I think a big part of it comes down to .... sorry, I don't know any other terms for this, the guy walk of talking and the girl way of talking.When guys talk about a problem its argument and solution based aka how do I fix this. . What is the problem is the problem there, what is a solution what are the pros and cons whats another solution
When girls talk its about reaching understanding and empathy. IRL i know how to uh huh and nod along. I really don't know what the internet version of that is.
I would humbly submit that the above is a social construct reinforced by repetitive iterations of pre-conditioned actions.
Anecdotally, my experience has actually been the opposite.
My immediate manager at work is a woman, and as most of my female managers has been exceptionally pro-active on 'how do we solve this situation'.
Her boss, and most of my male bosses have actually fallen into the 'understanding and empathy' category, more often than not.
Whether this behavior was created by a male-centric work structure or not may or may not have a bearing on this, but this has been my experience.
It might be, but for once I want to try to keep it remotely on track. Like i said I'd use different terms for them if i had them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be, but for once I want to try to keep it remotely on track. Like i said I'd use different terms for them if i had them.
Perhaps 'Goal-Oriented' versus 'Community-Oriented' might be a way to look at it?
It might be, but for once I want to try to keep it remotely on track. Like i said I'd use different terms for them if i had them.Perhaps 'Goal-Oriented' versus 'Community-Oriented' might be a way to look at it?
I'll try to remember those for next time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But some privilege is more prevalent than others. In the trans community, we talk a lot about passing privilege. Which just means, that people can rarely tell that your trans. You've had some traumatic times but passing privilege helps you get along a lot in society. It means, unless you are out and public as I am, you don't have to deal with a lot of the problems that being trans can have. It means, you aren't necessarily considered foreign to cisgendered people so people can have that moment when you remind them of their daughter or their wife or best friend without relating that to the otherness of being trans. Having passing privilege gives you a lot of the little things that cisgendered privilege gets you.
You can't not have privilege because everyone is a majority about something
I was born (at least partially) white, and also with a penis. I'm also married with two daughters. And here is the issue with "privilege". Despite all these factors, I grew up poor. Poor to the point where most of school, I wore cloths that my parents made for me. I can honestly recall one time where I got to go shopping for cloths that I wanted, and that was in high school.
Most of that time, my father worked 2 or 3 jobs, (even after going to college after the marines), and a lot of those times, unable to afford day care, I went to work with him on the weekends or days off, working to build houses or whatever. I also had to get my GED and start working a bit early too. My mother was a baby-sitter/housewife and also struggled to finish college at night until she got a job, too.
After that, I went to college, myself working two jobs at times to do it. Being both male and white and also working, I didn't receive any special help at that. After college, I worked a bit, and because I wanted a better life, I joined the military, and I've been in the military while no less than three times, because of politics there was the threat of no pay, (and deployed for two of these occasions). I'm going into my third deployment now, within a few weeks in fact, so that I can give my family a chance to go to college, and my daughters have as much as I can give them.
It wasn't handed to me. I EARNED IT, as did my parents who worked their butts off. I can only trace my family tree back two generations before me, because my grandparents where all orphans after various wars.
Privilege is to me an insult. Unless you (whoever is speaking) is saying I was privileged enough to have parents that where willing to work, and work multiple jobs. Sure, that's a better than having parents that wouldn't. But, obviously, insulting your own parents work ethic or drive is not what the speaker means. What they do mean is that the target got a free pass somehow, and probably in a single specific circumstance only, but somehow that means they simply can't understand everything about everything.
Privilege is an insult. Yes, my wife and daughters will have better opportunities in life, because I worked and sacrificed a lot to help make that more likely. Trying to say that their gender, skin color, or even sexual orientation down the road when they develop one is a factor does nothing but undermine all the work, suffering, and effort I, and my parents did to EARN that for them.
Privilege is an insult to logic. It's basically nothing more than "the grass is greener over there" and pretending that A.) that's true on it's own, and B.) that the only or at least main reason is that the grass over there was just inherited or discounted, but only some folks get that discount.
Privilege also assumes, but goes without saying, that it's a single thing that applies to all aspects of life. One is either privileged or not. That is, they are not privileged in one aspect of life, potentially, while also being unprivileged at others, and in the rare case that those that fall back on accusing other of privilege do allow this possibility, it's always also assumed that all the special privilege gets far outweighs all the unprivileged, if there is even any.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ DM Beckett: An article written by a white person who grew up extremely poor to help explain what (specifically white) privilege means.
Hopefully you find this helpful in understand that privilege comes in multiple forms. In you can, please try to approach this without your defensive shields up (I know that can be hard), and try to understand that "privilege" doesn't mean the same thing all the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was born (at least partially) white, and also with a penis. I'm also married with two daughters. And here is the issue with "privilege". Despite all these factors, I grew up poor. Poor to the point where most of school, I wore cloths that my parents made for me. I can honestly recall one time where I got to go shopping for cloths that I wanted, and that was in high school.
Most of that time, my father worked 2 or 3 jobs, (even after going to college after the marines), and a lot of those times, unable to afford day care, I went to work with him on the weekends or days off, working to build houses or whatever. I also had to get my GED and start working a bit early too. My mother was a baby-sitter/housewife and also struggled to finish college at night until she got a job, too.
After that, I went to college, myself working two jobs at times to do it. Being both male and white and also working, I didn't receive any special help at that. After college, I worked a bit, and because I wanted a better life, I joined the military, and I've been in the military while no less than three times, because of politics there was the threat of no pay, (and deployed for two of these occasions). I'm going into my third deployment now, within a few weeks in fact, so that I can give my family a chance to go to college, and my daughters have as much as I can give them.
It wasn't handed to me. I EARNED IT, as did my parents who worked their butts off. I can only trace my family tree back two generations before me, because my grandparents where all orphans after various wars.
Privilege is to me an insult. Unless you (whoever is speaking) is saying I was privileged enough to have parents that where willing to work, and work multiple jobs. Sure, that's a better than having parents that wouldn't. But, obviously, insulting your own parents work ethic or drive is not what the speaker means. What they do mean is that the target got a free pass somehow, and probably in a single specific circumstance only, but somehow that means they simply can't understand everything about everything.
Privilege is an insult. Yes, my wife and daughters will have better opportunities in life, because I worked and sacrificed a lot to help make that more likely. Trying to say that their gender, skin color, or even sexual orientation down the road when they develop one is a factor does nothing but undermine all the work, suffering, and effort I, and my parents did to EARN that for them.
Privilege is an insult to logic. It's basically nothing more than "the grass is greener over there" and pretending that A.) that's true on it's own, and B.) that the only or at least main reason is that the grass over there was just inherited or discounted, but only some folks get that discount.
Privilege also assumes, but goes without saying, that it's a single thing that applies to all aspects of life. One is either privileged or not. That is, they are not privileged in one aspect of life, potentially, while also being unprivileged at others, and in the rare case that those that fall back on accusing other of privilege do allow this possibility, it's always also assumed that all the special privilege gets far outweighs all the unprivileged, if there is even any.
If someone is attempting to engage you in good faith discussion about privilege, it isn't intended as an "insult." What they are asking you to consider is how much harder all your challenges would have been if you and your family were also non-white. Or clocked as non-straight. Or visually identified as non-Christian. Or physically- or mentally-challenged. Or denied a basic education. Or whatever... that some groups given your life circumstances would have an even more difficult time succeeding, or would fail to succeed.
It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.
Edit: Ninja'd!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.
Its not working. Ditch it.
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
I don't know if its the Y chromosome talking, but what is the point of the empathy? You're taking a weird track to try to get a seemingly pointless result and frankly confusing the heck out of me.
It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.Its not working. Ditch it.
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian? Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.
Edit:
I don't know if its the Y chromosome talking, but what is the point of the empathy? You're taking a weird track to try to get a seemingly pointless result and frankly confusing the heck out of me.
Empathy is a step. It's getting Person A to think, "Yeah, we both grew up poor and both worked hard to overcome it. But wow, what would it have been like for me to also have been gay? How much rougher would school have been for me? Would my parents have still supported me? Would my skill and hardwork been enough to get my employers to hire/promote me? My neighborhood was rough, but what if I also had be constantly vigilant for verbal harassment and threats, or physically attacked, for being gay?"
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.Its not working. Ditch it.
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
I don't know if its the Y chromosome talking, but what is the point of the empathy? You're taking a weird track to try to get a seemingly pointless result and frankly confusing the heck out of me.
I mean, all of these arguments and examples are an attempt to get people to understand inequality and injustice. Usually people are (or at least claim to be) in favor of those things, so understanding can help people realize what the problems are and do something about it.
You're right that there's not much point if you don't actually care about reaching social equality and/or justice, though.
Customer Service Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.I don't know if its the Y chromosome talking, but what is the point of the empathy? You're taking a weird track to try to get a seemingly pointless result and frankly confusing the heck out of me.
Empathy allows me to examine my own feelings and relate to other people on an emotional level when I may not have much else in common with their experience. It allows me to be more open minded and happier when I can get a better sense of where people are at emotionally instead of assuming the worse about them/their actions. Humans are not solely logical creatures. For many of us, the emotional component can be very strong and can prompt us to make irrational statements or take illogical actions. Being able to empathize with others means I can read the world with a more gracious interpretation. This in turn helps me (I hope) make the world around me less negatively charged.
"Think about how someone else is feeling... Maybe you can help them feel better!"
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
I don't know if its the Y chromosome talking, but what is the point of the empathy? You're taking a weird track to try to get a seemingly pointless result and frankly confusing the heck out of me.
By self-examining what we have in common AND how and where we differ, we can confront the assumptions we all make naturally and better understand how others' experiences have shaped them.
You don't need to actually experience other circumstances to have empathy. It's not all or nothing. You can do your best with your imagination and the facts as they are given.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian? Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.Its not working. Ditch it.
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
Because when life is kicking you in the head - or someone is you know, actually physically kicking you in the head... and then someone from a lofty perceptive perch yells out to you -
"hey, at least you are still white (or X)" it doesn't help.It doesn't help at all.
|
|
If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian? Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.Its not working. Ditch it.
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
Because when life is kicking you in the head - or someone is you know, actually physically kicking you in the head... and then someone from a lofty perceptive perch yells out to you -
"hey, at least you are still white (or X)" it doesn't help.It doesn't help at all.
It could be worse. They could be wearing steel-toed boots.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian?
Because there is a (not completely unfounded) perception that it is easier/there is less social stigma on a minority family requiring public assistance, that its ok for them to have done so because of their race. When you hit a certain level of poor being white starts to be a disadvantage for getting the help you need.
You're also describing not being shot on sight by the cops as a privilege, rather than a right. -Ooo, you went through all this hardship but hey, it could have been worse- is not a particularly tactful approach to dealing with people.
Yes. I'm pointing out a lack of tact. Thats how bad it is.
Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.
Just stick to one variable at a time. Otherwise it interacts and intersects in odd ways.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be worse. They could be wearing steel-toed boots.If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian? Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.Its not working. Ditch it.
How on earth does asking someone to examine their own circumstances help you empathize with something that you by definition have not experienced? You need to look for something you have in COMMON, not get their hackles up with a tangental (at best) term that denies anything you may have gone through.
Because when life is kicking you in the head - or someone is you know, actually physically kicking you in the head... and then someone from a lofty perceptive perch yells out to you -
"hey, at least you are still white (or X)" it doesn't help.It doesn't help at all.
Speaking from experience - those hurt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"privilege" doesn't mean the same thing all the time.
This is the biggest problem with the perspective and the one that causes the most hard feelings/defensive attitudes. I have felt and argued for years that the term needs to be altered or distinguished somehow.
It isn't an insult. It's asking for you to self-examine your circumstances and experiences in an attempt to get you to empathize with the other disadvantaged groups.I don't know if its the Y chromosome talking, but what is the point of the empathy? You're taking a weird track to try to get a seemingly pointless result and frankly confusing the heck out of me.Empathy allows me to examine my own feelings and relate to other people on an emotional level when I may not have much else in common with their experience. It allows me to be more open minded and happier when I can get a better sense of where people are at emotionally instead of assuming the worse about them/their actions. Humans are not solely logical creatures. For many of us, the emotional component can be very strong and can prompt us to make irrational statements or take illogical actions. Being able to empathize with others means I can read the world with a more gracious interpretation. This in turn helps me (I hope) make the world around me less negatively charged.
"Think about how someone else is feeling... Maybe you can help them feel better!"
This does not work for me. I need to know what you want me to do, or at the very least what goal you want accomplished so I might have an idea of how to get there.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
"privilege" doesn't mean the same thing all the time.This is the biggest problem with the perspective and the one that causes the most hard feelings/defensive attitudes. I have felt and argued for years that the term needs to be altered or distinguished somehow.
It's too bad that I've never seen people who see themselves in opposition to social justice accept any sociological term/definition or neologism except their own, then.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This does not work for me. I need to know what you want me to do, or at the very least what goal you want accomplished so I might have an idea of how to get there.
Except when they tell someone what needs to be done, the response is 'that doesn't need to be done'. Then they try to get that person to understand why it needs to be done, and the person tells them 'tell me what needs to be done'.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The common enemy is rich white guys and unchecked capitalism btw.
That's funny, usually the evil secret conspiracy isn't revealed until the third act?
---------------------------------------------------
So once your common enemy is eliminated, who becomes the new enemy?
Middle class white guys?
Mixed race rich guys?
Rich white women?
Unchecked socialism-lite?
What is the stack ranking for those with the most privilege and down to the sorriest SOB?
This sounds like an interesting project for the Ahnenerbe (Aka the OG stack rankers).
This does not work for me. I need to know what you want me to do, or at the very least what goal you want accomplished so I might have an idea of how to get there.Except when they tell you what needs to be done, you say 'that doesn't need to be done'. Then they try to get you to understand why it needs to be done, and you tell them 'tell me what needs to be done'.
Its a possibility, depending on how many people its supposed to effect, how big of a change you're looking for, whether the thing you want is tangible, whether the thing you want is under your control, current levels of technology, phrenology, cost, infringement on others wants and desires....
If someone saying "this sucks for me, help" isn't enough to get someone's help you're probably not going to get it. If you're trying to play to their sympathies you need to concentrate on similarities if you can, privilege just tells you to concentrate on the differences.
|
|
If someone saying "this sucks for me, help" isn't enough to get someone's help you're probably not going to get it. If you're trying to play to their sympathies you need to concentrate on similarities if you can, privilege just tells you to concentrate on the differences.
So rich white dudes will help other rich white dudes the most because they are the most similar. Makes sense.
If someone saying "this sucks for me, help" isn't enough to get someone's help you're probably not going to get it. If you're trying to play to their sympathies you need to concentrate on similarities if you can, privilege just tells you to concentrate on the differences.So rich white dudes will help other rich white dudes the most because they are the most similar. Makes sense.
I don't see anyone else getting a 700 billion dollar bailout.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
The common enemy is rich white guys and unchecked capitalism btw.That's funny, usually the evil secret conspiracy isn't revealed until the third act?
---------------------------------------------------
So once your common enemy is eliminated, who becomes the new enemy?
Middle class white guys?
Mixed race rich guys?
Rich white women?
Unchecked socialism-lite?What is the stack ranking for those with the most privilege and down to the sorriest SOB?
This sounds like an interesting project for the Ahnenerbe (Aka the OG stack rankers).
Well it's not so much the rich white guys - they are a stand in for what they represent (also known as metonymy). I was being rhetorical and also a little bit cheeky.
Checklist of things (not people!) to smash, in no particular order after capitalism:
Capitalism
Patriarchy
White supremacy
Heteronormativity / homophobia / biphobia / acephobia / etc.
Cisnormativity / transphobia
Whorephobia
Ableism (mental and physical)
Etc. There are more, but specific instances probably fall under one of these umbrellas, and many of these are related and systematically linked.
|
|
If someone saying "this sucks for me, help" isn't enough to get someone's help you're probably not going to get it. If you're trying to play to their sympathies you need to concentrate on similarities if you can, privilege just tells you to concentrate on the differences.
And this whole thing reeks of a pain game. Who is suffering more, or if both are suffering from the same calamity/pain at equal levels*, who has it worse due to other factors (race, sex, etc) when the pain levels are the same.
So in effect it's designed to simultaneously invalidate and to differentiate the human condition by trying to get people to focus on the difference vs. the similarities between individuals.
----
*Side thought: Is it possible that privilege serves as a form of pain/misery filter - maybe pain/misery levels are distilled down by how many levels of privilege you posses? Is that the perception of those who have less privilege? Hmmm.
Heteronormativity Cisnormativity
Those are't going anywhere. They're biologically hard wired into the species (genus...family..order...) They are always going to be, by far, the most prevalent Endophenotype* and thus the very definition of normal.
Vive la differance. Embrace the abnormal.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone saying "this sucks for me, help" isn't enough to get someone's help you're probably not going to get it. If you're trying to play to their sympathies you need to concentrate on similarities if you can, privilege just tells you to concentrate on the differences.And this whole thing reeks of a pain game. Who is suffering more, or if both are suffering from the same calamity/pain at equal levels*, who has it worse due to other factors (race, sex, etc) when the pain levels are the same.
So in effect it's designed to simultaneously invalidate and to differentiate the human condition by trying to get people to focus on the difference vs. the similarities between individuals.
----
*Side thought: Is it possible that privilege serves as a form of pain/misery filter - maybe pain/misery levels are distilled down by how many levels of privilege you posses? Is that the perception of those who have less privilege? Hmmm.
Privilege is a term to describe an observed situation. It wasn't invented so sociologists and activists could say "well X group has it better than Y group, this will help our optimization tables for the Pain Olympics!" It's not "designed" to do anything, it's a social phenomenon that occurs when a society creates inequality based on certain groups.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heteronormativity CisnormativityThose are't going anywhere. They're biologically hard wired into the species (genus...family..order...) They are always going to be, by far, the most prevalent Endophenotype* and thus the very definition of normal.
Vive la differance. Embrace the abnormal.
1 Biology is socially influenced.
2 If you go any further than the most basic biology, it quickly becomes clear that the gender binary is not supported by the physical facts of biology, just the way that it's presented by and to humans.3 Prevalent isn't the same as "normal"
4 I am not abnormal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Checklist of things (not people!) to smash, in no particular order after capitalism:
Capitalism
Patriarchy
White supremacy
Heteronormativity / homophobia / biphobia / acephobia / etc.
Cisnormativity / transphobia
Whorephobia
Ableism (mental and physical)
But these things are comprised by people...people who are part of (institutionally) or believe in this a valued societal norms (an a willing part of that society that holds those values).
Let me know how smashing all those people works out for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 Biology is socially influenced.
Culture comes out of a petrie dish.
Science has a grounding in observable phenomenon that prevent it from being an entirely social construct.
2 If you go any further than the most basic biology, it quickly becomes clear that the gender binary is not supported by the physical facts of biology, just the way that it's presented by and to humans.
The binary is not the entire story but it is 95% of the story at least. Missing the other 5% or so is rough on the individuals being excluded, but missing 95% of the picture to focus to focus solely on the outliers is an even bigger mistake.
3 Prevalent isn't the same as "normal"
synonyms: widespread, prevailing, frequent, usual, common, current, popular, general, universal; endemic, rampant, rife
4 I am not abnormal.
I am.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Checklist of things (not people!) to smash, in no particular order after capitalism:
Capitalism
Patriarchy
White supremacy
Heteronormativity / homophobia / biphobia / acephobia / etc.
Cisnormativity / transphobia
Whorephobia
Ableism (mental and physical)
But these things are comprised by people...people who are part of (institutionally) or believe in this a valued societal norms (an a willing part of that society that holds those values).
Let me know how smashing all those people works out for you.
Are you asking me to smash you because I don't know if I'm comfortable with that kind of request in a public forum...
Words don't always just mean what their roots sound like.
You can accept that heterosexuality is most common and still not subscribe to heteronormativity.
Can you believe that heterosexuality and gender roles work together and have an enormous genetic component that are beyond the influence of socialization without believing in heteronormativity? That seems to have been the working definition before.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 Biology is socially influenced.
2 If you go any further than the most basic biology, it quickly becomes clear that the gender binary is not supported by the physical facts of biology, just the way that it's presented by and to humans.
3 Prevalent isn't the same as "normal"
4 I am not abnormal.
1 No, physical biology is not socially influenced. Though the scientific method can and has been influenced by beliefs or society.
2 This is a numbers game, not a conspiracy. People shift towards "normal" descriptors to have an idea about a common, or a control - to contrast variances vs. that common or control.
3 Prevalent - widespread in a particular area at a particular time. Synonymous with Common. Normal is more loaded than common, but these again are based on demographics and frequency and less on a conspiracy or social construct designed to marginalize. Marginalization occurs as a bi-product of a Majority/Minority paradigm and happens in almost any power struggle or Us vs. Them scenarios. Welcome to the world.
4 This a social construct that you are dealing with.
If telling yourself that your specific gender identification is not abnormal due to the negative connotations associated with that term, by my all means do so. If you are saying that you identify with a gender or sexuality that is not found in any kind of high numbers out of a given population number and then are trying to convince me of the math otherwise, then yeah - there is a major disconnect.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Can you believe that heterosexuality and gender roles work together and have an enormous genetic component that are beyond the influence of socialization without believing in heteronormativity? That seems to have been the working definition before.Words don't always just mean what their roots sound like.
You can accept that heterosexuality is most common and still not subscribe to heteronormativity.
Can you believe that these things are difficult to separate because this socialization begins from birth and influences those very malleable brains basically as soon as they are exposed to other people?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian?Because there is a (not completely unfounded) perception that it is easier/there is less social stigma on a minority family requiring public assistance, that its ok for them to have done so because of their race. When you hit a certain level of poor being white starts to be a disadvantage for getting the help you need.
You're also describing not being shot on sight by the cops as a privilege, rather than a right. -Ooo, you went through all this hardship but hey, it could have been worse- is not a particularly tactful approach to dealing with people.
Yes. I'm pointing out a lack of tact. Thats how bad it is.
Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.Just stick to one variable at a time. Otherwise it interacts and intersects in odd ways.
There is also the other side of that "Person B" isn't going to see, like the fact that I was actually targeted often for being gay (I'm not, but I had a lot of gay friends), or poor, or that you know, getting shot at because I was white while deployed more recently, might actually put me, (according to Person B's own standards) for invoking privilege, actually at a lower level of "privilege".
In other words, Person B, of whatever group they are a part of, assumes that I, as Person A did or does not have the same breath of experience that they do, and therefore should take a back seat to a conversation at hand. But, part of the point I was making is what happens that that turns out to be flatly wrong. Does Person B then need to take a back seat?
And that's basically where the concept of "but your playing it on easy mode, try walking in my moccasins for a mile" breaks down.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, Person B, of whatever group they are a part of, assumes that I, as Person A did or does not have the same brea[d]th of experience that they do, and therefore should take a back seat to a conversation at hand. But, part of the point I was making is what happens that that turns out to be flatly wrong. Does Person B then need to take a back seat?
I think it's helpful to stop trying to lump everything together, and take it one thing at a time.
I've lived in 8 different states and 2 continents; have been both very poor and reasonably well-off at different times; joined the Army out of high school and have since succeeded in 2 careers; have been offered free drinks and held at gunpoint, sometimes by the same people in the same evening.
But I've never been a plumber, and when a plumber tells me what's wrong with the pipes in the building, I listen to him, even if I haven't necessarily noticed a problem myself.
Likewise, I've never been African-American. So when an African-American friend talks about that aspect of what I haven't had to deal with, I actually listen to them, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you believe that these things are difficult to separate because this socialization begins from birth and influences those very malleable brains basically as soon as they are exposed to other people?Can you believe that heterosexuality and gender roles work together and have an enormous genetic component that are beyond the influence of socialization without believing in heteronormativity? That seems to have been the working definition before.Words don't always just mean what their roots sound like.
You can accept that heterosexuality is most common and still not subscribe to heteronormativity.
No.
Brains aren't THAT malleable.
Cross cultural studies should be able to eliminate that variable.
Cross species studies definitely do.
Testosterone + Receptors alone would be an enormous,insurmountable social impact
While an incredibly small sample size, the David Reimer case should have pretty much ended tabula rasa as a rational idea.
Growing up, no one seemed to know WHY they suddenly started to like girls (despite repeatedly asking)
Going back to what I said before, sometimes you need to say no. You're asking for the impossible here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you believe that these things are difficult to separate because this socialization begins from birth and influences those very malleable brains basically as soon as they are exposed to other people?
When I was little, I always thought I was a dinosaur. Other kids would play dinosaurs with me, too. With all that socialization, and with such a malleable biology, you'd think I'd actually be a dinosaur by now!
However, I'm still H. sapiens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, we're really beginning to derail. Let's dial back the grar and reign it in, please.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love when we get to the part where people get mad at me for insinuating that biology as a humanly constructed field of science has human social influences, and then also argue what words mean with dictionary definitions.
Who is getting mad at you? At what point did you think that I or anyone else who has been responding to you is angry or may at you?
Also this might help: When you listed your 1st bullet point you should have made a distinction between Physical Biology and the study or science of Biology.
Because if a given society could by their own action (will, rituals, chants or even....sacrifices) change physical biology - point them out to me so I can....investigate them.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you believe that these things are difficult to separate because this socialization begins from birth and influences those very malleable brains basically as soon as they are exposed to other people?When I was little, I always thought I was a dinosaur. Other kids would play dinosaurs with me, too. With all that socialization, and with such a malleable biology, you'd think I'd actually be a dinosaur by now!
However, I'm still H. sapiens.
Think of this in the context of viewing heterosexuality as the normal default:
When a child or youth says that they're anything other than straight, some people say things like "they're too young to know that!" But when an infant assigned male at birth so much as gives a vaguely positive response to non-familial female attention, it's totally socially normal for people to say "what a little ladies man!" People impose sexuality on infants, but often deny any variation from heterosexual when the person who would know best says anything otherwise.
It's wild how people are so entrenched in these ideas that they won't apologize for misgendering a trans person, but they will apologize for misgendering my dog, who had no concept of gender whatsoever
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't claim to be the arbiter or really the authority on these things, but this is my take on heteronormativity by way of male-normativity.
In the 1960's, if I said there was a doctor in a story, that doctor was either a man or there was a reason otherwise. The old "brain-teaser" about how the kid was the doctor's son even though his father died/was elsewhere illustrates this pretty well for me (solution: the doctor is the kid's mother).
Now, most shows that involve doctors will have some of them be women. Perhaps not half or a similar proportion to the real world, but some. If there's a woman doctor, the reason she's there isn't to be a woman. She's a character who happens to be a woman. Her storylines might be different because she's a woman, but they don't have to be.
That's the idea here. Breaking heteronormativity isn't saying that the majority of people aren't heterosexual. It's saying that if I have a character, that character might just happen to be gay. In Pathfinder, I see it in the fey that have charm effects against "characters that are attracted to females" rather than against "men". It's about designing your world with the awareness that people like this exist and letting the consequences flow.