Okay, let's try this:
This is a public post, much more civil than the last.
I must make a few things clear:
I do NOT feel I was unjustified for my actions earlier, however after talking to glitterygashes, I do know I was wrong. Marissa is actually a very nice, very smart, and very interesting girl, and I was mistaken about her intent. I do feel badly about upsetting her, as the ( Read more... )
I must make a few things clear:
I do NOT feel I was unjustified for my actions earlier, however after talking to glitterygashes, I do know I was wrong. Marissa is actually a very nice, very smart, and very interesting girl, and I was mistaken about her intent. I do feel badly about upsetting her, as the ( Read more... )
*gigglesnort* Yeah. So not. I am simultaneously both an undergraduate and a graduate student, am in debt to the government like $30,000, I am not yet 21, and I have no actual job because no one wants to hire someone with no "practical" job skills and no high school diploma. But I am also a typically narcissistic Slytherin and I am a consummate intellectual snob, and I will not associate with people who have limited or purposely ignorant views. I might have to work with them, or be in the same classroom with them, but I do not have to socialise with them and I do not have to get along with them. They are not worth the air that I breathe or the water that I walk on. And yes, it came off as privileged. Of course it came off as privileged. The key to success, as successful people will tell you, is to always firmly believe that you are better than everyone around you. Be nice to them, be able to talk to them, but always remember that you are better than them. Surround yourself with good people, and then you will start to go places. This is just as true for the Madison Avenue debutante as it is for the poor waitress working double shifts at the all-night diner.
Many women have HEARD of feminism but have NO CLUE what it's really about.
And has it occurred to you that this might be because the feminists can't even decide what it's really about?
as anyone who knows what feminism is really about
I dare you to find a consensus among ten experts on what "feminism" is really about. But why don't you start by stating what you think feminism is really about, because then we'll have a common place to start. I think I agree with the notion that feminism is about true intellectual equality for both genders-because biologically speaking, there will always be insurmountable differences-and that it is equally in favour of men as it is of women. But it's called "feminism," so of course people don't understand what it's about. Especially when so many of the groups spawned from second wave feminism turned out to be militant and virulently anti-male.
Until I took Women's Studies courses in college I really personally did not SEE how repressed women were in our society.
Which is somewhat ironic, because until I took Women's Studies courses in college, I really personally believed that women were very repressed in our society. My Women's Studies classes were apparently not at all like yours, because mine were full of raucous, unoppressed women with quick wits and razor-blade tongues. I don't know what patriarchy you were raised in, but I was raised in an republican oligarchy which just happened to be comprised mostly of men. But I was raised and taught by feminists, and so were my male classmates, and goshdarnit if we didn't get EQUAL RIGHTS near tattooed on our frontal lobes. The patriarchy is at least as much a psychological construct as it is a physical one, and this belief that women have in the power of the patriarchy gives it power. Just like any belief gives the object of faith power. If you think the patriarchy can have influence over you, then it will. If you think the patriarchy is there, then you will see it everywhere. It's kind of like God. As an agnostic scientist, I find it difficult to believe in both without tangible proof. Inequality? Sure. Oppressive patriarchy? Omgwtfpolarbear?
Until they are educated . . . the ignorance is going to continue
Yes, but what are you trying to educate them in? Fear and hatred of a construct that only partially exists in physical reality? Is that really what you want them to learn? Wouldn't it be more effective to teach them how to reason for themselves and let them find their own awareness of their situation in life? Indoctrinating women in feminism is as bad as indoctrinating them in ideal of patriarchy. We should let them choose. If we give them the right tools, the necessary education in logic and self-directed thought, they will eventually come to the sane conclusion: feminism. And they will get there on their own, and their faith in equality will be that much stronger for it.
Reply
For someone who is opposed to surrounding themselves with "ignorant" people, that might be the most ignorant comment I have ever heard. Firmly believing that you are better than anyone else is extremely ignorant, because you're, well, ignorant of whether or not that is the truth.
I'm a fan of humility, though. There's a whole world of knowledge that we will NEVER have the capacity to fully understand.
There's more to people than their IQ or their education.
Reply
It's not ignorant; it's arrogant. And it's what most people who have deep-seated self-esteem issues do in order to protect themselves from said issues. That's the hallmark of narcissistic personality disorder. First, you are failing to clarify exactly what "better" means; does it mean more intelligent, more adaptable, more social, more what? Second, just because you believe in something doesn't mean that you are blind to the facts surrounding that belief; the best beliefs are those built on solid foundations. If you see an honest superiority of whatever, then it would be ignorant to not believe and accept your own superiority. If you aren't really superior, then you aren't really being humble, because humility only works if you actually have something to be humble about-and if you are superior, then humility is a lie, isn't it?
To say the belief in superiority blinds one to the facts surrounding that belief is like saying that belief in a scientific theory blinds ones to the facts surrounding that theory. If it is a priori belief then it certainly can interfere with objective collection and analysis of data and lead to type I errors. But when the belief follows after collection of data, when it is a posteriori and based on empirical evidence, then it is a sound belief and one can hardly be faulted for having it.
There's a whole world of knowledge that we will NEVER have the capacity to fully understand.
Assuming that there is a limited capacity to human knowledge based on our three-dimensional relationship with reality-maybe. But some would posit that there are already ways in which we can move beyond our limiting physical dimensions and learn much more than we ever would have dreamt possible. Who is to say what may happen with advanced in technology and understanding of the universe?
There's more to people than their IQ or their education.
Yes, but the one thing that very intelligent people will have in common is not an IQ score-which any decent psychologist will tell you is a poor measure of an elusive construct to begin with-but their desire and ability to learn. Whether this is manifested in traditional education or sporadic self-acquired knowledge is of little concern; the fact is that you will still be able to converse with them in an intelligible manner and you will both learn something from the experience. Those are the kind of people you should have arround you. Not people who got striaght A's and dozens of awards, although those things are shiny and attractive. The people you want around you are the ones who challenge you to think in new ways, whose native intelligence compliments and concentrates your own.
Reply
And really, I wasn't saying anything that requires reading into or elaborating on. It's just very sad to limit yourself to socializing with only certain people based on certain things.
I understand that people with these issues most likely have some self-esteem problems, because that's the most obvious thing ever. If they are as smart as they say, they can understand this and have the knowledge of how to overcome it. Once someone overcomes this, they don't have the need to constantly tell themselves that they are superior to someone else.
EVERYONE can challenge you to think in new ways--absolutely anyone. There are opportunities to learn in every area of life. If you limit yourself, you could be missing out on so much.
Reply
Really? Hundreds of intelligence researchers will be shocked and amazed that you've solved that problem so quickly. But whether or not that is the "point" of an IQ test-which is questionable, especially when one considers the historical origins of the traditional IQ test-has nothing to do with the validity of the measurement. I could say that the whole point of a set of pound scales is to measure the relative amounts of air, fire, water, and earth in a substance, but that wouldn't mean that I was actually measuring what I want, ideally, to measure. Similarly, I can claim whatever I want about what IQ tests are supposed to measure, but that has no bearing on what they actually do.
If you limit yourself, you could be missing out on so much.
On the other hand, life itself is limited by time, and there is something to be said for experience. How likely is it that people who have, in the past, proven themselves useless will suddenly become valuable sources of knowledge and understanding?
Once someone overcomes this, they don't have the need to constantly tell themselves that they are superior to someone else.
Show me where, in the literature, it says that this is not actually a likely outcome of conditioning oneself to disbelieve innate opinions about self-worth.
and have the knowledge of how to overcome it
Also show me where, in any of the literature, or outside of it, there is any evidence whatsoever to suggest that intelligence, however you choose to measure it, is correlated with ability to overcome mental health problems. A great many intelligent people suffer from low self-esteem-and many of them deal with it by acting like megalomaniacs. Some of them just become so severely introverted and antisocial that it comes off as arrogance and snobbery. Just because you can understand something doesn't mean you can effectively counteract it; why do you think some people spend years in therapy and come out none the better for it? Even assuming that you can understand it, or even that you understand precisely what its origins are and the appropriate theoretical methods for overcoming it is no guarantee that you will be able to implement those measure, or that they will have the effect they are supposed to have. Psychology does not come with a warranty, and being sane has very little to do with being smart.
Reply
Not everything needs to be addressed in the "literature." Some things are self-explanatory. I am not questioning whether or not intelligent people suffer mental health problems, because surely they do, but when they keep insisting that they are smarter and better than most people I automatically think that they're morons. That's just me. I honestly don't give a shit whether or not it's in the literature; I just hate arrogance. It must be a personal thing. I also don't care if it's in the damn "literature" that maybe arrogance is good (because lord knows there are probably studies like that), but I just personally find it disgusting.
So, logically, if they're better than most people (that's their claim) then they wouldn't have the mental setbacks that most people have. So all I'm saying is that they are still mere mortals. It looks as though you value snobbery and arrogance because you find that it is a drawback of intelligence. It's almost as if you feel that they are justified in thinking that way, because it's just what smart people do because they're suffering low self-esteem, when actually it's still maladaptive thinking, and normal people go through that, too. I'm ok with introversion and antisocial behaviors but I have a problem when people think they're better than someone else. I don't care if it's a sign of lack of self-esteem, when actions bother other people, I am bothered by it.
And really, there's no need to go into detail about it all, it's just my point of view. It's just that we're all more alike than some people would like to think.
Reply
I said that you CAN pick who you socialize with but if you've got limited choices of where you can work and you must work you may NOT be able to choose who you work with. As far as always thinking you're better than everyone...that may make you successful but it also makes you more likely to ignore the suffering of others because, after all, you're more important. Oh, and you can surround yourself with good people who are not any more privileged than you and they still won’t be able to take you places no matter how good they are.
"Many women have HEARD of feminism but have NO CLUE what it's really about."
And has it occurred to you that this might be because the feminists can't even decide what it's really about?
Possibly but I'm talking about the stereotype that feminists are man-haters. And I disagree with you on the whole "the term should be equalist" or whatnot bit BECAUSE right now the FEMALE is what is degraded and what is FEMININE is degraded and thus we need a title that represents the oppressed.
My Women's Studies classes were apparently not at all like yours, because mine were full of raucous, unoppressed women with quick wits and razor-blade tongues...But I was raised and taught by feminists, and so were my male classmates…The patriarchy is at least as much a psychological construct as it is a physical one, and this belief that women have in the power of the patriarchy gives it power. … If you think the patriarchy is there, then you will see it everywhere…Oppressive patriarchy? Omgwtfpolarbear?
Well if you were taught by feminists then OF COURSE you would have known how unequal things STILL are. I was raised in a patriarchy with NO feminists, with the stereotype that feminism was something that happened in the 70's, and while knowledge of SOME inequalities but I definitely did not now of or notice all I do now.
If patriarchy is there, which I definitely think it is, then whether or not you KNOW about it-it will affect your life. I prefer to be aware of it and therefore try to act against it instead of unknowingly giving in - knowledge is power.
And yes I do believe we are living in an oppressive patriarchy but oppressive in a much more subtle way than the more OBVIOUS ways of before, which is again why many men AND women say "What the heck are you a feminist for? We already have equal rights!" they don't see/notice how women are still being repressed or if they do they do NOT notice the extent of it.
Reply
Firstly, many of the second-wave did NOT turn out militant or anti-male, a portion was and while I disagree with them I understand why they were.
I agree that there are biological differences of the sexes that cause there to be different needs for men and women (and transgendered or intersexed folk as well). This society was created by men for men and it really needs to be redone from the ground up by men AND women FOR men AND women because that's who the population is, men were in charge before so they got to call all of the shots. As far as MY definition of feminism, this is the best way I've managed to phrase it: "Feminism is the belief that men and women, masculine and feminine, regardless of class, race, sexual orientation, or preference of lifestyle, as long as it does not infringe on the rights or others or harm them, should be equally valued both in mind and in practice." Also, while men and women are different there's the difference of biology and then there's the HUGE DIFFFERENCES caused by socialization. It's fine that certain traits "generally" fall easier to one sex or the other but each PERSON should be able to find what their INDIVIDUAL self best is (whether or not it encompasses stereotypically "masculine" or "feminine" traits).
Yes, but what are you trying to educate them in… Wouldn't it be more effective to teach them how to reason for themselves and let them find their own awareness of their situation in life?
What I meant by educating them was teaching them women's history along-side men's. Teaching them societies norm's along-side feminist thought so that from a young age, societies norms are not the ONLY norm in their head and they can choose on their own from their experiences what to believe - as opposed to be raised w/one set of ideals their whole lives and then NEVER seeing or understanding what others see in the world.
Reply
Leave a comment