men, obviously". It wouldn't be alienating to men if they weren't likely to do the role-reversal defense, and it would be alienating to women if it were untrue. So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. Socratic method is very interesting sometimes.
        kinghajj 8y ago
        > Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. Not necessarily; people have biases that affect their perceptions and reactions. > Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. I didn't feel personally attacked by your post or anyone's in this thread, yet still downvoted your OP for being alienating. > Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No.... Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? Yes, men are more likely to react that way, but one can still find your post alienating and counter-productive while acknowledging its truth. > So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. I think you're being a bit dramatic, downvotes are in now way equivalent to forced suicide.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    There are more constructive ways to make your point. You're right that men are part of the problem. That also makes them part of the solution. By using rhetoric that alienates men who can be swayed either way you perpetuate the problem you are trying to solve. I think a good example of how to approach this issue constructively is found in the civil rights movement. The messaging in the civil rights movement wasn't: white people are doing bad things. It was: black people deserve the same treatment as everyone else. One of those messages alienates people, the other unites everyone in a common cause. Similarly, a more constructive way of viewing the current sexual harassment issue would be something like: here are some things women experience in the workplace that we can all agree are wrong, and men have an important role to play in both not engaging in these actions and in dissuading their colleagues from engaging in them when they occur.
    - beat 8y ago
      I think you're comparing to a fictional version of the civil rights movement, not the actual response it received. Note the past tense; I'm sure you meant "MLK", not the modern civil rights movement. Let's dig into that. The most recent major civil rights protest is the kneeling protest during NFL games - black (and some white) players taking a knee rather than standing during the national anthem, to protest racism and state violence against black people. And millions of white Americans are furious. Players are being punished for it. The president refuses to meet with a team (that interestingly, had no kneelers before). The vast majority of white Americans disapprove of this protest. The nature of the protest? Black men, sitting quietly, saying nothing, breaking no laws, for about two minutes. And white America is furious. Remember that past tense thing? MLK was assassinated a half a century ago. And we're still fighting for civil rights, although white America tends to think of it as a past tense thing where there was no violence and everyone agreed. Now, take this lesson and apply it to sexism.

Women: No shit. Men: I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!! Just watch. That's exactly what will happen here. edit: And the downvotes pour down like rain. No shit.

by beat 8y ago

Women: No shit. Men: I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!! Just watch. That's exactly what will happen here. edit: And the downvotes pour down like rain. No shit.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

You're not getting downvoted for the reason you think. You're getting downvoted because you're generalizing about an entire gender and don't realize the irony of that as it relates to your point.

beat 8y ago
I think I covered that with "I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!" It's not "ironic". It's a basic rhetoric technique in discussions of racism and sexism. If a generalization is made that doesn't specifically (preferably personally) exclude some dude, then suddenly it's all about him and how offended he is to be lumped in with this thing that of course he doesn't do. And then the conversation degenerates into said dude(s) howling about the offense to his sacred honor, and the original topic is lost. Sit back and watch any online discussion about sexism, you will see this pattern repeated. Saying the downvotes are because I'm generalizing is missing the point entirely. That's just an excuse for the downvote. The reason for the downvote is I pointed out the nasty, toxic, sexist crap, so I'm getting punished for it.
- kinghajj 8y ago
  If that were true, then why are other posts discussing the topic constructively getting upvoted? Maybe your original post was just slightly alienating.
  - beat 8y ago
    Alienating to whom? In the interest of the Socratic method, do you think women would be more likely to downvote the OP, or men?
    - kinghajj 8y ago
      Alienating to men, obviously. I don't see the point of that question.
      - beat 8y ago
        Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. But if it was merely an uncomfortable truth, then it should only be alienating to men - specifically men who take offense at having the general nature of sexism and their specific toxic reaction pattern to it called out. As I've said before, "I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!" is a redirection, a way of changing the subject and reversing the roles of attacker and victim. Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. Let's get Socratic again. Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No. But the real question is... is what I said untrue? As a generalization, are women likely to find this study unsurprising? Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? You seem to be agreeing with this - "alienating to men, obviously". It wouldn't be alienating to men if they weren't likely to do the role-reversal defense, and it would be alienating to women if it were untrue. So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. Socratic method is very interesting sometimes.
        kinghajj 8y ago
        > Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. Not necessarily; people have biases that affect their perceptions and reactions. > Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. I didn't feel personally attacked by your post or anyone's in this thread, yet still downvoted your OP for being alienating. > Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No.... Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? Yes, men are more likely to react that way, but one can still find your post alienating and counter-productive while acknowledging its truth. > So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. I think you're being a bit dramatic, downvotes are in now way equivalent to forced suicide.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  There are more constructive ways to make your point. You're right that men are part of the problem. That also makes them part of the solution. By using rhetoric that alienates men who can be swayed either way you perpetuate the problem you are trying to solve. I think a good example of how to approach this issue constructively is found in the civil rights movement. The messaging in the civil rights movement wasn't: white people are doing bad things. It was: black people deserve the same treatment as everyone else. One of those messages alienates people, the other unites everyone in a common cause. Similarly, a more constructive way of viewing the current sexual harassment issue would be something like: here are some things women experience in the workplace that we can all agree are wrong, and men have an important role to play in both not engaging in these actions and in dissuading their colleagues from engaging in them when they occur.
  - beat 8y ago
    I think you're comparing to a fictional version of the civil rights movement, not the actual response it received. Note the past tense; I'm sure you meant "MLK", not the modern civil rights movement. Let's dig into that. The most recent major civil rights protest is the kneeling protest during NFL games - black (and some white) players taking a knee rather than standing during the national anthem, to protest racism and state violence against black people. And millions of white Americans are furious. Players are being punished for it. The president refuses to meet with a team (that interestingly, had no kneelers before). The vast majority of white Americans disapprove of this protest. The nature of the protest? Black men, sitting quietly, saying nothing, breaking no laws, for about two minutes. And white America is furious. Remember that past tense thing? MLK was assassinated a half a century ago. And we're still fighting for civil rights, although white America tends to think of it as a past tense thing where there was no violence and everyone agreed. Now, take this lesson and apply it to sexism.