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

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#81

Post by d-z-m »

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.

> "White" isn't a coherent thing

Agree completely. I think part of the problem is that "White" and "Black" are overloaded terms. If "White" is used to refer to an ethnicity, it carries the incoherence problems you mention(I would argue the term "Black" has these same problems).

I was trying to use the terms "White" and "Black" to refer to skin color only. I believe this is the usage that an organization like the Harvard BSA[0] is invoking on their website.

[0]: https://www.theharvardbsa.com/

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#82

Post by scotty79 »

hk__2 wrote: post #76
scotty79 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 every…

And that lets you dismiss them somehow so they don't cloud your clean theory of oppression based on single superficial trait?

So you once again can clearly proclaim that gingers are always oppressors and non-gingers are always oppressed?

There are women doing better than vast majority of men. Sweeping them under the rug as some loonies that love being oppressed is not really smart.

This kind of thinking leads to Asians to be no longer classified as a minority for some purposes despite being a minority just because they are doing better than whites.

I don't deny correlations, especially historical correlations. But nowadays fixating on gender or skin color is about as helpful as considering spherical cow in a vacuum.

Let's take African Americans for example. Nobody denies that their current woes have historical root causes in their skin color in times of legal racism in USA. But nowadays the bulk of their problems stems from the fact that they are poor in the society that's ruthless against poor. Why not address that instead? Why not take better care of the poor? Why not work on how to provide the poor with safety, healthcare and education and a path to wealth? How does fixating on skin pigmentation helps with any of that?

Sure, the history of African Americans is a great example that you can forcibly make a group of people poor for stupid reasons and they stay poor. But this should just be used as example that being poor is not always the fault of the poor person. This should breed compassion towards all poor. Instead it's used to revitalize racism and conflicts along racial lines when you focus on for what stupid reasons the group was made and kept poor.

Seeing the world as divided into oppressors, oppressed and allies is terribly counterproductive. Humans are just humans, when they are in positions of power, in the absence of proper controls they will exploit and oppress others for their own benefit regardless of their gender or skin color. Trying to forcibly find method to madness based of superficial traits brings you away from this reality.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#83

Post by kidintech »

david-gpu wrote: post #75
mock-possum wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a bystander I just wanted to say that I aspire to translate my thoughts into words as effectively as you do.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#84

Post by kasey_junk »

david-gpu wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What about German or Austrian heritage groups?

No. No one has problems with these. You can find them in droves across broad swaths of any US town. In the Midwest especially they are central to festivals, police clubs, civic organizations and political organizations.

Men’s organizations are similar. Effectively every church in America has men’s clubs that do prayer meetings, prison outreach, homeless support etc. There are men’s clubs for fathers, learning to debate, and driving funny little cars around to help burn victims. There are fraternal organizations on most college campuses. Heck there are still old fashioned private clubs where men can get together to drink whiskey and smoke cigars.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#85

Post by tptacek »

david-gpu wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, Black is. It's overloaded, but in America, it refers unambiguously to the new ethnicity created by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade --- where before you (and, more importantly, your children) were (say) Yoruba, now you were a Black slave. Black people have a numerous and specific shared cultural attributes: language dialects, food, music, religious affiliations. The same isn't true of the varying European ethnicities! Most of what an Irish person and a Slav have in common, an Irish person and a Black person also have in common.

To keep the ambiguity at bay, do what John McWhorter (himself no woke-scold) suggests, and capitalize Black when referring to the African Diasporic people of America, and lowercase it when referring generically to people of African origin, the same way you lowercase "white".

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#86

Post by david-gpu »

kidintech wrote: post #83
david-gpu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a bystander I just wanted to say that I aspire to translate my thoughts into words as effectively as you do.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm also real handsome in person. Just so you know.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#87

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#88

Post by littlelady »

david-gpu wrote: post #74
littlelady wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. "Mansplainin…

A lot of my thoughts are dependent on geographical location, culture, etc.

> "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.

Mansplaining is less about "birth traits" and more about socialization. A lot of women experience it. That being said, I'm sure people misuse it as a killerphrase. Side note: the "hysterical woman" idea is prevalent where I live. This may be one of the reasons that women's pain is often neglected or not taken seriously by clinical staff[1].

> people online have criticized me for attending a Japanese festival with my family.

Whoever said that is being overzealous: cultural appreciation is not the same as appropriation, plus cultural festivals are usually about sharing cultures. But on your part, it's online. Why let that into your life?

> 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.

I'm sorry you've experienced that. I can understand "women's only" activities, e.g. yoga classes or career events. TBH, my local yoga studio also offers a men's only course. In my experience women's only activities/group are about helping women gain their confidence, esp. when they are a minority in a larger group. Perhaps those were the motivations behind the women's cycling webinar?

Analogously, I think groups for men working in jobs typically associated with women, e.g. child-care are also important.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/interactive/2022/wom...

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#89

Post by junke »

david-gpu wrote: post #75
mock-possum wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories.

> My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.

That's a YOU problem, what you are saying in the quote is a complete parody of what people are saying when they talk about representation, identification, and lived experiences.

You extrapolate a lot.

> Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men.

I don't think this applies only to European myth and folklore stories. The joke quote "She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downward" didn't appear out of nowhere. Only 19% readers of female writers are male (but 45% women readers for male writers) (Nielsen Book Research). If someone doesn't want to read stories from other gender groups, its statistically 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.

The "pre" in prejudice means something.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prejudice

prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices): (countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. (countable) A preconception, any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative. (countable) An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion. (obsolete) Knowledge formed in advance; foresight, presaging.

I don't think there is anything irrational in the article I'm reading. The whole thing is nuanced, comes from experience in the writing business and is absolutely not attacking men in the way you describe her (misandrist, etc.).

> 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. [...]

And here we are, the little patronizing tone coming from the guy who is keen on attacking people on what they didn't say. You just go around insulting people?

> 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.

You are the only one here who thinks people are somehow trying to ban men from doing that, and vice versa. I can't imagine hearing someone say "I hate when men do this [badly]" and interpret it as "I hate men and they should be banned from doing this".

> 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?

The difference is in the text you don't quote: and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. The difference is the that you have a lot of know-it-all male writers or commenters that explain how women should behave (e.g. how to write an article). This is different than coming from the perspective of learning. Maybe you didn't catch that because that's implied in the text, but this is not about all men or all male writers in general.

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

Of course that's your interpretation. Your brought extra material to the article using the power of prejudice.

Re: Male archetypes in fairy tales

#90

Post by david-gpu »

junke wrote: post #89
david-gpu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories. > My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notio…

> It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories.

This isn't the clever retort you think it is, it is pure unadulterated sexism and it proves my point: you are brushing off my opinion based exclusively on my gender, just like the author.

So, thank you for proving me right. I rest my case.

Post reply on HN