I apologize if I conveyed that I’m hunting for excuses, I must have badly written some of my thoughts. I’m not looking to excuse any exclusionary behavior, I’m seeking to better understand the cause: the explanation of why attacking the messenger is “part and parcel” of any discussion of sexism. That is, what’s the underlying force at work behind [Lewis’ Law][1]?
(my point about suffrage in the US is that a lot of people, me included, like to think that happened in ancient history, when there are still women alive today that were born without that right).
[1]: http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/lewis-law/
Isn’t it simply that anyone who questions the status quo is attacked? A lot of people really like the way things are now. Marketing and advertising do an amazing job of getting people personally invested in products and companies. Games in particular–they’ve done an incredible job of segmenting the market so that people literally think 16-25 year old men all have the exact same desire, which is to headshot mans. The very labels, “gamer”, “geek”, “nerd” are identities people get deeply invested in.
Someone comes along and says, hey, maybe there’s something wrong with this, people get super defensive. Does it have to be anything more complicated than that?
No one offended here. Your tone was polite, and it seemed like you were genuinely looking for a reason. I wrote what I did about excuses because each of your examples assumes: that women simply don’t/shouldn’t hold the same place in society that men do, are somehow misinterpreting men’s actions (overreacting), or that men shouldn’t be expected to relate on an emotional level with women. None of those really hold any water when you take an honest look at them in depth. That’s all. It wasn’t meant to suggest that you were overreaching (my bad on the wording). I guess a better way to say it is that I feel you’re not looking closely enough at the explanations you’re offering.
A standard idea is that it only takes one generation - 50 years - to dramatically alter public perception. That’s true even though we’re living longer now, because in America we’re terrible about communication between generations. My family is strange. I well knew my great-grandmother (who traveled in a covered wagon) and grandmother growing up. Each lived through a Depression, and now I live without debt. Knowing history makes a difference in how you deal with the present. (Young girls need to know how long a history women have in tech - and what contributions they’ve made. Women were never just bystanders.)
I think @EcholocateChoco oversimplifies when saying it’s the “status quo” being attacked. What I’ve noticed is that angry responses tend to be personalized, not generalized. When people disagree with this idea, but don’t think they’re a party to it, the discussion is usually calm. It’s only when there’s a perceived slight or direct rebuttal of behavior that things get tense.
For example (apologies in advance to Falcor): In the earlier discussion, L_Mariachi claimed there was no perceived slight on his part, but in each instance he shortened his pull quote to make Brianna’s statement (actually neutral) sound more harsh toward him. He both personalized it, and added emotion where it wasn’t written. That’s not generalizing, and it’s not about an attack to the group.
I was trying to apply the fundamental attribution error, low EQ, and the Dunning/Kruger effect to sexists and their kneejerk way to attack folks that fight against sexism/misogyny. That is, people who don’t consider external systemic factors (like all that society stacks against women) and people who don’t understand that they don’t understand the emotional suffering of others.
Don’t you think though that identity plays a big part? That is, if I buy into the status quo–“I am a man, therefore I like X and think Y”–I’m much more likely to take any critique more personally?
Sexists may assume that all women fall prey to the fundamental attribution error, and they themselves may actually do so - but that’s by choice. They misinterpret social signals because they don’t choose to learn how to communicate successfully with women. (They only care to communicate on their terms.) Anyway, because they may assume all women overreact, they take all complaints about sexism as overblown.
The reason why I explained what I did about EQ is that sexists are at every level of employment (my VP was just awful). People in management tend to have higher EQ because they have to deal with many types of people, and they’re in charge of their employees. So, it really makes no sense to say sexists can have low EQ as a reason for their sexism because if that was true, it would only apply to a certain level of people in employment. Low EQ itself would create a form of glass ceiling. Sexists may wildly succeed in every other way socially, and in business, but fail to ever recognize their sexism.
I’m not how the D/K Effect would apply to them. I don’t think that sexists aren’t inherently egotistical nor do they all treat women badly because they think poorly of themselves. I just don’t know if you can apply it to sexists as a class of person. It’s more something you apply to individuals and relates to their own self perception.
I get what you’re getting at, reworded it might be the question, “Do sexists possibly act this way because they just don’t understand the harm they do?” In response, I’d say it’s closer to they don’t believe (or sometimes care about) the harm they do. Brianna repeated several times (paraphrased) that a man will never understand what it’s like to be a woman. The trick is, they should try. You can honestly tell who makes the effort.
Hi! I didn’t say you were wrong, so please don’t misunderstand. I just said that I thought you oversimplified. I agree about the status quo contributing, but there more. Think about it this way:
(Some) men get excited about football, but fans get CRAZY about their teams.
(Don’t worry guys, I’m not bashing football.)
The difference in intensity comes from generalization. Football is a game, and guys love it. They play, they watch, they teach their kids, it’s a part of their lives. They care about football as a sport.
A guy’s team is something else. It’s personal, with extra emotion tied to it. Not only is there the love of the game, but there’s also love of community, school ties, history, camaraderie, and and everything else (possibly even meeting your wife). Home teams are deeply personal.
So, in the end, we’re probably saying the same thing. I’m agreeing altering status quo plays a role and also saying that personalization (not just who you are but how closely something effects you and to what degree it does so) will determine the level of your response. The more personally tied you are, the harsher the response.
This is brilliant! It gets to the heart of the issue where two sides don’t agree yet both sides think they have an iron clad reasoning behind their position. I’ve found that once I think about the other point of view, it becomes easier to empathize regardless of the discussion. For this understanding to work both sides need to understand that their point of view carries a different weight. Of course, saying she doesn’t care about what people think of her tone or sighing isn’t helping the convergence of differing viewpoints.
Hello Please don’t take my direct reply as confrontation. This is a really important discussion and I’m enjoying the conversation a lot. You’re making excellent points.
I see what you’re saying. It’s easy to say in vague terms, hey, society’s kinda sexist. But when you say, hey, that thing you like, it’s sexist as hell… the reaction is bound to be more intense.
It’s tough. You can’t have a meaningful discussion without bringing up specific examples, but every specific example invites nitpicking at best, anger at worst.
Nicely put - Glad you noted that the two viewpoints don’t have equal weight. In industries where women may be as little as 5% (or less) of the workforce, they really do need a chance to speak and be heard. They’re representing for a large percentage of the overall marketplace (40% of gamers are women), but typically don’t have equal time to speak for their market when dealing with R&D.
We’ll try again!