In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPIC

Spillover #16

Moderator Team

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPICThe commenting period on the last one has just expired, so it’s time for a new #spillover thread. Some reminders:

  1. #spillover is part of our comment moderation system for keeping other threads on-topic. It is intended as a constructive space for tangential discussions which are veering off-topic on other threads. This is part of our blog netiquette, which has the general goal of making it as simple as possible for commentors to find discussions focussed on topics of particular interest without entirely stifling worthwhile tangents of sorta-related or general interest. #spillover is also a space for those ongoing/endless disagreements and 101 issues that just keep on popping up.
  2. Commentors are encouraged to respect the topic of each post and be proactive regarding inevitable thread-drift in long threads: we hope that commentors will cheerfully volunteer to take off-topic responses into #spillover so that each post’s discussion gets room to breathe and tangents can be indulged in a room of their own.

More detailed outline/guidelines were laid out on Spillover #1.
The Moderator Team will enforce topicality where necessary, and off-topic commentors who ignore invitations from others to take their tangents to #spillover are one of the reasons commentors might consider sending the moderators a giraffe alert.

106 thoughts on Spillover #16

  1. The tangent about the lives and activities of women in medieval times is really interesting. I don’t write literature but I am engaged in an instance of world building – medieval high fantasy – and I’m making a purposeful attempt to invert, subvert, and twist the common tropes people have come to expect with such settings. I also love thinking about how stuff like magic and monsters and whatnot would impact societies in such settings, including gender relations, roles, and expectations. I’m going to check some of those links out when I get a chance.

  2. DonnaL,

    No, I just wanted to add my agreement and to elaborate on a point to which you eluded, that it was good for Jewish law that almost all of its classical development was during time periods when Jewish communities were under the authority of (varyingly hostile) others. That meant that people needed good reasons to participate in our legal system, rather than enlisting the help of the “real” government. Such political pressures have not been winning recipes for all peoples by any means, but it seems to have been a good fit with Jewish social/legal culture.

    Many communities in Ashkenaz (but not only!) also had women participating in rituals and synagogue life in a way that is only just beginning to become acceptable in Orthodoxy again, as another example of history not being a straightforward march towards equality where “the past” was a clear patriarchal hellhole.

    Have you seen sources on gender variance at this time, btw? Some of them are actually pretty encouraging! If you’re interested you can email me, I have a gmail account which is my first name dot surname (which is lavery).

    1. That meant that people needed good reasons to participate in our legal system, rather than enlisting the help of the “real” government. Such political pressures have not been winning recipes for all peoples by any means, but it seems to have been a good fit with Jewish social/legal culture.

      That’s a really interesting point! I’d never thought if it that way before. I wonder if I can find any studies comparing legal norms in this type of situation. This is why I never get my work done on time…

    2. Thanks, Yonah, I’ll definitely email you when I have a chance.

      In terms of participation in rituals and synagogue life, I remember reading that for at least a time in medieval France and Southwest Germany (where at least some of my mother’s family lived back then), mothers and/or grandmothers fully participated in the brit milah ceremony and even held the baby, which was unheard of later on. And in terms of studying Talmud, etc., the basic story of Rashi’s daughters is apparently non-fictional (although I did enjoy the three novels by Maggie Anton).

      The outlawing of polygamy in Ashkenaz in the 10th or 11th century was also rather important for women’s rights, if I remember correctly.

      My source for most of what I know about this period is the book Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe, by Avraham Grossman. It’s completely fascinating. I’ve also read a book called Mothers and Children: Jewish Family Life in Medieval Europe, by Elisheva Baumgarten, which has a lot of interesting information as well, although I thought it was written in a very frustrating way — every chapter starts with the auther explaining what the chapter is going to say, then saying it, and then concluding by summarizing what she just said!

      1. That would be author. I really do know how to spell, all evidence to the contrary.

      2. And in terms of studying Talmud, etc., the basic story of Rashi’s daughters is apparently non-fictional

        Well, and there are female sages IN the Talmud…!

        Yours is the second recommendation I’ve had for Pious and Rebellious — I really have to read it. Thanks for the prompt.

  3. @Donna L
    Re your comments about the rarity of capital punishment in Judaism. I remember someone telling me once, and neither of us are Jews, that they had read or heard there was some principle of capital punishment being absolutely ruled out in cases where a murderer had confessed. Is that the case, or am I confusing that with some other religion or legal code?
    Thanks

      1. Yonah, a belated thanks. That does sound more like what my colleague was saying. I suppose it would have the same overall effect — if you could not get a conviction based on that, then it would be hard to impose a death penalty.
        Best.

        1. My pleasure. I think another good effect of this is it removes the element of coerced confession, as well as one way to take advantage of the deeply confused, both so rampant and troubling in our times (as in others).

  4. Anyone read the Malazan Fallen series? Ive heard that is good but I haven’t read it myself. Still need to finish the first Witcher novel too

  5. @Pseudonym
    in the thread ” 200+ schoolgirls kidnapped by extremists and mass media is mostly silent”

    We could jump down that rabbit hole and argue that virtually no modern government is legitimate, but I don’t think that’s very productive.

    Not productive for whom? Colonizers/settlers?

    1. Productive at least as far as it pertains to the kidnapped girls. It can be an interesting philosophical discussion but I’m not sure how it leads to real-world consequences. How do you define whether a government is legitimate?

      1. Very little in that thread is productive as it pertains to the kidnapped thread. Why should this be any different?

      2. This is not a philosophical discussion for me. I am NDN, the U.S.A. is not legitimate.

        1. This is not a philosophical discussion for me. I am NDN, the U.S.A. is not legitimate.

          Clearly legitimate has several meanings, and different people are using it in different ways. I could respond “yes, the US government is legitimate, because I define legitimate as being recognized by the UN,” and and at that point all we’re doing is arguing over the definition of a word when ultimately we may or may not actually disagree about anything real.

          So, in what sense are you using the word ‘legitimate?’

        2. This is not a philosophical discussion for me.

          I’m sorry, but the standard of legitimacy is an inherently philosophical question.

        5. That’s why I asked the question: How do you define whether a government is legitimate? How does that lead to real-world consequences? I’m not stating definitively that it’s only a philosophical issue, but I’m curious how it becomes more than that.

        6. I think that trees is calling the USA illegitimate because it’s a colonizer state.

          And my point is that until you clearly define what you mean be legitimacy it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation on the topic, since we’ve already seen so many people use totally different definitions,

        9. NDNs -have- clarified it. Many times over the course of 500 years.

          Then it should be simple to state exactly what you mean by legitimate. So?

          By the way- why didn’t you ask pseudonym to define legitimate as well?

          Leaving aside the fact that I asked everyone in the conversation to clarify how they were using the word in the other thread, Pseudonym posted the exact same question I did:

          How do you define whether a government is legitimate?

          Semantic word games are a waste of all our time. If we can just state what we mean, then I’d guess there’d be much less disagreement then there currently appears to be.

        10. I’m sorry, but the standard of legitimacy is an inherently philosophical question.

          For you, okay.

          And my point is that until you clearly define what you mean be legitimacy it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation on the topic, since we’ve already seen so many people use totally different definitions,

          I’m not interested in having a meaningful conversation on an issue that should be painfully obvious. I don’t think we share any common good (world view, life experiences, or ideas of social justice) so it seems like a pointless argument to me.

          Semantic word games are a waste of all our time. If we can just state what we mean, then I’d guess there’d be much less disagreement then there currently appears to be.

          Well alrighty then. I’m good with that.

        11. Semantic word games are a waste of all our time. If we can just state what we mean, then I’d guess there’d be much less disagreement then there currently appears to be.

          Well alrighty then. I’m good with that.

          Meaning: I don’t seek consensus, I don’t seek to persuade outside of cooperation.

        12. I’m not interested in having a meaningful conversation on an issue that should be painfully obvious. I don’t think we share any common good (world view, life experiences, or ideas of social justice) so it seems like a pointless argument to me.

          This, right here, sums up the problem I’m articulating. I’m guessing I actually agree with you, entirely, about the character of the US government. But because you’re so tied to the use of a single word that everybody on the last thread used differently, and refuse to try to reduce the confusion, you’ve come to the point where my confusion surrounding your ideas is evidence- in your head- that I actually disagree with them.

          Meaning: I don’t seek consensus, I don’t seek to persuade outside of cooperation.

          Right. And chances are we agree about everything tangible. But I guess we’ll never know, because you refuse to even articulate your point.

        13. What would make the US legitimate, or constitute a legitimate government over its territory?

        14. Idouglas, instead of expecting NDNs to educate you on our oppression, why don’t you take it upon yourself to educate yourself. Then when NDNs use the same words as any other person, you won’t be so very confused as to what the definition is or its application. The information you seek is out there, just as information on other cultural and racial oppression is available. Your method is insulting and offensive. If you need to know the definition and use of a word when an oppressed person is discussing their own oppression, instead of derailing, go find it yourself. It should be pretty simple. And it doesn’t place NDNs in the position of being your unpaid NDN guide.

          1. The same words as any other person? I’ve never encountered the term “NDN” outside of here, and even Google isn’t that helpful for the uninitiated.

            Would either of you consider any of the tribal governments to be legitimate?

        15. And sorry trees, I don’t mean to speak for you. But honestly, its 2014 and people still act oblivious to indigenous issues. Im tired of waiting to have the conversation while they figure shit out and expect to define how the conversation is allowed to continue. Living under an occupying foreign government sucks enough without having to stop and hand hold people who are perfectly capable of doing their own work on the subject. We’re dealing with an ongoing genocide and race based oppression, but by god lets all stop to define a word so the others can decide if its philosophical or whatever.

        16. Last I checked pseudonym, the word legitimate wasnt a word we invented. So yeah, its used by any other person and generally understood.

          1. How would you like the conversation to continue? I know there are different definitions of legitimate, e.g. being recognized by other states, which describes the US, or having an undisputed moral claim to its citizens and territory, which I don’t think describes any government. How do you think the occupation and oppression should end?

        17. Yes, speaking for myself I believe Tribal governments are legitimate, though interference from the US government has rendered them problematic, as what our governments are now are highly colonized versions of what they were and how they were intended to function.

        18. @pheenobarbidoll

          Please don’t apologize, you’re good. I am SO grateful for your presence here. Thank you so, so much. No words. This whole scene makes me more depressed than angry, I mean come on, 2014! Geez.

          How do you have a conversation when there is so little knowledge of and demonstrated respect for the subject matter? What can you even say? Misunderstanding seems like destiny. It seems hopeless.

        19. The only realistic way I see happening ( and even this is a long shot) is to treat Tribal governments, Nations and land as sovereign and recognize them as such. Back rent would be nice, but I’d settle for upholding treaties and entering into new treaties that would respect our right to profit from our resources, and protect them as we see fit. The return of indigenous sacred sites would have to be included.

        20. I almost never discuss indigenous issues with non-indigenous people, it’s just too painful. In mixed company, pretty much any other issue is fair game. There is just a pitiful level of ignorance about something that is just too close to my heart, too central to self. I’m on the down low.

          1. I’m sorry if I come off as ignorant. Do you mind if I ask for any pointers to good resources?

        21. @trees. I know. It depresses me too. Our lives are philosophical time killers on a website. Which we’re only allowed to discuss if we explain ourselves to the satisfaction of others first. On another related depressing note: Have you been following Canadas First Nations fight with the keystone pipeline?

        22. Idouglas, instead of expecting NDNs to educate you on our oppression, why don’t you take it upon yourself to educate yourself. Then when NDNs use the same words as any other person, you won’t be so very confused as to what the definition is or its application.

          That wasn’t my request. On the other thread, a ton of people got very confused because everyone was arguing over whether governments like the Northern Alliance, the Taliban, or the US were ‘legitimate.’ As such, it was clear different people meant different things by ‘legitimate.’ Asking for clarification is not asking to be educated on oppression.

          instead of derailing, go find it yourself. It should be pretty simple.

          It’s not derailing if it’s the original topic. And there’s no ‘it’ to find, because the issue at hand is the use of a word in different, but correct, ways by different people. There’s no right answer. Jesus fucking christ.

          How do you have a conversation when there is so little knowledge of and demonstrated respect for the subject matter?

          Asking for you to clarify your argument, so as to understand it better, is the opposite of disrespect.

        23. This conversation started over whether the Taliban or the Northern Alliance was the legitimate government of Iraq in 2001. During that conversation, an attempt was made to clarify the different ways people conceived of legitimacy. When you jump in and say “well, the US isn’t legitimate,” in the context of the original discussion over the meaning of legitimacy, asking what you mean by legitimate is perfectly fucking reasonable.

        24. The only realistic way I see happening ( and even this is a long shot) is to treat Tribal governments, Nations and land as sovereign and recognize them as such. Back rent would be nice, but I’d settle for upholding treaties and entering into new treaties that would respect our right to profit from our resources, and protect them as we see fit. The return of indigenous sacred sites would have to be included.

          100% in agreement.

          This is the sad thing; I don’t think we actually have any disagreement over what should be done, or that the US is perpetrating an ongoing genocide against NDN people.

          In that light, your decision to jump into a totally unrelated conversation over the meaning of a word, and then become outraged when the conversation continued to revolve around what that word meant, was really unfortunate.

        25. On another related depressing note: Have you been following Canadas First Nations fight with the keystone pipeline?

          Yup. Last I heard, it’s full steam ahead, pushing back against inspiring Idle No More movement. What’s the word?

        26. Pseudonym, I’m answering because I think trees and pheenobarbidoll have eloquently expressed their weariness with educating non-NA people, so they shouldn’t be on the spot. Sometimes whites have to collect their own. The resources I have are scholarly, but I know both these people and they’re amazing, both politically and intellectually, so I’d strongly recommend work by Audra Simpson and by Mark Rifkin (Simpson is Mohawk; Rifkin is not, as far as I know, of NA descent). But you should probably also look at the history of AIM, the American Indian Movement. I love the book Lakota Woman by Mary Crow Dog, later Mary Brave Bird.

          All this with the caveat that I am not a member of the various peoples indigenous to North America, and I would not suggest that my recommendations–what I have found educational and helpful to my understanding, as imperfect as it is–are what someone who is would recommend.

        28. This is the sad thing; I don’t think we actually have any disagreement over what should be done, or that the US is perpetrating an ongoing genocide against NDN people.

          In that light, your decision to jump into a totally unrelated conversation over the meaning of a word, and then become outraged when the conversation continued to revolve around what that word meant, was really unfortunate.

          What’s unfortunate, ldouglas, is you’re such an asshole that even when you are in 100% agreement with everything being said, people don’t even want to deal with you.

          This is something that has been brought up repeatedly in the past (in another thread about NDNs – shocker!). The problem isn’t pheeno’s and trees’s refusal to properly define a word to your liking; the problem is you.

        29. When you jump in and say “well, the US isn’t legitimate,” in the context of the original discussion over the meaning of legitimacy

          I want to point something out:

          Trees did not “jump in” to a discussion and bring up the issue. I brought up the issue in the context of the argument with Tim about whether or not the Taliban was “legitimate.” Because Tim seemed to be applying a different standard–one of moral righteousness–to Afghanistan than he would to the US. I said “Is the US government legitimate? Ask a Native American,” with the very clear implication that by any standard of moral righteousness, the answer was no. Trees answered and backed me up.

        30. Idouglas, trees gave you the context of her use of the word when she said she was NDN. You had more than enough to go on to go figure it out by yourself. Your perpetual confusion over other people’s words is your problem to sort out. Not ours. So go sort it the hell out. There are books and blogs that explain how the indigenous view the legitimacy of the US government, they detail our sovereignty and explain all you want to know. And again, the very fact she identified herself as NDN gave you the starting point to do your own foot work.

        31. @ldouglas,

          As someone who often posts/debates/argues in the same, I dunno, character/way/style as you, a lesson I’ve learned is that its not the only way and perhaps not even a super common way. Its just not going to be productive to hold a conversation with people of a different style. This is a big topic of discussion in “Rationalist” communities. Debate styles that don’t mesh cause huge problems. Since people have started calling you an asshole, its probably time to let go. Its not going to get any better.

          I guess the simplest way to characterize your style is “debate style” arguing. Requesting concrete definitions of ambiguous terms is one of the hallmarks. People who don’t discuss things in “debate style” REALLY hate that. I’ve seen it blow up a lot on this site specifically. I mostly read instead of posting now because I know its never going to end well.

          Its up to you to keep posting or not, but some sort of ban, or just a thread ban for certain topics, seems likely to be incoming soon.

          Feministe is one of those places with a rule something like: “Even if you follow all the other rules perfectly, we’ll ban you/moderate you if you cause disruption, even because of something that isn’t really your fault.(e.g. a style of discussion)”

        32. The problem here is that debate teams argue to win and score points, not to reach a place of understanding. And when you use other people’s lives as a topic to “win” and score points on, they tend not to like it.

        33. That’s not what I meant. Some people are just naturally more concrete in discussions. Ambiguous word usage hurts them. I knew some people on one “Rationalist” forum, probably not neurotypical in even the broadest sense, who felt physically nauseous reading posts of the kind some people have made here. To them words mean things. Specific things. And then people treating them like assholes and enemies for the kinds of posts that ldouglas made doesn’t help their social anxiety.

          Different communication styles are a real thing. There was a post somewhere, maybe on LessWrong(sadly ruined by the influx of neoreactionaries) about two fighting styles called cutlery throwers( the nastiest random insults that come to mind) and truth shouters(things they honestly felt were true and bad) and how things never ended well if you had one of each. For instance truth shouters believe that everyone honestly shouts painful truths in fights, and when cutlery throwers say some super awful thing, truth shouters think that’s an actual belief that person has about them.

          And I referred to discussion styles in a similar manner. People who have different communication styles ARE NOT assholes. There are communities where the balance is on the other side than it is here and they would view EG/Pheeno/Trees as the asshole regardless of the topic, its not like there is a one true way to have a discussion.

          1. Different communication styles are a real thing.

            So is code-switching. Rigidity in the face of varying forum codes/mores/zeitgeists is disruptive, whether intentional or not. Those who cannot code-switch are functionally indistinguishable from those who refuse to code-switch, and are going to antagonise those who feel at home in a forum that suits their dominant communication style. But it’s important to remember that most people are actually quite adept at code-switching even if they have never noticed themselves doing it and didn’t have a label for it, and that it is also a learnable skill for those who haven’t been able to do it up until now, including those of us who are non-neurotypical.

            Being aware of different communication styles and making at least some attempts at accommodation of those differences can be worthwhile in multiple ways, not least the simple arena of pragmatic rhetoric. But it’s arguable that sticking to one’s own dominant communication style can be equally rhetorically effective because it’s more likely to make one’s audience think things through from first principles rather than taking their accustomed argumentation shortcuts when engaging with others who use the same communication style.

            As you said, there is no One True Way to have a discussion.

        34. Matt, discussion styles are not like eye color or nose shape. They don’t just happen to people. They are under our control–not perfectly, and it takes work to change them, and we can revert to old habits in times of stress, but no, they’re not something we have no control over. We can decide to change them or not. I’m sarcastic, not because sarcasm just descended upon me like rain from the heavens, but because I like sarcasm and choose to be sarcastic. And I can also choose to tone it down and modulate it when the situation calls for it, for example, it comes off as flip and hurts somebody I care about.

        35. I can do complex math in my head, but that doesn’t mean that everyone in the world can. Although intensive math training can help.

          Similarly, your ability to control certain aspect of your social behavior does not mean that everyone can do it or if they can is as effective.

          Moreover you haven’t established the superiority of your method over the less ambiguous style that some people favor, so why should other people go to an extreme amount of effort(depending on their individual mental abilities) to conform to your preferences?

          Anyway, I was going to reference tell/ask/guess as an analogy but that would probably start a big tangent. Suffice it to say that I think the dominant argument style here appears to be the equivalent of guess. You could probably google what that means instead of my writing another wall of text. The resources to educate yourself are out there.(We’re allowed to be snarky on this site aren’t we?(I’m so meta))

        36. @matt- why should they put effort into conforming a communication style? Because they can be oppressive to already oppressed people in some cases, thats fucking why. When an NDN says she doesn’t view the us as legitimate, just what the fuck do you think she means? That’s not about communication style, thats just old fashioned ignorance… or being purposely obtuse. If you dont even have the basic outline of indigenous history to understand the point of saying as an NDN I dont find the us government legitimate, then your communication style doesn’t fucking matter. You’re commuicating that we’re not important enough to know one damn thing about our oppression. And can’t be bothered to find out om your own, so we have to tutor you. And thats insulting no matter what style you use to communicate that privileged message.

          1. Well, I’m still curious what criteria you have in mind for judging legitimacy and which governments you’d consider legitimate, but you’re under no obligation to answer. Is asking that oppressive?

        37. Moreover you haven’t established the superiority of your method over the less ambiguous style that some people favor, so why should other people go to an extreme amount of effort(depending on their individual mental abilities) to conform to your preferences?

          1) There is nothing “less ambiguous” about ldouglas’s or your style. There was nothing ambiguous about what either trees or pheenobarbidoll was saying. I fail to see how the definition of “legitimate” was in any way ambiguous in this conversation. How is it in any way unclear how and why the US government not legitimate when put into the context of the history of North American indigenous people?

          2) The purpose of a “communication style” is to communicate. If you are repeatedly failing to communicate effectively, if you are repeatedly alienating people with whom you essentially agree, if you are repeatedly coming off to others in negative ways and you don’t want to, maybe you should try adjusting your communication style, because it isn’t working. You are not communicating what you want to communicate. You are not eliciting the responses you want.

          3) If your communication style is consistently hurtful to your interlocutors, particularly if it is consistently hurtful to interlocutors in a less privileged position than you, but you don’t want to put forth the effort to change it because it’s just too much work for you to bother, then yeah, you’re kind of a jerk. And a poor communicator. If someone says to me “stop being sarcastic about my dead father, it’s hurting my feelings,” and I say “but being sarcastic is my communication style! It takes too much effort to change it! Also, your feelings shouldn’t be hurt!” then I am being a jerk. And I have done that, on occasion, when I felt it was warranted. But when you do that, you don’t get to be affronted when the people whose feelings you’re hurting think you’re an asshole, and try to convince them to respect your communication style.

          Shorter answer: because while doing complex math in your head is a private matter, communication is an interaction, and if you can’t play well with others, others aren’t going to want to play with you.

        38. Both sides are just as responsible for not communicating effectively until resoundingly demonstrated otherwise. I could parse the question of ldouglas with no noticeable effort, or at least interpret in a way that made sense in context. I mean, I didn’t ask for a specific response as to whether I had it figured out, but I want to ascribe to the dominant communication style and what not and apparently asking for more clarity is oppressive.

          So I dunno, I’m not sure you all are master communicators either. Its somewhat ironic, but par for the course, for Guess culture/Guess culture equivalents to trash other people’s communication effectiveness when their method so often goes wrong.

          I can think of many ways that the American government could be considered illegitimate, although given my other priors, few of them could exclude even a small minority of governments in general.

          I’m pretty sure ldouglas could do the same and was wanting clarification as to which meaning was meant. I doubt it was a case of being completely unable to come up with a single possible reason.

          All my posts being with the caveat that I can’t read ldouglas’s, or anyone else’s mind. Probably why I’m bad with Guess culture, or Guess conversation or w/e.

        39. Code switching is NOT a universal skill that all people can effectively master. And some people who can code switch to one style of speaking cannot switch to some others.

          Further, if one has not mastered basic social skills, or advanced ones, its not as simple as wanting to do it. Some people have the social skill equivalent of dyslexia. God why don’t those dyslexic kids just htfu and learn to read. Such assholes. All the other kids can read just fine.

          We all have to learn math in school. Math class bored me. Such a waste of time i knew this shit when I was five. I learned exponents at 7, and I’m not even that high in intelligence compared to some people. We don’t have mandatory social skills class. Some people can get just an old algebra textbook and derive equations that Harvard professors can’t figure out, some can’t even calculate a tip. Some people have all the friends and admirers. Some lack what are considered basic social skills. Would you be pleased if I called people who can’t calculate a tip dumbasses that I’m too smart to waste my time with? But people who aren’t as proficient socially as you are just fudging assholes. What unlikeable losers.

          Is all this something we can apply to ldouglas? Again I invoke my lack of telepathy. You’d have to ask them.

          I had some more thoughts re the common occurrences of this and other similar issues on Feministe but I do have functioning social skills and I know we shouldn’t bring them up.

          1. Code switching is NOT a universal skill that all people can effectively master.

            Never claimed that it was universal, just pretty damn common. People code-switch all the time in how they speak to friends vs family vs teachers vs employers vs strangers vs my-team’s-fans vs their-team’s-fans etc etc etc. Online communication is hardly immune from the assumptions humans tend to make about what communication style is likely to best work for them in any particular space and the habit humans tend to have of adjusting their communication style accordingly.

            And some people who can code switch to one style of speaking cannot switch to some others.

            Certainly there are degrees of skill involved, but if some people don’t even know that code-switching is common and useful then it’s not a skill that they’re going to work towards recognising and attaining. How does ignoring the existence of code-switching help those who haven’t figured it out yet engage more effectively in substantive discourse?

            Further, if one has not mastered basic social skills, or advanced ones, its not as simple as wanting to do it. Some people have the social skill equivalent of dyslexia. God why don’t those dyslexic kids just htfu and learn to read. Such assholes. All the other kids can read just fine.

            You might like to reread my comment again, this time without assuming that I know nothing about neurodiversity from personal experience.

        40. You don’t get to proclaim one “discussion style” to be “Rational” or “concrete” or “less ambiguous” and another to be “Guess” or “less ambiguous.” You seem to believe those are objective measures, and that anybody else’s assessments are somehow biased. Nonsense. You have a schematic all worked out in your head that you think is objectively accurate despite its value-loaded terminology and dependence on accepting your base principles; it’s no more explanatory than Marxism, really–it’s a closed system that only explains everything if you agree with its exclusions, values, and biases to begin with.

          Further, ldouglas is one who is repeatedly hurting and upsetting PoC and NA commenters. She has not indicated that she has been hurt. That puts the burden of change so as not to hurt marginalized people on her. This is not a mutual problem.

          Finally, please share the multiple meanings of “legitimate” that are likely to be in play in the context of NA relations with the US. You make statements like your valued style, which you think of as “less ambiguous” is obvious and clear. I’m sorry to disabuse you of this notion, but you are mistaken.

          When you or anybody do/does not understand something, there are multiple ways to ask. Here’s a way that may have generated less animosity: “Wait, I’m sorry, I’m a little confused. I’m not sure whether legitimate in this context means ‘Meaning A,’ ‘Meaning B,’ or ‘Meaning C.’ Could you help me out? Thanks.” The debate style you so value is hostile and despite what you may want, takes on the attitude of point-scoring. I know this because I use it on occasion, and I use it when I want to be hostile and adopt a pose of rationality. Your inability or perhaps refusal to understand or to alter the effect your attitude and affect have on people comes across as hostility. If that’s not something you want, change it. If it’s something you don’t mind, accept the hostility you receive in return.

        42. Let me just make sure I’m clear, here, Matt. Your justification for ldouglas’s clashes with PoC and NA commenters is that she probably has no friends or admirers and lacks basic social skills?

          I’m sure she’s terribly grateful for your advocacy.

          Feel free not to hang out with people who can’t calculate tip if you like. I myself do not think well of people without basic social skills. Chacun a son gout.

        43. Ah, I see. Racism is ok if it’s due to a lack of social skills or difference in communication. Got it, Matt.

      3. @EG

        I brought up the issue in the context of the argument with Tim about whether or not the Taliban was “legitimate.”

        EG, just as a factual clarification, I did not say anything about the Taliban or whether they are/were legitimate in that thread. I said a bunch of things, but not that. That argument/subthread I think was with Hugh. I have not stated any position or opinion on this “legitimacy” thread at all.

        Just sayin’, thanks.

        2. @Angel H

          This is something that has been brought up repeatedly in the past (in another thread about NDNs – shocker!).

          Black-people-issues have hardly been spared.

        3. But because you’re so tied to the use of a single word that everybody on the last thread used differently, and refuse to try to reduce the confusion, you’ve come to the point where my confusion surrounding your ideas is evidence- in your head- that I actually disagree with them.

          Sweet baby dinosaurs, it’s as if you just get off on pointless arguments.

          Right. And chances are we agree about everything tangible. But I guess we’ll never know, because you refuse to even articulate your point.

          Girl you trippin’ … with friends like these…

        5. I was just checking out that old thread that Angel H referred to upthread. Her mention of filing comments under “How Not to be a Good Ally” seems appropriate here as well.

        6. Yes, the discussion of “legitimate” vs. actual government began with Hugh, in his comment at:

          http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2014/05/02/200-schoolgirls-kidnapped-by-extremists-and-mass-media-is-mostly-silent/#comment-826604

          when he was trying to justify his claim that the USA was invited into Afghanistan by the Afghan government, by saying that he meant the Northern Alliance, because even though the Taliban governed most of the country, it was not the “legitimate” government of Afghanistan. (All of which was apparently intended to support his seeming position that if the USA provided assistance at the request of the Nigerian government in finding the kidnapped girls, it would be just the same as the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, at the invitation of the purported Afghan government.)

        7. I was just checking out that old thread that Angel H referred to upthread. Her mention of filing comments under “How Not to be a Good Ally” seems appropriate here as well.

          Given that this seems to be the consensus, and given that re-reading that thread I still feel like I wasn’t the one behaving ridiculously, I think it’s clear my posting here isn’t a net positive for anyone. I’ll still read Feministe, but I’ll stay out of the comments from now on.

          This isn’t a flounce and I’m not pissed, I just think that as Tim said, our expectations of what constitutes effective communication are so radically different we’ll continue to butt heads as long as I participate.

          Feel free to take your parting shots 🙂

        8. @ trees:

          Black-people-issues have hardly been spared.

          True. Very true. And it goes back to what pheeno said:

          why should they put effort into conforming a communication style? Because they can be oppressive to already oppressed people in some cases, thats fucking why. When an NDN says she doesn’t view the us as legitimate, just what the fuck do you think she means? That’s not about communication style, thats just old fashioned ignorance… or being purposely obtuse.

          Amazing how her “style.of communication” all of a sudden becomes an issue when the subject becomes race.

          “She wasn’t being racist, you just didn’t what she was saying!!” Really?! Are we really going down this road?

        9. I’m pretty sure I commented on ldouglas’s communication style before. Or rather how some of its characteristics remind me of other people I know with a similar one. The particular topic going at the time that people started calling ldouglas an asshole has been different for all the times I’ve made these kind of comments. I make them when I see the pattern repeating. And I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned it in regards to other people, too. I mean, its not like this is a fringe issue on this site. ldouglas has just been getting it the worst in recent times.

          Would you like me to wait 30 days every time I’m concerned about this issue? I mean I can, but then people will complain about why I’m talking about this 30 days later after its been shoved under a rug. Or ldouglas may leave or be banned or something and people will complain that it doesn’t matter because ldouglas is gone.

          Which has essentially happened comment wise. No more ldouglas comments.

        10. @ matt:

          As far as I know, ldouglas has never claimed this to be an issue herself. Your White Knight routine is based entirely on your own assumptions. And since she flounced*, we probably won’t be getting any answers from her anytime soon.

          *A flounce is a flounce is a flounce, especially when you’re announcing that you are most definitely not flouncing.

        11. @Matt

          ldouglas has just been getting it the worst in recent times.

          You’re making her out to be some sort of victim of irrational PC meanies.

          There are communities where the balance is on the other side than it is here and they would view EG/Pheeno/Trees as the asshole regardless of the topic, its not like there is a one true way to have a discussion.

          I mean, I didn’t ask for a specific response as to whether I had it figured out, but I want to ascribe to the dominant communication style and what not and apparently asking for more clarity is oppressive.

          You’re being disingenuous. ldouglas has a commenting history of starting arguments over trifles, seemingly based in willful misunderstanding. She takes the personally meaningful issues of others and uses them for intellectual sparing. I have no idea why she does this, but it is callous and hurtful.

          She has also condescendingly made grand pronouncements, without any support, and then calls people stupid when challenged to support her conclusions. This doesn’t support your “concrete” take on the dynamic.

          She comes across as just simply not caring about how she effects others. I have long had this issue with her, and I too thought (hoped) it was a difference in communication styles, and the effect unintended, but she only seems to insult/have conflict with WOC, and it mostly seems to come up around issues of race. Perhaps you don’t see this because you’re not a WOC and it doesn’t effect you.

          This reminds me so much of the painful discussions I had in pol sci & phil seminars as a first year student (ages ago) at a college dominated by wealthy white men. I respect that there are different ways of being in the world, this just ain’t for me.

        1. as Tim said, our expectations of what constitutes effective communication are so radically different we’ll continue to butt heads as long as I participate.

          I didn’t say that, either. I think it was Matt. lulz, maybe I should post a lot less too; people seem to think I said All The Things. 😉

          Best to all.

        2. Maybe it’s just that a lot of men tend to sound alike, so it can be difficult to tell them apart? (I’m at least partly serious in saying that, by the way.)

          1. @Donna L: Do you find all men to sound the same in real life, or just online, or just here on Feministe? Does asking that make me sound like a man?

        3. I take the Fifth. Except to note that I didn’t say “all” men, here or elsewhere. Example: I don’t think that of Fat Steve. Why? Because he has a distinct personality, and puts himself into his comments more than some others do.

        4. They just grab the first male commentor’s name they can think of. I mean, there are like 10 regular cis male commentors here, tops. Probably less. So many to keep track of.

          All of whom sound so alike. Except they don’t at all. But you, facts ruining our snark and whatever, not on Feminist they won’t dammit!

          Steve does stand out though, probably his personal details and talking about his career in radio. And the name. Has an descriptor instead of a generic male first name like Matt or Tim.

        5. @Tim

          <>

          I agree completely and Fat Steve is not really anonymous like the rest of us are. Also posting as anonymous makes it possible for men to post as women and women to post as men and who knows maybe if we had to use our own names. there might be less posting on this blog.

      5. Further, don’t fret about my communication skills–I have plenty of reasons to be quite sure of their efficacy. I couldn’t have gotten or kept my job otherwise.

        1. @EG

          You and the other women commenting on this blog have excellent communication skills. Those skills are light years beyond mine. I’d be happy to have a small fraction of those skills.

  6. Pseudonym, go look it the hell up. And after that, if you still can’t figure out why NDNS wouldn’t consider a government of genocidal squatters legitimate, then ask yourself if you’d consider me the legitimate home owner if I killed you and stole your house, signed a contract stating I’d pay your family in compensation and never, ever paid them the full amount I agreed to.

  7. This comment was moderated out of UCSB thread, I’m posting it here now. Discuss, if you like:

    Ok, so I want to start by saying that this is a completely awful event. There are no words to really describe what happened other than nightmarish. And I also want to say that my first thought when reading the youtube transcript was, the patriarchy is alive and well (clearly). But I worry about the ban and discussing the mental health of the shooter. I will admit that I haven not yet read any of the mainstream media about this event. My first contact with it was in the feminist parts of the internet. So I don’t know exactly what is being said about the mental health issue, but I can imagine.

    At any rate, I have to say that I find it disappointing that just because this crime was clearly motivated by misogyny that a discussion of the shooter’s mental health is off limits. I worry that in these kinds of feminist discussions disability and madness are shuffled off to the side, so that we can claim that patriarchy is to blame for what happened. And it is most certainly true that patriarchy is responsible for what happened. But can’t a person’s mental health also be a factor? Don’t our psychological issues and our personal histories constantly interact with structures such as patriarchy.

    In reading the youtube transcript, I wondered if the shooter was ever loved enough, or if he was hurt by his parents, or some adult as a child. In reading the transcript, I get the feeling that this person wanted to be loved accepted, and understood by other people very desperately. Which is of course something we all want, but when there is a gross denial of such things to a person, the person may act in extreme way to get those things. And that person may rationalize actions that are connected with that repeatedly denied need. I want to be clear that by saying this I do not mean to make an excuse for this guy, there is no excuse. But I want to try and explain something.

    If this person suffered some kind of psychological damage, and was hurt somewhere along the line I worry that certain aspects of patriarchy may have been made more appealing, or may have more easily become a part of his reasoning. Perhaps this guy thought that if he could only have a girlfriend he would feel loved in the way that he need to feel loved. So patriarchy be came a convenient way for him to say I deserve to be loved, I demand to be loved. But he probably never evaluated his actions or connected his desperate need to any past events. He simply decided that patriarchy was the solution to his psychological pain. In a nutshell I worry that men who are hurt somehow are more likely to cling to certain patriarchal ideals as a way of covering over, or dealing with psychological injuries, after all the undertone of patriarchy is that men are entitled to the love and emotional support of women.

    It is of course hard to know what happened for sure. But I always find myself wanting to talk about the relationship between patriarchy and mental health when something like this happens. I would ask that a conversation about the connection between mental health and patriarchy/masculinity be made acceptable, and that using mental healthy simply as an excuse be disallowed. I think that there is a difference. And I think that it is critical that feminist explore the relationship between mental health and patriarchy. I often think that one of the reasons it is often so difficult to talk with men about patriarchy is because they can use its axioms as a way of guarding their own psychological pain.

    1. I asked you to take it to spillover, so thank you for doing so. Be aware that you are still causing splash damage to the many non-violent people living with mental illness who comment here at Feministe, because you are so insistent on only discussing toxic patriarchy in conjunction with speculation about mental illness. You could be discussing toxic patriarchal beliefs about women as much as you like in the original thread if you were only willing to stop foregrounding mental illness when you do so.

      1. I feel very strongly about this issue. And have been quiet about if for a long time, because I know that feminist spaces are not always open to discussing the mental health of men. But I fear very deeply that if this issues is not addressed women will continue to be hurt. I think we have to be open to understanding all the things that lead to women being hurt, including a man’s mental health. Patriarchy does not exist independently as a force in the world. It will exploit every opportunity that if finds. By not discussing a man’s mental health you do a disservice to women. The goal of feminists when it comes to such dire issues should be to explore every possible avenue for stopping the violence. But I worry that too often feminists are so busy insisting that patriarchy is to blame, that they fail to address more immediate concerns such as mental health, which may have contributed to the crime. I want anything that can stop the violence to stop it.

        1. Mental health in this country is epidemic. So yes, I do believe that many men who harm women have mental illness. The level of anger and rage that is displayed in those crimes is indicative of mental illness. I also don’t think that men and women respond the same to mental illness. Perhaps the better way to put what I am trying to say is not that mental illness is responsible for what happened, but that the way a person responds to a psychological wound is gendered.

          This is most famously visible in Betty Freidan’s “The problem that has no name.” House wives endured crippling feelings of loneliness, depression, and alienation during the 50’s, and 60’s (and probably some still do today, although now we wold just say that we were deperssed). When they experienced these feelings they after turned their own anger inward towards themselves, assuming that they were some how deficient or incapable of doing their roles correctly. This sort of inward turning of anger is congruent with female gendering. Women are far more likely to blame themselves when something goes wrong than men are. This is something that rape culture teaches, and cultures of abuse teach. It is one of the main mechanisms that allows these things to occur.

          So when I say that there is an intersection between mental illness and patriarchy that is what I’m trying to point out. I believe that the shooter responded to feelings of aleinations (an perhaps old child hood wounds) by finding justifications in patriarchy that would permit him to release those feelings. Perhaps not all men who are mental ill will respond in identical ways. But the problem is that patriarchy is dangerous be cause it makes these avenues for dealing with one’s feelings seem appropriate. So of course part of a feminists target must be patriarchy. But I also think that it is irresponsible not to be concerned about the feelings that lead to such actions. I’m simply asking for a more holistic approach to these kinds of incidents.

          If we keep thinking that talking about mental illness at all echos mainstream conversations, or MRA arguments we end up silencing an important part of the problem. I’m asking for a feminist, or gendered approach to understanding mental illness. I’m not blaming it, I worried though about how it interacts with Gender.

          1. Since we now know that Rodger had been in and out of therapy since childhood for socialisation problems due to being bullied at school and then his parents’ divorce, and none of his therapists ever diagnosed him with a mental illness, why is your internet diagnosis more to be trusted than their professional assessments?

          2. p.s. I do however agree that gendered expectations on appropriate ways to deal with grievances and the resulting anger/hate/resentment is a huge problem. I just don’t see that mental illness is the major culprit in how men and women act on those gendered expectations of how they deal with grievances, and in my opinion you are confusing the issue rather than clarifying it.

        2. the way a person responds to a psychological wound is gendered.

          Which is a feature of the patriarchy. Therefore, mental illness is not an important concern here. Unless you want to argue that men and women have inherent cognitive differences as they relate to mental health.

        3. So yes, I do believe that many men who harm women have mental illness. The level of anger and rage that is displayed in those crimes is indicative of mental illness.

          Nonsense. Violence as a result of anger and rage does not indicate mental illness. Further, your reasoning is circular: how do we know that a violent hate crime results from mental illness? According to you, it’s because the hate and anger results in violence. That is circular. Anger and rage are not indicators of mental illness. Violence is not an indicator of mental illness.

          And wild guesses about “childhood wounds” are silly. You literally know nothing about his childhood.

        4. …many men who harm women have mental illness….and many don’t.

          Corrected that for you.

          Many men who harm men have mental illness too.

      2. His family suspected he had Asperger’s, and iirc they’ve also said they didn’t really know what that condition is.

        There is no justification for going on about mental illness or how haaaarsh his childhood might have been or anything else. He was extremely pampered and indulged in every way, and exploded with rage at anyone who disagreed with him – that’s why he didn’t damnwell have any friends, because he was a hate-filled, toxic misogynist and racist.

        So ENOUGH of anything that smacks of watering down or excusing his murder of six people.

    2. Sorry, I’m not buying any of this. Men murder women and children every. fucking. day. because of misogyny and patriarchy; are you going to say each and every one of those murderers is mentally ill, or that we should look at that as a possibility?

      It might be an idea for you to read the mainstream stuff before asking feminist sites to focus on mental illness, because that’s all the mainstream media is doing. They’re busy brushing the misogyny under the carpet, for the most part. That’s probably a large part of why feminist sites aren’t welcoming this – as well as the important matter of not making internet diagonses and not inflicting the splash damage tigtog mentioned, and adding yet MORE to the stigma and stereotyping of people with mental illness as bad!!! and dangerous!!!

      You want a good few arguments about why this stuff shouldn’t be allowed, take a look at the trolls we’ve been dealing with on We Hunted the Mammoth (formerly Manboobz) on the two threads about this. When it’s not “poor menz feels should be catered for by nasty women” it’s every ableist slur and armchair psychiatrist you can think of. Enough is enough.

      (Apologies if that read as sharp or attacking; I’ve been reading this BUT MENTAL ILLNESS! stuff for two days, and it’s wearing.)

    3. I wondered if the shooter was ever loved enough, or if he was hurt by his parents, or some adult as a child. In reading the transcript, I get the feeling that this person wanted to be loved accepted, and understood by other people very desperately. Which is of course something we all want, but when there is a gross denial of such things to a person, the person may act in extreme way to get those things. And that person may rationalize actions that are connected with that repeatedly denied need. I want to be clear that by saying this I do not mean to make an excuse for this guy, there is no excuse. But I want to try and explain something.

      Oh, bullshit. Do you think women don’t feel not loved enough, weren’t hurt by their parents or some other adult as children? In fact, is there a person alive who doesn’t fall into at least one of those categories? My mother suffered dreadful abuse and lack of love as a child. My late best friend, too. Neither one of them ever displayed the entitlement and misogyny and violence of this asshole. Everyone wants to be loved. That isn’t psychological damage–that’s life. When women feel unloved, we’re told that it’s our own fault for not being pretty enough, compliant enough, too picky, too independent, too needy, to desperate, not willing to compromise, anything you can imagine. But men are told that they’re entitled to our bodies and attention whether or not we want those men in return. That’s the issue. Patriarchy. Not mental health.

      You are explaining nothing. Not a thing. Girls are abused and deprived of love all the time. But the women they turn out to be do not become mass murderers. And your willingness to blame this misogynist killer’s “problems” on his parents without knowing jack shit about his childhood or how they raised him or anything except the fact that they at least were sufficiently worried and value women enough to have reported him to the police is really uncalled for. His parents sounds like eminently better people than him, at least.

    4. There is an Occam’s Razor reason for not invoking mental illness issues: what this guy rants about appears extreme to you, requiring some extraordinary circumstances to explain it, but it is not actually far outside the mainstream MRA thinking. For a journey in this world (heavily moderated) read the comments section at Pharyngula.

      http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/24/the-perfect-guy-the-supreme-gentleman/comment-page-1/#comment-801211

      In addition to the excellent commentary by Louis (and a few others), you will find the explanators and MRA apologists in a fairly rational-sounding form that will show you, without screams or invective, just how mainstream this thinking is in that world. Not the murders, but the motivation.

    5. But can’t a person’s mental health also be a factor?

      Okay, but all we have is the word of the killer’s family lawyer that the killer had “Aspergers”. There is no reason to believe this lawyer (those letters behind his name do not actually prevent him from mindlessly repeating some uninformed speculation of family members), but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument.

      Let’s say Rodger had an ASD (autism spectrum disorder, “Aspergers” isn’t a clinical diagnosis anymore at least as far as the US is concerned). Even if he had been untreated (he wasn’t, from what I’ve heard), ASD doesn’t explain why he killed people. It doesn’t even explain why he couldn’t get laid. If you’ve heard differently, then you’ve heard popular myths about autism.

      You might argue that any antisocial behavior is automatically “mental illness”. That seems to me a useless definition of “mental illness” meant to distract people from the horrifying possibility that ordinary humans can perform extraordinarily bad actions, but whatever.

      …I want to try and explain something.

      As someone who thinks Rodger still had it better than the vast majority of humans who have lived within the last 100 years alone (myself included), I find your theory unpersuasive and insulting.

      In a nutshell I worry that men who are hurt somehow are more likely to cling to certain patriarchal ideals as a way of covering over, or dealing with psychological injuries, after all the undertone of patriarchy is that men are entitled to the love and emotional support of women.

      This is not the first time I’ve heard someone claim that men who are marginalized (by race, disability, class status, whatever) are at risk for being bigger shitheads than more privileged men. I suppose it’s plausible (being mistreated = more likely to mistreat others?), but I’m going to remain skeptical if only because of the power dynamics involved.

    6. He was a murderous misogynist and racist. And he followed the logic of his ideologies by actually committing acts of violence. It was his choice, not in any way induced involuntarily by mental disability. End of story.

    7. @Disorder

      We don’t know that he even had a diagnosis, and considering the socioeconomics and statements made by his family, Rodger long had access to quality mental health services. Why this focus on possible mental health issues and lack of access to care?

Comments are currently closed.