PDA

View Full Version : The Empowered Nerd.



luka
02-09-2016, 03:20 PM
i was saying this on facebook the other day. i think the new empowered entitled nerd is a blight on our times. its especially posioned the interent. nerds were ok when they just shunned society and played role playing games together in closed communities. now theyre martin skhrkel or whatever.
theyre politics are gross. they are physically and morally repulsive. i think we must eradicate them.

luka
02-09-2016, 03:22 PM
they have poor personal hygeine and they make memes all day and form packs to attack that woman off of the ghostbusters film. theyre faux leather chair that they sit in to play computer is all wet with sweat. they dont read good books only science fiction and they play computer games too much.

luka
02-09-2016, 03:23 PM
how do we wipe them off the internet and force them out of the public spehere where they do not belong and back into closed rpg playing communties? it is one of the most pressing issues facing us today.

luka
02-09-2016, 03:25 PM
no sense of civic duty or social resposibility. give them money and they just want to splurge it on some bug dumb sci fi fantasy like xray glasses or a mechwarrior suit.

luka
02-09-2016, 03:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UJ9K8lMxPA

luka
02-09-2016, 03:33 PM
theyre vision is limited. its a microfocus brain. good for computer programming but terrible for understanding the world. but they equate programming ability with intelliegence. like that is the sole meausre for braininess. if you can stare at a screen for 15 hours making micro adjustments to a field of abstract symbols. thats basically just accountancy. before computers became so important thats what we let them do. accounts. now they think they are special.
i dont mind the traditional ones that just snuffle about in basements and dont bother anyone. they smell but theyre harmless. im just talking about the empowered ones.

Mr. Tea
02-09-2016, 03:53 PM
...a mechwarrior suit.

Come on now, don't pretend you wouldn't jump at the chance to own one of these if it ever arose.

Corpsey
02-09-2016, 06:09 PM
how do we wipe them off the internet and force them out of the public spehere where they do not belong and back into closed rpg playing communties? it is one of the most pressing issues facing us today.

LoL you are hilarious sometimes

I tend to think this is what these alt right guys are. That guy who wanted to shoot up a sorority house. Breivik, too - big World of Warcraft player.

But then theres the kind of nerd who plays Mario Maker and has a beard and is jovial and witty. The post adolescent nerd, perhaps?

luka
02-09-2016, 06:14 PM
Yes, we need a taxonomy of nerds. The empowered nerd is maybe not the correct term. But it's a specific type of nerd I want to eradicate not the jovial real ale drinking fedora wearing terry pratchet reading ones you refer to.

luka
02-09-2016, 06:15 PM
It's where a psychological process of compensation creates a self identification as ubermensch.

john eden
02-09-2016, 08:11 PM
MDMA

rubberdingyrapids
05-09-2016, 03:49 PM
the aggressive nerd.

CrowleyHead
06-09-2016, 01:11 PM
At this point all the nerds aren't worth their weight.

In the 21st century, everyone has a pursuit/interest/source of pleasure that's slightly 'nerdy'. Few true and living "ALPHAS" in the cartoon corny sense exist; one of my last roommates was a Marine, conservative, number of girlfriends. Still kept up religiously with Gam o Throns.

So first off, popularity deems a pursuit not nerdy, but its a lark. "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" make millions, but they're undoubtedly nerdy. Every bookstore chain in America carries Dungeons & Dragons games or the board games like Catan, but they're nerdy. Game Of Thrones, arguably one of the 20 most watched TV shows in the world, nerdy. But nobody's a nerd because everybody's a nerd. Even sports have nerds who crunch stats and bicker constantly about the values of players, while additionally sometimes competing in fantasy ____ball where you ignore the actual win/loss of the game and focus on your favorites performances overall.

The only true nerd pursuits it seems to be are the ones you can't make accessible to everyone. When its inconvenient and unnecessary, there you get a certain level of dedication that cuts one from the cloth. Those nerds are already pursuing something focused and intense, so you rarely see them act out on society in aggression and malignance. Its the ones who are bored by their pursuits.

A good case and point is Shkreli. He was a former music 'nerd', enough that his interests were as disparate as being the ghost funder for an emo musician's 'indie' label and that Wu-Tang album debacle. His biggest fundamental flaw was that his career kept him from truly dedicating himself and sacrificing success, but the way he was able to buy and invest in music on such a bigger scale than most makes him flip and trivial about the actual value. A 'nerd' would probably have tried to found a label on credit, sign bands, threaten the security of his job or his wealth, truly go ALL IN and lose sight of the bigger picture.

droid
06-09-2016, 02:26 PM
You must differentiate between nerd, geek & dork.

CrowleyHead
06-09-2016, 02:41 PM
Those have no meaning anymore. Geek and Nerd are used interchangeably to the point their distinction is impossible to determine, and both have too many parallels to isolate entirely. Dork is having behavioral mistakes, being a 'goof' etc. Its also become the status quo too, everyone is 'awkward', 'quirky', 'random' and thereby nobody really holds any distinction in being so.

droid
06-09-2016, 02:49 PM
The Hoi Polloi may not see the differences, but to the experienced eye they glint like spider eyes in torchlight.

Mr. Tea
06-09-2016, 03:00 PM
You must differentiate between nerd, geek & dork.


Those have no meaning anymore. Geek and Nerd are used interchangeably to the point their distinction is impossible to determine, and both have too many parallels to isolate entirely.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/geeks_and_nerds.png

The fact that I instantly knew where to go for this diagram probably speaks volumes.

Agreed, though, that dorkishness is primarily about poor social skills. You can be a dork without having any notably nerdlike tendencies, in fact.

Mr. Tea
06-09-2016, 03:01 PM
The Hoi Polloi may not see the differences, but to the experienced eye they glint like spider eyes in torchlight.

Surely not the first times someone has engaged in meta-nerdery.

droid
06-09-2016, 03:09 PM
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/geeks_and_nerds.png

The fact that I instantly knew where to go for this diagram probably speaks volumes.


Id just like to point out that I have, once again, enmeshed tea in a web of misdirection, psychological manipulation and mind control.

droid
06-09-2016, 03:11 PM
I am the master. Bow before me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGoMgkjbl2Q

Mr. Tea
06-09-2016, 03:14 PM
Id just like to point out that I have, once again, enmeshed tea in a web of misdirection, psychological manipulation and mind control.

Look just shut up and get those battle station blueprints to the Rebels like you were supposed to.

droid
06-09-2016, 03:19 PM
All it took was familiarity with your limited range of cultural touchstones and an understanding of the mechanics of your (ahem) 'thought' processes... then I just had to hook the bait, cast the rod, and wait...

Corpsey
10-12-2016, 08:10 PM
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n20/andrew-ohagan/whos-the-alpha-male-now-bitches

Someone, perhaps not a million miles from you, whose name we don’t yet know but whose face is camera-ready, whose conscience is clearing before the fact, is preparing a biography of his mentality in advance of a shooting massacre. He is almost certainly a he, and he is unhappy, and he is already fully armed. He is probably on Zoloft. He is likely to be a virgin with a history of isolation. He may be into hurting animals, or like Death Metal music, and there’s a strong chance he will have been said to have Asperger’s syndrome or ADHD. The movies he likes will tell a story about him and his displaced sense of self. There may be a girl who snubbed him. If he is older, it may be a boss who snubbed him but it’s more likely to be the whole of ‘society’. He may well be an expert in video games and have inscribed himself on a notional leaderboard, perhaps even taking up a role in life that mirrors a status he sees himself having in the game. He will write poems. He will watch porn. And there will be times when he doesn’t sleep for days, just drinking Coke, listening to music on his iPod and dreaming up scenarios based on the songs. He will hate jocks, the sometimes handsome and generally confident boys who snag the girls at school. Those he hates he hates with a vengeance. He might find girls disgusting. He believes he has a system of thought, his own, that education or company philosophy can’t get close to, and his feelings of inferiority quickly turn bombastic. He is lonely. And the biggest mistake he makes is to imagine there is nobody like him. Because quite a few are like him and some of them are already writing a long note to posterity.

The step from beta boy to Übermensch seems natural. One minute, Chris Harper-Mercer was bemoaning the fact that no girl liked him, that he was nobody and invisible and without status among his peers. The next minute he was telling a ‘lucky one’ that he could live while everybody else died. ‘I am God’ is code for ‘I am nobody.’ Anders Behring Breivik spent eight years preparing a manifesto of 1500 pages, an encyclopedia of wrongs. ‘2083: A European Declaration of Independence’ sets out his hatred of Muslims, Marxists and multiculturalists, building a case for genocide, and reads like it’s torn from the pages of a novel by Don DeLillo. Breivik emailed it to a thousand people the morning he went out and bombed a government building in Oslo, killing eight, before travelling to a Workers’ Youth League summer camp on the island of Utřya, where he spent an hour and a half on a shooting spree that killed 69 people. He then surrendered. Breivik’s manifesto is so much a part of him that nothing can take him off-course. Afterwards, his only regret was that he didn’t kill more people and he feels certain that he will be hailed in the future as a great hero. He sees himself as a knight templar, a hero of the modern crusade, blond, green-eyed, tall, armour-plated, and ready to command legions in their fight to purify the world. For him, technology’s great purpose is to make possible a counter-jihad, and the internet, the West’s great contribution to the deepening of the collective soul, will enable this. ‘Optimally, you will send your announcements only seconds before you initiate the operation,’ he advises.

luka
10-12-2016, 08:48 PM
I feel troubled by the author's adoption of the alpha/beta distinction, as if he's aligning himself with the bullies of the world. Leaves a bad taste.

Corpsey
10-12-2016, 09:49 PM
I think he's talking about them in the terms they see themselves in.

I don't think 'alpha' males are anywhere near as into this 'alpha/beta' stuff as men who perceive themselves as 'beta'.

Actually this piece on trolls is perhaps relevant here too

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n24/richard-seymour/schadenfreude-with-bite

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see these trolls with their ultra macho anti-women agendas as being athletic bully boys visiting 4chan inbetween visiting the gym and going to frat parties.

Mr. Tea
10-12-2016, 09:57 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see these trolls with their ultra macho anti-women agendas as being athletic bully boys visiting 4chan inbetween visiting the gym and going to frat parties.

Er, I think that's exactly the point - the confident, buff guys are what the internet shut-ins wish they were, but aren't, and consequently despise.

Corpsey
10-12-2016, 10:19 PM
Yeah that goes without saying (even though I said it).

What I think is interesting is that this beta/alpha stuff is really the obsession of the self-styled 'betas' (as of course it must be, since the alpha males aren't concerned with how to get girls when they're already getting them)

Slothrop
11-12-2016, 03:10 PM
Yes, we need a taxonomy of nerds. The empowered nerd is maybe not the correct term. But it's a specific type of nerd I want to eradicate not the jovial real ale drinking fedora wearing terry pratchet reading ones you refer to.
I thought "entitled nerd" got it pretty well. I've also heard "internet man-babies", particularly for the sub-class who act like they're the victims of Stalinist oppression if the latest edition of their favorite game franchise doesn't have bouncy enough tits in it.

Mr. Tea
11-12-2016, 04:42 PM
Did luka mention Martin Shkreli earlier? He's not a nerd, he's a fully-fledged capitalist sociopath in the Bateman mould.

you
12-12-2016, 02:37 PM
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n20/andrew-ohagan/whos-the-alpha-male-now-bitches

Someone, perhaps not a million miles from you, whose name we don’t yet know but whose face is camera-ready, whose conscience is clearing before the fact, is preparing a biography of his mentality in advance of a shooting massacre. He is almost certainly a he, and he is unhappy, and he is already fully armed.......

This article runs very similar to Berardi's book Heroes. Tbh I do not like either's line. I think pointing to alienation, disenfranchisement etc are mis-leading. Most of these (white-men in more affluent countries) people's gripes seems to be that they are not allowed to be automatically dominant, respected and privileged. I think rather than focus on how they are not these things it is better to ask why people still feel they deserve to be these things.

luka
12-12-2016, 02:49 PM
This article runs very similar to Berardi's book Heroes. Tbh I do not like either's line. I think pointing to alienation, disenfranchisement etc are mis-leading. Most of these (white-men is more affluent countries) people's gripes seems to be that they are not allowed to be automatically dominant, respected and privileged. I think rather than focus on how they are not these things it is better to ask why people still feel they deserve to be these things.

That strikes me as a little dismissive and incurious.

Corpsey
12-12-2016, 02:51 PM
Why do you feel they feel they deserve to be these things?

luka
12-12-2016, 03:03 PM
Or let me put it another way. I have a bias towards looking at the phenomenon as a societal symptom first, personal symptom a distant second.

you
12-12-2016, 03:34 PM
Berardi's examination of Breivik's writings mainly. Breivik sees most of the worlds problems as being connected to the demise of the traditional family and the 'feminization of men'. Essentially he wants a older world, I hear.

I do not know for sure how people feel. Let's get this obvious truism out the way. But, look at the cultural materials these people tend to be smothered by. Hollywood depictions of masculinity, sexist gamer culture and phallonarcissistic heavy rock coupled with the ruse of neo-liberal economics implying to them that they are unique individuals with every right to rise to the top and get the girl if only they try hard and listen to their heart. Much narrative is aimed at framing spree-killers as being somehow 'let down' or being 'alienated' but let down from what? What does this line of narrative assume these people are entitled to?

you
12-12-2016, 03:38 PM
The personal foci of such narratives can easily lead to assumptions along the lines of seeing them as symptomatic of problems. I'd argue, that if this line has to be pursued then it ought to be regarded as symptomatic of more right-wing and conservative dogmas still existing. Alienated youths are not the casualties of liberalism, they are causalities of toxic social conservatism that still dominates all the softly insidious modes of influence (media yadadada...)

you
12-12-2016, 03:46 PM
But, even with this last option of emphasis, I feel uncomfortable. I dislike the idea of the privileged (in global terms) being our highlights of the fall-out of either liberalism or neo-conservatism. The woes of anti-social white boys should be the last option for our canary in the cage.

luka
12-12-2016, 03:48 PM
U wot mate?

Corpsey
12-12-2016, 04:15 PM
My thing with these shooters is that I can relate to them to quite a worrying extent. I was an awkward dorkward dickwad of a teenager myself, and I busied myself drawing muscular men with guns in my exercise books and vaguely admiring the Columbine killers for taking down the jocks. (The popular and long debunked narrative of Columbine.)

I never actually harboured fantasies of murdering anyone, of course, but I can relate to this idea of fantasising about prepotence when you're impotent. It's surely of note that a lot of geek culture is, in a sense, highly masculine and fixated on war? Warhammer, Call of Duty... Even Star Wars is full of heroic blokes carving each other up with laser swords. Death Metal has always seemed to me a generally benign outlet for frustrated aggression, and all the metal fans I've ever known have been singularly affable and peaceable fellas.

Not sure what being white and middle class has to do with this, but then I'd have been unaware of what that had to do with my identity generally at that age. Perhaps because it provided me with a different cultural framework for my fantasies?

Of course, back then the current vogue for alt-right/troll/men's rights stuff didn't exist, or at least I wasn't aware of it. Perhaps I'd have been sucked into that if I'd been more isolated? Instead I had 'rap battles' which were typed out on angelfire forums and video games.

luka
12-12-2016, 04:31 PM
U wot mate?

Oh no I get it. I know this argument. It goes like this
Why are poor people in England always moaning. They got iPhone, sky TV, lager, skunk, air max. People in Ethiopia only eat one grain of rice a day and look at them, always happy and dancing and making the best of things.

droid
12-12-2016, 04:32 PM
Brevik's failed graffiti career as an apposite addendum.

luka
12-12-2016, 04:39 PM
Obviously I can understand not feeling obliged to extend much sympathy towards mass murderers

Corpsey
12-12-2016, 04:49 PM
I read the book about Breivik, 'One of Us'. It connected the general social/political conditions of Norway during his life to his actions (e.g. the revolt against feminism and immigration/Islam), but it was also about a man who seemingly never managed to make any really significant friendships or relationships work, who was shunned and ridiculed within the graffiti community, then the online Warcraft community, even within the radical right wing. It is actually a rather sad book (and that includes, of course, the fate of his innocent victims) - perhaps you'd like it luka?

The point of this was that yes there were social forces at play, including that Breivik probably felt entitled to things as a relatively affluent white man in that society, but also that he was somebody with significant mental health issues and character flaws which went untreated. White supremacy, like World of Warcraft, gave him something to feel superior about.

ANYWAY, perhaps this has derailed things away from a discussion of the nerd in political form. I can see Shkreli massacring a classroom of colleagues if he'd never made a success of his business ventures.

Mr. Tea
12-12-2016, 04:57 PM
Alienated youths are not the casualties of liberalism, they are causalities of toxic social conservatism...

I'm not so sure of this. I think you're not considering the importance that self-hatred surely plays in these kinds of cases.

Consider: what you might call economic or right-liberalism, or alternatively neoliberalism, insists on the illusion of meritocracy, so that the successful deserve to be successful, and conversely, if you're dissatisfied with your life, you've no-one to blame but yourself. You're either not trying hard enough, or you're just not clever and resourceful enough, or both. Meanwhile social or left-liberalism is forever demanding that white guys check their privilege, and acknowledge that whatever problems they may have, they're nothing compared to racism, misogyny and so on. So now our furious, lonely basement-dweller feels like he's being made to feel bad for feeling bad about himself! And of course, the doctrine of privilege and disprivilege is essentially true: being white, this guy isn't going to get shot dead by a cop for basically no reason; being male, he isn't getting barraged with abuse by strangers if he ever ventures online outside of a secure group of close friends, and he's vastly less at risk of actual sexual assault. He's not going to get spat or yelled at for being visibly non-Christian. He's more likely to get any given job he goes for but it by no means guarantees he has a job, or a worthwhile job. It certainly doesn't guarantee him a hot girlfriend, or any girlfriend, or a solid group of friends or a decent family life. So if he lacks some or all of these things, he feels even more of a failure. Perhaps there's an unwitting confluence of social conservatism here (he feels it's his right to earn loads of money and get hot chicks, because that's just how it ought to be - and perhaps was, for his dad/uncles/grandfathers) and social liberalism (he feels even worse about his lack of achievement because, really, there's less standing in his way than the majority of other people).

vimothy
12-12-2016, 05:22 PM
That's a good point. The word "meritocracy" actually derives from a book called The Rise of the Meritocracy (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment) which imagines a future "meritocratic" society where the poor are judged to be without merit, moral failures who deserve their fate as social detritus:


I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation... The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded)...

Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.

Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable.

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education.

A social revolution has been accomplished by harnessing schools and universities to the task of sieving people according to education's narrow band of values.

With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before.

The new class has the means at hand, and largely under its control, by which it reproduces itself.

The more controversial prediction and the warning followed from the historical analysis. I expected that the poor and the disadvantaged would be done down, and in fact they have been. If branded at school they are more vulnerable for later unemployment.

They can easily become demoralised by being looked down on so woundingly by people who have done well for themselves.

It is hard indeed in a society that makes so much of merit to be judged as having none. No underclass has ever been left as morally naked as that.

They have been deprived by educational selection of many of those who would have been their natural leaders, the able spokesmen and spokeswomen from the working class who continued to identify with the class from which they came.

Their leaders were a standing opposition to the rich and the powerful in the never-ending competition in parliament and industry between the haves and the have-nots.

With the coming of the meritocracy, the now leaderless masses were partially disfranchised; as time has gone by, more and more of them have been disengaged, and disaffected to the extent of not even bothering to vote. They no longer have their own people to represent them.

comelately
12-12-2016, 05:59 PM
And his son became that cunt Toby Young.

vimothy
12-12-2016, 06:10 PM
Clearly a man with much to regret.

firefinga
12-12-2016, 06:12 PM
I thought "entitled nerd" got it pretty well. I've also heard "internet man-babies", particularly for the sub-class who act like they're the victims of Stalinist oppression if the latest edition of their favorite game franchise doesn't have bouncy enough tits in it.

Sure enough but a direct consequence of the "the world is supposed to let my voice be heard" dogma. They are structurally another sub-set of the Special Snowflake

luka
12-12-2016, 06:14 PM
I personally think voices should be heard.

firefinga
12-12-2016, 06:15 PM
I personally think voices should be heard.

slightly better than hearing voices that aren't there I suppose

luka
12-12-2016, 06:17 PM
Not on a global level necessarily but on a local level

you
15-12-2016, 02:29 PM
Oh no I get it. I know this argument. It goes like this
Why are poor people in England always moaning. They got iPhone, sky TV, lager, skunk, air max. People in Ethiopia only eat one grain of rice a day and look at them, always happy and dancing and making the best of things.

This is not my argument. My argument is that I feel acting out teens, in particular the typically male, white, middle-american ilk, receive a disproportionate level of attention - attention that rightly sees them and their mis-behaviour as symptomatic, but incorrectly grants them a level of significance that is unfair. Spree-killers are a most prominent example. Sandy Hook is a great example highlighted in a book I'm currently reviewing. More children were murdered in Chicago in the same year than the death total of Lanza's Sandy Hook shooting. But the 'big event' warranted a lot of hand wringing and 'where have we gone wrong' column inches etc. But where are the opinion pieces for the just as symptomatic problem of the Chicago murder rate? People that commit crime are damaged people, they are all causalities on some level. I do not believe in people being born bad or evil or any of that nonsense. My gripe is that there seems to be a certain empowered nerd gravity that distorts responses that examine the larger social issues. I'm not arguing on the basis of a hierarchy of hardship - I just feel social reflection is skewed by spectacle and privileges the nerd's cry for help.

droid
15-12-2016, 02:31 PM
Structural problems with media are a factor here too.

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 10:52 AM
Yeah that's true, I guess the disparity of coverage is down to the middle classes not feeling threatened by inner city gun violence in the same way. It's the same reason I (shamefully) don't really blink if I see there's been a terrorist attack in Iraq. but the merest hint of one in London or Paris hypnotises me. 'It could be you' is what that says. Definitely agree that there's an inherent racism in the ease with which violence in poverty stricken areas is accepted and dismissed.

I guess what makes the rampaging nerd seem more psychologically interesting is that drug related violence seems somehow (terribly) 'rational', whereas a person who has all the material comforts in the world going postal defies our expectations of what financial security and education provides us with. In fact it's the very violation of that security which connects the postal loner with the ISIS militant. (And Breivik was probably the best example of somebody who combined angry loner nerdiness with militant ideological fervour).

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 11:48 AM
I don't think it's really that surprising if people pay more attention when someone commits a dozen murders all in one go than when a single killing occurs, or if the victims are chosen entirely at random than when they're involved in crime themselves and therefore a 'legitimate' target in the killer's mind. (Edit: or indeed 'rational', as you say, Corpsey - in a sense it's nothing more than the business rules of that particular world.)

you
16-12-2016, 12:05 PM
Yeah that's true, I guess the disparity of coverage is down to the middle classes not feeling threatened by inner city gun violence in the same way. It's the same reason I (shamefully) don't really blink if I see there's been a terrorist attack in Iraq. but the merest hint of one in London or Paris hypnotises me. 'It could be you' is what that says. Definitely agree that there's an inherent racism in the ease with which violence in poverty stricken areas is accepted and dismissed.

I guess what makes the rampaging nerd seem more psychologically interesting is that drug related violence seems somehow (terribly) 'rational', whereas a person who has all the material comforts in the world going postal defies our expectations of what financial security and education provides us with. In fact it's the very violation of that security which connects the postal loner with the ISIS militant. (And Breivik was probably the best example of somebody who combined angry loner nerdiness with militant ideological fervour).

Without wanting to put too much onus on the particular individuals' problems (and privileging the more privileged, as I've said I have a problem with), the worrisome difference between deaths and crime that relates obviously to poverty and deaths and crime that are caused by an individual's ideological issues or social isolation is that the latter is somehow not solved by prosperity.

It is an unnerving prospect. Death and crime rates linked to economic inequality are an easy reconcile for many. 'Well, it is a poor area...y'know'. But death and crime caused by a middle-class sleeper-cell cannot be reconciled in the same fashion. I think this is part of why privileged violent criminals (especially those from a traditional family, with education and wealth) are so fascinating to many.

Of course, this economic or family based view of crime is wrong. It is myopic. People are complex and commit crimes for many reasons. This view also prejudices the poor by disallowing a nuanced understanding of their problems whilst affording that to the acting-out boy from a 'good home'.

Surely this is why ruminating about the impetus of Kaczynski or McVeigh is more troubling than considering Pedro Lopez's?

A note on terrorism. I've often thought the parallel between young ('Muslim') men who go to Syria to fight for ISIS and their (mostly white British) counter parts, those wannabe soldiers, who also went to such regions to fight against ISIS are indicative of the same ideological and cultural poverty. That the UK offers young men nothing, no social support (try actively supporting a premier league football team on Jobseekers allowance, or even going out at all) - no sense of identity, purpose or value. I'm not really saying a crisis of masculinity is the issue, more that notions of masculinity are narrower today than before (oddly).

you
16-12-2016, 12:20 PM
Going to expand on that last line before you flame me. The dismantling of masculinity since the 80's was a good thing. It is good thing. But I now feel that there is a rampant return of gender binaries - but in much more acute terms. Whereas before each role was diverse (to a point) now each mode is limited. Machismo is about money and muscle... gone are the trade and industry senses of identity, worth and pride. Also dwindling are access to social pursuits that provide any sense of belonging. Mercedes on instagram and pump sessions beneath TV's that depict lavish always-summer lifestyles are the contemporary surrogates - at a time when gender binaries are returning. I caught a moment of the apprentice last night, a young man was being told to be more aggressive and forceful - told to be strong (this is laughable 80's bro-economics, all about boardroom tigers and that shit). But think of the disjunct between that scene what is expected of him outside the shiny boardroom spaces - shopping, selfies 'reality' TV are all that is left. Surely this is why certain fantasy TV is so successful - the crass fantasy machismo or Game of Thrones stands in stark contrast to the disingenuous equality depicted/staged in Bake Off or Made in Chelsea.

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 01:17 PM
You're on dangerous ground dissing GoT!

you
16-12-2016, 01:33 PM
I really dislike it. It is regressive in almost every way. Feudal hierarchies, suffering women and powerful and/or violent men. Even in terms of fantasy and sci-fi (that has always had a dodgy side with unequal gender representations) it is poor. The retort I hear most is that 'ah yes, but the character development and depth of emotion...' what? So this outdated sexist machismo is OK if it is elaborated in great detail? Pur-leeze. It is precisely this type of stuff that is the soft propagation of unequal values. As bad as Barbie and Ken, or worse.

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 01:44 PM
I think GoT is a bit more complicated than that, although that's an interesting POV on why it should be so popular right now. It's an interesting point re: suffering women, but OTOH that seems to have been the condition women have historically had to live with and continue to live with in many societies, and even in our society, though perhaps in subtler forms.

The 'strong' and violent men in GoT tend to be depicted unsympathetically (one of the few likeable characters in it is Tyrion Lannister, who generally avoids violence wherever possible and gets it in the neck on several occasions for treating women as more than objects... whereas the arch-villain is Joffrey, who sees everybody, and especially women, as objects). There's also female characters in powerful roles, and they tend to be among the only characters we are encouraged to root for. (Cersei and the Red Woman are two obvious exceptions.)

Of course this is all belied by the show's regrettable insistence on having women take their tops off. A large part of the show's appeal is the sex and violence. Even so, I don't think the violence in GOT, as gratuitous as it might be, tends to be the sort you cheer along with. It's closer to watching a horror film, and enjoying the shock and stimulation of being repulsed.

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 01:47 PM
I really dislike it. It is regressive in almost every way. Feudal hierarchies, suffering women and powerful and/or violent men. Even in terms of fantasy and sci-fi (that has always had a dodgy side with unequal gender representations) it is poor. The retort I hear most is that 'ah yes, but the character development and depth of emotion...' what? So this outdated sexist machismo is OK if it is elaborated in great detail? Pur-leeze. It is precisely this type of stuff that is the soft propagation of unequal values. As bad as Barbie and Ken, or worse.

At the end of the last series, the fate of basically the entire world lies in the hands of about eight women. Seriously.

vimothy
16-12-2016, 01:50 PM
That the UK offers young men nothing, no social support (try actively supporting a premier league football team on Jobseekers allowance, or even going out at all) - no sense of identity, purpose or value.

So is the problem that these guys are still mainlining "toxic social conservatism" from some mysterious source (Game of Thrones, death metal), or that the advanced stages of liberal capitalism have undercut all the institutions that might once have given their lives meaning and replaced them with simulacra (Game of Thrones, death metal) and the ideology that it's all been for the best? I.e., is the problem a dearth of alienation, or an excess of it?

firefinga
16-12-2016, 02:04 PM
Of course this is all belied by the show's regrettable insistence on having women take their tops off. A large part of the show's appeal is the sex and violence. Even so, I don't think the violence in GOT, as gratuitous as it might be, tends to be the sort you cheer along with. It's closer to watching a horror film, and enjoying the shock and stimulation of being repulsed.

I have only watched half an episode (so I am hardly an expert) but isn't that supposed to be set in the Middle Ages of sort? If so, there is way to little topless action going on. After all, the Middle Ages were times of bebauchery.

droid
16-12-2016, 02:05 PM
Without commenting on the TV show, which simplifies many of the themes of the books, one thing that Martin did quite effectively was break down the standard fantasy tropes - the evil queen as fearful mother, the noble idealist ending up on the executioners block, the poisonous dwarf using politics for the greater good. This is reflected in his depiction of the effect of medieval warfare on normal people and the general moral greyness of nearly every major character.

you
16-12-2016, 02:11 PM
GoT - I've only seen a few episodes from the first season (and the odd one from later seasons that I felt lost in). Still think my point stands. If the machismo of cop drama can be updated with The Killing, The Bridge, The Fall etc then surely fantasy can. Can't really put too much emphasis on fantasy's influence on white western male adolescence... gaming etc.

Vimothy - I feel both. It is a case of mixed messages. To put it in very simple, crude, terms, just to make the point... it is how film and computer games (generally) enforce regressive social conservatism. 'Men' solve problems and succeed by force. But when they turn up to work the next day the power relations are based on caring and social skills.

Of course, such mixed messages are only an issue if you require an answer about what being a 'man' is. But surely anyone can sympathise with a young male nerd's proclivity want to answer this question. Growing up stuff.

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 02:25 PM
I have only watched half an episode (so I am hardly an expert) but isn't that supposed to be set in the Middle Ages of sort? If so, there is way to little topless action going on. After all, the Middle Ages were times of bebauchery.

Yeah, but there's definitely a lot of leering camera shots and although there are some flaccid knobs on show, not nearly as many as there are perky breasts.

I'd be a liar to pretend I don't actually derive some enjoyment from this aspect of the show on a purely loinal level, but it's regrettable from the POV of undermining the show's more enlightened concerns and attitudes towards gender.

This stuff has (as far as I remember) declined over the years, suggesting that for the first few seasons they were using tits to sell a tough sell.

Similar stuff is going on in 'Westworld' from what I've seen of it.

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 02:26 PM
GoT - I've only seen a few episodes from the first season (and the odd one from later seasons that I felt lost in). Still think my point stands. If the machismo of cop drama can be updated with The Killing, The Bridge, The Fall etc then surely fantasy can. Can't really put too much emphasis on fantasy's influence on white western male adolescence... gaming etc.


Are you saying that The Killing is an updating of the macho cop drama as in a break from? Or as a continuation of, what with its suffering women and violent men?

you
16-12-2016, 02:46 PM
Corpsey - for the detectives, it is a progressive and realistic update. And there are a whole bunch of decent police shows that balance the problems of entrenched sexism and heroic female leads. Police shows have really moved on from The Sweeney - rightly so. And shows like The Fall, that show equality in the face of archaic sexism are particularly good. Contrast these with something like Homeland... which just pretends everyone is equal by having a sillily heroic female lead like Mathison (who nonetheless is, prone to hysterics and must be kept in line by the ever pragmatic (cos men reason) patrician figure Saul).

firefinga
16-12-2016, 02:51 PM
In general, people in GoT (like in most other Middle Ages shows/movies) have too good teeth. Only Monty Python paid attention to the generally bad teeth situation of the Middle ages in their films.

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 03:05 PM
In general, people in GoT (like in most other Middle Ages shows/movies) have too good teeth. Only Monty Python paid attention to the generally bad teeth situation of the Middle ages in their films.

That was just the normal teeth of English people in the 1970s, wasn't it?

vimothy
16-12-2016, 03:05 PM
Vimothy - I feel both. It is a case of mixed messages. To put it in very simple, crude, terms, just to make the point... it is how film and computer games (generally) enforce regressive social conservatism. 'Men' solve problems and succeed by force. But when they turn up to work the next day the power relations are based on caring and social skills.

Films and computer games are hardly bastions of "social conservatism". They do however depict the heroic, and on some base level that appeals to people (especially men). So it's good for business. Is this last redoubt of heroic values really the cause of the mass-murdering nerd? I'm skeptical. Suppose you removed this outlet for masculine fantasy (to be replaced with something that attempted to inculcate progressive values more systematically, I suppose); who's to say that school shootings would go down, and not up?

you
16-12-2016, 03:15 PM
I'd never go as far to say it is the cause. But the level of film and computer game's influence on young people certainly plays into the complex myriad of reasons why they act-out. The Matrix's influence on Columbine was certainly overblown, but I'd wager that statistically most Hollywood heros are still violent males.

If you want to find a single reason for such crimes it must be access to firearms.

vimothy
16-12-2016, 03:17 PM
These sorts of things are overdetermined. Certainly access to firearms is necessary, but it's also obviously not sufficient.

droid
16-12-2016, 03:23 PM
This is an interesting book. Goes way over the top, but some of the arguments are persuasive.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64821.Going_Postal


Going Postal examines the phenomenon of rage murder that took America by storm in the early 1980's and has since grown yearly in body counts and symbolic value. By looking at massacres in schools and offices as post-industrial rebellions, Mark Ames is able to juxtapose the historical place of rage in America with the social climate after Reaganomics began to effect worker's paychecks. But why high schools? Why post offices? Mark Ames examines the most fascinating and unexpected cases, crafting a convincing argument for workplace massacres as modern day slave rebellions. Like slave rebellions, rage massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Going Postal seeks to contextualize this violence in a world where working isn't—and doesn’t pay—what it used to. Part social critique and part true crime page-turner, Going Postal answers the questions asked by commentators on the nightly news and films such as Bowling for Columbine.

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 03:38 PM
This guy's been studying school shooters for decades:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-twisted-minds-of-school-shooters-and-the-anguished-man-who-studies-them/2016/06/30/44987378-2e4e-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html?utm_term=.bd6fac56aeaf

Here's his website:

https://schoolshooters.info/

Strictly for the morbidly interested.

you
16-12-2016, 03:40 PM
Vim - yes, necessary. But not the impetus for the intention. I do not feel there is a single core reason for the latter.

Droid - I've seen that book before. From the blurb this is along the lines of what I was trying (and obviously failing) to articulate a few pages ago. That on the one hand there is a culture of 'do your best and you'll be rewarded' with a reality of economic stratification, hopelessness, glass ceilings and inequality. This is one of the quite depressing facets of Berardi's Heroes book. The desperation and hopelessness. The plethora of violent crimes we are probably all thinking of (in particular school shootings) are not winning acts (this is why they are not analogous to The Matrix, I'm sure the perpetrators do not think the acts will solve any problems) but acts of hopeless desperation and frustration - perhaps this somewhat accounts for the conspicuous conclusion (in planning and execution) for so many massacres: suicide.

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 03:52 PM
The school shooter phenomenon is more about the supposed glamour of being a badman, isn't it? I mean a literal bad guy, a villain, far moreso than any idea of 'heroism' (a hero(ine) is by definition someone who puts their own wellbeing at risk for the sake of others, after all). Hence the stereotypical fascination with famous historical serial killers, dictators - especially Hitler, obviously - and transgressive music that fetishizes totalitarian imagery, violent crime, and so on - be it old-skool industrial, Marilyn Manson, Geto Boys, Insane Clown Posse or whatever.

It struck me a while ago that if Hitler were alive today, as an 18-year-old, he'd be the kind of kid who owns a large collection of books about Hitler. If you see what I mean.

firefinga
16-12-2016, 04:46 PM
I'd never go as far to say it is the cause. But the level of film and computer game's influence on young people

The bad influence of Computer games mostly is getting/staying overweight

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 04:49 PM
I think most of them don't think of themselves as villains, but as heroic, avenging angels, revenging themselves on a villainous world. They also tend to see their forebears as heroic, especially the Columbine killers. The virginia tech murderer with his videotaped manifesto and his selfie poses echoing the heroic avenger in 'Old Boy'. And let's not forget that these guys usually kill themselves, also: they feel themselves to be martyrs. Breivik again is a great example: liked to portray himself as a heroic knight.

firefinga
16-12-2016, 05:01 PM
The school shooter phenomenon is more about

Has got mainly to do with taking revenge for being neglected/expelled/mobbed and the easy access to firearms more likely. There have been four major cases in Germany in the 2000s. All of them have either dropped out of school (due to low performance) or been victims of mobbing. They had easy access to weapons (one was already a member of a shooting club - the Erfurt case - or took the guns from his father, a sports marksman.

That they used chatrooms and were playing computer games isn't cutting it at all, bc there are millions doing the same and not running amok. 4 shootings between 2002 and 2009 (meaning 5 million male students between 10 and 19) makes these school shootings statistically ABSOLUTLEY neglectable.

NOTE: I am referring to the German cases here.

luka
16-12-2016, 05:19 PM
Game of thrones is the best telly ever.
The matrix is the best film ever

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 05:34 PM
school shooters and ISIS attacks draw focus of media attention with the sense that absolutely anybody, including the economically prosperous and educated, could be targeted, and there's nothing you could do about it.

Benny B
16-12-2016, 05:57 PM
Films and computer games are hardly bastions of "social conservatism". They do however depict the heroic, and on some base level that appeals to people (especially men). So it's good for business. Is this last redoubt of heroic values really the cause of the mass-murdering nerd? I'm skeptical. Suppose you removed this outlet for masculine fantasy (to be replaced with something that attempted to inculcate progressive values more systematically, I suppose); who's to say that school shootings would go down, and not up?

Impressively bleak view of manhood this: ; if men don't have their fantasy 'outlet' where they can channel their violent impulses, then they're more likely to go on shooting sprees. Imagine if that was a proven fact, what would this say about men's nature? I'm very critical of masculinity, but I'm a bit more optimistic than that about what would happen if we curbed some of this stuff (or at the least started questioning it more).

I mean in a way, I can see your line of thought (given that we're nowhere near to agreeing on what these values might be), but does that mean we shouldn't bother trying to replace them with more progressive values? To me it sounds a lot like that argument that if you took porn and prostitution away from men as an outlet, there'd be more rape, so we'd better not! Which sounds like a horrible excuse for defending something that men simply feel entitled to do and want to continue doing, a way of justifying harmful behaviour, abstaining from responsibility and dodging criticism.

Fantasy is never just fantasy, it always has real-world repercussions. Obviously its not as simple as 'heroic values in video games and films cause the mass murdering nerd', and I'm not campaigning to ban GOT or whatever, but like you say, its 'good business' so there's no brakes on any of this stuff and it has a massive psychological effect. Makes sense to look at the connections between it all at least.

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 06:09 PM
Has got mainly to do with taking revenge for being neglected/expelled/mobbed and the easy access to firearms more likely. There have been four major cases in Germany in the 2000s. All of them have either dropped out of school (due to low performance) or been victims of mobbing. They had easy access to weapons (one was already a member of a shooting club - the Erfurt case - or took the guns from his father, a sports marksman.

That they used chatrooms and were playing computer games isn't cutting it at all, bc there are millions doing the same and not running amok. 4 shootings between 2002 and 2009 (meaning 5 million male students between 10 and 19) makes these school shootings statistically ABSOLUTLEY neglectable.

NOTE: I am referring to the German cases here.

Probably there are (somewhat) different causes from case to case and from country to country.

'mobbing' = bullying, I assume?

And yes, "Call of Duty turned normal boy into psycho murderer" is obviously a complete non-starter of an argument.

firefinga
16-12-2016, 06:10 PM
Probably there are (somewhat) different causes from case to case and from country to country.

'mobbing' = bullying, I assume?

right, "mobbing" is a German expression meaning indeed bullying

vimothy
16-12-2016, 06:46 PM
Impressively bleak view of manhood this: ; if men don't have their fantasy 'outlet' where they can channel their violent impulses, then they're more likely to go on shooting sprees.

Well, maybe and maybe not. My point was that we don't understand the relationship and positing the causality as computer games -> mass killings is speculative, at best. The causality might just as easily run in the opposite direction. We have no idea and no obvious way to find out.

vimothy
16-12-2016, 06:58 PM
Although I can offer up an even bleaker view of manhood: if men don't have their fantasy 'outlet' where they can channel their violent impulses (to include real violence, with a symbolic function), then they will have already ceased to be human.

Benny B
16-12-2016, 07:24 PM
Although I can offer up an even bleaker view of manhood: if men don't have their fantasy 'outlet' where they can channel their violent impulses (to include real violence, with a symbolic function), then they will have already ceased to be human.

Do you think same goes for women?

Leo
16-12-2016, 07:50 PM
Although I can offer up an even bleaker view of manhood: if men don't have their fantasy 'outlet' where they can channel their violent impulses (to include real violence, with a symbolic function), then they will have already ceased to be human.

is your claim that all humans have violent impulses? or that one isn't human if one doesn't have violent impulses? or is it that having the fantasy outlet enables them to be human?

whatever way, it sounds unprovable.

luka
16-12-2016, 07:55 PM
It's confusing isn't it Leo. What on earth do you mean vim?

luka
16-12-2016, 07:59 PM
The Anal Emotional-Territorial Circuit: Imprinted by the toddler first learning to walk, this circuit deals with matters of power: domination and submission
;)

vimothy
16-12-2016, 08:29 PM
Violence is a part of man.

Leo
16-12-2016, 08:35 PM
Violence is a part of man.

man or human? as benny said, what about women? and monks?

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 08:35 PM
I think people all have violent impulses. Humans are animals, violence got us where we are.

That said, I think most ppl have a distaste for violence, which is perhaps a further evolution? Even the Nazi death squads had to get blind drunk to carry out their massacres. Other than the born psychopaths, who thankfully are a tiny minority.

luka
16-12-2016, 08:38 PM
Smash bash leave a fat gash don't let me get rude and draw for the mash

craner
16-12-2016, 08:44 PM
Probably the fundamental way to distinguish Luke's view of life and my own is by comparing our favorite films.

The Matrix vs Ghostbusters

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 08:44 PM
The Anal Emotional-Territorial Circuit

That's a Coil LP, isn't it?

Corpsey
16-12-2016, 08:49 PM
Probably the fundamental way to distinguish Luke's view of life and my own is by comparing our favorite films.

The Matrix vs Ghostbusters

New thread

luka
16-12-2016, 09:05 PM
Ghostbusters was before my time.

craner
16-12-2016, 09:06 PM
No it wasn't. You're only one year younger than me.

luka
16-12-2016, 09:10 PM
It was a long year that year, went on for months

craner
16-12-2016, 09:12 PM
You're also a Birther Conspiracy Theorist on the question of Craner. You reckon I'm 48 or something.

vimothy
16-12-2016, 09:15 PM
Who looks older? Let's have pictures and a poll.

luka
16-12-2016, 09:18 PM
We're both well preserved but craners kept his hair. He's looking a little drawn with stress but otherwise is in good nick. My youthful outlook on life keeps a twinkle in my eye and a spring in my step.

craner
16-12-2016, 09:18 PM
Some woman in the pub the other day said I looked 28. I haven't had kids, have all my hair, remain skinny, and good teeth (gums are playing up, though).

luka
16-12-2016, 09:18 PM
https://www.instagram.com/p/BNuahZbBC0s/

This is craner

vimothy
16-12-2016, 09:19 PM
There's the making of some great Tinder profiles here.

luka
16-12-2016, 09:21 PM
https://www.instagram.com/p/BIft2DLBC3l/

This is me

craner
16-12-2016, 09:22 PM
Ha ha, fuck off.

Vimothy, Luke and I compete on all fronts. It's an edgy friendship.

luka
16-12-2016, 09:22 PM
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHEw4EuhOfO/

Or is this Craner?

craner
16-12-2016, 09:23 PM
My good looks have been compromised by loss of weight, not addition.

Mr. Tea
16-12-2016, 09:48 PM
I thought this was Craner?

http://www.asterix-obelix.nl/images/albums/characters/c-bard.jpg

craner
16-12-2016, 09:50 PM
You got it.

Corpsey
19-12-2016, 01:38 PM
i was saying this on facebook the other day. i think the new empowered entitled nerd is a blight on our times. its especially posioned the interent. nerds were ok when they just shunned society and played role playing games together in closed communities. now theyre martin skhrkel or whatever.
theyre politics are gross. they are physically and morally repulsive. i think we must eradicate them.

Shows how credulous I am that I missed the ironic intent I assume was behind your initial posts!

I was kinda onside with the getting rid of nerds thing.

Assuming you aren't a nerd and (more audaciously) that I'm not one either!

luka
19-12-2016, 01:42 PM
i dunno, i think i meant it at the time. cant remember.

Corpsey
19-12-2016, 02:55 PM
It's clear to me that you're parodying the anti-nerd rhetoric that has arisen in the wake of Trumpmania. The blaming of this problem on nerds, rather than on people who enjoy watching American Football and committing hate crimes.

I only worked this out because I was confused by the fact that you were defending the angry nerds who shoot up schools even though initially you'd been saying nerds are a scourge to society.

luka
19-12-2016, 02:57 PM
maybe im just confused

vimothy
21-12-2016, 12:50 PM
Excellent article on the "empowered nerd", "toxic masculinity", school shootings and the "beta rebellion" by Angela Nagle..

According to Nagle, the conventional wisdom is that the misogyny of certain online "geek" communities is due to the influence of the patriarchy, traditional gender roles, "toxic masculinity", etc:


It’s easy to mistake the beta rebellion for a youthful... variation on the bad old tradition of patriarchy. Yet the phenomenon bears the unmistakable signs of a new, net-bred brand of misogyny. It exists squarely within the libertarian ethos that infused computer cultures spanning from the early, back-to-the-land, frontier hacker culture of the sixties and seventies to the Californian rebel capitalism of the dotcom neoliberalism of the nineties.

As the same frontier sensibility that characterized early Internet culture also runs through American gun culture, it’s no great surprise that the rites of gun worship and principled geek isolation should overlap... But this seamless convergence of women-demonizing forces is, indeed, something new under the sun, an innovative incarnation of the free-floating male grievance that... metastasizes through culture. It’s striking... to note just how thoroughly both the press and the social media-centric feminist commentariat have consigned the beta rebellion to the dustbin of outmoded patriarchy....

In... Cybersexism, feminist journalist Laurie Penny admits that the culture of digital woman-hating does indeed have a surface affinity with geek culture, but then goes on to suggest that online misogyny is a conservative remnant of the pre-Internet past....

Academics have echoed this view, characterizing online misogyny as the politics of conservatism and patriarchy reproducing itself anachronistically in new media, or as just another emanation of hegemonic masculinity....

In response to Harper-Mercer’s massacre, Salon ran the headline, “Toxic Masculinity Is Tearing Us Apart.” The Huffington Post and Ms. magazine ran articles declaring the problem was “masculinity, masculinity, masculinity.” Writer Soraya Chemaly asserted, “What we really need... is a public conversation about hegemonic masculinity in the United States.... Schools, parents, coaches and religious communities all need to be thinking deeply about how traditional ideas about gender and gender stereotypes work to create a national culture.”

However, that view doesn't really capture the true dynamic of these online communities, which have little to do with social conservatism in any sense or with conventional notions of masculinity:


But how, exactly, does “hegemonic masculinity” accurately sum up a scene explicitly identifying as beta male? And can “traditional ideas about gender” really be bursting forth from an Internet culture that also features gender-bending pornography, discussions about bisexual curiosity, and a male My Little Pony fandom? What’s more, can a retreat from the traditional authority of the nuclear family into an extended adolescence of videogames, porn, and pranks really be described as patriarchal?

Those seeking to defend their ideological turf will say that the killers are measuring themselves against a damaging masculine ideal, but at what point is this stretching the hegemonic masculinity theory so far that it becomes tautological—and a rote explanation for all bad male behavior?

In fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel. In her 2005 book Masculinities, Connell lists the words “nerd” and “geek” among the terms that stigmatize marginal masculinities....

The self-organized corps of women-hating men, by the lights of conventional academic-feminist theory, should be united in the repression of any and all gay male tendencies expressed online. But 4chan/b/ traffics openly in gay and trans pornography and hosts discussions of bisexual attraction....

Similarly, the beta view of gender is complicated by an anti-mass-culture outlook. As copycat threats multiplied on /r9k/ after the Harper-Mercer shootings, one commenter advised, “Make sure you got molotovs. it is really easy and painfully [sic] way to kill many normies.” Another wrote that “Chads and Staceys” should be targeted.... As his name none too subtly suggests, Chad is a stand-in for the young, attractive, muscular football player claiming dominance over the beta-world in the contest for sexual success with women....

As one patiently surveys the varieties of online expression favored by beta males, it becomes apparent that, in addition to their all too palpable sense of self-loathing, they’re further actuated by a pronounced sort of class contempt. One key source of their rage—against both the sexual pecking order and society at large—is that their own sense of superiority over the masses, the unspecial “normies,” is not reflected back to them by others in real life.n fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel. In her 2005 book Masculinities, Connell lists the words “nerd” and “geek” among the terms that stigmatize marginal masculinities....

The self-organized corps of women-hating men, by the lights of conventional academic-feminist theory, should be united in the repression of any and all gay male tendencies expressed online. But 4chan/b/ traffics openly in gay and trans pornography and hosts discussions of bisexual attraction....

Similarly, the beta view of gender is complicated by an anti-mass-culture outlook. As copycat threats multiplied on /r9k/ after the Harper-Mercer shootings, one commenter advised, “Make sure you got molotovs. it is really easy and painfully [sic] way to kill many normies.” Another wrote that “Chads and Staceys” should be targeted.... As his name none too subtly suggests, Chad is a stand-in for the young, attractive, muscular football player claiming dominance over the beta-world in the contest for sexual success with women....

As one patiently surveys the varieties of online expression favored by beta males, it becomes apparent that, in addition to their all too palpable sense of self-loathing, they’re further actuated by a pronounced sort of class contempt. One key source of their rage—against both the sexual pecking order and society at large—is that their own sense of superiority over the masses, the unspecial “normies,” is not reflected back to them by others in real life.

The New Man of 4chan (http://thebaffler.com/salvos/new-man-4chan-nagle), Angela Nagle, Baffler

Mr. Tea
21-12-2016, 01:12 PM
Interesting piece, vim, although I find it hard to believe that anyone is naive enough to be surprised that gay and bi men can be misogynists, too.

Corpsey
21-12-2016, 03:15 PM
Was just thinking that in the era of the geek billionaire, perhaps the 'entitlement' is coming from this?

Perhaps it's naive to think that nerds were ever happy about not getting the girls (or the money/power or whatever), but perhaps in this era they now feel they CAN, and therefore SHOULD.

vimothy
21-12-2016, 03:21 PM
Interesting piece, vim, although I find it hard to believe that anyone is naive enough to be surprised that gay and bi men can be misogynists, too.

Which certainly would be naive, but I don't think Nagle says or even implies that anywhere. It's more that the misogyny witnessed at online communities like 4chan is not routed in conventional masculine norms, the patriarchy, the traditional family, or any of the more "generic" explanations commonly offered in the media and academia.

Mr. Tea
21-12-2016, 04:46 PM
Which certainly would be naive, but I don't think Nagle says or even implies that anywhere.

Sure, I get that the author isn't saying that herself, but she says:


The self-organized corps of women-hating men, by the lights of conventional academic-feminist theory, should be united in the repression of any and all gay male tendencies expressed online.

Which would imply that "conventional academic-feminist theor[ists]", in Nagle's view, would find (e.g.) gay porn on 4chan very surprising. In which she may well be right, I dunno.


It's more that the misogyny witnessed at online communities like 4chan is not routed in conventional masculine norms, the patriarchy, the traditional family, or any of the more "generic" explanations commonly offered in the media and academia.

Yes, this seems very reasonable.

Benny B
22-12-2016, 12:15 PM
Which certainly would be naive, but I don't think Nagle says or even implies that anywhere. It's more that the misogyny witnessed at online communities like 4chan is not routed in conventional masculine norms, the patriarchy, the traditional family, or any of the more "generic" explanations commonly offered in the media and academia.

Interesting read but I don't really buy it tbh.

I really don't see how it follows that misogyny does not spring from the patriarchy just because they're geeks or identify as 'betas' or eternal adolescents or whatever. They just resent what the alphas have got and they do not, but they're still the same patriarchal values, its still based on male-supremacy and a sense of entitlement. They may hate themselves and other men for being above them in the hierarchy, but they're in no way bothered about smashing the patriarchial system itself. That's why I don't buy the idea that these nu-nerd misogynists are somehow anti-conservative. All they want is a reshuffle at the top of patriarchal pile, but the greater system of male supremacy would remain unaffected. A masculinity may be seen as 'marginal' compared to the mainstream 'alpha' male culture, but its still masculinity, and as men they're still born into privilege over women. Thats just patriarchy 101.

In other words, the 'sexual contract' which sustains patriarchy is being continually rewritten - apparently new 'types' of masculinity may emerge and evolve, the pecking order at the top of the hierarchy might be squabbled over - but the contract itself is not torn up. I think the seemingly 'new' strains of misogynistic behaviour can still be explained in terms of the overarching patriarchal structure.

And picking up on what Mr Tea said, the idea that being GBTQ being into 'porn and pranks', or consider themselves to be 'anti-establishment' in some way suggests they're NOT patriarchal is silly. These sort of myths got exploded years ago by people like Sheila Jeffreys, but people still seem to buy into them. I personally think we should be going and reading some of this stuff again to assess the current situation, not just dismissing it as "generic", 'traditional' or 'conventional'.

From later in the article...


Today, we see the weirdly parallel ascent of an Internet-centric feminism that, like the beta revolution, glories in geeky countercultural elitism, and whose most enthusiastic partisans spend a great deal of time attacking other women for being insufficiently radical. Many of these feminists are active on the microblogging site Tumblr, and they are less apt to write about material issues that have concerned left-wing feminists for decades, like parental leave or unequal pay, than about the online obsession du jour: from feminist video games to coloring books, cosplay, knitting, cupcakes, microaggressions, trigger warnings, no-platforming, bi-erasure, and the fastidious avoidance of anything remotely resembling cultural appropriation. The recent popular left candidates Bernie Sanders (in the United States) and Jeremy Corbyn (in the United Kingdom) have come in for heavy rhetorical fire from this new wave of wired feminists, who deride them both as retrograde prophets of “brocialism.”

This seems to be implying that the 'traditional' 'concerned left-wing" feminists of old are not also criticising popular left candidates like Sanders and Corbyn. But as far I can see,, by far the biggest and sharpest criticism of popular left 'brocialist' candidates like Corbyn and Sanders is actually coming from left-wing radical feminists (ie; 2nd wave)- including your Julie Bindels and so on, but also new waves of feminists - not the cyber-geeky 'internet-centric' lot she describes. I mean, yes, these third (fourth by now?) wavers occasionally do make noises against the left too, and liberal feminism has become very popular, but its not really a political movement in the sense that 2nd wave feminism was before it - its more individualist and identity-obsessed (some might say narcissistic) as she points out.

I didn't really like the article because, in (quite rightfully) bashing all the more silly, trendy liberal identity politics stuff, she throws the baby out with the bath water when she dismisses patriarchy as a cause of this 'new' misogyny, or a totally outdated way of analysing it. She just reduces the feminist landscape down to "conventional academic-feminist theorists" and these cyber geeky libfems like Laurie Penny and the rest. i thought it was very reductive in that respect.

Mr. Tea
22-12-2016, 02:01 PM
Can someone explain to me how Corbyn and Sanders are "brocialists" for reasons other than being A) left-wing and B) male?

vimothy
24-12-2016, 02:21 AM
One reason they can't be characterised in terms of socially conservative or masculine norms is they're consciously rejecting them. They think of themselves as "betas" and "failsons", not as inheritors of male authority. They shut themselves away from society and inhabit virtual worlds of computer games and anime porn, socially inept losers who resent "normies" and their ability to function "in real life". Just because they often turn out to be misogynistic arseholes doesn't make that any less true, and it doesn't make whatever institutions are emerging the continuation of traditional values or social structures. They are much closer to the complete antithesis of traditional values, -- a force of social dissolution, "everything solid melts into air" -- than social conservatism.

Zekk
03-01-2017, 10:50 PM
http://www.nerve.com/entertainment/five-reasons-geek-culture-should-go-away

Mr. Tea
05-01-2017, 12:59 PM
A masculinity may be seen as 'marginal' compared to the mainstream 'alpha' male culture, but its still masculinity, and as men they're still born into privilege over women. Thats just patriarchy 101.

Not convinced by this at all. A huge part of nerdish internetty misogyny revolves around sex, and the lack of availability thereof. Men who are neither attractive nor confident nor wealthy are obviously disadvantaged with respect to men who are at least one of those things, but in basic terms of the ability to get laid they're also worse off than the great majority of women. And that's without even going into the various kinds of social dysfunction and physical and mental illnesses that are more prevalent (in some cases by a massive margin) among men than among women.

Benny B
05-01-2017, 01:43 PM
Not convinced by this at all. A huge part of nerdish internetty misogyny revolves around sex, and the lack of availability thereof. Men who are neither attractive nor confident nor wealthy are obviously disadvantaged with respect to men who are at least one of those things, but in basic terms of the ability to get laid they're also worse off than the great majority of women. And that's without even going into the various kinds of social dysfunction and physical and mental illnesses that are more prevalent (in some cases by a massive margin) among men than among women.

"Getting laid" is not the be all and end all mr tea.

Mr. Tea
05-01-2017, 01:46 PM
"Getting laid" is not the be all and end all mr tea.

Sigh. Did I say that?

Nonetheless, it's something that's fairly (edit: let's face it, extremely) important to most people, isn't it? Very few people are voluntarily celibate.

luka
05-01-2017, 02:05 PM
its as close as you can get to a be all and end all, leaving aside basic survival necessities

Corpsey
05-01-2017, 03:14 PM
And, let's not forget (for God's sake), that many of these empowered nerds are adolescent boys.

Reminds me of this bit from The West Wing:

RELIGIOUS BLOKE: "Show the average American teenage male a condom and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust."
TOBY ZIEGLER: "Show the average American teenage male a lug wrench and his mind will --"

Perhaps it's best not to think of getting laid as the be all and end all, so much as a foundational need in some sense preceding 'higher' callings:

http://www.researchhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.gif

I'm well acquainted with all this, of course, because I never get laid. I know the importance of getting laid as the person crawling through the desert knows the importance of water.

luka
05-01-2017, 03:32 PM
Maslow

Mr. Tea
05-01-2017, 03:58 PM
Maslow

bless you

firefinga
05-01-2017, 04:42 PM
Not convinced by this at all. A huge part of nerdish internetty misogyny revolves around sex, and the lack of availability thereof. Men who are neither attractive nor confident nor wealthy are obviously disadvantaged with respect to men who are at least one of those things, but in basic terms of the ability to get laid they're also worse off than the great majority of women. And that's without even going into the various kinds of social dysfunction and physical and mental illnesses that are more prevalent (in some cases by a massive margin) among men than among women.

Expressions of sexual desire , even crudish ones, are not "misogynist" per se, either. And the frustration of not getting laid atall (or not getting laid by the right person) is possilby one of the main sources of frustration among men AND women today.

Mr. Tea
05-01-2017, 05:45 PM
Expressions of sexual desire , even crudish ones, are not "misogynist" per se, either.

Well no, of course not. And no-one's saying that. But frustrated sexual desire can easily curdle into resentment and outright hatred.


And the frustration of not getting laid atall (or not getting laid by the right person) is possilby one of the main sources of frustration among men AND women today.

You know it's weird, with all the wonderful technology we have these days you'd have thought someone'd be making a killing operating an online service that allows lonely, horny people to hook up with other lonely, horny people.

(Hmm, that sounds like a rather distasteful R.E.M. song. Wasn't meant to.)

luka
05-01-2017, 05:46 PM
Losers don't want to fuck other losers, as a rule

firefinga
05-01-2017, 06:00 PM
...and while we're on the subject of misogyny - the most misogynistic products of popular culture I have ever come across was coming from black rappers. I guess it's "black privilege" to call women Hoe and Bitch unless it's your mother.

you
05-01-2017, 06:10 PM
You know it's weird, with all the wonderful technology we have these days you'd have thought someone'd be making a killing operating an online service that allows lonely, horny people to hook up with other lonely, horny people.


What planet are you on? ;-) You know full well that the trick to making a 'killing' is to offer a platform that promises to allow lonely horny people to hook up yet seldom succeeds - thus maintaining return traffic for the data farm to increase yield and sell the user patterns on. Everyone knows that online social networks and services must ALWAYS promise without delivering. Friends and Facebook. Meaningful conversation and forums. Sex and dating apps. These platforms make nothing from friends, conversation or sex - the real yield is driven by the online activities of people who endlessly hope for such things. Go back to business school bro.

you
05-01-2017, 06:12 PM
I suppose you were always already sarcastic Tea?

sadmanbarty
05-01-2017, 06:39 PM
I'm well acquainted with all this, of course, because I never get laid.

If you don't mind me asking, what's stopping you?

luka
05-01-2017, 07:39 PM
his line of work means any woman he was involved with would be exposed to unconscionable degrees of danger and yet as a lifelong romantic he cannot abide cheap plastic one night stands with loose women.

Mr. Tea
05-01-2017, 07:48 PM
Me thinks he is just wasting too much time on almost deserted internet message boards

There was a woman here, once! Before your time. Some now openly doubt whether she ever even existed. But the old folk among us remember her still.

sadmanbarty
05-01-2017, 09:03 PM
his line of work means any woman he was involved with would be exposed to unconscionable degrees of danger and yet as a lifelong romantic he cannot abide cheap plastic one night stands with loose women.

https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/06/24/10/loosewomen.jpg

Benny B
06-01-2017, 08:56 AM
Not convinced by this at all. A huge part of nerdish internetty misogyny revolves around sex, and the lack of availability thereof. Men who are neither attractive nor confident nor wealthy are obviously disadvantaged with respect to men who are at least one of those things, but in basic terms of the ability to get laid they're also worse off than the great majority of women. And that's without even going into the various kinds of social dysfunction and physical and mental illnesses that are more prevalent (in some cases by a massive margin) among men than among women.

A nerd speaks... https://www.google.es/amp/s/dailydot.relaymedia.com/amp/via/nerds-geeks-privilege-feminism/

Mr. Tea
06-01-2017, 12:22 PM
A nerd speaks... https://www.google.es/amp/s/dailydot.relaymedia.com/amp/via/nerds-geeks-privilege-feminism/

So basically, nerds get fairly maligned for constantly insisting that they're unfairly maligned, lol.

As a subculture it does seem to involve a good deal of self-pity, which ends up being self-reinforcing because it's such an unattractive personality trait and is likely to provoke hostility or ridicule from outsiders. It has that in common with emo, I suppose.

Edit: I see he later appeals to the facile "video game difficulty settings" analogy, which is just so stupid I can't see how anyone can take it remotely seriously.

vimothy
06-01-2017, 01:30 PM
The term "privilege" mostly seems to be used as a tool of rhetorical one-up-manship between groups of privileged people.

Corpsey
06-01-2017, 01:34 PM
If you don't mind me asking, what's stopping you?

Years of accumulated shyness and neurosis, ultimately stemming from a paralysing fear of rejection... Probably covers it.

Thing is, I can remember being a teenager and basically not talking to any girls for most of the time, even though all my friends were friends or more with girls, and at that time forming this defensive mechanism of looking down on girls, thinking 'oh they just like jocks', etc. All the while subconsciously aware that really I was just terrified of them. Heading down a path of darkness.

Luckily, especially in the second year of university, I ended up living with some girls and being great friends with them, which was a real revelation to me, at the age of 20. And now quite a few of my best friends have vaginas. Still automatically scared of them to this day though! :rolleyes:

But I definitely can relate to some of these nerds gone postal. I can relate, too, to the PUA thing - I can't deny that I bought 'The Game' about five years ago and even entertained the idea of it 'curing' me or whatever. But I fairly quickly realised it was all utterly lame and sinister (has anyone ever read it? It's the most cringeworthy book I've ever perused), and most importantly wouldn't give you- the Beta reader - the balls you needed to actually talk to women in the first place.

And so now I live peaceably, a masturbating ascetic secluded in my hermitage, pleased to have become more acquainted with the fairer sex, my violent fantasies confined mainly to the daydream of rubbing out Piers Morgan with a Luger. :cool:

baboon2004
06-01-2017, 01:49 PM
...and while we're on the subject of misogyny - the most misogynistic products of popular culture I have ever come across was coming from black rappers. I guess it's "black privilege" to call women Hoe and Bitch unless it's your mother.

What a ridiculous post, particularly the second, regrettable sentence. The first might have some kind of truth value, if you haven't heard of this little-known underground white rapper called Eminem I guess (or like, lots of other white male rappers. Or that cult act The Rolling Stones), or considered that the increase in misogyny in hip hop coincided with a massive increase in its white suburban audience (which is a point bearing discussion), but the second sentence is just ugly in its stupidity.

Where to even start? Do you have a filter that prevents you hearing what non-black men say to women, and seeing what they do to women? "I know what a thread about misogyny needs. Some crude racism!" - is that your thought process?

Just depressing.

Mr. Tea
06-01-2017, 02:03 PM
The first might have some kind of truth value, if you haven't heard of this little-known underground white rapper called Eminem I guess (or like, lots of other white male rappers. Or that cult act The Rolling Stones)

Not sure the Stones' lyrics really bear comparison to, say, Geto Boys.

firefinga
06-01-2017, 02:04 PM
What a ridiculous post, particularly the second, regrettable sentence. The first might have some kind of truth value, if you haven't heard of this little-known underground white rapper called Eminem I guess (or like, lots of other white male rappers. Or that cult act The Rolling Stones), but the second is just ugly in its stupidity.

Where to even start? Do you have a filter that prevents you hearing what non-black men say to women, and seeing what they do to women? "I know what a thread about misogyny needs. Some crude racism!" - is that your thought process?

Where's the racism? I was referring to the bitch n hoe fest of SOME black rappers. That statement is true for that group only, and it's very well damn true. It actally shows the double standard a lot of the "progessives" have on these issues, meaning they keep their mouths shut in specific cases, when they are supposed to be "critical".

firefinga
06-01-2017, 02:31 PM
or considered that the increase in misogyny in hip hop coincided with a massive increase in its white suburban audience (which is a point bearing discussion),

Yeah, those white suburban kids are all mysoginistic pricks, so why not take advantage of their racial predisposition and feed them some hyper-masculinity black style bitch n hoe fest. We don't really mean it, but we like to take whiteys money.

sadmanbarty
06-01-2017, 05:13 PM
Years of accumulated shyness and neurosis, ultimately stemming from a paralysing fear of rejection... Probably covers it

If fear of rejection is the decisive factor, the first step would be to work outside the paradigm of acceptance and rejection. How about this weekend you talk to at least one lady stranger, but with a categorical rule that you will not ask for a number, a date or anything else with which she can reject you (you could even light-heartedly tell her you're not hitting on her or say you have a girlfriend). You don't have to make her laugh, make her like you, or keep the conversation going.

For you I'd recommend a book/music/dvd shop and use whatever she's perusing as the starting point of the conversation:

The conversation has to be under 3 mins sharp and you have to disagree with her at least once.

Try and talk about your aspirations and hers (especially if career comes up, emphasise what you're working towards in the future rather than what you do now).

Don't express any pessimism or neuroses to her at all.

Again, there is no rejection, you're literally making small talk with a stranger.

sadmanbarty
06-01-2017, 05:18 PM
"I know what a thread about misogyny needs. Some crude racism!"

Can I get that on a t-shirt?

baboon2004
06-01-2017, 06:01 PM
Not sure the Stones' lyrics really bear comparison to, say, Geto Boys.

They're writing in the 60s, Geto Boys in the early 90s, which I think explains the difference in form - intent is much the same. But Brown Sugar, Under My Thumb etc are grimly misogynist, and obvs racist too in the case of the first.

baboon2004
06-01-2017, 06:23 PM
Where's the racism? I was referring to the bitch n hoe fest of SOME black rappers. That statement is true for that group only, and it's very well damn true. It actally shows the double standard a lot of the "progessives" have on these issues, meaning they keep their mouths shut in specific cases, when they are supposed to be "critical".

1/ I never said that you said all black rappers were misogynistic - not my point at all. We both agree that you never said that.

2/ You said "the most misogynistic products of popular culture I have ever come across was coming from black rappers" - the racism comes in highlighting the misogyny of black rappers, as though white rappers or any other rappers aren't just as misogynist.
Bizarrely, that's fundamentally the same point as Lily Allen was making to Tommy Robinson earlier this week. The double standards are yours, not those of the 'progressives' - the crime only exists where the skin is black.
Also, watch any number of films (Scorsese has a few, tho I'm sure there're worse offenders I can't think of now) if you want to see white misogyny in popular culture. But I forgot, white men can have personas and characters (just how Eminem was allowed off the hook by some), and black men aren't allowed that luxury.

3/ "I guess it's 'black privilege' to call women Hoe and Bitch unless it's your mother."
Moving on from talking about rappers, and perpetuating general stereotypes about the supposed particular misogyny of black men, simultaneously seeming to be mocking the use of phrases like 'white privilege' by 'progressives' (but that's speculative on my part).
Without even mentioning that in the cases where black men DO use misogynist language against women, it's likely (due to our society and segregation) to be black women who bear the brunt. But hey, it only needs to be mentioned where perpetrators are black, not where victims are black, doesn't it?
And, if you've never heard white men use horrific language against women, then I suggest getting out more (or maybe not).

There are other points to be made, but life is short.

firefinga
06-01-2017, 06:28 PM
and black men aren't allowed that luxury.


They are CONSTANTLY allowed that luxury by "progressives". That's my point and it's a fact. And isn't Eminem a cheap copy anyways?

And that's the thing that bothers me.

firefinga
06-01-2017, 06:30 PM
Can I get that on a t-shirt?

would be fitting, after all this whole thread is about proto-racist stereotyping, namley of the "white" nerds.

baboon2004
06-01-2017, 06:35 PM
Yeah, those white suburban kids are all mysoginistic pricks, so why not take advantage of their racial predisposition and feed them some hyper-masculinity black style bitch n hoe fest. We don't really mean it, but we like to take whiteys money.

OH MY GOD. The point is that misogyny as a trait/system has no correlation with race. Some white men are misogynist, some black men are misogynist, and virtually all men make use of gender inequality an awful lot.

"We don't really mean it (it's all just a story)" - as above, see any number of white film directors (not to mention some white rappers).

"feed them some hyper-masculinity black style bitch n hoe fest" is pretty correct - that's how blackness is marketed to white kids in general. Black kids too. Point is that if white people can project all their aggression and violence into the spectre of the bestial black male, then they can pretend that they don't have any aggression and don't (as a group) commit ongoing violence on a grander scale than any other group in history.
Oldest story in the world, happens of course with the way the middle class conceives of the working class too.

Projection - one of the most useful concepts in understanding the world...ever! I might have misremembered, but didn't you say you lived in Austria? Your countryman invented it.

baboon2004
06-01-2017, 06:37 PM
They are CONSTANTLY allowed that luxury by "progressives". That's my point and it's a fact. And isn't Eminem a cheap copy anyways?

And that's the thing that bothers me.

No use saying something that isn't true, is a fact. You won't get anywhere that way. Again, the double standards are entirely yours.

truly remarkable - you seem to be saying that Eminem is only misogynist because he learned it from black rappers? Is that actually what you're saying?

Rhetorical question. I'm done here...

baboon2004
06-01-2017, 06:37 PM
Can I get that on a t-shirt?

Yes!

firefinga
06-01-2017, 06:42 PM
truly remarkable - you seem to be saying that Eminem is only misogynist because he learned it from black rappers? Is that actually what you're saying?

Rhetorical question. I'm done here...

I am just saying that he was critisized of being a copy of black rappers. Nothing more. You are adding "supposed" things here

Mr. Tea
06-01-2017, 10:48 PM
They're writing in the 60s, Geto Boys in the early 90s, which I think explains the difference in form - intent is much the same. But Brown Sugar, Under My Thumb etc are grimly misogynist, and obvs racist too in the case of the first.

Under My Thumb is a shitty, shitty song. That's not open to question. At the same time, it's not literally a celebration of rape and murder. FF is talking in very crude terms and his line about "black privilege" is ridiculous, but I get his point when he talks about relativism in this particular context.

Mr. Tea
06-01-2017, 10:55 PM
truly remarkable - you seem to be saying that Eminem is only misogynist because he learned it from black rappers? Is that actually what you're saying?


Well hang on, you implied earlier that black rappers only started making misogystic rap music in order to sell it to white audiences!

And while I'm probably the least qualified rap historian on Dissensus, I understand Geto Boys were pretty well established long before anyone had heard of Eminem.

CrowleyHead
08-01-2017, 03:04 PM
Re: Barty

This is an ideal scenario Barty, but admittedly this scenario while not for the goal of coupling, still reads of using a woman for empowerment and assurance of self? I don't mean that in a negative or accusatory way to your intent in describing a way to help or what have you. Just frankly if anyone who does this finds a subject who DOESN'T trust him, no matter the innocence, because of their own personal reactions to strangers starting a conversation, that's going to possibly fuel the sense of rejection.

Mind you my masculinity swings violently between Alpha and Omega (as in, "fucking hell, men ARE trash, this shit is the absolute worst, I don't want anyone to even look at me, woe is me, blah blah blah") so I don't know what works for whomever else. I just have my cynicism.

Now, as for this ugly rap conversation...

Crude misogyny getting attributed to black people is of course nom de rigeur or however you want to call it, and indeed, it becomes a playpen of liberal fantasy when nerds hear rappers get away with that. You can go back to Reynolds' rap-writing in the magazines in the 80s, where he's gleefully fascinated with the misogyny and homophobia of Schoolly D, Beastie Boys or Run-DMC; even the portrayal of Public Enemy as a hyper-right wing fascist group is embarrassing (though reasonable for someone divorced from Black American culture who would mistake 'Pantherist' gestures for militaristic conservatism (not that the scoops of N.O.I. rhetoric behind Chuck & Griff, which is inherently right-wing, didn't help lean things that way)) in how you see this individual playing up the archetypes of 'scary, menacing, tough blackness'.

There is also a fact that when you bring up old shit like The Rolling Stones they themselves are mimicking an exaggerated version of the blues where they feed on the misogyny of their favorite blues singers and camp it up. Rather than simply deny its existence in the source material, or put the blame on the source, I'd say the bigger issue of a Rolling Stones or an Eminem is how they recognize that and seize upon it to further a frame of mind they themselves may not even believe (Well, that's more probable with Mick than Marshall), and put it out into the world for the sake of personage. Which in itself is again, more fantasy of divorced liberal minds playing with stereotypes, justified in the fact that this black art may have similar themes.

The idea of the white audience is legitimate, but the idea that awful tropes were heavily promoted for the interest of white audiences is a fucking myth. Too Short was moving hundreds of thousands of units in the black community for cartoon misogyny, as were Geto Boys before Rick Rubin got to market them in their extremity to a whiter audience... Frankly the idea that 'gangster rap' is a conspiracy of white oppression is horse-shit, and a gesture of copelessness in the face of an overwhelmingly toxic society, usually perpetuated by underground rap fans who have a chip on their shoulder why their seemingly 'more nuanced' (oft sexless) faves hold less commercial esteem than some star. It also further makes these black artists who, say what you will about the moral leanings of their material, are inherently stupid minstrels when in reality the minstrelry nearly always comes best FROM the top-down.

Note that in all three of these points, the problem does return to Fucking Nerds in some way, shape or form.

Benny B
08-01-2017, 05:36 PM
So basically, nerds get fairly maligned for constantly insisting that they're unfairly maligned, lol.

As a subculture it does seem to involve a good deal of self-pity, which ends up being self-reinforcing because it's such an unattractive personality trait and is likely to provoke hostility or ridicule from outsiders. It has that in common with emo, I suppose.



yeah, well the point i was trying to make and which the nerd in the article also makes, is that women are oppressed as a class in all kinds of ways which males are not (though looking at male nerds provides some good examples of how the constraints of masculinity are bad for males too). There is not a class of oppressed nerds - indeed nerd culture and identity is pretty mainstream. And of course this thread is all about the 'empowered' nerd anyway.

None of this nerd behaviour - whether we're talking about 14 year old boys, computer programmers, mass murderers, twitter trolls, misogynists or whatever - goes against 'traditional' feminist readings of how masculinity works to sustain the patriarchy, which is what the article vimothy posted was saying and which I was objecting to.

Looking back to the start of the thread, 'you' was making some excellent points about male entitlement,;


Most of these (white-men in more affluent countries) people's gripes seems to be that they are not allowed to be automatically dominant, respected and privileged. I think rather than focus on how they are not these things it is better to ask why people still feel they deserve to be these things.


Breivik sees most of the worlds problems as being connected to the demise of the traditional family and the 'feminization of men'. Essentially he wants a older world, I hear.


I do not know for sure how people feel. Let's get this obvious truism out the way. But, look at the cultural materials these people tend to be smothered by. Hollywood depictions of masculinity, sexist gamer culture and phallonarcissistic heavy rock coupled with the ruse of neo-liberal economics implying to them that they are unique individuals with every right to rise to the top and get the girl if only they try hard and listen to their heart. Much narrative is aimed at framing spree-killers as being somehow 'let down' or being 'alienated' but let down from what? What does this line of narrative assume these people are entitled to?


My gripe is that there seems to be a certain empowered nerd gravity that distorts responses that examine the larger social issues. I'm not arguing on the basis of a hierarchy of hardship - I just feel social reflection is skewed by spectacle and privileges the nerd's cry for help.


The dismantling of masculinity since the 80's was a good thing. It is good thing. But I now feel that there is a rampant return of gender binaries - but in much more acute terms. Whereas before each role was diverse (to a point) now each mode is limited. Machismo is about money and muscle...


It is precisely this type of stuff that is the soft propagation of unequal values. As bad as Barbie and Ken, or worse.


'Men' solve problems and succeed by force.

I think these are good ways at looking at the problem - the enforcement of gender binaries is what the patriarchy relies on. Male nerds are not born into oppression. They consume all this stuff which consolidates these ideas and turns them into misogynists. They resent 'alphas' because they want what they have got. If they're not getting laid, they may be failing at so-called 'alpha' masculinity, but its not like they respond by becoming more 'feminine' - they channel their masculine aggression against women, the oppressed class. In terms of gender the nerd phenomenon is totally conservative.

Benny B
08-01-2017, 05:50 PM
As a subculture it does seem to involve a good deal of self-pity, which ends up being self-reinforcing because it's such an unattractive personality trait and is likely to provoke hostility or ridicule from outsiders. It has that in common with emo, I suppose.


Self-pity is actually a fairly common masculine trait. As are temper tantrums when you don't get what you feel entitled to as a man (ie; power over women). These misogynist 'beta' nerds are just as masculine as the 'alphas' in their own way, regardless of whether they're getting laid or not, or whether they identify themselves as 'failsons'.

Mr. Tea
08-01-2017, 06:56 PM
It's a pretty common human trait, IME. I've known women who could self-pity for England. But I suppose there are certain stereotypically male things to be self-pitying about.

Benny B
08-01-2017, 07:08 PM
Sure, but given the patriarchal context, I'm much more sympathetic to female neuroses than men's.

Mr. Tea
08-01-2017, 10:03 PM
Perhaps that in itself is part of the problem.

sadmanbarty
08-01-2017, 11:45 PM
Re: Barty This is an ideal scenario Barty, but admittedly this scenario while not for the goal of coupling, still reads of using a woman for empowerment and assurance of self? I don't mean that in a negative or accusatory way to your intent in describing a way to help or what have you. Just frankly if anyone who does this finds a subject who DOESN'T trust him, no matter the innocence, because of their own personal reactions to strangers starting a conversation, that's going to possibly fuel the sense of rejection.


First off, thanks for being understanding and not, as you say, negative or accusatory. In terms of gender politics obviously I understand that what I’ve written could be deemed in a negative light. All I would say is that I’d have given similar advice if he had other, non-gender related problem such as a fear of public speaking or a difficulty making friends. In those instances he would also be using people "for empowerment and assurance of self”, which I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing as long as nobody is harmed by him doing so. In the end it would just be Corpsey making chit chat with someone for a couple of minutes.

In terms of the practicality of my advice, that’s up to Corpsey to decide. People tend to be dismissive of sex, but as Luka says, it really is hugely important. From the little I know of Corpsey he seems like a sweet, interesting, funny guy so it’d be nice for him to overcome any problems he feels he has.

Mr. Tea
09-01-2017, 10:11 PM
Sure, but given the patriarchal context, I'm much more sympathetic to female neuroses than men's.

This comes around to something I was going to bring up earlier, in the context of that piece you linked to that mentioned the 'difficulty settings' analogy that I think is so badly misplaced.

The gist of it is that I think feminism would have far more success convincing a great number of men, and no small number of women, if some of its most vocal proponents stopped talking about 'male privilege' like it's this universal, absolute thing that gives all men an inbuilt advantage over all women in all possible respects. No doubt you're rolling your eyes and thinking "Oh come on, of course it's not meant to imply that", but it's very often used in a way that implies exactly that.

Now if you take the position that neuroses are the product of structural oppression, it's worth remarking on that depression and other kinds of mental illness, severe behavioural disorders, heart disease, substance abuse/addiction and suicide are all more prevalent among men than among women (by a factor of more than 3:1 for suicide, in this country). There's another big divergence here between traditional macho values, which would brush all this off with a smirk and a remark about wimps and pussies, and the kind of internet-enable misogyny discussed in this thread, which comes from young men who are justifiably concerned about these issues - perhaps suffering from some of them personally - but who then wrongly identify feminism, or women in general, as the root cause. And while I've read some great stuff that goes into detail about how these specific problems for the most part also come from patriarchal values - for instance, the idea that it's 'gay' to talk about feelings, fuelling the epidemic of mental health problems among teenage boys and young men - I've found many other instances where even trying to bring this up triggers a barrage of simply hilarious "WOT ABOUT TEH MENZ?!?!?!?" type responses. Whereas I'm inclined to say that, well actually, with suicide the leading cause of death among men under 45, "What about men?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. It just needs to be wrested back from the so-called MRAs who are only making things worse both for women and for themselves.

luka
09-01-2017, 10:37 PM
funnily enough this is one of those rare occasions on which I'm broadly in agreement with tea, to the extent I was thinking about this very subject yesterday.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 07:16 AM
Huh, well there's a thing! Good. I'll be interested to see what Benny makes of it.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 09:16 AM
funnily enough this is one of those rare occasions on which I'm broadly in agreement with tea, to the extent I was thinking about this very subject yesterday.

which part? that was such a typical mr tea post

Benny B
10-01-2017, 09:23 AM
The gist of it is that I think feminism would have far more success convincing a great number of men, and no small number of women, if some of its most vocal proponents stopped talking about 'male privilege' like it's this universal, absolute thing that gives all men an inbuilt advantage over all women in all possible respects. No doubt you're rolling your eyes and thinking "Oh come on, of course it's not meant to imply that", but it very often is used in a way that implies exactly that.

Well, no its not really meant to imply that. At least, not the way you put it.

Male privilege is a universal thing in all societies across the world however. Yes, of course gender intersects with economic class, race and so on, and it becomes incredibly complex to pick apart and see the nuances (which is what feminist studies of intersectionality do). But there is no society where women overall are not subordinate to men in terms of political power as a sex class, which affects every part of our culture and lives , public and private. As far as I know, pretty much every society in the world is patriarchal. The world is run by men.

If you're having a hard time understanding this, maybe its useful to compare it with that other great system of oppression, racism. A non-white man in the US can be relatively wealthy, middle-class and yet still be oppressed and discriminated against in other ways that aren't economic because the system is racist. Racism subsumes economic class differences, and so does gender on an arguably even more fundamental level.

And if you went up to a critical race theorist with a 'what about the whites?', 'why are you centring non-whites all the time?' jive I'd imagine you'd get pretty short shrift too. And so it goes with feminists.

Anyway, I think you're in danger of contributing to the demonisation of feminists here by misrepresenting their position (who are these 'most vocal proponents' you're talking about anyway?). My understanding is that gender critical feminists do not regard male privilege as an 'inbuilt advantage' anyway. On the contrary, they analyse how society imposes these roles and behaviours upon them. This is actually being very generous to men (much more so than vimothy's 'violence is a part of man' doom anyway!), leaving open the possibility and hope that men can work on unlearning these socialised behaviours.

Feminism is a woman-centred movement by definition. It is never gonna be easy on men. One thing maybe men should do is learn to take criticism better, and take responsibility for doing a bit of self-examination instead of sitting back and waiting to be 'convinced' by feminists.


Now if you take the position that neuroses are the product of structural oppression, it's worth remarking on that depression and other kinds of mental illness, severe behavioural disorders, heart disease, substance abuse/addiction and suicide are all more prevalent among men than among women (by a factor of more than 3:1 for suicide, in this country).

Of course its worth remarking on and feminists do so. Obviously feminism is more female-centred but there is plenty of stuff to be found about how masculinity is damaging to men too, if you do your reading. Again, I don't think you're being fair.


There's another big divergence here between traditional macho values, which would brush all this off with a smirk and a remark about wimps and pussies, and the kind of internet-enable misogyny discussed in this thread, which comes from young men who are justifiably concerned about these issues but wrongly identify feminism, or women in general, as the root cause. And while I've read some great stuff that goes into detail about how these specific problems for the most part also come from patriarchal values - for instance, the idea that it's 'gay' to talk about feelings, fuelling the epidemic of mental health problems among teenage boys and young men -

I'm with you on this, but then...


I've found many other instances where even trying to bring this up triggers a barrage of simply hilarious "WOT ABOUT TEH MENZ?!?!?!?" type responses. Whereas I'm inclined to say that, well actually, with suicide the leading cause of death among men under 45, "What about men?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

Haha, well what I see happen A LOT more often is guys bringing this question up in conversations with feminists in terribly clumsy, inappropriate, often patronising ways (if not actual out and out MRA misogynist types) and then they wonder why they get laughed at and derided. Whether you deserved it or not, if a woman has laughed at you for saying 'what about men?' and you don't think that's fair, I'd suggest just taking it on the chin or maybe avoid getting into these types of conversations in the first place, find someone else to talk to it about.

Maybe men need to be asking each other 'what about men?' first before getting sniffy that a woman hasn't given them the time of day for whatever reason. Many women are understandably very angry and the last thing they want to hear is 'what about the men' when they've heard it a millions times before, used against them. Believe me, I've read a lot of these sorts of exchanges on the net and its almost always just some sexist, whinging man-baby berating a woman.


It just needs to be wrested back from the so-called MRAs who are only making things worse both for women and for themselves.

Yeah, I mean it is essentially a good question, don't get me wrong. And feminists do have a lot more sympathy for men's problems than you might think, even radical feminists, and are more than willing to have these conversations about men. Its just that it tends to get asked with the wrong intentions.

sadmanbarty
10-01-2017, 10:37 AM
If my sister's anything to go by, in recent years (maybe for even longer) feminists have emphasised that gender roles are harmful to both men and women (though of course there shouldn't be any false equivalence, women are by far the biggest losers).

The racial comparison is an interesting one, though I imagine white men feel far more constrained by, and anxious to fulfil, the roll of being 'a man' then they are of being white. I can't imagine there's anyone worries that they're not white enough, whereas I'm sure there are millions of men worried that they're not 'manly' enough.

vimothy
10-01-2017, 10:54 AM
If you're having a hard time understanding this, maybe its useful to compare it with that other great system of oppression, racism.

Question for you, Benny: What effect dominates, in your view: sex, class, race, something else...?

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 01:07 PM
But there is no society where women overall are not subordinate to men in terms of political power as a sex class


Even Rwanda, where nearly 2/3 of MPs are women?


The world is run by men.

The world is run by ELITE men. In Britain, yes, most MPs are men, but most men are not MPs. Most homeless people are men, too, and there are a damn sight more homeless people than there are MPs. Men may occupy most of the positions at the top of society but they also occupy most of the positions at the very bottom, and there's a lot more room at the bottom than at the top.



If you're having a hard time understanding this, maybe its useful to compare it with that other great system of oppression, racism. A non-white man in the US can be relatively wealthy, middle-class and yet still be oppressed and discriminated against in other ways that aren't economic because the system is racist. Racism subsumes economic class differences, and so does gender on an arguably even more fundamental level.


Interesting you should bring up race. Did you know that white boys from poor families in the UK do less well at school, and are less likely to go to university, than kids from any other demographic? (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2016/09/lost-boys-how-white-working-class-got-left-behind) How does these kids' whiteness and maleness benefit them with regard to education and employment? Part of the problem is that, as is so often the case with committed identitarians, you're downplaying or ignoring altogether the issue of wealth and class. The strata of class of this country have become so immutable and impenetrable that when well-meaning liberal white guys write articles about privilege for broadsheet papers and blogs, of course they're going to focus on gender, culture and race, because they find it easier to imagine an alternative self who's black, Muslim and female (because they know people who answer this description) than one who's uneducated and poor. They pull out statistics on the number of female professors or black QCs because those are the crucial issues affecting the class they belong to. And of course they ARE extremely important, but they're a lot less immediately important to the great majority of people, who have zero chance of becoming a professor or a QC, regardless of their sex or skin colour.


(who are these 'most vocal proponents' you're talking about anyway?).

Well this Scalzi chap, for one. God knows how many bloggers and opinionators. It's not at all far from opinions you can read in the Guardian, Indy and HuffPo on any day of the week. And your good self, of course.



Haha, well what I see happen A LOT more often is guys bringing this question up in conversations with feminists in terribly clumsy, inappropriate, often patronising ways (if not actual out and out MRA misogynist types) and then they wonder why they get laughed at and derided. Whether you deserved it or not, if a woman has laughed at you for saying 'what about men?' and you don't think that's fair, I'd suggest just taking it on the chin or maybe avoid getting into these types of conversations in the first place, find someone else to talk to it about.

It's a response I've had when I've mentioned some of the issues I've gone into here in the most reasoned, non-inflammatory way possible. When I've responded to assertions that are just flat out, demonstrably untrue. Exactly as you do when you disagree vehemently with something someone has said or typed - right?


Maybe men need to be asking each other 'what about men?' first before getting sniffy that a woman hasn't given them the time of day for whatever reason. Many women are understandably very angry and the last thing they want to hear is 'what about the men' when they've heard it a millions times before, used against them. Believe me, I've read a lot of these sorts of exchanges on the net and its almost always just some sexist, whinging man-baby berating a woman.

I'm wondering what form "men asking each other 'what about men'" could take that you'd approve of. I can imagine anything other than "We're all terrible people, let's try and be less sexist and hopefully the world will gradually get better" would be interpreted as 'whining man-babies'.

There have been attempts to set up Men's Societies in UK universities in order to offer some support to the huge numbers of young men suffering various kinds of anxiety, depression, poor self-image, self-destructive behaviour and suicide ideation. With appropriate leadership, they could be a great way to promote progressive and constructive conversations about all sorts of things that young men think about, including, it need hardly be said, women. But the idea was instantly shot down in flames by existing Women's Societies on the grounds that they'd simply fill up with "MRAs". It's like, well if that's the prevailing attitude, then of course they would! If there is an automatic hostility to any men's space, then where such spaces do exist, such as online, they will inevitably end up as cesspits of misogyny.

This kind of extremely aggressive zero-sum-game feminism only 'opposes' the pustulant dwellers of 4chan in the same sense that Islam4UK 'opposes' the EDL. In reality, each feeds off the other. I disagree with vimothy on his fundamentally pessimistic view of human (and male) nature, but he's dead right about activists of the far right and far left being each other's mirror image.


Yeah, I mean it is essentially a good question, don't get me wrong. And feminists do have a lot more sympathy for men's problems than you might think, even radical feminists, and are more than willing to have these conversations about men. Its just that it tends to get asked with the wrong intentions.

OK, well that's good, I mean it shows the situation is not totally hopeless, at least. It's just that I'd thought I'd proofed myself against possible misunderstanding by going out of my way to explain where the ultimate cause of these problems lies - even if I think some strains of feminist discourse are in all likelihood making things worse.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 02:15 PM
If my sister's anything to go by, in recent years (maybe for even longer) feminists have emphasised that gender roles are harmful to both men and women (though of course there shouldn't be any false equivalence, women are by far the biggest losers).

I should reiterate that I've read a lot of good stuff that acknowledges this aspect.

(But I want to point out again that the relative advantages and disadvantages of being male or female are so hugely contingent on wealth, class and culture that trying to take any sort of overall view is going to be impossibly subjective. I mean, how do you weigh up the relatively small gap in school achievement between middle-class boys and girls against the chasmic difference in achievement between white boys and girls from the poorest backgrounds, against the shocking incarceration rate for young black men, against FGM, arranged marriages and 'honour' violence in some south Asian communities?)


The racial comparison is an interesting one, though I imagine white men feel far more constrained by, and anxious to fulfil, the roll of being 'a man' then they are of being white. I can't imagine there's anyone worries that they're not white enough, whereas I'm sure there are millions of men worried that they're not 'manly' enough.

If anything, there's a complex of inadequacies that connects being insufficiently manly with being too white.

vimothy
10-01-2017, 02:29 PM
The gender gap in school achievement favours girls, and has done for the last twenty years, incidentally.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 02:38 PM
The gender gap in school achievement favours girls, and has done for the last twenty years, incidentally.

Er, I know - that's what I've been getting at these last several posts. Or maybe you were clarifying for Benny's benefit, I dunno.

vimothy
10-01-2017, 02:40 PM
I was just throwing it out there, Ralph Wiggum style.

firefinga
10-01-2017, 02:43 PM
It strikes me how similar this "white privilege" dogma is to a secular version of the original sin.

vimothy
10-01-2017, 02:47 PM
And also, how American in its religiosity.

luka
10-01-2017, 02:52 PM
Like anything zealots can take it too far but you two are being hysterical. There's a wealth of evidence of all kinds pointing to systemic racism throughout all branches of society. You can't just pretend it's not there because you don't like rap music.

luka
10-01-2017, 02:55 PM
That doesn't mean your life can't be shit if you're white, or that white people (or men) don't deserve to have their suffering acknowledged and ameliorated. White suffering and male suffering is not worth less than any other variety of suffering which is the point at which my views converge with teas.

firefinga
10-01-2017, 02:55 PM
You can't just pretend it's not there because you don't like rap music.

I actullay like rap music, or to be precise, used to. I got several CDs from the likes of Jungle Brothers, De La Soul, Run DMC, and even ONE gangster rapper, namely Ice T. I think he's the only worthwile Gangsta rapper bc he has some sense of irony and isn't afraid to mock himself every now and then.

luka
10-01-2017, 02:56 PM
I don't think forming exclusivy white groups or exclusively male groups is the rational response to the suffering of people who are either/both white and male.

you
10-01-2017, 02:58 PM
Male privilege is a universal thing in all societies across the world however. Yes, of course gender intersects with economic class, race and so on, and it becomes incredibly complex to pick apart and see the nuances (which is what feminist studies of intersectionality do). But there is no society where women overall are not subordinate to men in terms of political power as a sex class, which affects every part of our culture and lives , public and private. As far as I know, pretty much every society in the world is patriarchal. The world is run by men.



Not quite true. There are and have been matriarchal societies. Engels' 'The Origin of Private Property, Family and the State' is a great take on how matriarchal relations were usurped and erased by law and private property..

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 03:13 PM
There's a wealth of evidence of all kinds pointing to systemic racism throughout all branches of society.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see a single way in which black people can be considered 'privileged', globally speaking - overrepresentation in certain sports, maybe? Even then, it's hardly something that makes everyday life easier for most people.

It's not at all comparable to gender, where in some countries there are certain advantages associated with being male and others associated with being female.

droid
10-01-2017, 03:18 PM
Year 501. The long history of European atrocity and domination is incontrovertible, varied and ongoing.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 03:37 PM
Not quite true. There are and have been matriarchal societies. Engels' 'The Origin of Private Property, Family and the State' is a great take on how matriarchal relations were usurped and erased by law and private property..

I've not read the Engels so I don't really know what he says about matriarchy, but I have read a discussion of him in Kate Millett's 'Sexual politics' where his work was praised up to a point, but obviously theres been a lot of feminist theory since then that has modified some of his ideas. Not sure how well he's dated, but he seemed to have done some good analysis of the traditional patriarchal family. One to put on my reading list probably.

Thing is though, how are we defining a 'matriarchy'? Would that involve men being the subordinate sex class to women, or are we talking about some sort of gender-egalitarian society, or what?

The other thing is, when it comes to theories about possible matriarchies in pre-history its quite easy to fall into speculation, though there are some compelling arguments. It was so long ago the questions are really unanswerable.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 03:49 PM
Thing is though, how are we defining a 'matriarchy'?


Could just as well turn that around and ask how you're defining 'patriarchy'. You said every society on earth is patriarchal. Now if Yemen is patriarchal, but Iceland is also patriarchal, then I have to wonder what a non-patriarchal society would look like, in your view.


Would that involve men being the subordinate sex class to women...?

Traditionally understood, yes, that's the literal definition of the word.

Interestingly there have been many societies in which wealth and status was inherited mainly or exclusively through the line of female descent, to the extent that it may have been the norm in ancient times. Although in most cases power was nonetheless mainly wielded by the male aristocracy.

sadmanbarty
10-01-2017, 04:03 PM
Could just as well turn that around and ask how you're defining 'patriarchy'. You said every society on earth is patriarchal. Now if Yemen is patriarchal, but Iceland is also patriarchal, then I have to wonder what a non-patriarchal society would look like, in your view.

They're both patriarchal, just one astoundingly more so than the other.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 04:20 PM
You appear to be grasping at straws now mr tea.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 04:36 PM
That doesn't mean your life can't be shit if you're white, or that white people (or men) don't deserve to have their suffering acknowledged and ameliorated. White suffering and male suffering is not worth less than any other variety of suffering which is the point at which my views converge with teas.

Dont believe i ever said any of this.

luka
10-01-2017, 04:44 PM
Dont believe i ever said any of this.

And where exactly did I attribute that position to you Ben?

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 04:45 PM
You appear to be grasping at straws now mr tea.

It was a genuine question. Feel free to answer to it.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 04:46 PM
Question for you, Benny: What effect dominates, in your view: sex, class, race, something else...?

POLL!

Benny B
10-01-2017, 04:48 PM
It was a genuine question. Feel free to answer to it.

What barty said basically

Benny B
10-01-2017, 04:49 PM
And where exactly did I attribute that position to you Ben?

Ah sorry, were you talking to vimothy and firefinga?

My apologies

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 05:01 PM
What barty said basically

My question was "what would a non-patriarchal society look like", and neither you nor SMB have answered it yet.

There are several countries where most politicians are female, and many more where the split is very close to 50:50. There are countries where the gender income gap is 5% and will conceivably disappear altogether in the near future. In plenty of countries, such as ours, women are well ahead of men in terms of academic achievement and a host of important health and social inclusion indicators. So I ask again, if this is still patriarchy, what still remains to be done that would satisfy you that it's finally been eradicated?

I'm not being rhetorical here. I'm interested to know your thinking.

luka
10-01-2017, 05:10 PM
peer to peer relationships count

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 05:15 PM
True, but that's a pretty difficult thing to quantify or legislate for.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 05:18 PM
Well putting a stop to all the raping and killing would be a good thing to aim for for one.

Almost 1000 women murdered by men since 2010 in england and wales, according the femicide census done last year.

We've got a long way to go before we have anything like gender equality when mvawg is still such a scourge

droid
10-01-2017, 05:21 PM
Is there an extant society that is organised by a matriarchal system?

sadmanbarty
10-01-2017, 05:29 PM
My question was "what would a non-patriarchal society look like", and neither you nor SMB have answered it yet.

Well first off, I know fuck all about feminism really. That being said I'd agree that wage parity, equal representation in government and business are all indicators of equality. Also things like parity in the household and childcare duties.

To the extent that things like domestic violence and rape are informed by patriarchy as opposed to other factors (I have no idea), a reduction in these types of crimes could indicate increased equality.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 05:37 PM
Almost 1000 women murdered by men since 2010 in england and wales, according the femicide census done last year.

And yet your chances of being murdered are still several times higher as a man than as a women, are they not?

Yes, of course I'm well aware that men are doing most of the murdering, too. But that hardly constitutes some sort of advantage to men. In fact it's a good illustration of how the majority of men are not well served by 'traditional values'.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 05:50 PM
So men do most of the murdering, practically all the raping.

Women don't tend to do these things quite so much and you have to ask why really.

Its a patriarchal arrangement. The fact that men kill each other doesnt change the gender hierarchy.

luka
10-01-2017, 05:53 PM
i'm not sure murder is a traditional value or a phenomena we can easily generalise about.

luka
10-01-2017, 05:54 PM
we're getting close to discussing the problem of evil itself here in my view

vimothy
10-01-2017, 05:54 PM
Patriarchy is the reason women aren't murdering men?

Benny B
10-01-2017, 05:54 PM
And no I'm not dismissing the negative effects of gender on men, far from it. But one of those negative effects seems to be they are much more likely to rape and kill than women

luka
10-01-2017, 05:57 PM
Vimothy are are you wanting to say the reason men kill women and not vice versa is a) a imbalance in physical power b) imbalance in biological murderous rage chemicals?

luka
10-01-2017, 05:58 PM
i keep sensing an essentialist tenor to your asides. not that i would necessarily disagree with you. just wanting to taunt you into commiting yourself to a position.

vimothy
10-01-2017, 06:02 PM
I'm happy to commit to both of those statements (as true but partial explanations).

vimothy
10-01-2017, 06:06 PM
But we were discussing the patriarchy. As a concept, it strikes me as rather pedestrian if it's merely a state in which more women are murdered by men than vice versa. To my mind, patriarchy suggests a society in which male values predominate.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 06:09 PM
But we were discussing the patriarchy. As a concept, it strikes me as rather pedestrian if it's merely a state in which more women are murdered by men than vice versa. To my mind, patriarchy suggests a society in which male values predominate.

I never said 'merely' though did i?

droid
10-01-2017, 06:10 PM
i'm not sure murder is a traditional value

Its perhaps the most traditional of all.

vimothy
10-01-2017, 06:11 PM
No, you didn't.

luka
10-01-2017, 06:13 PM
Its perhaps the most traditional of all.
yes, perhaps.

firefinga
10-01-2017, 06:16 PM
yes, perhaps.

Cain took out Abel, out of jealousy. There you have it. Man on man violence at the very beginning.

luka
10-01-2017, 07:07 PM
Well the perhaps was cos that's not right at the beginning, almost but not quite

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 08:40 PM
So men do most of the murdering, practically all the raping.

Women don't tend to do these things quite so much and you have to ask why really.

Its a patriarchal arrangement. The fact that men kill each other doesnt change the gender hierarchy.

Yes of course. I'm not quibbling that. I very much doubt there has ever been a society in which men are not more prone to violence than women, even if the exact ratio varies from culture to culture. This is seen in any number of animal species. It's not an unfathomable mystery.

But we're talking about (dis)advantage and (dis)privilege here. Belonging to the gender that commits the great majority of murders hardly constitutes a privilege, does it? I mean, it's certainly a glaring asymmetry but it's not like a "yay, +1 for the guys!" kind of statistic.

Edit: luka may well be right that murder is so far outside any kind of social norm that it's not a useful thing to talk about in this context. Of course rape is far more common and much more likely to go unpunished, which remains a huge problem, but I hope I'm not being too starry-eyed in thinking society is, gradually, making some moves in the right direction on this count.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2017, 09:05 PM
Well the perhaps was cos that's not right at the beginning, almost but not quite

Well yeah, before you get to that bit you've got God creating Adam as the star of the whole show and then making Eve as an afterthought to keep Adam company, have sex with him and darn his socks. Abrahamic religion has a very, very great deal to answer for. Not that patriarchy didn't independently arise in any number of other cultures, of course, but the kind that took root in the Near/Middle East during the bronze age has had a particularly pernicious influence on the state of the world today.

Edit: shame nomad ain't around, she'd have enjoyed this.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 09:05 PM
Not just privilege but power, force, possession.

If we take the example of rape, which is committed almost entirely by men, then there is an eroticisation of power and inequality.

A bit of fear helps to keep the hierarchy in place. Obviously there is a lot more to patriarchy than that, but male violence definitely has a big part to play.

Benny B
10-01-2017, 09:20 PM
Womens lives are most in danger in abusive intimate partner relationships when she decides to leave him.

This feeling of entitlement to possess and control women is very patriarchal.

Karl Kraft
14-01-2017, 07:22 PM
Late to the thread and not been right through, so sorry if this was posted before, but was just reading this article about Kevin Smith movies that overlaps some relevant territory from the dawn of the internet:

Chasing Amy and the toxic “nerd masculinity” of the nineties
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/08/16/the-big-i/

Benny B
17-02-2017, 12:13 PM
This is an excellent read - From geek masculinity to Gamergate: the technological rationality of online abuse

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1741659017690893#.WKYgSNYOUrw.twitter

Corpsey
20-02-2017, 12:32 PM
As I said when I began this essay, because I work in comics, video games, and animation, I’ve watched 4chan grow from a group of people who could fit inside a single room to a worldwide collective.

But I should also note there’s another reason I was there from the beginning. It’s because, like so many young writers, journalists, and artists that are now despised by 4chan, I’m an inch away from their demographic.

When my father died after I left college in 2004, the last of my family’s wealth evaporated. And ever since then, I have lived well below the poverty line. (Even now, though I work as a Professor, this is true). But I had the benefit of an education.

It was not too difficult for me to imagine an alternate version of myself that didn’t happen to have that. Like the men in those studies, I drifted unemployed and unemployable for many years in my 20s. Often when I did have a job, I quit, realizing that, in fact, laboring behind the counter in the service economy for minimum wage paid less than sitting at home idle in front of my PC, waiting for a gig in the gig economy, posting and selling comics, or trading virtual items in online games.

And I knew, I was on balance, luckier than most. My private school and private college education was the deviation from the norm. My chances were better than the majority of people my age. Yet here I was stone broke. All I owned (and still own) is my college debt. So it wasn’t a surprise there were a teeming mass of people out there who knew with fatalistic certainty that there was no way out. Why not then retreat into your parents’ basements? And instead of despairing over trying and failing, celebrate not-trying? Celebrate retreating into the fantasy worlds of the computer. Steer into the skid — Pepe style. Own it. And why wouldn’t they retreat to a place like 4chan? To let their resentment and failures curdle into something solid?

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-key-to-the-rise-of-trump-624e7cb798cb#.byjqmxo8y

Corpsey
20-02-2017, 12:43 PM
Probably the fundamental way to distinguish Luke's view of life and my own is by comparing our favorite films.

The Matrix vs Ghostbusters

I forgot about this. Is this why you hate Bill Murray, luka, or is it the other way around?