Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Male archetypes in fairy tales

sharonblackie.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#71

Post by mock-possum »

david-gpu wrote: post #5

> I hate it more than I can say when I read books or listen to talks and performances by men who tell and ‘interpret’ women’s stories, and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. I’ve never wanted to do the same to them What a weird take on things: let's apply neat little discrete labels to every person and pretend that the experiences of each particular combinati…

That seems like an inappropriately uncharitable interpretation of what shes written.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#72

Post by mock-possum »

david-gpu wrote: post #70
junke wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

again, I won't argue with a straw man version of what she wrote

I provided verbatim quotes of what she said. If you disagree with my interpretation of their meaning, you are free to provide an alternative interpretation. A blanket dismissal doesn't move the conversation forward.

You could have quoted a little further -

> In offering the thoughts that follow, though, I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them.

She relates that initial anecdote to tell the story of how she got to where she’s at, acknowledging that her view on the matter has since progressed. You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject, aren’t you?

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#73

Post by david-gpu »

mock-possum wrote: post #71
david-gpu wrote: post #5

> I hate it more than I can say when I read books or listen to talks and performances by men who tell and ‘interpret’ women’s stories, and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. I’ve never wanted to do the same to them What a weird take on things: let's apply neat little discrete labels to every person and pretend that the experiences of each particular combinati…

That seems like an inappropriately uncharitable interpretation of what shes written.

Please, do elaborate. Would you defend what she said if the genders were reversed? I provided verbatim quotes for the readers' convenience.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#74

Post by david-gpu »

littlelady wrote: post #50
david-gpu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some nuance here. As I understand it, intersectionality simply highlights that the experiences of a collective built from the intersection of several traits can be quite different to the experience of an adjacent collective. E.g. the queer descendants of Asian immigrants may often share experiences that are quite distinct from those of queer black folks. I have no problem with that. My point of contention is…

> We demand diversity and inclusivity, but somehow the more "able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" checkboxes you tick, the less your opinion and well-being matters. (And I only tick two of those) Let's look at this more from a structural view: "Able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" is the assumed default in "Western" society. What do I mean by that? White neurotypical heterosexual men built s…

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'll try to make it justice.

Let me start at the end.

> I won't deny your feelings, but would ask you to consider specifically when you've felt your opinions and well-being do not matter

First of all, every time I hear the word "mansplaining" -- and while the author of the linked article didn't use it verbatim, she was effectively complaining about it with more words. "Mansplaining" reads as the most superficial dismissal of somebody's opinion, as it instantly disregards a person's whole argument based on a birth trait. It's not any more noble or justified than brushing aside somebody's opinion as being done by a "hysterical woman", a term that is thankfully relegated to the past.

But it goes well beyond that, so let me illustrate with a couple of examples. A few weeks ago there was an event where an attorney would share some insights into the local cycling laws and what to do in the event of a crash. I wanted to attend, but was denied because the event was part of a women's cycling month initiative. It was a webinar, for goodness' sake.

Another example: people online have criticized me for attending a Japanese festival with my family. Apparently being a white father of two Japanese children is some sort of a sin and my presence in the festival is some form of "cultural appropriation". I jokingly asked what percentage of Japanese ancestry is required to attend, and whether or not my hypothetical 25% Japanese grandchildren would be allowed to attend or not. It goes without saying, the people criticizing this family event were... drum-roll please... not Japanese.

I need to run to take care of my kids now, but let me make a quick observation: I have felt far more social discrimination for being male than I have ever received for being queer, disabled, or an immigrant. And it's not just that being male means you are explicitly forbidden from some groups/activities, it's also that the same people that act deeply indignant at other forms of racism and sexism quickly turn into gatekeepers that openly and proudly discriminate against men.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#75

Post by david-gpu »

mock-possum wrote: post #72
david-gpu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I provided verbatim quotes of what she said. If you disagree with my interpretation of their meaning, you are free to provide an alternative interpretation. A blanket dismissal doesn't move the conversation forward.

You could have quoted a little further - > In offering the thoughts that follow, though, I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them. She relates that initial anecdote to tell the story of how she got to where she’s at, acknowledging that her view on the matter has since progressed. You say you’re steelmanning, bu…

I do encourage anybody to re-read the article and switch the words 'men' and 'women'; if it feels different, it's a sign that you share the same prejudice as the author.

Her bias against men is only made more explicit when additional context is provided. I'll quote her again and interleave some observations.

> I wove together a series of stories populated by the funny, feisty older women in European myth and folklore who I love so much

That is, she was giving a talk about European myth and folklore. Myth and folklore is often characterized by having unknown authorship, and at best mixing both fiction and non-fiction elements in them. For all we know, some if not all of the stories she loved so much were actually written by men. This will become relevant in a moment.

> In my nonfiction I’ve always been scrupulous about writing within the realms of my own lived experience as a woman, and I hate it more than I can say when I read books or listen to talks and performances by men who tell and ‘interpret’ women’s stories, and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved

So, in her non-fiction she holds herself to the standard of writing about what she has experienced as a woman, which is her choice to make. She then follows by chastising men who 'interpret' (why the scare quotes?) women's stories; presumably she is referring to the same European myth and folklore she was talking about a moment ago. Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men. She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.

I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. Is it because they are stories about women? Is it because she likes the stories, and thus can't possibly have been written by a 'man'? Scare quotes added for dramatic effect. I can only speculate.

> I’ve never wanted to do the same to them

One has to wonder: has she actually received any criticism for sharing her views on male archetypes? Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.

> It’s easy to say, Well, if the men want their stories, let them go and find them

Why does the gender of the people telling the story and the gender of the people in the story such a critical factor in her opinion? Why not their age or their ethnicity? In her opinion, can an American or a Japanese share their opinion on European myths and folklore?

The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.

> You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject

Nope. She is not retracting in any way from those views; she is simply justifying why it is okay for her to share her opinion on men's stories; in her eyes it's okay when she does it because, and I quote:

> I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them

So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#76

Post by hk__2 »

scotty79 wrote: post #59
hk__2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all mostly want the same things, feel the same things and do the same things, both good and bad The irony is that it’s clear from this affirmation that you are a man, because any woman knows how false this is. This is the same for pretty much any situation where some group dominates another: the dominants think everything is fine because they don’t experience any discrimination and don’t understand why the domin…

Dividing oppressed and oppressors neatly along some superficial trait is great for making politics. Especially when historical correlations were strong. But you often have to bend backwards to explain the complexities of reality where sometimes women oppress women and men who oppress women at the same time oppress men even more.

> But you often have to bend backwards to explain the complexities of reality where sometimes women oppress women and men who oppress women at the same time oppress men even more.

Not really, in all systems of dominance you have oppressed who embrace the cause of the oppressors, often not consciously. There are a lot of women who defend patriarchy, even if as a whole this is detrimental to them (and pretty much everyone). See also Black people who endorse racist theories about White dominance, etc.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#77

Post by hk__2 »

d-z-m wrote: post #66
hk__2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what way is the statement you quoted false? "We all mostly want the same things, feel the same things and do the same things" is contradicted by any studies on consumer behavior that takes gender into account. Of course deep inside we’re all mostly the same, but as a society we constructed a gender polarization that has very real effects on what we want, how we feel and what we do. If I tell you that my friend l…

I think all your objections are subsumed by the "mostly" qualifier in the OPs comment. I don't think OP would disagree that the percentage of people who buy high heels is highly skewed towards women. I also don't think OP was referring to consumer behavior in their comment, so your pushback on those grounds seems needlessly contrarian to me.

I cited consumer behavior as an example, but open any book about sociology and gender studies and you get plenty of examples on how there is a large gap in things we want/do/feel between men and women. That’s obviously a construction, biologically there’s nothing that causes much difference in what we want/do/feel. That’s probably where the disagreement is: my point is that even if theorically (= biologically) there shouldn’t be much difference, in practice (= in our societies) there is one.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#78

Post by hk__2 »

scotty79 wrote: post #61
hk__2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what way is the statement you quoted false? "We all mostly want the same things, feel the same things and do the same things" is contradicted by any studies on consumer behavior that takes gender into account. Of course deep inside we’re all mostly the same, but as a society we constructed a gender polarization that has very real effects on what we want, how we feel and what we do. If I tell you that my friend l…

Good marketing strategy is to associate your product with identity assumed by significant number of customers. Studies of consumer behavior show mostly this. That gender based marketing works successfully. However regardless of gender customers want some food, clothing, shelter, mobility, entertainment. > If I tell you that my friend likes to wear high heels and a red skirt you can hardly pretend the probability they…

> If you tell me that your friend wears a pendant with Libra zodiac sign I'd estimate probability of her being a Libra higher than 50% too. It doesn't mean identifying as a Libra is something natural, innate or objectively meaningful or indicative of the qualities you value.

That’s not what I’m saying but maybe I misunderstood your point.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#79

Post by tptacek »

d-z-m wrote: post #62
roenxi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking on Harvard because I know a few people who went there and it is a decent signpost of what direction the US political elite are going in... If I go look up Black students at Harvard, I can find a Black student association association: https://www.theharvardbsa.com/ . The photos might not be completely representative of their membership but they are quite suggestive of a certain racial trend among the associate…

> I don't see why Whites are supposed to be all that different. I guess in theory they're not. In practice, pushback would liken a race-based group of white people to the famous negatively valence'd ones from history(KKK, Nazi, etc) and it would never be allowed to form(Especially at a place like Harvard).

Nobody has any problem with Irish heritage groups, or Polish, or Italian. "White" isn't a coherent thing; it's defined (malleably) mostly in opposition to "Black", which is the ethnicity created by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, which stripped millions of African people of their original cultural identities.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#80

Post by david-gpu »

tptacek wrote: post #79
d-z-m wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see why Whites are supposed to be all that different. I guess in theory they're not. In practice, pushback would liken a race-based group of white people to the famous negatively valence'd ones from history(KKK, Nazi, etc) and it would never be allowed to form(Especially at a place like Harvard).

Nobody has any problem with Irish heritage groups, or Polish, or Italian. "White" isn't a coherent thing; it's defined (malleably) mostly in opposition to "Black", which is the ethnicity created by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, which stripped millions of African people of their original cultural identities.

> Nobody has any problem with Irish heritage groups, or Polish, or Italian

What about German or Austrian heritage groups?

> "White" isn't a coherent thing

But black, Asian or Latino are? They span whole continents, dozens of countries with radically different cultures.

"White" is synonym with "European heritage". It is just as simple and as complex as any of the other broad categories mentioned earlier. But while it is socially acceptable to create associations for the former, the latter are looked at with such suspicion that only the most radicalized are even willing to join. Similar story with heterosexuals and men.

Post reply on HN