Entertaining read, and a lot of good points, in essence. And since the writing style gives "punch" to the issues raised, my immediate reaction may lack value, stating what may be intentionally obvious. But that is that your characterization of the thoughts and attitudes of those on the right and left are caricatures. There are, many I believe, some that I know, who would consider themselves right-leaning or left-leaning who see many issues in ways that are out of step with "their side". But I might add that in today's "crucify the subversive" activism, airing ones nuanced views calls for weighing the ramifications on your's and your family's life soberly, so those expressions tend to be kept to a minimum.
Thanks. And yes, I'm using obvious caricatures with regard to the views of people on the left and right here, to try to make my point a bit more powerfully. But I don't think they're caricatures with regard to what's actually happening. Women really are being put in prison cells with men. Teachers really are deliberately inculcating identity destabilization in children, in classrooms, while the Democratic party applauds. Women in red states really are being denied miscarriage care. I am personally and directly aware of a woman whose second trimester son died in utero. She went through a living hell to get the care she needed; was sent home to wait to become septic because abortion is only legal in her state if the woman's life is in *imminent* danger.
So yes, the characterization of individuals on the left and right are caricatures. And here's a point I couldn't work into the main piece: inclusion is not the be-all and end-all we're told it is, and such things shouldn't trump principles. But it does matter. If you want a movement to do on-the-ground work in your culture, making it, at the very least, non-hostile on the basis of immutable characteristics? Kind of important.
I'm rambling now, but thank you for reading and commenting!
Life is not black and white. It is grey. While I personally believe abortion should be restricted to extreme circumstances-child pregnancies, danger to the woman carrying the child (which would certainly include the psychological trauma as well as the physical health of carrying a dead baby in the womb)-I believe that ultimately the decision is between the woman and her creator. Do I think that as a society our morals have gone completely wackadoodle? Absolutely!
I agree with you absolutely. There is a seeming tsunami of crusader-ism that envisions the rightness of its own agendas as meriting collateral damage on a sociopathic level. I’m still trying to harbor some degree of hope that rational. common-sense, pro-social minds will somehow arise to seize the narrative. But I admit that I’m getting less optimistic. Thanks for your willingness to put your well-considered reflections out for public read. Stimulates thought
I agree that the attitudes about women of men on the right bother me sometimes. While I broadly agree with a lot of tenets found in this nebulous compendium of views called "the right". I sometimes wonder - "ok, if one of your side's women told you a guy from your tribe assaulted her, would you believe her?" And also "if, as a woman sort of in STEM - if I was working with you, would you take me seriously, or ignore my requests and talk to me like an idiot?" This has happened to me a couple of times (at work - orthogonally to politics). (Also if you as a right wing secular guy want to date a conservative or libertarian secular woman and this animal is a rare breed in your urban area as in mine.... You shouldn't complain about paying for first dates, just sayin'. It's like a priori "I want to date you but not badly enough to pay for coffee.")
My work experience working with women was positive. The ability to just get together, get it done, get to the point, no bloviating or stupid consultant-speak is great. At the same time, I also see the toxicity of a lot of women online together, particularly online, and for no reason. But it's not either extreme as outlined here.
God, yes. Literally every time I have to deal with people outside of my department, the men always want to talk about how to add value so that stakeholders are invested in our OMG so disruptive innovations. Blah blah bullshit. 🤣 With my boss and her boss, it’s “the client wants X. Can we do X? If not, what’s the closest we can get?” BLISS.
Glad to say I don't work in a company like that. Our small company seems much like your boss. Client has problem Y we have solution Z can e get it to solve Y? If not? what do we need to add/change so that it does?
No consideration of "stakeholders" beyond "will our VP Engineering kill us when he finds out what we promised he would deliver?" :)
But then I work in a small company that is privately owned and mostly funded by a billionaire. Said billionaire would presumably be the "stakeholder" and his clear directive is "sell stuff for enough that you are cash flow positive"
I've been blessed with good bosses of both the male and female varieties. I've witnessed (from a fairly safe distance) bad bosses of both varieties. My observation is that the male scumbag bosses are more direct about their assholery and willingness to shove underlings and colleagues under the bus. Female ones seem to disguise the assholery with passive aggressive BS and to prefer to get someone else to do the dirty work for them. The latter is more disruptive IMHO because it degrades trust with coworkers more but neither is conducive to a healthy work environment.
One difference I have noted is that many men love to show off how wonderful they are and mansplain while a significant fraction of women will play the "poor weak woman needs help" card get a male colleague to do some of their work for them. I've rarely observed the reverse behaviors
In my experience, toxicity online is not gendered. Online conversations do tend to for whatever reason seem to cause people to take the maximally negative interpretation of anything that is said. And that's something I've observed people doing to other people as well, so it's not just that I suck at communication. ;)
My experience working with women is that they're people. Some of them are great, some of them are horrible. I've probably experienced more crappy male coworkers than female ones, simply due to the demographics of the fields I've worked in. It's probably equal on a per capita basis.
I've always hoped that at some point we could just include a "none of the above" option on ballots which if it reached over a certain threshold, say 20 to 25 percent, forces a new election with new candidates since obviously the previous choices were trash. The people who hate the tribalism of the two party system might actually have their voices, or at least their screams of defiance to the system, heard a bit more then.
As for your comments on the brain dead tribalism of right wing men I am once more reminded why have always said I am right of center and have moved further and further from calling myself right wing, even if my libertarian slant usually has me in the camp when most people try to analyze my stance on political issues. I hope being off Twitter has helped in keeping some of these brain dead from infecting your life over much Holly, thank you for still writing about all this even after everything that has happened.
I like to think of myself as “colorblind,” having been raised in the just-post-civil-rights era 70s and 80s. Can I also say that I’m “genderblind?” I try to see people as individuals and not make assumptions based on how they look. But I agree with your broader perspective, that I’m ashamed to share a sex with a lot of women I meet.
It's intended to convey a lack of bigotry towards other people based on their skin color. Taking culture into account makes far more sense than skin color. The people I hung out with in high school were another white guy, a black guy, and an east indian guy. All of whom were hackers, culturally, which was all I cared about. But I don't see how skin color could possibly intrinsically indicate anything about a person to me. Were I to use the term colorblind, that would be what I was attempting to convey. Of course, I wouldn't say that word anymore, since doing so would obviously mark me as a horrible racist for not considering skin color of paramount importance. :-\
RE: your last sentence. I'm interested you got that from what I wrote; the point I wanted to make is almost precisely the opposite. I'm *dismayed* by how many women think the way to differentiate themselves from other women is to join them in all declaring together that they are not like other women. But that's a far cry from being ashamed. I'm childless and my interests lie in male-heavy fields so I don't meet women much, but have no trouble getting along with and making friends with them one-on-one when the opportunity presents itself.
Ok, so I’m not concentrating very hard right now. Sorry. I have met women, especially when I worked in an office, who seemed to *want* to be perceived as the caricature of catty, bitchy women, but I’m in finance which is surprisingly (to me) woman-heavy. I always felt “different” in that I had no desire to act or dress like they did, and I made more and better male (and some women) friends as a result (possibly?). That was before a lot of big social media though. Now I don’t have any friends in real life, but my clients, regardless of sex/gender, are all pretty normal and non-obnoxious, so maybe it was just the corporate bitches that I hated... Maybe that one-on-one is the key. In groups at the office, not so good.
No worries!! Hyperbole and exaggeration and such are always dangerous devices to try, so I knew I stood a high chance of being at least partially misunderstood. And yes, groups, particularly single-sex groups, are demonic in their power, as far as I can tell.
Your essay reminds me of a line about gender awareness from a story I once read (In*think* it was The History of the Devil by Clive Barker, but I am not sure):
"...nor do I have any idea what it's like to be a woman, having never been a man."
(i.e. without the contrast, the default experience is transparent to oneself).
Most of my life I voted Dem. I could not vote a second term for Obama and thought my voting days were over. I could not quite vote for Trump and certainly couldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton so I skipped that one but was happy when Trump won and did vote for him last time and yes I do think he’s a bit crazy (not certifiable but…) and I almost think it’s that crazy we need, status quo ain’t gonna do but then again is anything, anyone going to do it? These are after all just a bunch of imperfect people. I think a few of them on both sides do actually want to improve our country but I think most of them are just people with huge egos with the desire to be powerful and in control and both sides want to control us, tell us what we can say or what we can do with our bodies. I’m a Christian and it is non of my business how other people choose to live their lives. I do wish there’d be reasonable abortion laws but who decides what’s reasonable?
So now I’m still willing to vote. I am now a registered republican. Neither side has any saviors, just flawed humans.
I can respect this position, just as I can respect people who voted for Biden, but agonized over it, and knew they were taking a risk of CRT being instituted in government at every level. It’s the people who insisted that it wasn’t even worth consideration, that, despite how well he did in his first term, the very idea of voting for Trump was evidence of moral sickness if you considered it for two seconds, who I have lost all respect for.
The sexual politics discussion is, like most things, a grift. Even if the points being made are accurate or valid I'm usually left with a feeling of "yes, and?" The message seems to be "see? SEE??" with little or no constructive insight. I enjoy a nice mean-spirited, spicy meme but people who take it seriously enough to form communities seem less interested in building than reinforcing insecurity. It's incredibly fertile ground to grift on.
Generally the right is so pathetically thirsty for cultural influence and validation that they'll accept any member of a minority or special group without vetting. The right is a pick-me. I'm an independent who's spent a lot of time in the right wing space for the last 6+ years and seen a lot of people set up shop. Most people are probably fake. When you take into account that social media is about engagement you quickly notice how most of what people post is red meat. And once you see that you realize how the overwhelming majority of people have nothing to say, even accounts whose points you agree with. Once you notice most people are pointless you're freer to waste less time online, especially on social media.
"I feel like myself." I call myself an independent by default. I have descriptors for myself but no labels. I am multi-racial and multi-ethnic and feel out of place not because I'm tortured but because categorizations and tribalism are utterly boring. I've always hated identity politics not because of trite, namby-pamby MLK "content of character!" homilies but because it's uninteresting. If you're leading with a group identity or inherited immutable trait you got nothing. Idiosyncrasy or gtfo. I don't label myself for two reasons: 1) you can't define individuals by one data point, and 2) collect data and form your own conclusions and heuristics- I'm not doing your work for you. The only time I invoke race or ethnicity is to troll white leftists, which is fun. (My social media bios used to say "multi-racial + agnostic + politically independent = I get to crap on everyone.") The only inherited trait I am "proud" of is being left-handed, which, as with the trolling, is mostly an affectation. I do like being the statistical 1/9, even if, per George Carlin, "it's a genetic fucking accident."
Heh. Everything you've said about social media is SO true. I got a huge following on Twitter by writing clever snark that made people feel good, seeing their own views expressed in a way that they couldn't have managed themselves. The difference between me (back when I was actively on Twitter, I mean) and the vast majority of influencers, on all sides of the political spectrums/aisles, is that I always knew that's what I was doing. I knew I wasn't doing any deep thinking or evidencing original insight. The ones who do what I was doing on Twitter but think it's evidence of their superior intellect are the ones who terrify me the most. Because people -- lots of people -- tend to act as if they think those people's self-assessments are correct.
A hyper-self-aware nature is such a millstone) but I wouldn't trade away its assets. When you know who you are and what you're doing you have no one to answer to. People writing you email to announce their unfollow or withdrawal of support is hilarious. For most what you write is not truth, it's merely commodity. I imagine one of the benefits of leaving Twitter is not hearing from the peabrains much.
One of the greatest benefits of awareness is peace. Being aware of how you got your following surely made it easier to ask, "wait, why am I even here?" For much of the last year I wondered if I was detached, jaded, or even depressed? A few months ago Katherine Dee (Default Friend) was on Alex Kaschuta's podcast. In the last ten or so minutes they described a similar ennui regarding the then-Current Thing, explaining that once you see how the outrage-du-jour sausage is made you can predict it, which provides inoculation or insulation. Whew, so it wasn't just me. (Terminally online Katherine has even deactivated her Twitter the past couple of months.) I feel detached because I'm not filling the void myself.
Awareness even has physical effects. A few weeks ago random parts of my body were ailing. One of them was my abdomen. I worried I might have the same ailment that felled dad. I unironically asked myself "AM I DYING?" at times and imagined the implications if I were. After analyzing my lifestyle for the past year or so I determined that I was depressed. I have SLOWLY taken steps to mitigate that, but the random physical discomforts have ceased.
> On the other hand, an adult man who makes a bad choice about which woman to impregnate and gets screwed in family court?
This is a slanted way to describe marriage -- which after all is the context for most disputes in family court.
> His attitudes about all women are entirely justified and understandable and require endless patience—particularly from women, who line up to affirm his feelings and assure him that his emotion-driven conclusions are rationality itself.
Calling this out is fair -- thank you for the food for thought.
I'm not sure. The people I've personally known who had family court nightmares were about equally split between divorces and unmarried parents. Woman gets pregnant and has a kid; they have a formal child support agreement and a loose custody arrangement. He sometimes pays on time and is caught up and sometimes doesn't and isn't. Then she gets a promotion and wants to move away to accept it, or finds a guy who wants to marry her and wants the kid adopted by him, or some such thing he doesn't want to allow is suddenly on the table, so they end up in court. No doubt divorce is a greater percentage of family court cases than anything else, but I don't think it's the only one now, not by a long shot.
> I'm not sure. The people I've personally known who had family court nightmares were about equally split between divorces and unmarried parents.
Thanks, I stand corrected. Moreover I'm a trad about marriage which means I think unwed daddies should be mostly shit out luck as far as the law is concerned.
But that's getting what you deserve from the courts, not getting screwed. The complaints I hear about divorce courts is that they do actually screw people - especially, but not exclusively dads. In normal law, the courts try to remedy some kind of wrong-doing "Did Bob commit an offense / breech the contract etc". But family courts are supposed to do what is "in the best interest" of the children -- which is inherently discretionary.
I've not seen a data set on this that is definitive. I see plenty of data that indicates mothers are favored by some interpretation, but then I see data indicating that fathers rarely try for 50/50 or greater custody--and when they try, they win disproportionately. So I'm not sure if family court is "fair" or not from a big picture view. From an individual view, it's impossible to ever know since, as you say, the court is supposed to focus on the individual best interests of the child, and there's no reason to expect that to look like an even demographic split.
Unwed daddies are an interesting cohort. I've known a few who were amazing, but mostly they seem to regard having a child as a new, fun hobby. The only thing I'm sure of is that the right's proclaimed compassion for such men is bullshit. When one of them declares his sadness at an abortion (there's a Twitter thread going viral on that subject at the moment), nobody on the right ever says, "Gosh. If you'd married her, maybe she'd have been confident enough in your commitment to helping raise the kid to have carried to term." Instead they gush about how sad he must be and the bullet he dodged. A woman whose pregnancy was sired by a guy who didn't commit decided not to take on the likelihood of being completely alone in an 18 year obligation to 24/7 commitment and a lifelong commitment to lesser commitment, but the GUY is the one who dodged the bullet. And these are from the guarantors of morality and family values. Riiiiiiiiiight.
It is my strong belief that if both men and women took sex and its potential consequences more seriously the world would be a better place. It seems to me that both men and women would benefit from a general willingness to get to know your sexual partner before you do the deed
I see what you mean that all the data and factoids are subject to interpretation.
> ... but then I see data indicating that fathers rarely try for 50/50 or greater custody--and when they try, they win disproportionately.
This can be because fathers are not as interested in custody as mothers (almost certainly true on average) but it can also be they and their lawyers know what to expect from the courts so they only try fro 50/50 when they have slam-dunk case. That's just two interpretations, I can spin more.
> ... as you say, the court is supposed to focus on the individual best interests of the child, and there's no reason to expect that to look like an even demographic split.
Yep, but I do object to a standard where court tries to judge someones best interest rather than people's conduct. It's inherently subjective, and is only in the child's best interest if you ignore the game theory -- instead of having an incentive to conduct themselves well, both parents have an incentive to play to the subjectivity of the court.
And here's where there's reason to suspect (but do not know for sure) that such courts are biased against dads. We live in a culture where #BeleiveAllWomen is a thing -- especially in the elite social class. Now say an ubsubstantiated accusation is thrown around in courts. Judges aren't going to #BeleiveAllWomen as a standard of evidence. But what if they don't need a standard of evidence? What if they only need discern someone's best interest based on all the "information" available?
Yeah, I agree that family court decisions are often not based on anywhere near enough evidence. I've considered being trained as a CAJA. (Court appointed juvenile advocate). That's an adult who is assigned as a kind of "mentor" to a child who's caught up in this crap. They get access to everyone who's involved in the child's life and are able to give the judge an outsider perspective. Not a therapist (who, though they probably try to do right by the kid, are still getting paid by one or the other parent, or one or the other parent's insurance), not a lawyer, etc.
With regard to judging conduct, though, I don't think the two standards of conduct and the child's best interest are separate. Conduct behind closed doors is often unknowable. Even kids who are willing to tell may not understand what's happening enough to have language for it.
A friend got divorced last year in North Dakota, and the presumption there has recently become 50/50. If it's *not* going to be 50/50, someone has to make a good argument why not. I think that's best and fairest, all else being equal (which, of course, it rarely is).
The social consequences. I need to be employable. People would either assume I was unhinged or a cancer patient. Neither is conducive to finding a better job, which I am presently trying to do.
Or do it, and invest in wigs. Every day you have new hair. Fun! (Sorry, being stupid.) You've said you've been growing it out more, do you have a cut-off point (no pun intended)? I admit I care more than I should. I time how long it's been since my last trim. As a boy I got my hair cut on base. I'm used to short hair. Easier to manage. Buzz buzz, snip snip, done in under ten minutes. As an adult it's vanity as much as maintenance. I'm so used to short hair that at just 3-4 weeks I feel like an ugly monkey to the point where I'm disgusted with myself lol.
Well, TBH, you aren't like most women. As a mathematician, you occupy some pretty rarified air, likely north of 2SD in IQ. There are few enough men there, and even fewer women.
There are a host of characteristics that usually accompany that, not least of which is a fierce streak of independent, free thinking.
This might be true in general, but I'm not naturally gifted at math. I've worked insanely hard at it. And I'm also at least 5SD north of the mean in being fucked-up, too. LOL. Thanks for the kind words, though.
"WHAT NOOOOO...oh ok." = Me in the pause between your main title & subtitle this evening.😅Perhaps I should reserve commenting for my morning breaks like I used to!
Team Red & team Blue are the two legs of the retarded dodo that is American politics. It's overdue for a mercy kill IMO, and at this point I'm just hoping that Team Yellow (Libertarians) turn out to be a new keystone species for American politics rather than the dodo's butt.
At the risk of stating the incredibly obvious, you could shave your head without transitioning. I've known any number of women who have done so, and remained identified as female. I personally find it rather attractive, not that you should consider that opinion relevant. :D
As far as testosterone being an antidepressant, that may be so, but it's certainly not a free ride, as it were. And for that matter, I have plenty and am still chronically depressed. Alas.
Entertaining read, and a lot of good points, in essence. And since the writing style gives "punch" to the issues raised, my immediate reaction may lack value, stating what may be intentionally obvious. But that is that your characterization of the thoughts and attitudes of those on the right and left are caricatures. There are, many I believe, some that I know, who would consider themselves right-leaning or left-leaning who see many issues in ways that are out of step with "their side". But I might add that in today's "crucify the subversive" activism, airing ones nuanced views calls for weighing the ramifications on your's and your family's life soberly, so those expressions tend to be kept to a minimum.
Thanks. And yes, I'm using obvious caricatures with regard to the views of people on the left and right here, to try to make my point a bit more powerfully. But I don't think they're caricatures with regard to what's actually happening. Women really are being put in prison cells with men. Teachers really are deliberately inculcating identity destabilization in children, in classrooms, while the Democratic party applauds. Women in red states really are being denied miscarriage care. I am personally and directly aware of a woman whose second trimester son died in utero. She went through a living hell to get the care she needed; was sent home to wait to become septic because abortion is only legal in her state if the woman's life is in *imminent* danger.
So yes, the characterization of individuals on the left and right are caricatures. And here's a point I couldn't work into the main piece: inclusion is not the be-all and end-all we're told it is, and such things shouldn't trump principles. But it does matter. If you want a movement to do on-the-ground work in your culture, making it, at the very least, non-hostile on the basis of immutable characteristics? Kind of important.
I'm rambling now, but thank you for reading and commenting!
Life is not black and white. It is grey. While I personally believe abortion should be restricted to extreme circumstances-child pregnancies, danger to the woman carrying the child (which would certainly include the psychological trauma as well as the physical health of carrying a dead baby in the womb)-I believe that ultimately the decision is between the woman and her creator. Do I think that as a society our morals have gone completely wackadoodle? Absolutely!
I agree with you absolutely. There is a seeming tsunami of crusader-ism that envisions the rightness of its own agendas as meriting collateral damage on a sociopathic level. I’m still trying to harbor some degree of hope that rational. common-sense, pro-social minds will somehow arise to seize the narrative. But I admit that I’m getting less optimistic. Thanks for your willingness to put your well-considered reflections out for public read. Stimulates thought
I agree that the attitudes about women of men on the right bother me sometimes. While I broadly agree with a lot of tenets found in this nebulous compendium of views called "the right". I sometimes wonder - "ok, if one of your side's women told you a guy from your tribe assaulted her, would you believe her?" And also "if, as a woman sort of in STEM - if I was working with you, would you take me seriously, or ignore my requests and talk to me like an idiot?" This has happened to me a couple of times (at work - orthogonally to politics). (Also if you as a right wing secular guy want to date a conservative or libertarian secular woman and this animal is a rare breed in your urban area as in mine.... You shouldn't complain about paying for first dates, just sayin'. It's like a priori "I want to date you but not badly enough to pay for coffee.")
My work experience working with women was positive. The ability to just get together, get it done, get to the point, no bloviating or stupid consultant-speak is great. At the same time, I also see the toxicity of a lot of women online together, particularly online, and for no reason. But it's not either extreme as outlined here.
God, yes. Literally every time I have to deal with people outside of my department, the men always want to talk about how to add value so that stakeholders are invested in our OMG so disruptive innovations. Blah blah bullshit. 🤣 With my boss and her boss, it’s “the client wants X. Can we do X? If not, what’s the closest we can get?” BLISS.
Glad to say I don't work in a company like that. Our small company seems much like your boss. Client has problem Y we have solution Z can e get it to solve Y? If not? what do we need to add/change so that it does?
No consideration of "stakeholders" beyond "will our VP Engineering kill us when he finds out what we promised he would deliver?" :)
But then I work in a small company that is privately owned and mostly funded by a billionaire. Said billionaire would presumably be the "stakeholder" and his clear directive is "sell stuff for enough that you are cash flow positive"
I've been blessed with good bosses of both the male and female varieties. I've witnessed (from a fairly safe distance) bad bosses of both varieties. My observation is that the male scumbag bosses are more direct about their assholery and willingness to shove underlings and colleagues under the bus. Female ones seem to disguise the assholery with passive aggressive BS and to prefer to get someone else to do the dirty work for them. The latter is more disruptive IMHO because it degrades trust with coworkers more but neither is conducive to a healthy work environment.
One difference I have noted is that many men love to show off how wonderful they are and mansplain while a significant fraction of women will play the "poor weak woman needs help" card get a male colleague to do some of their work for them. I've rarely observed the reverse behaviors
In my experience, toxicity online is not gendered. Online conversations do tend to for whatever reason seem to cause people to take the maximally negative interpretation of anything that is said. And that's something I've observed people doing to other people as well, so it's not just that I suck at communication. ;)
My experience working with women is that they're people. Some of them are great, some of them are horrible. I've probably experienced more crappy male coworkers than female ones, simply due to the demographics of the fields I've worked in. It's probably equal on a per capita basis.
I've always hoped that at some point we could just include a "none of the above" option on ballots which if it reached over a certain threshold, say 20 to 25 percent, forces a new election with new candidates since obviously the previous choices were trash. The people who hate the tribalism of the two party system might actually have their voices, or at least their screams of defiance to the system, heard a bit more then.
As for your comments on the brain dead tribalism of right wing men I am once more reminded why have always said I am right of center and have moved further and further from calling myself right wing, even if my libertarian slant usually has me in the camp when most people try to analyze my stance on political issues. I hope being off Twitter has helped in keeping some of these brain dead from infecting your life over much Holly, thank you for still writing about all this even after everything that has happened.
I like to think of myself as “colorblind,” having been raised in the just-post-civil-rights era 70s and 80s. Can I also say that I’m “genderblind?” I try to see people as individuals and not make assumptions based on how they look. But I agree with your broader perspective, that I’m ashamed to share a sex with a lot of women I meet.
It's intended to convey a lack of bigotry towards other people based on their skin color. Taking culture into account makes far more sense than skin color. The people I hung out with in high school were another white guy, a black guy, and an east indian guy. All of whom were hackers, culturally, which was all I cared about. But I don't see how skin color could possibly intrinsically indicate anything about a person to me. Were I to use the term colorblind, that would be what I was attempting to convey. Of course, I wouldn't say that word anymore, since doing so would obviously mark me as a horrible racist for not considering skin color of paramount importance. :-\
RE: your last sentence. I'm interested you got that from what I wrote; the point I wanted to make is almost precisely the opposite. I'm *dismayed* by how many women think the way to differentiate themselves from other women is to join them in all declaring together that they are not like other women. But that's a far cry from being ashamed. I'm childless and my interests lie in male-heavy fields so I don't meet women much, but have no trouble getting along with and making friends with them one-on-one when the opportunity presents itself.
Ok, so I’m not concentrating very hard right now. Sorry. I have met women, especially when I worked in an office, who seemed to *want* to be perceived as the caricature of catty, bitchy women, but I’m in finance which is surprisingly (to me) woman-heavy. I always felt “different” in that I had no desire to act or dress like they did, and I made more and better male (and some women) friends as a result (possibly?). That was before a lot of big social media though. Now I don’t have any friends in real life, but my clients, regardless of sex/gender, are all pretty normal and non-obnoxious, so maybe it was just the corporate bitches that I hated... Maybe that one-on-one is the key. In groups at the office, not so good.
No worries!! Hyperbole and exaggeration and such are always dangerous devices to try, so I knew I stood a high chance of being at least partially misunderstood. And yes, groups, particularly single-sex groups, are demonic in their power, as far as I can tell.
Your essay reminds me of a line about gender awareness from a story I once read (In*think* it was The History of the Devil by Clive Barker, but I am not sure):
"...nor do I have any idea what it's like to be a woman, having never been a man."
(i.e. without the contrast, the default experience is transparent to oneself).
Most of my life I voted Dem. I could not vote a second term for Obama and thought my voting days were over. I could not quite vote for Trump and certainly couldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton so I skipped that one but was happy when Trump won and did vote for him last time and yes I do think he’s a bit crazy (not certifiable but…) and I almost think it’s that crazy we need, status quo ain’t gonna do but then again is anything, anyone going to do it? These are after all just a bunch of imperfect people. I think a few of them on both sides do actually want to improve our country but I think most of them are just people with huge egos with the desire to be powerful and in control and both sides want to control us, tell us what we can say or what we can do with our bodies. I’m a Christian and it is non of my business how other people choose to live their lives. I do wish there’d be reasonable abortion laws but who decides what’s reasonable?
So now I’m still willing to vote. I am now a registered republican. Neither side has any saviors, just flawed humans.
Song for today’s post. https://youtube.com/watch?v=p9c5j50Hx5o&feature=shares
I can respect this position, just as I can respect people who voted for Biden, but agonized over it, and knew they were taking a risk of CRT being instituted in government at every level. It’s the people who insisted that it wasn’t even worth consideration, that, despite how well he did in his first term, the very idea of voting for Trump was evidence of moral sickness if you considered it for two seconds, who I have lost all respect for.
It’s like we (too many of us) are hypnotized by our beliefs. Seeing something is screwed up and leaving feels like sanity to me.
The sexual politics discussion is, like most things, a grift. Even if the points being made are accurate or valid I'm usually left with a feeling of "yes, and?" The message seems to be "see? SEE??" with little or no constructive insight. I enjoy a nice mean-spirited, spicy meme but people who take it seriously enough to form communities seem less interested in building than reinforcing insecurity. It's incredibly fertile ground to grift on.
Generally the right is so pathetically thirsty for cultural influence and validation that they'll accept any member of a minority or special group without vetting. The right is a pick-me. I'm an independent who's spent a lot of time in the right wing space for the last 6+ years and seen a lot of people set up shop. Most people are probably fake. When you take into account that social media is about engagement you quickly notice how most of what people post is red meat. And once you see that you realize how the overwhelming majority of people have nothing to say, even accounts whose points you agree with. Once you notice most people are pointless you're freer to waste less time online, especially on social media.
"I feel like myself." I call myself an independent by default. I have descriptors for myself but no labels. I am multi-racial and multi-ethnic and feel out of place not because I'm tortured but because categorizations and tribalism are utterly boring. I've always hated identity politics not because of trite, namby-pamby MLK "content of character!" homilies but because it's uninteresting. If you're leading with a group identity or inherited immutable trait you got nothing. Idiosyncrasy or gtfo. I don't label myself for two reasons: 1) you can't define individuals by one data point, and 2) collect data and form your own conclusions and heuristics- I'm not doing your work for you. The only time I invoke race or ethnicity is to troll white leftists, which is fun. (My social media bios used to say "multi-racial + agnostic + politically independent = I get to crap on everyone.") The only inherited trait I am "proud" of is being left-handed, which, as with the trolling, is mostly an affectation. I do like being the statistical 1/9, even if, per George Carlin, "it's a genetic fucking accident."
Heh. Everything you've said about social media is SO true. I got a huge following on Twitter by writing clever snark that made people feel good, seeing their own views expressed in a way that they couldn't have managed themselves. The difference between me (back when I was actively on Twitter, I mean) and the vast majority of influencers, on all sides of the political spectrums/aisles, is that I always knew that's what I was doing. I knew I wasn't doing any deep thinking or evidencing original insight. The ones who do what I was doing on Twitter but think it's evidence of their superior intellect are the ones who terrify me the most. Because people -- lots of people -- tend to act as if they think those people's self-assessments are correct.
A hyper-self-aware nature is such a millstone) but I wouldn't trade away its assets. When you know who you are and what you're doing you have no one to answer to. People writing you email to announce their unfollow or withdrawal of support is hilarious. For most what you write is not truth, it's merely commodity. I imagine one of the benefits of leaving Twitter is not hearing from the peabrains much.
One of the greatest benefits of awareness is peace. Being aware of how you got your following surely made it easier to ask, "wait, why am I even here?" For much of the last year I wondered if I was detached, jaded, or even depressed? A few months ago Katherine Dee (Default Friend) was on Alex Kaschuta's podcast. In the last ten or so minutes they described a similar ennui regarding the then-Current Thing, explaining that once you see how the outrage-du-jour sausage is made you can predict it, which provides inoculation or insulation. Whew, so it wasn't just me. (Terminally online Katherine has even deactivated her Twitter the past couple of months.) I feel detached because I'm not filling the void myself.
Awareness even has physical effects. A few weeks ago random parts of my body were ailing. One of them was my abdomen. I worried I might have the same ailment that felled dad. I unironically asked myself "AM I DYING?" at times and imagined the implications if I were. After analyzing my lifestyle for the past year or so I determined that I was depressed. I have SLOWLY taken steps to mitigate that, but the random physical discomforts have ceased.
> On the other hand, an adult man who makes a bad choice about which woman to impregnate and gets screwed in family court?
This is a slanted way to describe marriage -- which after all is the context for most disputes in family court.
> His attitudes about all women are entirely justified and understandable and require endless patience—particularly from women, who line up to affirm his feelings and assure him that his emotion-driven conclusions are rationality itself.
Calling this out is fair -- thank you for the food for thought.
I'm not sure. The people I've personally known who had family court nightmares were about equally split between divorces and unmarried parents. Woman gets pregnant and has a kid; they have a formal child support agreement and a loose custody arrangement. He sometimes pays on time and is caught up and sometimes doesn't and isn't. Then she gets a promotion and wants to move away to accept it, or finds a guy who wants to marry her and wants the kid adopted by him, or some such thing he doesn't want to allow is suddenly on the table, so they end up in court. No doubt divorce is a greater percentage of family court cases than anything else, but I don't think it's the only one now, not by a long shot.
> I'm not sure. The people I've personally known who had family court nightmares were about equally split between divorces and unmarried parents.
Thanks, I stand corrected. Moreover I'm a trad about marriage which means I think unwed daddies should be mostly shit out luck as far as the law is concerned.
But that's getting what you deserve from the courts, not getting screwed. The complaints I hear about divorce courts is that they do actually screw people - especially, but not exclusively dads. In normal law, the courts try to remedy some kind of wrong-doing "Did Bob commit an offense / breech the contract etc". But family courts are supposed to do what is "in the best interest" of the children -- which is inherently discretionary.
I've not seen a data set on this that is definitive. I see plenty of data that indicates mothers are favored by some interpretation, but then I see data indicating that fathers rarely try for 50/50 or greater custody--and when they try, they win disproportionately. So I'm not sure if family court is "fair" or not from a big picture view. From an individual view, it's impossible to ever know since, as you say, the court is supposed to focus on the individual best interests of the child, and there's no reason to expect that to look like an even demographic split.
Unwed daddies are an interesting cohort. I've known a few who were amazing, but mostly they seem to regard having a child as a new, fun hobby. The only thing I'm sure of is that the right's proclaimed compassion for such men is bullshit. When one of them declares his sadness at an abortion (there's a Twitter thread going viral on that subject at the moment), nobody on the right ever says, "Gosh. If you'd married her, maybe she'd have been confident enough in your commitment to helping raise the kid to have carried to term." Instead they gush about how sad he must be and the bullet he dodged. A woman whose pregnancy was sired by a guy who didn't commit decided not to take on the likelihood of being completely alone in an 18 year obligation to 24/7 commitment and a lifelong commitment to lesser commitment, but the GUY is the one who dodged the bullet. And these are from the guarantors of morality and family values. Riiiiiiiiiight.
It is my strong belief that if both men and women took sex and its potential consequences more seriously the world would be a better place. It seems to me that both men and women would benefit from a general willingness to get to know your sexual partner before you do the deed
I see what you mean that all the data and factoids are subject to interpretation.
> ... but then I see data indicating that fathers rarely try for 50/50 or greater custody--and when they try, they win disproportionately.
This can be because fathers are not as interested in custody as mothers (almost certainly true on average) but it can also be they and their lawyers know what to expect from the courts so they only try fro 50/50 when they have slam-dunk case. That's just two interpretations, I can spin more.
> ... as you say, the court is supposed to focus on the individual best interests of the child, and there's no reason to expect that to look like an even demographic split.
Yep, but I do object to a standard where court tries to judge someones best interest rather than people's conduct. It's inherently subjective, and is only in the child's best interest if you ignore the game theory -- instead of having an incentive to conduct themselves well, both parents have an incentive to play to the subjectivity of the court.
And here's where there's reason to suspect (but do not know for sure) that such courts are biased against dads. We live in a culture where #BeleiveAllWomen is a thing -- especially in the elite social class. Now say an ubsubstantiated accusation is thrown around in courts. Judges aren't going to #BeleiveAllWomen as a standard of evidence. But what if they don't need a standard of evidence? What if they only need discern someone's best interest based on all the "information" available?
Yeah, I agree that family court decisions are often not based on anywhere near enough evidence. I've considered being trained as a CAJA. (Court appointed juvenile advocate). That's an adult who is assigned as a kind of "mentor" to a child who's caught up in this crap. They get access to everyone who's involved in the child's life and are able to give the judge an outsider perspective. Not a therapist (who, though they probably try to do right by the kid, are still getting paid by one or the other parent, or one or the other parent's insurance), not a lawyer, etc.
With regard to judging conduct, though, I don't think the two standards of conduct and the child's best interest are separate. Conduct behind closed doors is often unknowable. Even kids who are willing to tell may not understand what's happening enough to have language for it.
A friend got divorced last year in North Dakota, and the presumption there has recently become 50/50. If it's *not* going to be 50/50, someone has to make a good argument why not. I think that's best and fairest, all else being equal (which, of course, it rarely is).
What's stopping you from shaving your head now? 😁
The social consequences. I need to be employable. People would either assume I was unhinged or a cancer patient. Neither is conducive to finding a better job, which I am presently trying to do.
Or do it, and invest in wigs. Every day you have new hair. Fun! (Sorry, being stupid.) You've said you've been growing it out more, do you have a cut-off point (no pun intended)? I admit I care more than I should. I time how long it's been since my last trim. As a boy I got my hair cut on base. I'm used to short hair. Easier to manage. Buzz buzz, snip snip, done in under ten minutes. As an adult it's vanity as much as maintenance. I'm so used to short hair that at just 3-4 weeks I feel like an ugly monkey to the point where I'm disgusted with myself lol.
I know a woman who has a shaved head for precisely that reason.
Well, TBH, you aren't like most women. As a mathematician, you occupy some pretty rarified air, likely north of 2SD in IQ. There are few enough men there, and even fewer women.
There are a host of characteristics that usually accompany that, not least of which is a fierce streak of independent, free thinking.
This might be true in general, but I'm not naturally gifted at math. I've worked insanely hard at it. And I'm also at least 5SD north of the mean in being fucked-up, too. LOL. Thanks for the kind words, though.
"WHAT NOOOOO...oh ok." = Me in the pause between your main title & subtitle this evening.😅Perhaps I should reserve commenting for my morning breaks like I used to!
Team Red & team Blue are the two legs of the retarded dodo that is American politics. It's overdue for a mercy kill IMO, and at this point I'm just hoping that Team Yellow (Libertarians) turn out to be a new keystone species for American politics rather than the dodo's butt.
...So I'm not holding my breath either.
At the risk of stating the incredibly obvious, you could shave your head without transitioning. I've known any number of women who have done so, and remained identified as female. I personally find it rather attractive, not that you should consider that opinion relevant. :D
As far as testosterone being an antidepressant, that may be so, but it's certainly not a free ride, as it were. And for that matter, I have plenty and am still chronically depressed. Alas.