141–150 of 280 posts
>Gideon tells me that in his experience there are many autistic traits that don’t fit at all with our cultural conception of masculinity. Hypersensitivity to sensory stimulation is one of them, as is the tendency for those with autism to develop anxiety and depression—conditions that in the general population are higher in women than in men—the predilection of autistic people to prefer consistency and predictability…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one very obvious critique of the patriarchy, that is also advanced by feminism. Traditional, toxic masculinity does not recognize 'non-manly' roles for men, their emotional and intellectual needs, etc. It does not, however, follow, that it does not repress women. "But not all mens!" is true, but is also a bit of a red herring. Most members of both genders suffer it to their detriment.
If the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?
This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: > Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.…
> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised Back in the day when social/legal barriers were removed for women, general expectation was that women would rise to the top in wide variety of fields. But that hasn't really materialized(eg: only a handful of noble prizes), despite decades of preferential treatment, despite women being educated in number much higher than men. So obvious…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?
why quibble over the word? you're talking about gender roles, men are supposed to be big and tough and take charge, and womem are supposed to be nurturing and demure and receptive to being taken charge of. it's a model with men in control, patriarchy is a fine word for that. of course if you can't hack your assigned gender role you'll catch shit from those that can. those that can hack their gender role may be men or…
This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: > Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.…
I think the problem is that we have gone from rightly taking down the Weinsteins, a predator which is why its shocking (normal no's don't work on people like him as he seem to get off on ignoring them), to trying to regulate away the awkward encounters and misinterpretations that is the natural occasional byproduct of the situations that makes life interesting.
In my experience it's the 1:1s with mentors and colleagues that is the most interesting, and a victorian worldview is telling us that we can't do those anymore if the mentor is a man while the mentee is a woman and that will rob women of equal learning opportunities. Because why take the risk if any accusation can't be defended against and results in blacklisting from your industry, even if the mentee says the accusation is bullshit?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-hara...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?
why quibble over the word? you're talking about gender roles, men are supposed to be big and tough and take charge, and womem are supposed to be nurturing and demure and receptive to being taken charge of. it's a model with men in control, patriarchy is a fine word for that. of course if you can't hack your assigned gender role you'll catch shit from those that can. those that can hack their gender role may be men or…
Framing, which is very important in political discussion (e.g. estate tax vs. death tax).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one very obvious critique of the patriarchy, that is also advanced by feminism. Traditional, toxic masculinity does not recognize 'non-manly' roles for men, their emotional and intellectual needs, etc. It does not, however, follow, that it does not repress women. "But not all mens!" is true, but is also a bit of a red herring. Most members of both genders suffer it to their detriment.
If the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wrote: -- Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: "Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class." Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily…
What evidence do we have that such a perspective is removing their individuality? The argument those of us on the left make is that people's individuality, their talent etc are disregarded because of their class/attributes etc., and society as it is set-up punishes some classes while rewarding others, rather than rewarding individuals as individuals.
For example, every argument that any person has more or less of a right to speak on a given topic because of their identity markers also implicitly states that their identity markers are more important than their individuality.
This goes as much when it's saying whites shouldn't talk about racism, as it goes when saying women should talk about sexism, or should always be believed when making sex crime accusations against men, and so on.
It's strange to me that you and I started in the same pro-individuality place and ended up, apparently, on opposite sides of the political aisle.
This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: > Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.…
> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised Back in the day when social/legal barriers were removed for women, general expectation was that women would rise to the top in wide variety of fields. But that hasn't really materialized(eg: only a handful of noble prizes), despite decades of preferential treatment, despite women being educated in number much higher than men. So obvious…
From one of the comments (author, Nathan Spears): > People with Asperger’s can navigate social situations remarkably well after they learn “the rules” of social interaction. That's my experience. I too, was socially awkward kid who taught himself basic programming by reading computer manuals around the age of 10. I constantly got picked on though out elementary and middle school. In high school it got a little better…
Makes me wonder how much of "neuro-diversity" is actually just "neuro-plasticity". Maybe many aspies are actually just "neuro-typicals" who were bullied and lost faith in social interactions, and thus spent much of their early life on geeky interests instead, developing better technical skills but neglecting social skills.
But as they get older many realize that social skills are important and pick them up anyway, just a little later than most.