I've been thinking about mutual mistrust. This dynamic obtains between so many "groups" of people. The one I'm thinking about right now is the group "Josh, and feminist women." On my weekly show I talk a lot about what I see as today’s coddling of women who engage in abusive behavior
Jun 3, 2022·edited Jun 3, 2022Liked by Josh Slocum
Based on my observation, the inability to close the gap on disagreement is driven by dogmas. On the feminist side there are a few. One is indeed that any and every misfortune that affects women is driven by misogyny. When you look at everything through this lens, you fail to assume responsibility for your own actions as a woman and you fail to hold yourself accountable to work under the same standards as men.
Most people have some dogmatic blind spots and it is always worthwhile to examine this on a regular basis. For me, it often involves reading texts and books without knowing beforehand under what umbrella the writer falls. There are other ways to change perspective like exposing yourself safely to height when you know you are afraid of heights. As a feminist you need to do the same and look at what MRA actually are saying. If you do not allow yourself to think through every situation uniquely instead of applying rigorous dogmas you will limit your own thinking.
It is one of the reasons I cannot follow a religion. I just do not allow myself to follow dogmas.
What is also a huge exception is the fact that anyone who shows vulnerability is an easy target and will be targeted. People showing themselves vulnerable are not allowed to have boundaries often enough. It is as if people think: he cried yesterday about something, so he cannot have a firm position on something else today -- the weakness in one area is translated to another. Empathetic victims of Cluster B find their own boundaries broken very easily and very often. This is because people perceive them as weak and because of their own self doubt they often question their own firmness and wobble. This wobbling is then perceived as another invitation to break down any boundaries. You don't trust yourself, we do not trust you... kind of.
Another point is that we divide everything as black and white in this society. You are either on this side of the fence or the other. As a gay man, your opinion is often predefined for you and people cannot reconcile their own prejudice with what they are seeing. We have unlearned to see people as individuals and we have unlearned to to live with any disagreement. You either are 100% with me or you are 100% against what I stand for. Their is no Venn Diagram, it is only two separate circles of existence.
It should never be the standard assumption that their are people 100% agreeing on everything. Yet, we also qualify our assessment with "I like Josh, but that does not mean I agree with everything he says". This should not even be worth mentioning, it is standard. We like different foods, we like different politics, we have different boundaries.
And as a conclusion, we seem to mistrust anyone and everyone that is not firmly in a predefined box.
I do not know if common mistrust can be rectified. But I sure hope so.
Josh, I feel this on the DEEPEST level. It brings me back to Jordan Peterson's order and chaos example - masculinity being order, and femininity being chaos. They both play an important role. However, our society is being dominated by the feminine - the chaos - and it's out of place. Just like an overcorrection of masculinity can bring a sense of order that breeds chaos (hello, Kim Jong Un.), this overcorrection into femininity has brought us here. We're out of balance.
As you stated, you're not making up the tone of these women. It's real, and I can see it too. And don't even get me started about how our society treats men who are assaulted (sexually, physically, etc) by women. I somewhat speak from experience on that.
Excellent description of a very real problem. FWIW, it happens to women who don't buy into feminist dogma, too. Substitute "internalized misogyny" or "you're just a 'pick-me'" for the patriarchy bit and otherwise it's remarkably similar. I have no suggestions for how these things interfere in a relationship, but one tactic that's kinda-sorta worked, sometimes, for the point in a relationship before it might get there, because I have run into something very similar with regard to Christians/Christianity.
Plenty of Christians, especially online friends, take a lot of umbrage at my discussion of my experiences with Christians. They declare that the Christians in my childhood, who took "Beat him with the rod and save his soul from hell" and "The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil" and other such verses that call for abusing children in the name of discipline literally, were interpreting the Bible wrong and weren't real Christians and therefore my conclusions about Christianity are all erroneous. How could I understand anyway, being an atheist? It takes the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture!
When I see one of these situations developing, I will say something like: "The word 'Christian' isn't very useful. Anything that both the Westboro Baptist Church and Barack Obama have equal claim to gives zero information. I'm referring to Christians of the sort who raised me. I know YOU aren't like them; you weren't there and didn't participate. But I have every right to accept their claim to know Jesus at face value, as I accept yours. And I'm not going to not-all, not-all, not-all every time this topic comes up. I shouldn't have to say this part of it more than once." (And lately, I end it with: "As my friend Josh says, you can supply your own 'not-alls'.") I find that this works well with people who are genuinely interested in conversation and doesn't, with people who aren't.
It strikes me that 'feminist' is a similar word to 'Christianity,' with an equally wide range of people having a claim to it (if they want such). The suffragists and the equal-pay-for-equal-work campaigns were obviously justice-based. Very little that's come after has been unambiguously positive. Although it strikes me now, having typed all this, that if someone needs you to clarify that of course you agree with adults of both sexes getting equal pay for equal work and having the franchise and all, it's just what feminism has turned into that you have objections to, they're probably not going to like talking to you for very long anyway, ha ha!
Telling a gay man that he has benefitted from patriarchy is worthy of mockery. It is absurd. No wonder you don't trust the feminazis. I want nothing to do with feminists because they don't actually give a shit about women as a whole. They care about forwarding a very specific agenda that is actually detrimental to women. Think about how they treated Sarah Palin. Palin had it all.... a beautiful family, an education, a successful career, and they could not stand her. They referred to her as Caribou Barbie instead of looking at her as a role model. They were furious that she was pro life and actually walked the walk by keeping her Downs Syndrome son. They even tried to start rumors that he was actually her grandson. I can never trust feminists after I have witnessed how they treat women who are conservative and pro life.
When did "woke" happen – when was Wokeception™? I know James Lindsay traces it back to Mapping the Margins, a 1988 article by Kimberlé Crenshaw, and, to my mind, Radical Feminism is real important, too.
The idea of Patriarchy, as far as I know, is the first instance of a fully realized notion of "systemic" oppression. Take Marxism, substitute gender for class, and you have Radical Feminism. Patriarchy is all-explaining, unfalsifiable, and extreme. It has all the characteristics of religious belief.
Anyone who criticizes the idea of Patriarchy or offers contrary evidence *becomes an agent of Patriarchy*. They become part of the conspiracy. Contrary evidence and disagreement are absorbed as further proof of the magnificence and all-explaining totality of the Theory.
I am so thrilled to have been introduced to you today on Triggernometry. I appreciate your direct honesty. I was especially impressed with you pointing out pederasty within gay culture. (I've thought it since watching "Queer as Folk"). In regards to feminism and really any -ism, I think it comes down to the human desire, particularly modern society's need, for all things and people to fit into a neatly labelled box. It's the fear of "the other." It's the disinclination of people to acknowledge and address nuance. I could describe myself here with a multiple of labels/categories, which would create of picture of who I am. However, in conversations and over time getting to know me, you would find those identifiers are part of who I am, not who I am. In your post I detected a bit of a conversation my closet sibling and I had as the MeToo movement was just starting. He happened to be gay and so I was surprised when his comment was something along the lines of, "Surely it's not as bad as they're making it. Surely, many of these women are exaggerating." Why his sexual attraction meant he would see this similarly to me, now makes no sense. However, it reminded me that our perspectives would be different for a number of reasons, and that was okay. I think the point I'm making is that when the ideology, not the person or relationship, is to be protected and defended, and when questions are viewed as subversive, you're never going to establish mutual trust. I think the way to attempt to build mutual trust, is for individuals to start focusing on the relationship, to give the benefit of the doubt, to kindly, but directly call out unkind communication, and to remember that nearly all humans, if not all, have experienced some level of trauma, whether perceived or real. Fundamentally, we are all starting at the same place. Yes, it requires us to take the initiative, have realistic expectations, persevere and in some cases set aside our need to be fully understood. I'm not advocating being a "door mat." Suggesting ,you be the person who's trying to build trust. I feel I've rambled and perhaps made no sense or stated things already known, but those are my thoughts.
Based on my observation, the inability to close the gap on disagreement is driven by dogmas. On the feminist side there are a few. One is indeed that any and every misfortune that affects women is driven by misogyny. When you look at everything through this lens, you fail to assume responsibility for your own actions as a woman and you fail to hold yourself accountable to work under the same standards as men.
Most people have some dogmatic blind spots and it is always worthwhile to examine this on a regular basis. For me, it often involves reading texts and books without knowing beforehand under what umbrella the writer falls. There are other ways to change perspective like exposing yourself safely to height when you know you are afraid of heights. As a feminist you need to do the same and look at what MRA actually are saying. If you do not allow yourself to think through every situation uniquely instead of applying rigorous dogmas you will limit your own thinking.
It is one of the reasons I cannot follow a religion. I just do not allow myself to follow dogmas.
What is also a huge exception is the fact that anyone who shows vulnerability is an easy target and will be targeted. People showing themselves vulnerable are not allowed to have boundaries often enough. It is as if people think: he cried yesterday about something, so he cannot have a firm position on something else today -- the weakness in one area is translated to another. Empathetic victims of Cluster B find their own boundaries broken very easily and very often. This is because people perceive them as weak and because of their own self doubt they often question their own firmness and wobble. This wobbling is then perceived as another invitation to break down any boundaries. You don't trust yourself, we do not trust you... kind of.
Another point is that we divide everything as black and white in this society. You are either on this side of the fence or the other. As a gay man, your opinion is often predefined for you and people cannot reconcile their own prejudice with what they are seeing. We have unlearned to see people as individuals and we have unlearned to to live with any disagreement. You either are 100% with me or you are 100% against what I stand for. Their is no Venn Diagram, it is only two separate circles of existence.
It should never be the standard assumption that their are people 100% agreeing on everything. Yet, we also qualify our assessment with "I like Josh, but that does not mean I agree with everything he says". This should not even be worth mentioning, it is standard. We like different foods, we like different politics, we have different boundaries.
And as a conclusion, we seem to mistrust anyone and everyone that is not firmly in a predefined box.
I do not know if common mistrust can be rectified. But I sure hope so.
Maybe we need to learn to disagree first.
Sigh.
Josh, I feel this on the DEEPEST level. It brings me back to Jordan Peterson's order and chaos example - masculinity being order, and femininity being chaos. They both play an important role. However, our society is being dominated by the feminine - the chaos - and it's out of place. Just like an overcorrection of masculinity can bring a sense of order that breeds chaos (hello, Kim Jong Un.), this overcorrection into femininity has brought us here. We're out of balance.
As you stated, you're not making up the tone of these women. It's real, and I can see it too. And don't even get me started about how our society treats men who are assaulted (sexually, physically, etc) by women. I somewhat speak from experience on that.
Excellent description of a very real problem. FWIW, it happens to women who don't buy into feminist dogma, too. Substitute "internalized misogyny" or "you're just a 'pick-me'" for the patriarchy bit and otherwise it's remarkably similar. I have no suggestions for how these things interfere in a relationship, but one tactic that's kinda-sorta worked, sometimes, for the point in a relationship before it might get there, because I have run into something very similar with regard to Christians/Christianity.
Plenty of Christians, especially online friends, take a lot of umbrage at my discussion of my experiences with Christians. They declare that the Christians in my childhood, who took "Beat him with the rod and save his soul from hell" and "The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil" and other such verses that call for abusing children in the name of discipline literally, were interpreting the Bible wrong and weren't real Christians and therefore my conclusions about Christianity are all erroneous. How could I understand anyway, being an atheist? It takes the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture!
When I see one of these situations developing, I will say something like: "The word 'Christian' isn't very useful. Anything that both the Westboro Baptist Church and Barack Obama have equal claim to gives zero information. I'm referring to Christians of the sort who raised me. I know YOU aren't like them; you weren't there and didn't participate. But I have every right to accept their claim to know Jesus at face value, as I accept yours. And I'm not going to not-all, not-all, not-all every time this topic comes up. I shouldn't have to say this part of it more than once." (And lately, I end it with: "As my friend Josh says, you can supply your own 'not-alls'.") I find that this works well with people who are genuinely interested in conversation and doesn't, with people who aren't.
It strikes me that 'feminist' is a similar word to 'Christianity,' with an equally wide range of people having a claim to it (if they want such). The suffragists and the equal-pay-for-equal-work campaigns were obviously justice-based. Very little that's come after has been unambiguously positive. Although it strikes me now, having typed all this, that if someone needs you to clarify that of course you agree with adults of both sexes getting equal pay for equal work and having the franchise and all, it's just what feminism has turned into that you have objections to, they're probably not going to like talking to you for very long anyway, ha ha!
Telling a gay man that he has benefitted from patriarchy is worthy of mockery. It is absurd. No wonder you don't trust the feminazis. I want nothing to do with feminists because they don't actually give a shit about women as a whole. They care about forwarding a very specific agenda that is actually detrimental to women. Think about how they treated Sarah Palin. Palin had it all.... a beautiful family, an education, a successful career, and they could not stand her. They referred to her as Caribou Barbie instead of looking at her as a role model. They were furious that she was pro life and actually walked the walk by keeping her Downs Syndrome son. They even tried to start rumors that he was actually her grandson. I can never trust feminists after I have witnessed how they treat women who are conservative and pro life.
When did "woke" happen – when was Wokeception™? I know James Lindsay traces it back to Mapping the Margins, a 1988 article by Kimberlé Crenshaw, and, to my mind, Radical Feminism is real important, too.
The idea of Patriarchy, as far as I know, is the first instance of a fully realized notion of "systemic" oppression. Take Marxism, substitute gender for class, and you have Radical Feminism. Patriarchy is all-explaining, unfalsifiable, and extreme. It has all the characteristics of religious belief.
Anyone who criticizes the idea of Patriarchy or offers contrary evidence *becomes an agent of Patriarchy*. They become part of the conspiracy. Contrary evidence and disagreement are absorbed as further proof of the magnificence and all-explaining totality of the Theory.
I am so thrilled to have been introduced to you today on Triggernometry. I appreciate your direct honesty. I was especially impressed with you pointing out pederasty within gay culture. (I've thought it since watching "Queer as Folk"). In regards to feminism and really any -ism, I think it comes down to the human desire, particularly modern society's need, for all things and people to fit into a neatly labelled box. It's the fear of "the other." It's the disinclination of people to acknowledge and address nuance. I could describe myself here with a multiple of labels/categories, which would create of picture of who I am. However, in conversations and over time getting to know me, you would find those identifiers are part of who I am, not who I am. In your post I detected a bit of a conversation my closet sibling and I had as the MeToo movement was just starting. He happened to be gay and so I was surprised when his comment was something along the lines of, "Surely it's not as bad as they're making it. Surely, many of these women are exaggerating." Why his sexual attraction meant he would see this similarly to me, now makes no sense. However, it reminded me that our perspectives would be different for a number of reasons, and that was okay. I think the point I'm making is that when the ideology, not the person or relationship, is to be protected and defended, and when questions are viewed as subversive, you're never going to establish mutual trust. I think the way to attempt to build mutual trust, is for individuals to start focusing on the relationship, to give the benefit of the doubt, to kindly, but directly call out unkind communication, and to remember that nearly all humans, if not all, have experienced some level of trauma, whether perceived or real. Fundamentally, we are all starting at the same place. Yes, it requires us to take the initiative, have realistic expectations, persevere and in some cases set aside our need to be fully understood. I'm not advocating being a "door mat." Suggesting ,you be the person who's trying to build trust. I feel I've rambled and perhaps made no sense or stated things already known, but those are my thoughts.