becos the women around here dont hate me enough already

angelica · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i got the impression you were saying stereotypes were retroactive... revisionist ideas to justify past behaviors and decisions. i see them as anticipatory, an archetype used simply to predict behavior and make choices easier in day to day life. we take in so much information in a day, sometimes we need shortcuts to process it. there is nothing "rationalizing" about it. rationalizing sounds retroactive to me... like there is guilt and knowledge of wrongdoing and one is attempting to justify it. i think that more accurately describes prejudice, not stereotyping. prejudice is the kind of stereotyping i referred to that is inflexible and wrongly stubborn.

It sounds like we agree that we use these short cuts all the time in order to cut through the reams of data we are faced with each day. And it sounds like we agree that we will be accountable when we make errors based on these judgments.

It looks like the word "rationalize" is what you are taking issue with. If you are judging a girl across the bar, you've got your reasons for your perceptions. And people think those reasons are rational, and yet, they operate independent of who that girl really is, and are therefore a matter of perception rather than necessarily being a depiction of reality.

For the record, studies show that we do make unconscious snap judgments all the time, and then we "justify" them with reasoning after the fact. The thing is that it's a few seconds after...we try to explain our sense to our own selves and yet it's still a sense.

edit: I do agree that our snap judgments and unconscious decisions are the product of a lot of unconscious knowledge and in that sense is predetermined rather than retroactive.

Jeanie · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Jeanie, I did not intend any of this to refer to you personally. I was speaking universally. I trust that people will either relate or not. Personal judgment is not my place.

I definitely don't mean to in any way imply anything regarding your interaction with Ahnimus. I know personally how heavy handed his communication style can feel on the receiving end.

As for the role of people who do not have children, I can't talk about you personally, but I can say that I see women, in all manner of their interactions, taking a submissive role to men, which in turns supports the male dominant position. it's not all one or the other, but it depends on each interaction and the dynamic. For example, some times I am assertive, or equal, other times, I am submissive. Dominance/submission are two polarities--two sides--and are not the same as the equality within each individual that Ahnimus calls for. For example, I personally do this in numerous places in my life. I'm conscious of it and I do it by choice. I don't feel unempowered when I "let" my man drive. Or when he carries my groceries. He's stronger than I am. Or when he likes to walk on the outside of us, to protect me from traffic and such. I love that stuff. Just as I said earlier, I love being a mother, and cooking meals, and I'm pretty good in some other feminine roles, whether assertive or more service oriented. We all support these "imbalances". I don't think they are pathological to the degree Ahnimus might. I love the give and take. I think they are complementary.

I see women, beyond motherhood, supporting the dominance/submission cycles all the time. The thing is, we can't partake and then point the finger at men when there is fallout--which there most certainly is. Men pay the huge cost for this system and it's flaws, just as we do.

Well I don't see those things as being dominant or submissive. I see them as give and take. If you are happy with those roles then that's great and if your partner is happy with his then that's great too. I don't see these things as imbalances. I see them as life. If you have a problem with doing the housework and the child rearing and it's not your forte, and your partner wants to do those things then I say go for it. If you both have problems with these contributions to family then negotiate. As far as I can see as long as you are able to be free, equal adults in a sharing and commited relationship and you have sorted out what you like and dislike between you and both of you are happy, then who's business is it?
I don't support dominance/submission cycles at all. But isn't it about how the individual feels? I am not a submissive person. But confronted with an angry man who would do me harm, I have two choices as far as I can see. I can fight and hope to be able to come away better off, or I can negotiate. If that's seen as submission, how am I responsible for it, if the man is the aggressor in the first place? I mean, WHAT CHOICE do we really have?
I think what cate said is very true, we don't hold the power, we don't hold the money, we don't hold the strength. When we fight we are shouted down for being rampant, man hating feminists and if we submit we are at fault for submitting. Why is it that women are the ones having to make all the concessions here? Why aren't those men that are in power being more inclusive of women? Why do men find feminism or the promotion of women to be such a threat that it's supporters need to be ridiculed and destroyed?
Why aren't more women encouraged and supported by men to enter and stay in politics? I'm not saying that all men do this, and I certainly think that as we travel down the socio economic scale men are also powerless in their world, but many of them see this as the reason to assert absolute control over the women and children in their lives.

Now having said all that, I would like to add, that not all men are like this.
I've seen many examples of great men, who are not like this.
BUT they must be so busy being great that they don't have time to buck the system as it stands either.

And I would be more likely to take on board what Ahnimus is saying if he wasn't bullying me, or dismissing my views, or attacking me for them.
How does his behaviour in anyway make me want to see his point of view and how does his behaviour in anyway support his claims?

gue_barium · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

Big grin.

I lied. I didn't 'big grin'.

I think you seek resolution for your personal conflict(s) outside of the 'norm'. You do your emotional-conflict problem-solving out loud and ride out the same conflict of your emotions again and again in your arguments. You're very egocentric.

So, I guess what I mean to say that you should relish in your anonimity is...

angelica · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I lied. I didn't 'big grin'.

I think you seek resolution for your personal conflict(s) outside of the 'norm'. You do your emotional-conflict problem-solving out loud and ride out the same conflict of your emotions again and again in your arguments. You're very egocentric.

So, I guess what I mean to say that you should relish in your anonimity is...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Jeanie · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i dont believe this at all. it is a short cut, but i dont think it has anything to do with rationalization. i think it has to do with saving time and effort. humans simply dont have time to perform and elaborate investigation into the background and beleifs of every human being we ever meet. it's impossible. stereotypes are a shortcut. it's why looks are important in dating... you can take a glance around a bar, glean information from people based on their dress and language and choose who to go talk to. sure, you wont always be right, but you dont have time to talk to every person in the bar one by one to find out who they are in a "non-shallow" or "non-stereotypical" way. it's a shortcut to attempting to find people with whom we have things in common and it's very useful. there is nothing wrong or unhealthy about it.

the only time it becomes problematic is when you let it become a bar to actually getting to know people or accept them... ie. you see a pretty girl in a bar, assume she's a bitchy sorority girl and blow her off before getting to know that she's a very sweet person. or you hear a woman is a feminist and assume she'll hate you and be impossible to talk to. or you see someone is black and refuse to talk to them becos you assume they're criminal. there's nothing wrong with not approaching these people in a bar based on the assumption you won't have much in common, but there is a problem with refusing to acknowledge them becos you refuse to give them a chance to prove your assumptions wrong.

stereotypes aren't inherently evil. they're very useful and beneficial human socializing concepts, as long as one recognizes that their stereotypes are only vague and general outlines, not ironclad truth that is applicable to everyone.

Stop already!! All this agreeing with you is starting to freak me out a little!!

Jeanie · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

ive got both of those qualities in spades... i can kill bats too, and mice dont scare me at all. im also going to rich and soulless

***swoon*** Be still my beating heart!!

Cept maybe not so much of the bat killing please.
If you keep the bats they may get rid of the mice!!

gue_barium · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

***swoon*** Be still my beating heart!!

Cept maybe not so much of the bat killing please.
If you keep the bats they may get rid of the mice!!

bats don't eat mice.

gue_barium · April 2007

angelica wrote:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

You've got more than an opinion most of the time.

angelica · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I lied. I didn't 'big grin'.

I think you seek resolution for your personal conflict(s) outside of the 'norm'. You do your emotional-conflict problem-solving out loud and ride out the same conflict of your emotions again and again in your arguments. You're very egocentric.

So, I guess what I mean to say that you should relish in your anonimity is...

I'd like to go a step further from my last response. I completely agree that I seek resolution outside of the norm. That's what Ahnimus and I are talking about--going being the social norms. I don't see a frantic need to convince anyone to do so. I know society is fine just the way it is. However, the bottom line here is when someone uses a lack of understanding as justification of unbalanced behaviour or unfair/unacceptable behaviour, there are reasons, and there are ways to progress and resolve the issues. The ways are found beyond the initial behaviours that cause the problem. We are responsible for our lacks, mistakes, and problems. When we act these behaviours out, we get called on them, one way or another.

Jeanie · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

bats don't eat mice.

http://www.batdetective.com/batseat.htm

angelica · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

You've got more than an opinion most of the time.

It seems that you are taking issue with my style. Point noted.

angelica · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Well I don't see those things as being dominant or submissive. I see them as give and take. If you are happy with those roles then that's great and if your partner is happy with his then that's great too. I don't see these things as imbalances. I see them as life. If you have a problem with doing the housework and the child rearing and it's not your forte, and your partner wants to do those things then I say go for it. If you both have problems with these contributions to family then negotiate. As far as I can see as long as you are able to be free, equal adults in a sharing and commited relationship and you have sorted out what you like and dislike between you and both of you are happy, then who's business is it?
I don't support dominance/submission cycles at all. But isn't it about how the individual feels? I am not a submissive person. But confronted with an angry man who would do me harm, I have two choices as far as I can see. I can fight and hope to be able to come away better off, or I can negotiate. If that's seen as submission, how am I responsible for it, if the man is the aggressor in the first place? I mean, WHAT CHOICE do we really have?
I think what cate said is very true, we don't hold the power, we don't hold the money, we don't hold the strength. When we fight we are shouted down for being rampant, man hating feminists and if we submit we are at fault for submitting. Why is it that women are the ones having to make all the concessions here? Why aren't those men that are in power being more inclusive of women? Why do men find feminism or the promotion of women to be such a threat that it's supporters need to be ridiculed and destroyed?
Why aren't more women encouraged and supported by men to enter and stay in politics? I'm not saying that all men do this, and I certainly think that as we travel down the socio economic scale men are also powerless in their world, but many of them see this as the reason to assert absolute control over the women and children in their lives.

Now having said all that, I would like to add, that not all men are like this.
I've seen many examples of great men, who are not like this.
BUT they must be so busy being great that they don't have time to buck the system as it stands either.

And I would be more likely to take on board what Ahnimus is saying if he wasn't bullying me, or dismissing my views, or attacking me for them.
How does his behaviour in anyway make me want to see his point of view and how does his behaviour in anyway support his claims?

I can agree to disagree on the points where we seem to disagree.

gue_barium · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

http://www.batdetective.com/batseat.htm

Of the 2000 or so that lived in the chimney of my house a few years ago, i'm sure that none of them ate a mouse. I did get a bird delivered to the woodstove one morning. It was 4 times the size of the bat chimney bats.

gue_barium · April 2007

angelica wrote:

It seems that you are taking issue with my style. Point noted.

I know you better than you know yourself, sometimes.

What do you say?

Jeanie · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

Of the 2000 or so that lived in the chimney of my house a few years ago, i'm sure that none of them ate a mouse. I did get a bird delivered to the woodstove one morning. It was 4 times the size of the bat chimney bats.

Most of the bats around here are actually flying foxes or fruit bats I think.
And therefore vegetarians.

But I do know of bats taking mice in the bush.
Sounds like you got a bum deal with your lot.

Guess you need to start cosying up with soulsinging then!!!

Jeanie · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I can agree to disagree on the points where we seem to disagree.

Of course girl!

I'm just struggling to understand some of what it is you are saying.
But it could be the hour!

baraka · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

I think what cate said is very true, we don't hold the power, we don't hold the money, we don't hold the strength.

Hi Jeanie!

How do we explain, then, those women that have torn down these barriers to become successful and powerful? Why are there women today that have been unaffected in their careers & life by 'oppressive male' dominance? I think these women are successful because they didn't subscribe to such notions and did not let it define them or their potential. Yes, there is still an imbalance. But, I feel it is dangerous to 'play the victim'. By playing the victim, you (not you personally, in general) remain in your current situation and shift personal responsibility. Saying, 'we don't hold the power and never will' is a grim outlook and I have no doubt that prediction will come to fruition if repeated to yourself over and over.

It is hard not to get frustrated, I know that from experience. But I have found that when I refuse assume the victim role, I feel more in control of my destiny.

angelica · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Of course girl!

I'm just struggling to understand some of what it is you are saying.
But it could be the hour!

It's definitely fair that we have different perspectives.

I respect the communication and everyone's point of view.

gue_barium · April 2007

baraka wrote:

Hi Jeanie!

How do we explain, then, those women that have torn down these barriers to become successful and powerful? Why are there women today that have been unaffected in their careers & life by 'oppressive male' dominance? I think these women are successful because they didn't subscribe to such notions and did not let it define them or their potential. Yes, there is still an imbalance. But, I feel it is dangerous to 'play the victim'. By playing the victim, you (not you personally, in general) remain in your current situation and shift personal responsibility. Saying, 'we don't hold the power and never will' is a grim outlook and I have no doubt that prediction will come to fruition if repeated to yourself over and over.

It is hard not to get frustrated, I know that from experience. But I have found that when I refuse assume the victim role, I feel more in control of my destiny.

In a way, to me, what you are saying isn't so much about victimization of women as it is the emasculation involved in our society in general. I observe that in a non-gender specific way.

angelica · April 2007

baraka wrote:

Saying, 'we don't hold the power and never will' is a grim outlook and I have no doubt that prediction will come to fruition if repeated to yourself over and over.

Nice, baraka!. This is exactly what I mean that our experiences stem from how we filter what goes on in our environment. We set our very inner filters by how we are choosing to think. Most people think that what they think reflects reality, but they don't realize that reality is looked at through the framework they give it.

For me personally, I have changed my reality by continuously reworking my inner framework so that I am setting up empowering self-fulfilling prophecies.

becos the women around here dont hate me enough already

Comments

Categories