How often was that discussion started by a woman? I should like to see their input more often otherwise it’s just a bunch of men arguing about it to the best of our abilities.
Started by her? Never that I've seen. No girl i know walks into a room and goes, "yo so let me tell you why this hobby sucks for me".
Usually it starts by someone commenting they never played with or seen a chick play 40k before and then it goes into some scientific debate with some other dudes. I've been guilty of chiming into it like I'm doing now.
You’re literally in a thread that started like that.
Maybe I misunderstood the question. I was referring to real life. I've never seen my wife or any girl approach someone in real life and start a debate on why chicks don't approach the hobby. And in case I'm misunderstood I'm not saying the Op is fake or anything. She's asking an online form about how to make friends in a store. I'm sure chicks do that. I was just answering what I thought was your question.
Nah there was no offense intended. I just wanted to highlight a point that a woman asked how to make herself more included in her local community. I should like to see more of the female perspective and n these topics, but I understand that the perspective is disenfranchised by various rhetoric. We need more women’s voices, so we can have a better idea of what exactly is going on. Also, referring to women as chicks may be considered in bad tastes and is considered a derogatory term for women. It’s so common that it is entirely understandable that some would not know that however. On an international forum it would be best to respect that particular convention.
JNAProductions wrote: Hecaton, do you think women face more hurdles than men do joining a war gaming group?
It depends on what you mean by "hurdles." I think there's a lot of messaging that women receive from society at large, and not really from within the gaming space, that stereotypically nerdy hobbies are not for them and that they should avoid them to avoid being labeled as low-status. Some women internalize this to the point where it becomes a preference; is that really a hurdle? Hard to say.
Edit- after a response I'm just deleting mine. I think its best you just go into a store and see the interactions yourself. This theory-craft stuff is too much.
Open again for business, once again a reminder to follow the rules of this site or suffer the consequences, bans and warnings have been handed out to those who couldn't follow this simple injunction since I posted it last.
To those who are posting thoughtfully, my thanks. Unfortunately I had to remove some really quality posts by some users (Tawnis especially) as they were too intertwined with rule breaking ones, my apologies to those people and I really wish I could have kept them but they made no sense as stand alone posts.
ingtaer wrote: Open again for business, once again a reminder to follow the rules of this site or suffer the consequences, bans and warnings have been handed out to those who couldn't follow this simple injunction since I posted it last.
To those who are posting thoughtfully, my thanks. Unfortunately I had to remove some really quality posts by some users (Tawnis especially) as they were too intertwined with rule breaking ones, my apologies to those people and I really wish I could have kept them but they made no sense as stand alone posts.
Eh, it happens when wading into such things, no sweat. Thanks for all the work you do keeping things as clean as feasible.
And the above exchanges and those removed proves the OPs point perfectly. Still far too many toxic individuals in this hobby.
As for Hecatons claims that we “the pro-female marines “ side were claiming that the inclusion of such would make the imperium more moral, it’s none sense. The only person to make such claims were him in trying to debunk our arguments. Representation in real life and improving the morals of the community were the claims. No change to the “imperium” was ever suggested.
Andykp wrote: And the above exchanges and those removed proves the OPs point perfectly. Still far too many toxic individuals in this hobby.
As for Hecatons claims that we “the pro-female marines “ side were claiming that the inclusion of such would make the imperium more moral, it’s none sense. The only person to make such claims were him in trying to debunk our arguments. Representation in real life and improving the morals of the community were the claims. No change to the “imperium” was ever suggested.
Yeah... I was trying to figure out if there were some imaginary lines hec was reading between or what On earth he could have read to think that. It’s either trolling or false memories. Maybe we should have a chat about how best to approach people like that? The only purpose arguing with them serves is reinforcing to others that we will not as a community tolerate attitudes that marginalized women and others, and hopefully to change that aspect of the tabletop wargaming culture. Changing their mind when they are that engrained in their beliefs and cultural attitudes bears a negligible chance. And the argument is rather circular.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, someone else mentioned that their wife experienced discomfort in the community from women more so than men. Internalized misogyny is absolutely a thing, and membership in a minority does not exclude biases against that minority. Case in point, implicit bias screenings have similar trends in both black and white cops for implicit biases against black people. What this means here is that women in the hobby may participate in the discriminatory behaviors that other men are. Virtue of being a woman does not exclude attitudes that discriminate against women.
Same. The pro-female space marine arguments are always more about representation than adjusting the factions morality. I'd love to see even a single link to an argument on Dakka were someone made the argument you are saying crops up "quite often".
Yeah, I can only speak for myself but I've always wanted female marines/eldar/CSM/guard because I like variety, painting some female models without having an entire army made of women and also a bit more realism in terms of background: it makes sense that human shaped armies have some females in their ranks. In fact one of my favorite armies has always been Drukhari, which is the only army with 50/50 males/females ratio for their infantries. And they're 100% evil, probably the most cruel faction in the entire 40k universe. So no, more females in the SM/guard ranks won't make those factions more "moral".
Octopoid wrote: Maybe not referring to women as "chicks" is a good starting place, hm?
It's not. Culturally, in many areas it's considered normal and acceptable to refer to women as "chicks." Depends on where you live and your specific (sub)culture.
Here it's also common but far from being acceptable. Like racism.
On the issue of using the word “chicks” to refer to women, it’s clearly recognized as offensive in wider pop culture. I present one of the classic 80’s villains:
Yeah, terms like “chicks” is disrespectful, some women may not mind it but it’s not a term many will care for. The fact we are having to have this conversation is a sign of the work that still needs to be done.
Andykp wrote: Yeah, terms like “chicks” is disrespectful, some women may not mind it but it’s not a term many will care for. The fact we are having to have this conversation is a sign of the work that still needs to be done.
That but also consider that the terminology can vary a lot based on generation and context. There are times when certain terms are perfectly fine to use, and other times where the same word is not appropriate.
It's a little like swearing in that the same word can be used in multiple ways in different context and can run the gauntlet from openly encouraged and casually accepted all the way through the hate speech and criminal act.
It's more complex because whilst swearing generally sticks to the same kinds of situation, a lot of gender and social terms change a LOT over time generation to generation and as society itself changes. So it can be very easy to be using terms that are insulting without any intent because those terms originally had totally different contextual meaning. Heck terms can shift from suitable to unsuitable to insulting and back to suitable. It's a very fluid situation made hard by the fact that not everyone keeps up "with the times"
Yeah... that’s how progress happens. It wasn’t that long ago that the n word was cool to say and normal.
My grandma once told me that the f word was the most vile word said in her youth. I replied that the n word was not only normal and OK but used in such rhymes we learned as “eeny meany miney moe catch a tiger by the toe” because it wasn’t tiger they said... they really aren’t a moral authority on what’s ok and not ok to say. Culture changes and the time in which women were commonly called chicks was a time when women were considered submissive to men. The words change to reflect the change in attitude.
macluvin wrote: Yeah... that’s how progress happens. It wasn’t that long ago that the n word was cool to say and normal.
And to complicate things it still is. However only within certain social groups and situations. However that is further complicated today because those social situations are also presented to the masses through media such as the TV. So suddenly you've got generations getting mixed messages on the meaning and use of certain words.
Language is constantly evolving and changing when its used. New words come; old words go; words that stay change meaning in subtle and overt ways.
Heck some words change a lot - Gay used to mean happy. Today it still technically has that meaning, but you'd only interpret it as such if it was in a medieval or similar style presentation. Otherwise today it has a stronger meaning as a term to describe homosexuals. I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Three totally different meanings all for the same word and three different connections and associations.
Overread wrote: I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Having been in those trenches, that would be *because* of the homophobia of the times (for me, Thatcher's Britain, which also gave us section 28).
Overread wrote: I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Having been in those trenches, that would be *because* of the homophobia of the times (for me, Thatcher's Britain, which also gave us section 28).
Overread wrote: I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Having been in those trenches, that would be *because* of the homophobia of the times (for me, Thatcher's Britain, which also gave us section 28).
Sim-Life wrote:Its pretty clear that you seem to think OPs experience was with some kind of formless misoginistic blob rather than actual humans with thoughts and perspectives of their own and that the OP is a perfect creature, incapable of misunderstandings but fully capable of discerning peoples motives and opinions instantly from a few hours of interactions (presumably because she's a woman and therefore correct in all things). It's also clear that you play in some kind of echo chamber where everyone must conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled. If you kick everyone that disagrees with you out of your group you're going to eventually find yourself alone.
I'm not going provide any other comment on this, as I think your own words echo what I want to say:
Don't put words in my mouth to portray me as sexist in order to strengthen your argument.
Now that you might be a little more self-aware, I'd also like to just say you're only slightly wrong on that last point - I do expect everyone in my group to "conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled", because the standards we hold eachother to are pretty basic ones of respect and inclusivity. Evidently, it seems those standards are too high for your group. It's not "disagreement" to disrespect someone's existence, it's the bottom of the barrel.
Also I never said she can't be trusted because shes a woman. I said women aren't infallible.
And what does that mean? It means that you don't trust her perspective. I'm not saying that you're mistrusting her *because she's a woman*, but simply that you aren't trusting her in general, which is still the problem. The point is the same - you aren't willing to trust the perspective of the only person in the room.
A.T. wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of any systemic indication that men are shunned from groups because of their gender - could you show me some indications of that?
No. You said that you were waiting for someone to point out if you were acting in a perhaps unkowningly discriminatory way and that was my intent, nothing more.
Okay - can you elaborate on what that discriminatory way is, because I don't see it. I don't believe PenitentJake identified any either (and my thanks be to them for their very detailed analysis and observation of that interaction, it was very well put) - so please, could you perhaps elaborate more and spell out to me what I'm doing wrong?
Hecaton wrote:In general I see this on the supposedly pro-woman side quite often; in the talks about female space marines, there seems to be a lot of people who think that the Imperium automatically becomes more moral if it's woman doing the baby-killing, genocide, and brutal oppression, since women have some sort of special moral license that men do not. And in the real world, oftentimes there's an idea that women need special accommodations in the hobby as opposed to being treated like equal members of it.
I've never seen anyone express this view at all in any of those threads here, let alone "often".
Tawnis wrote:We all have our own biases and perceptions based on our interpretations of events. (One of my favorite quotes is "There are three sides to every story, your side, their side, and the truth.") However, by the logic your using, what's the point in trusting anyone's personal account of any given situation, they are all effected by personal bias.
She came to us in good faith asking for some advise on inclusion, why is the default response to doubt instead of to trust?
...
At the end of the day, no one here can know exactly what happened and why it happened. All we have is a newer member of the community who was looking for advise, and boy did we gak the bed in trying to be the welcoming and inclusive community that almost everyone seems to claim to either be or at least want to be.
Exactly this. No-one is saying "blindly trust everyone", but similarly, "don't trust anything and downplay people's feelings of being marginalised" will only continue to create that feeling of marginalisation.
It wouldn't be empowering to the player, either, unless it was divorced of the context of the setting. Saying that women are now shown to be as expendable as men in a given media/setting would be *disempowering* to women, not *empowering*.
I don't really think you have the authority to claim what is and isn't empowering to other people. You can say how you personally wouldn't find it empowering, but if people say that they find XYZ empowering and positive to them, you don't really have the right to say that their experiences and wants are wrong.
PenitentJake wrote: 1) I don't think there are a lot of posts by men who say they feel excluded from the hobby.
That's because they know that nobody will care if they say so lol.
Judging from the response in this thread, we can hardly say that women are treated any better*. So why do we still see more complaints from women about being excluded? It is still disproportionate.
*that's not to sweep any feelings of exclusion under the rug - but I don't appreciate the use of male exclusion to sweep women and non-male exclusion under the rug either.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay - can you elaborate on what that discriminatory way is, because I don't see it.
My original post can be taken at it's face value. You had dismissed the idea of men feeling excluded in the hobby with the question "So where's the flood of men complaining about their hobby experiences feeling excluded?" - and I pointed out that you had blown off just such an individual a few posts earlier, telling them not to conflate their 'non-issues' with concerns of sexism towards women.
After which you shifted your question from "men shunned" to "men shunned because of their gender", so I decided to leave that alone.
Out of curiosity: is there any data as to how many women actively play 40k?
As I've read a little bit of this thread I will clarify just to be sure....I absolutely couldn't care less what gender you are when playing warhammer as long as you act decently towards fellow players.
As to the OPs question: I think women and men should be treated equally when trying to enter the hobby, but I guess there can be misunderstandings. Some people come across as hostile, not because they necessarily are, but suffer from resting bitch face.
If someone actively tells you to get out because you are a woman, well then that person is an idiot and should first be called out as an idiot and then ignored.
Octopoid wrote: Maybe it's just that this site isn't worth it, and I've toyed with the idea of asking for a perma-ban. May yet.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. People on this forum are just too invested in fighting each other, when the actual answer is just to find a positive, kind, respectful, and welcoming community and to display the same kindness in return. Easier said than done sure, but it's better to take the time to find a community like that than to endure one that isn't. That's not a political statement, that's just life advice.
I honestly feel bad for the OP, she opened the thread asking for advice and instead got 11 pages of "anti-sjw" versus "anti-fash".
We can be better than this, we just have to be willing to.
I'm not going to go back through those threads. If you've read them, you've seen what I'm talking about.
I've read quite a few female Space Marines threads here and on other boards, but i don't remember even a single post claiming something like that Space Marines doing evil things would be less evil if they would be female.
Sim-Life wrote:Its pretty clear that you seem to think OPs experience was with some kind of formless misoginistic blob rather than actual humans with thoughts and perspectives of their own and that the OP is a perfect creature, incapable of misunderstandings but fully capable of discerning peoples motives and opinions instantly from a few hours of interactions (presumably because she's a woman and therefore correct in all things). It's also clear that you play in some kind of echo chamber where everyone must conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled. If you kick everyone that disagrees with you out of your group you're going to eventually find yourself alone.
I'm not going provide any other comment on this, as I think your own words echo what I want to say:
Don't put words in my mouth to portray me as sexist in order to strengthen your argument.
Now that you might be a little more self-aware, I'd also like to just say you're only slightly wrong on that last point - I do expect everyone in my group to "conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled", because the standards we hold eachother to are pretty basic ones of respect and inclusivity. Evidently, it seems those standards are too high for your group. It's not "disagreement" to disrespect someone's existence, it's the bottom of the barrel.
Also I never said she can't be trusted because shes a woman. I said women aren't infallible.
And what does that mean? It means that you don't trust her perspective. I'm not saying that you're mistrusting her *because she's a woman*, but simply that you aren't trusting her in general, which is still the problem. The point is the same - you aren't willing to trust the perspective of the only person in the room.
No, your standards aren't too high, just different. I feel that the best way to respect a person is to treat everyone the same way, you might think its to treat everyone different based on their gender or race. I've had a lot of different friends over the years from various walks of life and none have ever had a problem with me so I guess I'm doing something right.
Also I will never trust a single persons judgement because a single person is usually wrong.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay - can you elaborate on what that discriminatory way is, because I don't see it.
My original post can be taken at it's face value. You had dismissed the idea of men feeling excluded in the hobby with the question "So where's the flood of men complaining about their hobby experiences feeling excluded?" - and I pointed out that you had blown off just such an individual a few posts earlier, telling them not to conflate their 'non-issues' with concerns of sexism towards women.
I didn't "blow them off" nor say that their experience wasn't valid. When I described their comment as a "non-issues", I was talking about how being neurodivergent isn't an excuse to be sexist, and how there's a very big difference between being anti-social and being a sexist.
I called it a non-issue because it wasn't anything to do with the topic of sexists being sexist, not because it wasn't important in it's own right. I made that comment so that we wouldn't start conflating the idea of being anti-social for neurodivergent reasons with being anti-social for sexist ones.
The aforementioned quote of said individual wasn't "complaining about their hobby experiences being excluded", which they themselves later clarified! Their comment was, and I quote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:I should specifiy that it wasn't you I had an issue with when I said that. Sexism and racism are not excusable by social disorders. However, what can come off as sexism and racism can be. My issue was with someone's implication that we can just get better at socializing, and that's that.
It wasn't a complaint about feeling excluded, it was simply stating that people can't just "get better at socialising", which I 100% agree with!
After which you shifted your question from "men shunned" to "men shunned because of their gender", so I decided to leave that alone.
Because I assumed that we were talking about gender, one of the, if not the main, central premises of the thread?
So, just to be sure I got that right - you believed I was being sexist because I called something which wasn't necessarily part of the topic a "non-issue"? In which case, I apologise for the miscommunication that you thought I was devaluing neurodivergency, which I assuredly don't, and would like to clarify that I referred to it as a non-issue because neurodivergency hasn't got anything to do with people being sexist, which was the main point being discussed.
I feel as well that it definitely *is* pertinent to reiterate that I definitely do not see a flood of comments (or really, any comments) from men who feel that their gender excludes them, but I see them from non-men. I don't believe that's sexist to point out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote:No, your standards aren't too high, just different. I feel that the best way to respect a person is to treat everyone the same way, you might think its to treat everyone different based on their gender or race. I've had a lot of different friends over the years from various walks of life and none have ever had a problem with me so I guess I'm doing something right.
No, see, that's the thing - I don't treat them differently either. I treat them *all* with the same respect, how they want and ask to be treated. Their gender, race, or sexuality doesn't come into it, because they're all to be respected and treated well regardless. That means respecting pronouns, what language to use around them, what sort of humour they like, physical boundaries, conversation topics, energy levels, what we want to get out of our shared experience - that kind of respect and thought.
And honestly, all those things? Those should be pretty basic standards to maintain.
Also I will never trust a single persons judgement because a single person is usually wrong.
Well, at least I know who not to come to if I have any issues. That's a lovely vote of confidence there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I called it a non-issue because it wasn't anything to do with the topic of sexists being sexist, not because it wasn't important in it's own right.
Everyone reads the same situation differently, through their own lens. I know more than a few people who have suffered terribly, and in one case fatally, with these issues and so seeing them described as non-issues in a seemingly flippant 'that would be good' sendoff was never going to sit well.
But then this entire thread has been one long argument about what people have been reading between the lines.
You mentioned earlier that the gender aspect was the vital context - that was your lens. Right, wrong, probably a bit of both - I think that's what Sim was getting at when they said not to trust a single persons judgement.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I called it a non-issue because it wasn't anything to do with the topic of sexists being sexist, not because it wasn't important in it's own right.
Everyone reads the same situation differently, through their own lens. I know more than a few people who have suffered terribly, and in one case fatally, with these issues and so seeing them described as non-issues in a seemingly flippant 'that would be good' sendoff was never going to sit well.
As someone who well knows what you are saying from personal experience, when I call it a "non-issue", I'm sure you well know that I am referring to this SOLELY in the context of what this thread was about, not as it's position outside of this thread. I apologise if that's how I came across, but I assure you, I do not regard that as a "non-issue" when in the appropriate context.
You mentioned earlier that the gender aspect was the vital context - that was your lens.
No, it wasn't. It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
Now, is there anything else to do with that topic in what I said that you wish to talk about?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
No, see, that's the thing - I don't treat them differently either. I treat them *all* with the same respect, how they want and ask to be treated. Their gender, race, or sexuality doesn't come into it, because they're all to be respected and treated well regardless. That means respecting pronouns, what language to use around them, what sort of humour they like, physical boundaries, conversation topics, energy levels, what we want to get out of our shared experience - that kind of respect and thought.
This is interesting in itself. Apologies for the tangent. I appreciate you're generally pretty considerate but does this mean with different people for example, you'd use different language, different humour, different approaches etc. Or just the same 'white bread', in all scenarios, just in case? I mean, I get it some things are absolutely a touchy and awkward subject with some people, or conversely a source of mirth and not with others. We all understand whats respectful for one isn't for another and I like that you point to physical boundaries as well. I mean, i speak to my mom differently than to my wife for example, and neither gets the crude language and dark humour that I share with some of the guys (and some of the ladies) from work, my physical interactions with guys will be totally different to those with girls.
.
Surely that means treating everyone eqully also means you treat everyone differently. And there in, and often unintentionally, lies the seed of conflict.
And one last point - as you say - 'how they want and ask to be treated' what happens when they don't say? What happens when they don't make up clear how they want to be treated? I lift weights, I run, I'm 6-foot. I'm plenty assertive when I need to be. I know plenty people that aren't. For a variety of reasons. They smile and laugh and shrug and accept it and just go with the flow. And when things bother them they don't actully step up and say so. They might bring it up later to other people but by then it's too late to resolve the original situation. I've been bullied in my past. Severely. I've been here too. When I didn't have the confidence to.step up and say 'that's bothering me'. This was my experience, in case yoy think I'm conflating this with the op's statement.
Also I will never trust a single persons judgement because a single person is usually wrong.
Well, at least I know who not to come to if I have any issues. That's a lovely vote of confidence there.
I.dunno. I might not agree with Sim all that often but even the great Gregory House M.D says 'everybody lies'.and lie might be a strong word but 'truth' is maleable based on perception. I've been burned by a lot of people claiming/saying stuff, who overreacted to a situation or misinterpreted things, or at worst pushing some supposed 'truth' of theirs that was anything but. No doubt, we all have. I'm pretty reasonable as a person, and for what it's worth on topic, find what the OP said to be within the realms of possibility (I've seen those things myself, both towards myself as a guy, and to my girl friends within geekdom and sportdom) and I am supportive and sympathetic. that said, I'm not always necessarily gonna believe someone just because they say so and i think it's unhealthily naive to hold the view people's statements should be taken at face value without question. And while cruel, That could also include you if you brought stuff to me. I've been stabbed in the back by plenty supposed 'best friends' in my life who lied to my face, you're just (respectfully!) a poster on a wargames forum I've never met in real life. And I hope you don't take that as any kind of a slight but basically Smudge, a bit of scepticism towards people isn't necessarily unhealthy.
No, see, that's the thing - I don't treat them differently either. I treat them *all* with the same respect, how they want and ask to be treated. Their gender, race, or sexuality doesn't come into it, because they're all to be respected and treated well regardless. That means respecting pronouns, what language to use around them, what sort of humour they like, physical boundaries, conversation topics, energy levels, what we want to get out of our shared experience - that kind of respect and thought.
This is interesting in itself. Apologies for the tangent. I appreciate you're generally pretty considerate but does this mean with different people for example, you'd use different language, different humour, different approaches etc. Or just the same 'white bread', in all scenarios, just in case?
I would assume the same basic level, which is simply just "being all round polite and kind", establish myself as a "safe space" (ie, open and willing to hear out concerns) and then being receptive to how they reciprocate. For example, I crack my knuckles often. I had one person tell me that they found that sound displeasing. I stopped cracking my knuckles when they were around, because that was the respectful thing to do, which they appreciated. Another example with hugs: I don't assume I can hug anyone, and definitely don't do so from behind - I will always make sure they see me first, I then either ask verbally or give a visual gesture, and wait for a response. It's just ensuring that I am receptive and responsive to what they want, and likewise, they return the favour on my end. We all end up feeling listened to, acknowledged, and comfortable with eachother. I wouldn't say I treat them differently depending on who they are, I'd say I generally just treat *everyone* with the same "fluffy" approach. Do I get things wrong? Yes, of course I do! But that's where I try and do better, to make sure I don't do that again, and that's the second way of respecting - learning and understanding what caused a problem, and not repeating it.
Essentially, it's all the same standard - listen, be receptive, and be aware of others. I don't really say that I treat people "differently" if I'm just doing that, I guess?
EDIT
And one last point - as you say - 'how they want and ask to be treated' what happens when they don't say? What happens when they don't make up clear how they want to be treated?
You have to establish yourself as a safe space in order to do that - but this can be done by asking if everything you're doing is okay, and if you're saying/doing anything that is making them uncomfortable. Things like asking before you make physical contact, asking their pronouns, "sorry, do you mind if...", "may I...", etc etc - essentially just making sure that they know you're being receptive to their wants. You can't mind read, but it's about making them feel as safe as possible, and then correcting any actions you do that they then tell you are an issue.
I lift weights, I run, I'm 6-foot. I'm plenty assertive when I need to be. I know plenty people that aren't. For a variety of reasons. They smile and laugh and shrug and accept it and just go with the flow. And when things bother them they don't actully step up and say so. They might bring it up later to other people but by then it's too late to resolve the original situation. I've been bullied in my past. Severely. I've been here too. When I didn't have the confidence to.step up and say 'that's bothering me'. This was my experience, in case yoy think I'm conflating this with the op's statement.
I understand, and I've had the same - which is why that "safe space" is so important - it might not be immediate, it likely won't be, but just any steps that we can take to say "hey, I'm listening, let me know what I can do to support you" go such a long way in establishing that relationship.
Another example (I'm full of them today) - in the team I work in, I found that several of the people I was responsible for were having issues with how the rest of my team were behaving. They chose to tell me about it, and not another member of that team, because they knew that I'd hear them out and that I was a safe space to hear those concerns without invalidating them. It's about building that trust, and it can take time, but it's important to try - and doubly important to make sure that comments that were said in this thread by some users are challenged and called out for destroying that sense of trust.
Also I will never trust a single persons judgement because a single person is usually wrong.
Well, at least I know who not to come to if I have any issues. That's a lovely vote of confidence there.
I.dunno. I might not agree with Sim all that often but even the great Gregory House M.D says 'everybody lies'.and lie might be a strong word but 'truth' is makeable based on perception I've been burned by a lot of people claiming/saying stuff, overreact to a situation or misinterpret things, or at worst pushing some supposed 'truth' of theirs that was anything but. No doubt, we all have. I'm pretty reasonable as a person, and for what it's worth on topic, find what the OP.said to be within the realms of possibility (I've seen those things myself, both towards myself as a guy, and to my girl friends within geekdom) and I am supportive and sympathetic. that said, I'm not aleays necessarily gonna believe someone just because they say so and i think it's unhealthily naive to hold the view people's statements should be taken at face value. a bit of scepticism towards people isn't necessarily unhealthy.
Scepticism, yes, but outright being told "I don't take single person judgement because it's wrong" in a thread where someone is sharing a personal experience that has affected them is deeply disencouraging and will only serve the purpose of ensuring that people don't come forwards to confide in you, because they know you don't believe them, or respect them enough to take on board their comments - and in a public thread, where anyone could be lurking and watching from their own screen, what kind of message does that send about Dakka as a whole?
It's why, when hearing out the experiences of other people, no matter how much you might question things immediately, you never invalidate that until you have more reason to, and you certainly never say that they're "usually wrong", because why would someone ever go back to you if they wanted your help? This is what I mean by the supposed "welcoming" side being a sham in practice: no-one says you need to fully believe them, but you absolutely definitely do not turn around and tell people that they're wrong, because all that'll do is drive them off. Otherwise, you're essentially advertising that you personally are not a safe space that someone can confide in you with, and then you're only contributing to creating that unsafe space.*
I can speak to personal experience with this - I very recently had a situation where I genuinely believed that some *very* bad stuff may have happened to me, and I confided those very real, very concerning fears to those around me. Luckily, I was proven wrong, but if my friends around me had turned around in that moment and told me that I was projecting my fears, and my concerns about very serious harm being done to me were all made up, I wouldn't consider ever trusting myself with them again. It's about support and hearing out, not shooting down valid feelings and hurt with cold logic.
*any mention of 'you' is meant as a general 'you', to illustrate the point widely, not a personal 'you'
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ,
Essentially, it's all the same standard - listen, be receptive, and be aware of others. I don't really say that I treat people "differently" if I'm just doing that, I guess?
Apologies- I edited my post above as you were typing, I think.
EDIT: seems you caught the edit - mods can you please delete this post? Its not really relevant.
Deadnight wrote: Apologies- I edited my post above as you were typing, I think.
Not to worry, I went back and responded to that as well! Is all good!
Thing is, you can listen as much as you want, but what happens when they don't tell you?
I've known plenty geeks in my time and as a group, most of us are pretty lousy at reading body language and reading between the lines. Age and life experience helps, but honestly I know a lot of guys who have shoddy radars and are pretty poor at picking up signals and plenty guys and girls that struggle to broadcast as well.
I absolutely understand that - it's definitely not a perfect science at all, and if it is, I've certainly not mastered it! It's just a case of trying to be as open and available as possible, and just doing our best to listen and hear what people have to say. It can take a while for people to open up and share problems, but that doesn't make it not worth trying, I suppose.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Now, is there anything else to do with that topic in what I said that you wish to talk about?
Nope. This thread is already about ten pages too long.
I, for one cannot possibly imagine why.
Oh, wait, it was when some uppity woman thought she would... talk about her experiences and feelings.
Can't have that going unchallenged! To the incelmobile!*
*I wish that was hyperbolic, but Hecaton went right there in a mod-edited post. This is the community sickness that we're stuck with.
What did he say exactly? I am absolutely not putting it past me that I missed something or did not pick up some nuance, since I'm not a native speaker, but didn't he just say that such interactions can be misunderstandings? Because that's just....a fact? I'm not saying it was in OPs case though, cause I can't know that.
Catulle wrote: *I wish that was hyperbolic, but Hecaton went right there in a mod-edited post. This is the community sickness that we're stuck with.
What did he say exactly? I am absolutely not putting it past me that I missed something or did not pick up some nuance, since I'm not a native speaker, but didn't he just say that such interactions can be misunderstandings? Because that's just....a fact? I'm not saying it was in OPs case though, cause I can't know that.
Whatever it was Hecaton said, it was bad enough that the mods stepped in and deleted it, because there's still the remnants of something on this thread. I didn't see what was put, but considering that the mods chose to act on it, I'm not sure it was entirely benevolent. But, I never saw it, I'm purely going from the aftermath of what I see.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
Insectum7 wrote:Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
No. That's why I'm making it very clear that I'm talking about sexism, and not anti-social behaviour, so that we don't end up doing this - conflating anti-social behaviour (not in the thread title) with actual sexism (is in the thread title).
Tiberias wrote:I'm honestly asking here, has someone here ever met somebody in their playing group or game store who seriously said this hobby is not fit for women?
Maybe I'm just lucky that I haven't, cause thats just supremely idiotic.
I very much know for a fact that there are people with those opinions, yes. And you're absolutely right, it is supremely idiotic.
The trick to being decent to people is to not treat them like a woman, or a man, or a gay person, or a black person, but like a person.
Are you a person? Then you deserve the respect being a person entails right up until you prove, by your own actions, that you no longer deserve that respect.
Most people don't get this. Even the put upon groups fighting their individual battles for being treated better. No other criteria for what you are matters a single iota. You're a person. Done.
Insectum7 wrote:Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
No. That's why I'm making it very clear that I'm talking about sexism, and not anti-social behaviour, so that we don't end up doing this - conflating anti-social behaviour (not in the thread title) with actual sexism (is in the thread title).
Do you take every thread title at face value though? It is the internet and all. Just because OP labels something as sexist does not make it so, just like "Unit X is OP broken11!!" Does not make it so.
I mean, it could be sexism too. But it might not be.
Tiberias wrote: I'm honestly asking here, has someone here ever met somebody in their playing group or game store who seriously said this hobby is not fit for women?
Maybe I'm just lucky that I haven't, cause thats just supremely idiotic.
Yes.
Have you never met someone who thought women ruined men hang outs? Who think people have to change their behavior or act different because someones girlfriend is around?
If your behavior needs to be hidden because x feature person is in the room then you should question the general quality of your standard behavior. (Not you specifically. Just a general statement to the people who do and say that kind of gak).
Call me naive here but in a hypothetical situation where a person feels subjectively strangely eyed upon by another person in a store/group/whatever, shouldn't it be as simple as going up to that person and saying:
"Hey look, I'm just trying to have a good time here. Are we cool? You've been looking at me kinda strange."
If the other person says something along those lines of: "yeah, sorry. I've had a terrible week, I wasn't looking at you specifically, but just in your general direction."
Great, apparently just a misunderstanding. Problem solved, everyone goes their ways.
If the other person instead says something like: "Silence woman! You lot belong into the kitchen!"
Well, then that person is an idiot, and you should call him that. And anyone else present with a spine would also call that person an idiot.
Said idiot should subsequently be ignored/not included in games until that person got a grip and snapped out of their idiocy.
Lance845 wrote:The trick to being decent to people is to not treat them like a woman, or a man, or a gay person, or a black person, but like a person.
Exactly this! And that is also to mean that if a person feels like someone isn't treating them like a person, then you support them in that, and hear them out.
Insectum7 wrote:Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
No. That's why I'm making it very clear that I'm talking about sexism, and not anti-social behaviour, so that we don't end up doing this - conflating anti-social behaviour (not in the thread title) with actual sexism (is in the thread title).
Do you take every thread title at face value though? It is the internet and all. Just because OP labels something as sexist does not make it so, just like "Unit X is OP broken11!!" Does not make it so.
Sure, but "Unit X is OP broken11!!" won't have anything to do with how someone may or may not being being poorly treated.
Do I take every thread title at face value, no. Do I take claims that someone might be being unfairly harassed or targeted with due respect and faith, instead of naysaying their experience? Yes. I don't care if it's the internet - until I know better, I cannot assume that the person behind that message wasn't genuine, because if they were real, and I contributed to those continued feelings of exclusion and marginalisation, then I'm no better than the people they came to us to seek help over, and that's not who I want to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote: Call me naive here but in a hypothetical situation where a person feels subjectively strangely eyed upon by another person in a store/group/whatever, shouldn't it be as simple as going up to that person and saying:
"Hey look, I'm just trying to have a good time here. Are we cool? You've been looking at me kinda strange."
It *should* be, but not everyone feel safe enough to do that - and that comes from all genders: male, female, non-binary, agender, you name it, anyone can feel unsafe to speak up. And then with the continued cycle of people feeling unsafe and insecure, the situation would only get worse.
Hence why it's so important to create that safe space for people so that if those issues and misunderstandings do happen, they feel safe enough to say that, instead of feeling crushed by an environment where they're not sure if they can even speak up without someone turning to them and saying "you're normally wrong" about their feelings.
That's why this thread has been an excellent example of exactly how not to be welcoming - what sort of safe environment was created here? What sort of trust or faith was shown?
I wouldn't say the person claiming "sexism" is wrong, but I'd listen to the story and try to contextualize just the same. Upon hearing the story, I might think they were wrong though.
Also, you'd get the impression sometimes that people get pretty hurt by whatever OP unit is in question.
Insectum7 wrote: I wouldn't say the person claiming "sexism" is wrong, but I'd listen to the story and try to contextualize just the same. Upon hearing the story, I might think they were wrong though.
Sure, I'm not disputing that - but you've got to admit, someone turning out publicly and saying what essentially amounts to "I don't believe you, because I don't believe any single story" is a brilliant way to make sure that no-one ever feels safe to share their concerns.
I'm not asking people to take folks' word as gospel - I'm asking them to just think before they start bashing back at what may have been an incredibly uncomfortable and painful experience for someone, and maybe be more vocally supportive and reassuring instead.
Tiberias wrote: Call me naive here but in a hypothetical situation where a person feels subjectively strangely eyed upon by another person in a store/group/whatever, shouldn't it be as simple as going up to that person and saying:
"Hey look, I'm just trying to have a good time here. Are we cool? You've been looking at me kinda strange."
It *should* be, but not everyone feel safe enough to do that - and that comes from all genders: male, female, non-binary, agender, you name it, anyone can feel unsafe to speak up. And then with the continued cycle of people feeling unsafe and insecure, the situation would only get worse.
Hence why it's so important to create that safe space for people so that if those issues and misunderstandings do happen, they feel safe enough to say that, instead of feeling crushed by an environment where they're not sure if they can even speak up without someone turning to them and saying "you're normally wrong" about their feelings.
That's why this thread has been an excellent example of exactly how not to be welcoming - what sort of safe environment was created here? What sort of trust or faith was shown?
Again, call me naive here. But why don't people feel safe to ask that? It's just a simple question to clear up an uncomfortable situation that maybe, hopefully is just a misunderstanding between two people. Of course if we're talking about a situation in a game store or within a group of people that maybe at least know each other. I obviously entirely understand why a woman would feel uncomfortable or unsafe confronting some dude in a park or public transport in that scenario. But what's the worst that can happen in your local game store? That some immature douche throws a hissy fit about...idk men are better than women or something....well, let him. He's just cementing his status as an idiot.
Insectum7 wrote: I wouldn't say the person claiming "sexism" is wrong, but I'd listen to the story and try to contextualize just the same. Upon hearing the story, I might think they were wrong though.
Sure, I'm not disputing that - but you've got to admit, someone turning out publicly and saying what essentially amounts to "I don't believe you, because I don't believe any single story" is a brilliant way to make sure that no-one ever feels safe to share their concerns.
I'm not asking people to take folks' word as gospel - I'm asking them to just think before they start bashing back at what may have been an incredibly uncomfortable and painful experience for someone, and maybe be more vocally supportive and reassuring instead.
I get what you are saying. But there is a fine, but very important, distinction here. Brushing someone's subjective story off as untrue or unimportant or not representative is not a good thing to do, but it is not the same as pointing out that maybe there was just a misunderstanding with the other party in that conversation.
Insectum7 wrote: I wouldn't say the person claiming "sexism" is wrong, but I'd listen to the story and try to contextualize just the same. Upon hearing the story, I might think they were wrong though.
Sure, I'm not disputing that - but you've got to admit, someone turning out publicly and saying what essentially amounts to "I don't believe you, because I don't believe any single story" is a brilliant way to make sure that no-one ever feels safe to share their concerns.
I'm not asking people to take folks' word as gospel - I'm asking them to just think before they start bashing back at what may have been an incredibly uncomfortable and painful experience for someone, and maybe be more vocally supportive and reassuring instead.
I'd say that most of the initial page was pretty reasonable, and the majority of the responses felt appropriate. But it spun into polarization at some point. Post polarization I'm not surprised some extreme things were said. That's just how it goes.
Tiberias wrote: Again, call me naive here. But why don't people feel safe to ask that? It's just a simple question to clear up an uncomfortable situation that maybe, hopefully is just a misunderstanding between two people. Of course if we're talking about a situation in a game store or within a group of people that maybe at least know each other. I obviously entirely understand why a woman would feel uncomfortable or unsafe confronting some dude in a park or public transport in that scenario. But what's the worst that can happen in your local game store? That some immature douche throws a hissy fit about...idk men are better than women or something....well, let him. He's just cementing his status as an idiot.
Social anxiety, for one.
Other interpersonal difficulties could also affect someone's confidence or tact in handling the matter.
Another is the fear of confrontation, and threat of reprisal, or from then causing a scene which might see them ejected and shunned from the group and becoming a social outcast.
There could also be the worry that they *are* just misunderstanding, and would then be responsible for a perceived awkwardness.
All the fears about "some dude in a park or public transport" also apply to your local game store, because evidently, by the fact they haven't felt safe to ask, they don't regard it as a safe space for all the aforementioned reasons. Sure, an immature douche might throw a hissy fit. Is that a pleasant thing to have screamed in your face? Of course not. And what if everyone else in the room agrees with him, that you don't belong there? Evidently, you can't be sure, otherwise this would be a safe space, and it evidently isn't. What if the guy gets violent? You don't know he won't any more so than the dude in a park or on public transport won't. You simply don't know because you don't trust the environment you're in, and unfortunately, not everyone *does* trust the environment of the local store.
That's why it's so important to build that trust and support, so that people *can* feel safe to ask that - because as simple a question as it may seem, when you're in a marginalised position, any question can feel fraught with risk and danger.
There's countless reasons why someone would feel afraid to ask. We've seen a couple examples in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:I get what you are saying. But there is a fine, but very important, distinction here. Brushing someone's subjective story off as untrue or unimportant or not representative is not a good thing to do, but it is not the same as pointing out that maybe there was just a misunderstanding with the other party in that conversation.
But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
Tiberias wrote: Again, call me naive here. But why don't people feel safe to ask that? It's just a simple question to clear up an uncomfortable situation that maybe, hopefully is just a misunderstanding between two people. Of course if we're talking about a situation in a game store or within a group of people that maybe at least know each other. I obviously entirely understand why a woman would feel uncomfortable or unsafe confronting some dude in a park or public transport in that scenario. But what's the worst that can happen in your local game store? That some immature douche throws a hissy fit about...idk men are better than women or something....well, let him. He's just cementing his status as an idiot.
Social anxiety, for one.
Other interpersonal difficulties could also affect someone's confidence or tact in handling the matter.
Another is the fear of confrontation, and threat of reprisal, or from then causing a scene which might see them ejected and shunned from the group and becoming a social outcast.
There could also be the worry that they *are* just misunderstanding, and would then be responsible for a perceived awkwardness.
All the fears about "some dude in a park or public transport" also apply to your local game store, because evidently, by the fact they haven't felt safe to ask, they don't regard it as a safe space for all the aforementioned reasons. Sure, an immature douche might throw a hissy fit. Is that a pleasant thing to have screamed in your face? Of course not. And what if everyone else in the room agrees with him, that you don't belong there? Evidently, you can't be sure, otherwise this would be a safe space, and it evidently isn't. What if the guy gets violent? You don't know he won't any more so than the dude in a park or on public transport won't. You simply don't know because you don't trust the environment you're in, and unfortunately, not everyone *does* trust the environment of the local store.
That's why it's so important to build that trust and support, so that people *can* feel safe to ask that - because as simple a question as it may seem, when you're in a marginalised position, any question can feel fraught with risk and danger.
There's countless reasons why someone would feel afraid to ask. We've seen a couple examples in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:I get what you are saying. But there is a fine, but very important, distinction here. Brushing someone's subjective story off as untrue or unimportant or not representative is not a good thing to do, but it is not the same as pointing out that maybe there was just a misunderstanding with the other party in that conversation.
But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions. Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it? People having discussions that sometimes get heated.
And if some immature douche throws a hissy fit, it probably won't be just one person with a spine in that store who opposes him. And I can only speak for my game store here, but if someone were to attack a woman or a man for that matter in the game store...let alone for just asking a simple question...that guy would have at least 3 guys on top of him, beating his ass, then the police would arrest that idiot and he'd likely be charged with aggravated assault. I seriously hope though that everyone on this forum lives in a place where such things don't happen or happen exceedingly rarely.
Tiberias wrote:I get what you are saying. But there is a fine, but very important, distinction here. Brushing someone's subjective story off as untrue or unimportant or not representative is not a good thing to do, but it is not the same as pointing out that maybe there was just a misunderstanding with the other party in that conversation.
But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
That one I don't understand. If in that hypothetical scenario it was just an honest misunderstanding then their feeling can be invalid. It was cleared up that person B didn't even target person A with their looks, but was rather just in thought. So person As feelings about beeing uncomfortable were not valid in that case.
And people should definitely question their experiences when interacting with other people, or at least try to clear them up. And before someone misunderstands me here, I am not talking about severe cases where someone should question their experience when they were physically assaulted or some messed up gak. But in that hypothetical scenario we were discussing? Yeah.
Tiberias wrote: Again, call me naive here. But why don't people feel safe to ask that? It's just a simple question to clear up an uncomfortable situation that maybe, hopefully is just a misunderstanding between two people. Of course if we're talking about a situation in a game store or within a group of people that maybe at least know each other. I obviously entirely understand why a woman would feel uncomfortable or unsafe confronting some dude in a park or public transport in that scenario. But what's the worst that can happen in your local game store? That some immature douche throws a hissy fit about...idk men are better than women or something....well, let him. He's just cementing his status as an idiot.
Social anxiety, for one.
Other interpersonal difficulties could also affect someone's confidence or tact in handling the matter.
Another is the fear of confrontation, and threat of reprisal, or from then causing a scene which might see them ejected and shunned from the group and becoming a social outcast.
There could also be the worry that they *are* just misunderstanding, and would then be responsible for a perceived awkwardness.
All the fears about "some dude in a park or public transport" also apply to your local game store, because evidently, by the fact they haven't felt safe to ask, they don't regard it as a safe space for all the aforementioned reasons. Sure, an immature douche might throw a hissy fit. Is that a pleasant thing to have screamed in your face? Of course not. And what if everyone else in the room agrees with him, that you don't belong there? Evidently, you can't be sure, otherwise this would be a safe space, and it evidently isn't. What if the guy gets violent? You don't know he won't any more so than the dude in a park or on public transport won't. You simply don't know because you don't trust the environment you're in, and unfortunately, not everyone *does* trust the environment of the local store.
That's why it's so important to build that trust and support, so that people *can* feel safe to ask that - because as simple a question as it may seem, when you're in a marginalised position, any question can feel fraught with risk and danger.
There's countless reasons why someone would feel afraid to ask. We've seen a couple examples in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:I get what you are saying. But there is a fine, but very important, distinction here. Brushing someone's subjective story off as untrue or unimportant or not representative is not a good thing to do, but it is not the same as pointing out that maybe there was just a misunderstanding with the other party in that conversation.
But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions. Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it? People having discussions that sometimes get heated.
And if some immature douche throws a hissy fit, it probably won't be just one person with a spine in that store who opposes him.
This is assumed wishful thinking. History, and modern day, is jam packed full of examples where that did not and does not take place. What kind of blessed childhood did you have where bullies were talked down and shunned by the crowd of onlookers? There is a reason people call the lone voices that speak up brave and heroes. Because the crowd mostly sits back and watches.
Tiberias wrote: Again, call me naive here. But why don't people feel safe to ask that? It's just a simple question to clear up an uncomfortable situation that maybe, hopefully is just a misunderstanding between two people. Of course if we're talking about a situation in a game store or within a group of people that maybe at least know each other. I obviously entirely understand why a woman would feel uncomfortable or unsafe confronting some dude in a park or public transport in that scenario. But what's the worst that can happen in your local game store? That some immature douche throws a hissy fit about...idk men are better than women or something....well, let him. He's just cementing his status as an idiot.
Social anxiety, for one.
Other interpersonal difficulties could also affect someone's confidence or tact in handling the matter.
Another is the fear of confrontation, and threat of reprisal, or from then causing a scene which might see them ejected and shunned from the group and becoming a social outcast.
There could also be the worry that they *are* just misunderstanding, and would then be responsible for a perceived awkwardness.
All the fears about "some dude in a park or public transport" also apply to your local game store, because evidently, by the fact they haven't felt safe to ask, they don't regard it as a safe space for all the aforementioned reasons. Sure, an immature douche might throw a hissy fit. Is that a pleasant thing to have screamed in your face? Of course not. And what if everyone else in the room agrees with him, that you don't belong there? Evidently, you can't be sure, otherwise this would be a safe space, and it evidently isn't. What if the guy gets violent? You don't know he won't any more so than the dude in a park or on public transport won't. You simply don't know because you don't trust the environment you're in, and unfortunately, not everyone *does* trust the environment of the local store.
That's why it's so important to build that trust and support, so that people *can* feel safe to ask that - because as simple a question as it may seem, when you're in a marginalised position, any question can feel fraught with risk and danger.
There's countless reasons why someone would feel afraid to ask. We've seen a couple examples in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:I get what you are saying. But there is a fine, but very important, distinction here. Brushing someone's subjective story off as untrue or unimportant or not representative is not a good thing to do, but it is not the same as pointing out that maybe there was just a misunderstanding with the other party in that conversation.
But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions. Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it? People having discussions that sometimes get heated.
And if some immature douche throws a hissy fit, it probably won't be just one person with a spine in that store who opposes him.
This is assumed wishful thinking. History, and modern day, is jam packed full of examples where that did not and does not take place. What kind of blessed childhood did you have where bullies were talked down and shunned by the crowd of onlookers? There is a reason people call the lone voices that speak up brave and heroes. Because the crowd mostly sits back and watches.
Your condescending question aside, I assume we are talking about adults here. And while I am fully aware that adults can be very bad bullies, the chances of having civil discourse with an adult is still higher than with a petulant child who steals their classmates lunch money.
I'd be interested to hear your solution other than to welcome conversation and discussion with the people concerning the issue at your local store for example.
When I say history and the modern day I am talking about adults. Post 9/11 Muslims being harrassed. Modern day Muslims in the UK. The very partisan politics that are occurring all around the world. Pro Life/Pro Choice protests outside abortion clinics.
Women still make less money than men on average. Do you think a reasonable conversation between adults has solved that yet?
I am not saying conversation isn't the way to go. I am saying it's not as easy as simply having a conversation between 2 individuals. When we are discussing gatekeeping there are bigger underlying issues that require years or decades of societal change. And it has never been as simple as one person asking to be respected and the crowd supporting them. Thinking for some reason that that would simply work out is blind optimistic naivety at best.
Lance845 wrote: When I say history and the modern day I am talking about adults. Post 9/11 Muslims being harrassed. Modern day Muslims in the UK. The very partisan politics that are occurring all around the world. Pro Life/Pro Choice protests outside abortion clinics.
Women still make less money than men on average. Do you think a reasonable conversation between adults has solved that yet?
I am not saying conversation isn't the way to go. I am saying it's not as easy as simply having a conversation between 2 individuals. When we are discussing gatekeeping there are bigger underlying issues that require years or decades of societal change. And it has never been as simple as one person asking to be respected and the crowd supporting them.
Ok, but what's the solution then other than to try to engage people in civil discourse to either clear up misunderstanings, try to convince them to change their mind with arguments or if they throw a hissy fit, tell them they are idiots and refuse to play with them/not include them in playing groups (when regarding warhammer).
Edit: you just simply can't make laws that protect you from someone looking gloomy or hostile. Or some idiot throwing a hissy fit.
Lance845 wrote: When I say history and the modern day I am talking about adults. Post 9/11 Muslims being harrassed. Modern day Muslims in the UK. The very partisan politics that are occurring all around the world. Pro Life/Pro Choice protests outside abortion clinics.
Women still make less money than men on average. Do you think a reasonable conversation between adults has solved that yet?
I am not saying conversation isn't the way to go. I am saying it's not as easy as simply having a conversation between 2 individuals. When we are discussing gatekeeping there are bigger underlying issues that require years or decades of societal change. And it has never been as simple as one person asking to be respected and the crowd supporting them.
Ok, but what's the solution then other than to try to engage people in civil discourse to either clear up misunderstanings, try to convince them to change their mind with arguments or if they throw a hissy fit, tell them they are idiots and refuse to play with them/not include them in playing groups (when regarding warhammer).
Again, I am not saying that isn't the solution. I am saying expecting it to simply work is misplaced optimism. Historically, the crowd does not support you. Individuals don't engage in that because going to a game store shouldn't be a fight for fair treatment. And frankly it's exhausting to constantly battle.
You saying it's the solution isn't wrong. You thinking it's that simple is completely wrong. And thats all the reason in the world for why people don't do it.
Lance845 wrote: When I say history and the modern day I am talking about adults. Post 9/11 Muslims being harrassed. Modern day Muslims in the UK. The very partisan politics that are occurring all around the world. Pro Life/Pro Choice protests outside abortion clinics.
Women still make less money than men on average. Do you think a reasonable conversation between adults has solved that yet?
I am not saying conversation isn't the way to go. I am saying it's not as easy as simply having a conversation between 2 individuals. When we are discussing gatekeeping there are bigger underlying issues that require years or decades of societal change. And it has never been as simple as one person asking to be respected and the crowd supporting them.
Ok, but what's the solution then other than to try to engage people in civil discourse to either clear up misunderstanings, try to convince them to change their mind with arguments or if they throw a hissy fit, tell them they are idiots and refuse to play with them/not include them in playing groups (when regarding warhammer).
Again, I am not saying that isn't the solution. I am saying expecting it to simply work is misplaced optimism. Historically, the crowd does not support you. Individuals don't engage in that because going to a game store shouldn't be a fight for fair treatment. And frankly it's exhausting to constantly battle.
You saying it's the solution isn't wrong. You thinking it's that simple is completely wrong. And thats all the reason in the world for why people don't do it.
Sure, I am not denying that fighting for equal rights is not easy. Nor am I claiming that women are not treated unfairly.
But in the hypothetical scenario sgt smudge and I initally were talking about, it was just essentially about clearing up a potential misunderstanding. How is that fighting for equal treatment?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Because a historical precedent is all the reason a person needs to not start the conversation of cleaning up a potential misunderstanding.
People, adults or otherwise, are not reasonable. The crowd won't back you (in general), and it's a risk to even start to engage that history says you are going to lose (at least in the sort term). You are asking why x person doesn't simply do y. Because I bet like all of us, they have a life time of experiences that tell them it's not worth our time just to lose.
No it's not good in the long run. But it's the facts of why things are the way they are.
On the matter of the mod team, Manchu has been enabling this for years. Look into every thread he closed down right after his pal Adeptus Doritos shat up.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
Lance845 wrote: Because a historical precedent is all the reason a person needs to not start the conversation of cleaning up a potential misunderstanding.
People, adults or otherwise, are not reasonable. The crowd won't back you (in general), and it's a risk to even start to engage that history says you are going to lose (at least in the sort term). You are asking why x person doesn't simply do y. Because I bet like all of us, they have a life time of experiences that tell them it's not worth our time just to lose.
No it's not good in the long run. But it's the facts of why things are the way they are.
Ok, I get all that. But clearing up a potential misunderstanding, any misunderstanding is just basic human interaction. Some coworker might look grumpy at you at work one morning, some friend might over-explain something to you because they are a stickler in that particular topic.
Where do you draw the line between normal human interaction and (hopefully) just clearing up basic misunderstandings, and having to fight for equal treatment?
Again, I'm not saying unequal treatment does not exist or that we should not do something against that.
If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
I mean, they're famous for egalitarianism so sure "irrelevent."
I'd rather trust you than my lying eyes, after all.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
I mean, they're famous for egalitarianism so sure "irrelevent."
I'd rather trust you than my lying eyes, after all.
"Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi"? Is that really where we're at?
"We have to do better" seems pretty applicable here too.
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Well, no, actually. Sure, two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
Insectum7 wrote:"Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi"? Is that really where we're at?
"We have to do better" seems pretty applicable here too.
Accountability is definitely part of being better. It isn't 'anyone who disagrees,' its a specific group of usual suspects that repeatedly demonstrate the same horrid behavior over and over again, and openly come out against anyone or anything... well, that doesn't fit whatever purity test exists in their heads. Its never subtle, but it keeps getting a pass.
We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history
This is a violation of rule 1, it is also legally actionable slander. none of my posts have been deleted, the reason you cannot find any said material is because it does not exist.
By your own description you describe yourself as a leftist activist, i surmise, though i do not know you so i cannot claim it as fact that you have socialist/communist leanings. what i do gather from your posts is that you see nazi's under every rock IE anybody who may happen to disagree with you.
1.my love of my Scandinavian heritage (4th generation Swedish) and Norse mythology does not make me a nazi
2. my flames of war official game dice for my axis forces do not make me a nazi any more than my hammer/sickle dice for my SSU DUST army make me a communist, or my hinomaru dice i use for my Japanese fleet in victory at sea make me part of the imperial Japanese government or ideology, nor does my British desert rats dice make me an English monarchist.
3. I am unequivocally not a Nazi, neo-Nazi or white supremacist, if i were i would be really bad at it considering i regularly associate with and count as close friends' gamers who are practicing Jews, Leninists, homosexuals, atheists and just about every ethnic minority you can imagine.
The only person here i see acting in a manner of a classic fascist is you. In fact, one of my Jewish friends well versed is Marxist theory/history took one look at your posts and said you are one (his opinion, not mine).
This post has been reported and I request you cease and desist making these slanderous statements, you do not know me, or anything about me, you are quite literally talking GAK out your
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Well, no, actually. Sure, two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
What would happen differently for those groups you describe? And again, in that hypothetical example I keep referring to, which we were discussing, how do you know the other person is actually an aggressor unless you clear up the situation.
Edit: imo you just can't pre describe someone who might look at you in a funny way in a game store as an aggressor.
Insectum7 wrote:"Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi"? Is that really where we're at?
"We have to do better" seems pretty applicable here too.
Accountability is definitely part of being better. It isn't 'anyone who disagrees,' its a specific group of usual suspects that repeatedly demonstrate the same horrid behavior over and over again, and openly come out against anyone or anything... well, that doesn't fit whatever purity test exists in their heads. Its never subtle, but it keeps getting a pass.
Ok, but pointing out bad actors does not make an argument or observation invalid, regardless. The idea that one persons social awkwardness might be incorrectly interpreted as sexism can still be true.
Now can that observation be abused by bad-faith actors? Sure. But likewise so can "believe all women". Getting one side of a story is rarely enough if you're looking for something actionable, which the OP is. That said, it's not like I have reason to disbelieve the premise behind the OPs post, etc. But sometimes an awkward situation can leave people with the wrong impression about things.
The solution, as others have pointed out, is civil discourse and building mutual understanding if possible. If not possible, leave and find a better group of people.
"usual suspects that repeatedly demonstrate the same horrid behavior over and over again, and openly come out against anyone or anything... well, that doesn't fit whatever purity test exists in their heads." That there is a statement and a half. Does that apply to anyone who "sees fascists" everywhere?
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
And if some immature douche throws a hissy fit, it probably won't be just one person with a spine in that store who opposes him. And I can only speak for my game store here, but if someone were to attack a woman or a man for that matter in the game store...let alone for just asking a simple question...that guy would have at least 3 guys on top of him, beating his ass, then the police would arrest that idiot and he'd likely be charged with aggravated assault. I seriously hope though that everyone on this forum lives in a place where such things don't happen or happen exceedingly rarely.
I'm sorry, but you really can only speak for your store there. Yes, attacking someone is absolutely going to be out of line in most places, but the intimidation and threat towards marginalised folks is still pervasive, and it's unfortunately rare that anyone steps in on them. Unfortunately, in the wider world, onlookers are more common than any of us would like.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
That one I don't understand. If in that hypothetical scenario it was just an honest misunderstanding then their feeling can be invalid.
No, their feeling isn't invalid. It may have been a mistake or a misunderstanding, but how they felt wasn't.
Take it this way - you think that your friend has stolen something of yours, something precious and valuable. You would understandably feel betrayed, angry, upset, or mad, or all of the above. You talk to them about it, and you find out that you actually just lost it. You misunderstood the situation, but everything you felt was real still. That's what I mean by "feelings are valid" - it doesn't matter if you were ultimately right or wrong, you still felt that way, and you really shouldn't have needed to feel those things.
It was cleared up that person B didn't even target person A with their looks, but was rather just in thought. So person As feelings about beeing uncomfortable were not valid in that case.
No, their feelings very much were valid. They still felt everything, and experienced all those concerns. They can be misunderstood, but their feelings can be valid at the same time. Both parties should have to evaluate that situation and both work out how to avoid that in the future, what behaviours either one can do that can avoid such a misunderstanding in the future.
And people should definitely question their experiences when interacting with other people, or at least try to clear them up.
Again, lovely idea in theory, simply impractical when you factor in the severe mistrust and lack of faith that many marginalised groups have, and the difficulty in navigating social situations that many neurodivergent people have.
It really isn't as simple as "clear up how you interact with people", because not everyone has the luxury of feeling safe to do that. Hence why establishing safe spaces is so important to maintaining communication. Or, as Voss so well puts it:
Voss wrote:...two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
Ok, I'm trying to learn here. What do I do to make someone feel safe other than try to engage them in (hopefully) honest conversation and treat them with a normal level of courtesy?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
Tiberias wrote:That one I don't understand. If in that hypothetical scenario it was just an honest misunderstanding then their feeling can be invalid.
No, their feeling isn't invalid. It may have been a mistake or a misunderstanding, but how they felt wasn't.
Take it this way - you think that your friend has stolen something of yours, something precious and valuable. You would understandably feel betrayed, angry, upset, or mad, or all of the above. You talk to them about it, and you find out that you actually just lost it. You misunderstood the situation, but everything you felt was real still. That's what I mean by "feelings are valid" - it doesn't matter if you were ultimately right or wrong, you still felt that way, and you really shouldn't have needed to feel those things.
Tiberias wrote:It was cleared up that person B didn't even target person A with their looks, but was rather just in thought. So person As feelings about beeing uncomfortable were not valid in that case.
No, their feelings very much were valid. They still felt everything, and experienced all those concerns. They can be misunderstood, but their feelings can be valid at the same time. Both parties should have to evaluate that situation and both work out how to avoid that in the future, what behaviours either one can do that can avoid such a misunderstanding in the future.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You shouldn't have needed to feel bad when you initially thought your friend stole something from you, when it then turned out that the thing wasn't even stolen in the first place, just lost? Shouldn't you feel relieved? How is your hypothetical friend supposed to change his behavior here, when they demonstrably didn't do anything wrong? "Sorry because you felt bad for thinking that I stole from you, which you now know I didn't do in the first place" I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
And again, how do you ever protect someone from that? That example you gave is just a simple part of life. Misunderstanding will always happen in human interaction, you can't prevent that....just try to clear it up.
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Well, no, actually. Sure, two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
What would happen differently for those groups you describe? And again, in that hypothetical example I keep referring to, which we were discussing, how do you know the other person is actually an aggressor unless you clear up the situation.
Edit: imo you just can't pre describe someone who might look at you in a funny way in a game store as an aggressor.
I missed some of the context, but is this in reference to the person OP said just silently glared at her the entire game? It really depends. In an ideal world it can be easy to talk it out yes, but sometimes speaking up can create its own unpleasantness. There are people who will just grin and bear it through these kinds of situations afraid to kick the metaphorical bee hive - you get stung once you aren't likely to try kicking it again, even if this time it is a misunderstanding.
I think the best case would be to have a group greeter so to speak, someone newcomers can come to and feel safe around. The safe space like smudge talked about. Someone who can maybe help explain the quirks of the group to a newcomer to help with misunderstandings. Like "oh that is X, he is a nice guy but shy, he probably won't talk to you until you've been around a few weeks but once he warms up to you he is very nice." On top of that, also to help set the expectations of the newcomer to the group and vice versa, so they all know roughly what they are getting in to and have a shared understanding of everything.
The big thing is being understanding and willing to talk it out, and making sure the other parties are aware of it. Like I said, kicking the beehive - there are people who do not feel the unpleasantness of kicking the beehive is worth the chance of it being a misunderstanding. But with an open environment based on communal trust, well, it doesn't completely get rid of the risk, but it does help ease the fear and tension.
aphyon wrote:
The only person here i see acting in a manner of a classic fascist is you. In fact, one of my Jewish friends well versed is Marxist theory/history took one look at your posts and said you are one (his opinion, not mine).
After saying that calling someone a fascist is bad, you immediately turn around and call them a fascist? Just...confusing. I have no horse in the race, not going to bother looking at either of your posting histories, it just seems odd is all.
Crimson wrote:
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
Yeah, the thread on the guy who went to tourney decked out that kind of gear really was an eye opener, with people rushing to defend the guy (or throwing lots of shade around with whataboutisms). Its also the kind of stuff that makes people uncomfortable and just not want to interact with a group.
Put in terms of a gaming concept, if someone were to tell me about an amazing friend they had, who is hilarious and great to be around, we should have them over for D&D next time we get together - and then the person shows up in a confederate flag shirt. Yeah - that is an immediate red flag and I will disengage at the earliest opportunity. Life is too short to spend free time with an open bigot. Moreover, it would start to make me question the friend who brought them. And on the flip side, if the group would keep the person, suddenly the group is now the local one open to racists, which pretty much by default would close it to most other groups.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
Ok, I'm trying to learn here. What do I do to make someone feel safe other than try to engage them in (hopefully) honest conversation and treat them with a normal level of courtesy?
I've repeated myself enough times stating exactly how to do that.
Ask them first what you can do. Present yourself in a way, with how you speak, act, and interact with others, that indicates that you are someone who is receptive and open to other people's concerns. Find ways to include them in things first, but *always ask if they're comfortable*. Ask how you can make things more comfortable for others.
If you have power or are part of the "norm" in a group, it's on you to take initiative and make the newcomers feel welcome, not the other way around. And most importantly, don't stop doing that. Maintain that alertness and receptiveness to all members of the group, even when they become the new norm.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You shouldn't have needed to feel bad when you initially thought your friend stole something from you, when it then turned out that the thing wasn't even stolen in the first place, just lost?
But you didn't know that it was just lost, and you had reason - at that moment - to believe that your friend had stolen it. Your feelings were valid, even if they were later proven misplaced. No matter what actually happened, if you felt angry or betrayed, you had a right to feel that way because what you knew and felt at the time was real.
Shouldn't you feel relieved?
After the fact? Yes, of course! But that doesn't change how you felt beforehand.
How is your hypothetical friend supposed to change his behavior here, when they demonstrably didn't do anything wrong? "Sorry because you felt bad for thinking that I stole from you, which you now know I didn't do in the first place" I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
That example was to demonstrate how your feelings are valid, not in how your people are supposed to change their behaviour. That example wasn't a 1:1 analogy of the OP's example, but it did exist to illustrate how someone's feelings are valid, even if they are later known to be misinformed.
Now, if you KNEW that your friend couldn't have stolen it, and you *still* felt angry towards them, that *would* be invalid, but under the given circumstances and situation, your feelings would have been valid, even if they were later shown to be misinformed. The bottom line, however, is that you don't try and negate or shoot down those feelings, because that helps no-one.
And again, how do you ever protect someone from that? That example you gave is just a simple part of life. Misunderstanding will always happen in human interaction, you can't prevent that....just try to clear it up.
Yes, you absolutely *can* prevent it - can you prevent all of it? No. But you can certainly try.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept the idea that "it is what it is, can't do anything about it", because it's simply not true. Again - the example I gave wasn't to be a perfect replica or analogy, it was ONLY to illustrate that your feelings can be valid and later shown to be misinformed.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
Ok, I'm trying to learn here. What do I do to make someone feel safe other than try to engage them in (hopefully) honest conversation and treat them with a normal level of courtesy?
I've repeated myself enough times stating exactly how to do that.
Ask them first what you can do. Present yourself in a way, with how you speak, act, and interact with others, that indicates that you are someone who is receptive and open to other people's concerns. Find ways to include them in things first, but *always ask if they're comfortable*. Ask how you can make things more comfortable for others.
If you have power or are part of the "norm" in a group, it's on you to take initiative and make the newcomers feel welcome, not the other way around. And most importantly, don't stop doing that. Maintain that alertness and receptiveness to all members of the group, even when they become the new norm.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You shouldn't have needed to feel bad when you initially thought your friend stole something from you, when it then turned out that the thing wasn't even stolen in the first place, just lost?
But you didn't know that it was just lost, and you had reason - at that moment - to believe that your friend had stolen it. Your feelings were valid, even if they were later proven misplaced. No matter what actually happened, if you felt angry or betrayed, you had a right to feel that way because what you knew and felt at the time was real.
Shouldn't you feel relieved?
After the fact? Yes, of course! But that doesn't change how you felt beforehand.
How is your hypothetical friend supposed to change his behavior here, when they demonstrably didn't do anything wrong? "Sorry because you felt bad for thinking that I stole from you, which you now know I didn't do in the first place" I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
That example was to demonstrate how your feelings are valid, not in how your people are supposed to change their behaviour. That example wasn't a 1:1 analogy of the OP's example, but it did exist to illustrate how someone's feelings are valid, even if they are later known to be misinformed.
Now, if you KNEW that your friend couldn't have stolen it, and you *still* felt angry towards them, that *would* be invalid, but under the given circumstances and situation, your feelings would have been valid, even if they were later shown to be misinformed. The bottom line, however, is that you don't try and negate or shoot down those feelings, because that helps no-one.
And again, how do you ever protect someone from that? That example you gave is just a simple part of life. Misunderstanding will always happen in human interaction, you can't prevent that....just try to clear it up.
Yes, you absolutely *can* prevent it - can you prevent all of it? No. But you can certainly try.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept the idea that "it is what it is, can't do anything about it", because it's simply not true. Again - the example I gave wasn't to be a perfect replica or analogy, it was ONLY to illustrate that your feelings can be valid and later shown to be misinformed.
Does that make sense?
BlackoCatto wrote:We are still on this?
Do you have anything else to add?
I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But you can only get to that point once you clear up such a misunderstanding and you can only do that by proactively talking.
We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history
This is a violation of rule 1, it is also legally actionable slander.
Er...
(Not trying to disagree with anything else you're saying, Aphyon, I just thought I'd try to add a little humour. Because by god this thread could use some. )
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
That simply isn't true. You don't need to "cease human interaction" to prevent instances of people feeling hurt - it's an ongoing process, but it is absolutely possible, and not something to be handwaved away. It takes time, and it takes effort. I'm not acting like it'll fix itself overnight.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But that's not even true - because at that point in time, with the information you had, those feelings were valid. There's no need to rewrite how you felt, or to sweep that under the rug. You grow and develop from those feelings, but you don't invalidate them.
If someone's shooting me daggers across the room, and I feel intimidated by them, I don't care if they later come up and say "oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were someone else, sorry for doing that", I was still intimidated by them. Now, I can grow and develop from those feelings, I can move on, but it doesn't change that I felt intimidated by their actions, and acting otherwise would be erasure.
But you can only get to that point once you clear up such a misunderstanding and you can only do that by proactively talking.
And the responsibility for proactively talking and providing the bridge for that potential misunderstanding to be cleared isn't on the newcomer to do - it's on the dominant power in the setting. The threatened/marginalised party shouldn't have to make the harder steps of getting over their own anxieties and concerns of an unsafe space to make the space safer, it's on the people already in the space to make it welcoming and safe, and they can only do that by listening to any signs (verbal or non-verbal) from newcomers, from opening themselves up to newcomers, and in themselves being the ones to ask how they can better integrate newcomers: not the other way around.
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
I've seen a few posts that were real doosies, absolutely. But when you say "bigot apologists" I wonder about the validity of such a statement considering how quickly some are to throw labels like "bigot" or "nazi" around.
But also, this isn't arguing the point and is just slinging more mud. And overuse of hate-labels doesn't exactly make for a welcoming community either.
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
No, I absolutely refute that logic, because it goes both ways. By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
So in that hypothetical scenario where you thought your friend stole from you, you might be angry at first? Ok, so what? If the situation clears itself up and your friend didn't steal, you being angry was unjustified. If he did indeed steal from you, you being angry was justified.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
That simply isn't true. You don't need to "cease human interaction" to prevent instances of people feeling hurt - it's an ongoing process, but it is absolutely possible, and not something to be handwaved away. It takes time, and it takes effort. I'm not acting like it'll fix itself overnight.
Am I acting like it'll fix itself over night? We keep coming back to that you kinda need to talk to people if you want to improve something. You say thats hard for some people, I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to talk to people.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But that's not even true - because at that point in time, with the information you had, those feelings were valid. There's no need to rewrite how you felt, or to sweep that under the rug. You grow and develop from those feelings, but you don't invalidate them.
If someone's shooting me daggers across the room, and I feel intimidated by them, I don't care if they later come up and say "oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were someone else, sorry for doing that", I was still intimidated by them. Now, I can grow and develop from those feelings, I can move on, but it doesn't change that I felt intimidated by their actions, and acting otherwise would be erasure.
I'm sorry, but what does erasure mean in that context?
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
No, I absolutely refute that logic, because it goes both ways. By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
So in that hypothetical scenario where you thought your friend stole from you, you might be angry at first? Ok, so what? If the situation clears itself up and your friend didn't steal, you being angry was unjustified. If he did indeed steal from you, you being angry was justified.
No, me feeling betrayed and angry *was* justified at the time because there was no additional context. You need to be aware that people can feel things without knowing all the information, and that suddenly, with that change in information, they don't just lose those feelings. They can work and move on from them, but to negate them is erasing their lived experiences.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
That simply isn't true. You don't need to "cease human interaction" to prevent instances of people feeling hurt - it's an ongoing process, but it is absolutely possible, and not something to be handwaved away. It takes time, and it takes effort. I'm not acting like it'll fix itself overnight.
Am I acting like it'll fix itself over night? We keep coming back to that you kinda need to talk to people if you want to improve something. You say thats hard for some people, I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to talk to people.
And that's not on the marginalised group to do - that's the responsibility of the dominant group to do, because *they're* the ones who are supposed to make it a safe space.
I'm not saying that you don't need to talk to people, but I am saying that you certainly implied in earlier posts that the onus for that is on the marginalised group, which is certainly isn't.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But that's not even true - because at that point in time, with the information you had, those feelings were valid. There's no need to rewrite how you felt, or to sweep that under the rug. You grow and develop from those feelings, but you don't invalidate them.
If someone's shooting me daggers across the room, and I feel intimidated by them, I don't care if they later come up and say "oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were someone else, sorry for doing that", I was still intimidated by them. Now, I can grow and develop from those feelings, I can move on, but it doesn't change that I felt intimidated by their actions, and acting otherwise would be erasure.
I'm sorry, but what does erasure mean in that context?
Erasure would be removal in retrospect, it would be denying my own lived experience, it would be self-censorship, and it would honestly be a form of gaslighting behaviour, in that I could not trust my own thoughts and feelings. It would be erasing my own thoughts and how I felt in that situation.
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
I've seen a few posts that were real doosies, absolutely. But when you say "bigot apologists" I wonder about the validity of such a statement considering how quickly some are to throw labels like "bigot" or "nazi" around.
But also, this isn't arguing the point and is just slinging more mud. And overuse of hate-labels doesn't exactly make for a welcoming community either.
People are usually quick to throw those terms around.... because they basically in 99% of cases do apply.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!). It's the whole "hey I'm just asking questions..." thing that you see them do. What's worse is that in modern Western culture we have been conditioned to only consider fascism, or bigotry in general, to be really extreme actions like rounding people up into camps to exterminate them, or segregating different races of people and treating them as lesser class humans than others. In other words, you can easily be a Nazi without actively standing guard at Auschwitz.
Not to get all Banality of Evil on everyone, but abhorrent views are often defined by how bland and ordinary and casual they can be expressed, either consciously or unconsciously.
But really, if you're throwing out the "defence" of people throwing around the word bigot/fascist too much, then you're basically parroting things that people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Priti Patel, Boris Johnson and the 45th President of the United States say. And hey, these people are not innocuous moderate Right-Wingers that just y'know, love private property and the Free Market (my cousins husband is one of those kinds of people and they are certainly not a fascist or a bigot), they actively hold and promote incredibly dangerous ideas and wear their love of exclusionary Authoritarianism on their sleeves without any shame.
For more somewhat related reading on this matter, these videos go into some of it a little and the one about the UC Berkeley research into the Authoritarian personality type is interesting on its own.
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
No, I absolutely refute that logic, because it goes both ways. By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.
By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not? The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
I've seen a few posts that were real doosies, absolutely. But when you say "bigot apologists" I wonder about the validity of such a statement considering how quickly some are to throw labels like "bigot" or "nazi" around.
But also, this isn't arguing the point and is just slinging more mud. And overuse of hate-labels doesn't exactly make for a welcoming community either.
People are usually quick to throw those terms around.... because they basically in 99% of cases do apply.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!). It's the whole "hey I'm just asking questions..." thing that you see them do. What's worse is that in modern Western culture we have been conditioned to only consider fascism, or bigotry in general, to be really extreme actions like rounding people up into camps to exterminate them, or segregating different races of people and treating them as lesser class humans than others. In other words, you can easily be a Nazi without actively standing guard at Auschwitz.
Not to get all Banality of Evil on everyone, but abhorrent views are often defined by how bland and ordinary and casual they can be expressed, either consciously or unconsciously.
But really, if you're throwing out the "defence" of people throwing around the word bigot/fascist too much, then you're basically parroting things that people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Priti Patel, Boris Johnson and the 45th President of the United States say. And hey, these people are not innocuous moderate Right-Wingers that just y'know, love private property and the Free Market (my cousins husband is one of those kinds of people and they are certainly not a fascist or a bigot), they actively hold and promote incredibly dangerous ideas and wear their love of exclusionary Authoritarianism on their sleeves without any shame.
For more somewhat related reading on this matter, these videos go into some of it a little and the one about the UC Berkeley research into the Authoritarian personality type is interesting on its own.
@Bosskelot:
"In 99% of cases it applies . . ." Riiiiiiiiggggght. I'm not inclined to go along with that assertion.
Btw, I'm a big fan of contrapoints. I've watched probably most of her vids, certainly those ones. Not that I always agree, I just think it's great content. Not a fan of Tucker and no. 45.
Sorry I can't make a better response atm, life calls. I might have something later.
But I'd point out that you admit to knowing a right-wing-fan who is neither a fascist or bigot, your words.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!).
So I take it you are straight up admitting to being a crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and/or alt-right chud?
Because the whole point of a dog-whistle is that it is inaudible to the ears of non-canines. Thus, if you can hear the whistle, then that makes you the dog.
Ergo, if people are 'dogwhistling' to crypto-fascists, neo-nazis and/or alt-right chuds, and you are hearing it, then you must be one of those yourself.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!).
So I take it you are straight up admitting to being a crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and/or alt-right chud?
Because the whole point of a dog-whistle is that it is inaudible to the ears of non-canines. Thus, if you can hear the whistle, then that makes you the dog.
Ergo, if people are 'dogwhistling' to crypto-fascists, neo-nazis and/or alt-right chuds, and you are hearing it, then you must be one of those yourself.
If you can't look it up yourself, then I'll happily accomodate you.
I mean obviously there absolutely loads of right wing people who are not fascists, I don't think that really needs to be said? Centre right views are pretty mainstream, I'd say they're the dominant views in most of Europe and in quite a lot of the US as well. I guess the problem is that we've all got pretty different ideas about what is centre right.
I think this thread is a really good example of why it's difficult for a woman or any other minority to get along at times though. Like a lot of even the helpful advice amounted to "be a better participant than all the other players there to try to limit any avenue for criticism", you know genuinely well meant advice like "paint your stuff really well" and the like, basically putting a higher standard on a woman so she's not as open to criticism. I see that kind of crap all the time with my wife in her professional life (the women basically have to be better than the men at everything and will be criticised really harshly for any feth up, more than men would be) and in my job as a teacher (girls are a lot more afraid of failure generally, and I think this is because they are criticised more heavily for failure than boys who generally get a more lax attitude from everyone. Now, you can argue that that lax attitude is in itself harmful to the boys, and I'd tend to agree to a certain extent. But I think the fear of failure is what keeps numbers of girls in my subject down based on a lot of conversations with boys and girls over the years. I can go into more detail on this if people want).
Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.
Anyway, I'm a guy and I feel uncomfortable talking about this because I don't have the experience. I'm sorta communicating what my wife said to me when I discussed this thread with her along with some of my experiences from my job.
Tiberias wrote:By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.
Sure - and then you can address the points you've so gracefully skipped over, when you're done moving the goalposts.
By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not?
Wow, way to move the goalposts there! Being drunk, literally being intoxicated, is such a massive point of context here that it speaks for itself without saying, but you can't even stick by your own words! What are you finding so hard to understand about "don't be a dick and tell people that their own feelings are wrong"? If you can't understand that, or the WORLD of difference between being an abuse apologist and defending the feelings of someone who *does* feel abused, then this isn't worth talking about with you.
Like, you *do* realise that you're siding against the abused here with this, right? You're more concerned with being factually right than showing empathy or compassion - what kind of safe space and trusting environment does that foster?
The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.
Your "logic" only works when devoid of context. Either you don't understand context or subtlety, or you're being obtuse deliberately. I suggest you consider which it is before continuing, and after you've addressed the rest of my comments about the onus on making a safe space being on the dominant group.
Da Boss wrote:Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.
Exactly this. The idea as well echoed by some users that it's down to the marginalised group to be the ones to expose themselves and be the ones to challenge the dominant forces isn't a million miles from this, and it entirely removes the core issue that if there's a feeling of being marginalised, it's coming from the dominant group, and therefore needs to be *their* responsibility to resolve.
Tiberias wrote:By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.
Sure - and then you can address the points you've so gracefully skipped over, when you're done moving the goalposts.
By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not?
Wow, way to move the goalposts there! Being drunk, literally being intoxicated, is such a massive point of context here that it speaks for itself without saying, but you can't even stick by your own words! What are you finding so hard to understand about "don't be a dick and tell people that their own feelings are wrong"? If you can't understand that, or the WORLD of difference between being an abuse apologist and defending the feelings of someone who *does* feel abused, then this isn't worth talking about with you.
Like, you *do* realise that you're siding against the abused here with this, right? You're more concerned with being factually right than showing empathy or compassion - what kind of safe space and trusting environment does that foster?
The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.
Your "logic" only works when devoid of context. Either you don't understand context or subtlety, or you're being obtuse deliberately. I suggest you consider which it is before continuing, and after you've addressed the rest of my comments about the onus on making a safe space being on the dominant group.
Da Boss wrote:Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.
Exactly this. The idea as well echoed by some users that it's down to the marginalised group to be the ones to expose themselves and be the ones to challenge the dominant forces isn't a million miles from this, and it entirely removes the core issue that if there's a feeling of being marginalised, it's coming from the dominant group, and therefore needs to be *their* responsibility to resolve.
Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.
You made the initial argument that feeling angry or threatend when beeing looked at is valid regardless of context! That was YOUR argument! And now you come at me and say you can't evaluate such things without context? Get the hell outa here....
If your logic is: my feeling of being angry or threatened is valid in that moment no matter of context or whether the situation gets cleared up later.......then a piece of gak wife beater suddenly feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him wrong is also valid in that moment. It's the same logic....hence why I find that train of thought so messed up!
Your feelings are not justified by default.
And you say that me pointing out that severely flawed logic, I would be siding against the hypothetically abused victim? Are you utterly out of your mind?
Tiberias wrote:Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.
No more than you taking "don't dismiss the feelings of someone who feels threatened" and twisting that to mean "abuse is okay if you feel like it!!" - after you moved your own goalposts about them being drunk, no less.
If you can't see the different in those two things, we're done with this. If you want to actually be constructive, you might want to look back on what I've said about creating a safe space, and see what you can do about it, instead of trying to silence disempowered voices.
(And actually, no, I didn't say anything about "feeling angry.. when beeing looked at is valid" - I explicitly said "threatened", and that certainly didn't encompass any excuse or justification for abuse. Don't go putting words in my mouth.)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!).
So I take it you are straight up admitting to being a crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and/or alt-right chud?
Because the whole point of a dog-whistle is that it is inaudible to the ears of non-canines. Thus, if you can hear the whistle, then that makes you the dog.
Ergo, if people are 'dogwhistling' to crypto-fascists, neo-nazis and/or alt-right chuds, and you are hearing it, then you must be one of those yourself.
If you can't look it up yourself, then I'll happily accomodate you.
Interesting that you didn't actually refute vipoid's point....
At the game store. Me and my wife brought our nephews for the first time. Our stores huge. Maybe 30-50 people. After sitting down for 20 min my nephew looks around and says loudly to my wife, "wow. Youre like the only girl here"
Couldn't stop laughing. Made me think of this thread. Hope you enjoy
Tiberias wrote:Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.
No more than you taking "don't dismiss the feelings of someone who feels threatened" and twisting that to mean "abuse is okay if you feel like it!!" - after you moved your own goalposts about them being drunk, no less.
If you can't see the different in those two things, we're done with this. If you want to actually be constructive, you might want to look back on what I've said about creating a safe space, and see what you can do about it, instead of trying to silence disempowered voices.
(And actually, no, I didn't say anything about "feeling angry.. when beeing looked at is valid" - I explicitly said "threatened", and that certainly didn't encompass any excuse or justification for abuse. Don't go putting words in my mouth.)
I am not putting words in your mouth neither am I shifting the goalposts here, it's literally what you said. It's the same logical argument, the only one who is justifying abuse is you by sticking to that severely flawed train of thought.
I came into this conversation in good faith, but you not being able to handle getting your flawed logic pointed out to you is frankly not my problem.
For the last time:
scenario A: someone feels uncomfortable or threatened in a game store because someone looks at them.
You say their feelings are justified EVEN IF it gets cleared up that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. They felt uncomfortable in that moment, which is what matters and what shouldn't happen, right? So context did not matter here, remember?
Then it logically follows that in scenario B:
A piece of gak no good wife beater gets angry at his wife because she looked at him wrong. His feelings are also justified. Context doesn't matter here also if all your feelings apparently are valid by default.
That's some messed up logic to live your life by.
And you accuse me of being on the side of the abuser? Absolutely ridiculous.
After saying that calling someone a fascist is bad, you immediately turn around and call them a fascist? Just...confusing. I have no horse in the race, not going to bother looking at either of your posting histories, it just seems odd is all.
I was referring to the original Nazi topic he made where he threatened the DAKKA forums and the moderators by stating that he has alerted media about the collective fascist tendancies of the forums in an attempt to publicly force/shame behavior to align to his position.
He is perfectly allowed to assume anything he wants about me, or have an opinion, the moment he states it as fact in a public setting crosses the line.
aphyon wrote: my flames of war official game dice for my axis forces
'facts don't care about your feelings' rather or not you like the person(s) making valid points.
Cool out, swastika dice....
I see civil discourse is not your forte, not sure about your dice reference...
Aphyon is a liar. And I guess proud/not proud to have dice that would be illegal in germany?
Nice attempt at selective editing.
Taking quotes not only out of context but out of the linear timeline to make it look like i said something i did not say. try harder next time.
Making a Ben Shapiro joke does not make me a fascist, especially when it is true, making a reference to dice BEFORE i even knew what the subject was about, then conflating it with something that came up as a topic months later is dishonest at best IMHO.
P.S. Why the FETH do i care about the rules in a country i do not live in? i mean i love japan, speak Japanese and when i was there i followed the rules because i was there and not here, even if i did not like some of them.
So the actual Flames of War dice I see are some with the Iron Cross. NOT a swastika.
Maybe aphyon can take a picture of his dice
Back when FOW MK 1 came i out i built 2 armies as i often do when building a new game so i can involve new players.
One force was an armored company based on the 2nd SS panzer division "Viking" The logo on the dice and in history was the Finish swastika adopted by the Finish airforce in WWI predating the rise of the Nazi party and is still in use today.
The second was a mid-war British scout company for the desert rats British 7th armored division-
As i noted in my previous post i like to theme my forces this includes dice sets.
I have dice for battletech for my draconis combine, lyran allians and clan hells horse, Khador for war machine, Narn dice for B5 wars, Dwarven dice for my forge fathers, hinomaru/rising sun dice for my japanese imperial naval fleet in victory at sea etc.... just because i no longer play FOW doesn't mean i do not still use the dice sets i own.
Sorry about all the edits the ongoing script error on the forums messed up my original post and i had to sort it all out.
Congratulations 14 pages of what can only be described as word vomit, you've made sure the OP will never ask for advice from this forum ever again and most women will never enter a hobby shop. The utter drivel you lot have been writing is mindboggling and actually worrying.
Tiberias wrote:By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.
Sure - and then you can address the points you've so gracefully skipped over, when you're done moving the goalposts.
By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not?
Wow, way to move the goalposts there! Being drunk, literally being intoxicated, is such a massive point of context here that it speaks for itself without saying, but you can't even stick by your own words! What are you finding so hard to understand about "don't be a dick and tell people that their own feelings are wrong"? If you can't understand that, or the WORLD of difference between being an abuse apologist and defending the feelings of someone who *does* feel abused, then this isn't worth talking about with you.
Like, you *do* realise that you're siding against the abused here with this, right? You're more concerned with being factually right than showing empathy or compassion - what kind of safe space and trusting environment does that foster?
The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.
Your "logic" only works when devoid of context. Either you don't understand context or subtlety, or you're being obtuse deliberately. I suggest you consider which it is before continuing, and after you've addressed the rest of my comments about the onus on making a safe space being on the dominant group.
Da Boss wrote:Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.
Exactly this. The idea as well echoed by some users that it's down to the marginalised group to be the ones to expose themselves and be the ones to challenge the dominant forces isn't a million miles from this, and it entirely removes the core issue that if there's a feeling of being marginalised, it's coming from the dominant group, and therefore needs to be *their* responsibility to resolve.
Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.
You made the initial argument that feeling angry or threatend when beeing looked at is valid regardless of context! That was YOUR argument! And now you come at me and say you can't evaluate such things without context? Get the hell outa here....
If your logic is: my feeling of being angry or threatened is valid in that moment no matter of context or whether the situation gets cleared up later.......then a piece of gak wife beater suddenly feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him wrong is also valid in that moment. It's the same logic....hence why I find that train of thought so messed up!
Your feelings are not justified by default.
And you say that me pointing out that severely flawed logic, I would be siding against the hypothetically abused victim? Are you utterly out of your mind?
Feelings are valid.
Actions are not always.
If, in Smudge's example of thinking your friend stole something, you confront your friend, and yell at them, only to later find out that you just misplaced your possession, I'd expect you to feel bad about what you did to your friend. And, if this hypothetical person was better, they wouldn't've done that-they would've talked more calmly and made sure they were right (which they weren't) before doing anything even as drastic as yelling.
If, in the example of an abusive husband, the husband beats his wife because he's angry... That's not acceptable. That's never acceptable. It sure as hell ain't self-defense, it's just "I'm mad, I'll be violent." Feeling angry isn't the issue-attacking someone with your fists is.
I mean, to take an example from my life, I work retail. It's decent enough, but sometimes customers are freaking jerks. That's rude, and my mental monologue is often a non-stop litany of cusses aimed at them. Feeling that they're being rude to me and being mad at them for that is fine. Outwardly, though? I still help them. Because it's my job. I'm not rude to them, because that's not appropriate. My tone might not be nearly as warm or welcoming as it is with a customer that's polite and respectful, but I'm not causing them any harm. If I chose to take action on my feelings, such as cussing them out, I'd be reprimanded by my boss and with reason. If I chose to take extreme action and punched them or intentionally broke their laptop they're picking up or whatever, that'd be majorly wrong.
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
Rolsheen wrote: Congratulations 14 pages of what can only be described as word vomit, you've made sure the OP will never ask for advice from this forum ever again and most women will never enter a hobby shop. The utter drivel you lot have been writing is mindboggling and actually worrying.
Keyboard warrior world does not always equal real life. some members have had bad experiences, some have not. our FLG has several regular female players who we welcome and game with just like everybody else. don't be a jerk, roll dice, move models and build a fun community of gamers.
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
Just curious JNA,
So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, (maybe based on his perceptions of her actions, looks towards him, words etc ) are his feelings valid?
I'm not sure I can get on board with that kind of thinking.
Oh stop it with the mental gymnastics. If you are angry with a friend because he stole some thing from you and you subsequently yell at him only to find out your friend had absolutely nothing to do with it....not only were your actions not justified in that scenario, but also your feeling of angriness directed towards your friend.
Why is it that hard to admit that thinking absolutely every feeling is valid not matter the context, is a seriously messed up way of thinking?
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?
I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.
Yes, they are.
Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.
But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?
I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.
Yes, they are.
Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.
But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.
Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context. So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?
I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.
Yes, they are.
Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.
But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.
Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context. So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.
...
Yes, the feeling matters. But your response ALSO matters. What are you even arguing? Are you saying that having a pattern of unhealthy and potentially dangerous emotions (being constantly angry at people you should care about) is the same as a one-off bout of being mad that doesn't result in anyone being hurt?
Because Smudge said NOTHING about being horrible to someone being acceptable. They said the FEELINGS are valid, not the actions.
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?
I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.
Yes, they are.
Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.
But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.
I disagree. I can't accept that they are valid.
'Valid' implies justified, having a sound basis in logic or fact etc. If you're saying theire "real", that's a different thing to "valid". And real =/= valid, for clarity.
I mean, folks like Elliot Rodgers also thought their feelings were valid. We can take this thinking to very dark places and I do not think this is a good thing..
Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.
So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?
I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.
Yes, they are.
Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.
But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.
Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context. So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.
...
Yes, the feeling matters. But your response ALSO matters. What are you even arguing? Are you saying that having a pattern of unhealthy and potentially dangerous emotions (being constantly angry at people you should care about) is the same as a one-off bout of being mad that doesn't result in anyone being hurt?
Because Smudge said NOTHING about being horrible to someone being acceptable. They said the FEELINGS are valid, not the actions.
Oh jesus christ. What I am arguing for 3 pages is this:
If someone in a game store looks at you in a menacing way, it could just be that they didn't even mean to look specifically at you or meant somebody else, whatever. It could just be a misunderstanding. And I argued that aiming to clear up such potential misunderstandings in a civil manner is the way to go.
Sgt Smudge argued that it doesn't matter even if the situation gets completely cleared up as a misunderstanding it does not matter because the other person already felt targeted or threatened and their feelings have to be taken as valid, otherwise it's erasure. People shouldn't ever have to feel that way in the first place. This train of thought is absolutely ludicrous to me, hence my comparison with the piece of gak wife beater.
Edit: and for the last damn time, I am not saying every interaction like this is just a misunderstanding, that was never the point. If someone in a game store proclaims that this hobby is not for women or that women are not welcome then they should be called out as an idiot and politely asked to leave and/or excluded from game activities with other people.....but that was not the point.
Gert wrote: Jesus wept...
I am not seeing someone using literal SS dice saying it's fine to use SS dice because they use faction dice for fantasy armies.
It gives context, and context is important. He also has British "desert rat" dice. (Not a fantasy army).
So are we saying context is not important? Mel Brooks uses the swastika in The Producers. Obviousy Mel Brooks is not a nazi.
Aphyon collects dice that match his armies. Does that make him a nazi? I'd say no.
If the context was different, I might have a different view of that. But from what little I know, I'll err on "not a nazi", as owning dice does not a nazi make. Questionable choice? Yeah maybe. I wouldn't own them.
Incidentally the finnish military used a yellow on blue swastika (not even the curved one on the dice, but full on straight-arm) up until 2020, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the fins are not nazis either.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you not understand the difference between feeling angry and actually hurting someone?
Generally speaking, actually hurting someone is a bad thing - no disagreements (with the exception of, say, punching Hitler or Marvel villains or things like that).
However, to my mind, the reason 'why' someone is feeling angry is a huge component of whether thrm feeling angry is valid or not.
Some things are arguably justified. Some aren't. Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.
I'd find those dice pretty tasteless for sure, and I'd raise my eyebrows. But I feel similarly about WW2 wargames in general, it's a bit too close for comfort in my view. I prefer stuff set further in the past or in fantastic settings.
I don't assume that people who play WW2 wargames and have Nazi armies are actually Nazis. But it's also true that if a Nazi sympathiser was gonna play wargames, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an SS army they went for.
I think there's a bit of mystique around the SS in any event and they get a bit overhyped in the games systems that I've seen.
This is a bit off topic for the thread though, isn't it?
JNAProductions wrote: Do you not understand the difference between feeling angry and actually hurting someone?
Generally speaking, actually hurting someone is a bad thing - no disagreements (with the exception of, say, punching Hitler or Marvel villains or things like that).
However, to my mind, the reason 'why' someone is feeling angry is a huge component of whether thrm feeling angry is valid or not.
Some things are arguably justified. Some aren't. Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.
Da Boss wrote: I'd find those dice pretty tasteless for sure, and I'd raise my eyebrows. But I feel similarly about WW2 wargames in general, it's a bit too close for comfort in my view. I prefer stuff set further in the past or in fantastic settings.
I don't assume that people who play WW2 wargames and have Nazi armies are actually Nazis. But it's also true that if a Nazi sympathiser was gonna play wargames, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an SS army they went for.
I think there's a bit of mystique around the SS in any event and they get a bit overhyped in the games systems that I've seen.
This is a bit off topic for the thread though, isn't it?
Hollywood has done a great job at making them into captivating villains, for better or for worse.
But how it's related to the topic? It's just an example of how quickly the accusation of "nazi" comes out I think, and by extension how name calling becomes the talking point rather than the actual arguments being made. Case in point and all . . .
But at the base of it, even a nazi/bigot/commie/insert-label-here can make a salient point in a discussion. Not that I want them around, but a salient point remains something to be contented with regardless of the source. Grab the useful bit of info and discard any swill that might come along with it.
Tiberias wrote:Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context.
When did I say "regardless of context"? I said that their feelings were valid - that wasn't, however, irrespective of context. *You* might choose to ignore context (such as the context in your prior example about the abuser being drunk, a goalpost you very hastily shifted, I might add), but *I* didn't ever say that.
Feelings are valid, but those feelings do have a context of their own. The feelings are real, the feelings are valid, but they *do* have context. Clearly, you don't know what I was actually arguing, do you?
So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.
No, what's more messed up is that you thought that the two could be in any way related, and you chose to make that comparison. Why on earth did you think that was a smart thing to do?
JNAProductions wrote:Because Smudge said NOTHING about being horrible to someone being acceptable. They said the FEELINGS are valid, not the actions.
Thank you. There is no excuse for abuse, full stop. I have no idea how anyone read into what I wrote and took that away from it, but it honestly feels like people are just looking for a way to avoid listening to other people's testimony here.
Deadnight wrote:'Valid' implies justified, having a sound basis in logic or fact etc. If you're saying theire "real", that's a different thing to "valid". And real =/= valid, for clarity.
See, I don't think I agree with that. I don't agree with the implication that "valid" means "justified", and I put "valid" on a closer pegging to "real". A valid feeling *exists*, but isn't necessarily correct. My point is that the feeling definitely happened, and absolutely was real to the person experiencing it, and that that feeling should be respected. That doesn't mean it's always correct, but was that feeling felt? Yes.
I think we're using two very different definitions of what "valid" means here.
I think there may have been a miscommunication here, I feel. Which is exceptionally ironic, considering how easy Tiberias made resolving said miscommunications sound - before they started twisting my words into elaborate shapes.
Tiberias wrote:Oh jesus christ. What I am arguing for 3 pages is this:
If someone in a game store looks at you in a menacing way, it could just be that they didn't even mean to look specifically at you or meant somebody else, whatever. It could just be a misunderstanding. And I argued that aiming to clear up such potential misunderstandings in a civil manner is the way to go.
That's all well and good, except when people don't feel safe to talk in a civil manner.
It *could* be a misunderstanding, but the point is that THEY STILL DON'T FEEL SAFE. Do you understand that? And do you understand how to resolve that? I've mentioned it enough times by now.
Sgt Smudge argued that it doesn't matter even if the situation gets completely cleared up as a misunderstanding it does not matter because the other person already felt targeted or threatened and their feelings have to be taken as valid, otherwise it's erasure. People shouldn't ever have to feel that way in the first place. This train of thought is absolutely ludicrous to me, hence my comparison with the piece of gak wife beater.
You can't rewrite time, for feth's sake. As evidenced by this thread, there seems to very clearly have been a miscommunication, which I've addressed in Deadnight's post - but you know what? All the annoyance that you've undoubtedly felt about me in that time? That's also valid.
You felt annoyed and irritated by me, for sure - and even though this seems to be a hell of a misunderstanding of what "valid" even means and implies, you still felt that. You can't erase that, and shouldn't. But you *can* grow from it.
Deadnight wrote:However, to my mind, the reason 'why' someone is feeling angry is a huge component of whether thrm feeling angry is valid or not.
Absolutely - but I'm not talking about "someone looked at me so I'm angry" - in fact, that's not an example I used anywhere. The example I *actually* used was "I might feel threatened by someone looking at me in a certain way" - fear, not anger. Tiberias here decided to blow this out of context and put this absurd idea that I support abuse out there, in order to what? Continue this idea that we shouldn't listen to the testimony of marginalised folk? Who does that help?
Some things are arguably justified. Some aren't. Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.
I don't believe it does confer legitimacy in action at all - that sounds like an inference you've made, but which I don't infer myself.
And you're right - context does matter - Tiberias here, however, seems to miss that, and thought it was okay, in a thread where someone's feelings were being routinely gakked on for being illegitmate, to declare that having those feelings was akin to wanting to become an abuser. Talk about a lack of context.
Insectum7 wrote:Seems like a huge chunk of maturity is learning how to keep feelings in check while you use other faculties to suss out what's actually going on.
And that includes certain people keeping their gob shut before telling someone that their feelings aren't valid because they didn't speak out in a situation they didn't feel safe in.
Deadnight wrote:'Valid' implies justified, having a sound basis in logic or fact etc. If you're saying theire "real", that's a different thing to "valid". And real =/= valid, for clarity.
See, I don't think I agree with that. I don't agree with the implication that "valid" means "justified", and I put "valid" on a closer pegging to "real". A valid feeling *exists*, but isn't necessarily correct. My point is that the feeling definitely happened, and absolutely was real to the person experiencing it, and that that feeling should be respected. That doesn't mean it's always correct, but was that feeling felt? Yes.
I think we're using two very different definitions of what "valid" means here.
A valid feeling exists, so does an invalid one. Real =/= valid.
With respect, Theres no implication to valid. I'm basing valid on what the dictionary says. It means legitimate, or correct like 'valid' results.it means things you can justify. We can't use invalid results, for example. Theyre worthless.
'Sound, just, well founded' was the first definition to pip up on a quick google.
I did think you were using valid to imply 'real'. I do think using valid in this manner is incorrect.
And go easy on Tiberias. Take a step back on this one- His points on this aren't exactly wrong and they came across to me like him having an issue with an inflexible position that can be twisted to confer legitimacy to badwrong things - 'all feelings are valid' justifies how hypothetical wife beater feels, if you consider the dictionary definition (and my) understanding of valid, and not 'real' as you've stated toy view it. It bothers me in exactly the same way. It justifies the likes of elliot Rodgers. Going from drunken wife beater to wife beater in his analogy isn't really 'moving goalposts'. And with respect it does expose a weakness of what you were saying.
And I'm sorry but I do agree with him, and if you consider their perception with regard to 'real'/'valid' you should consider going back and rereading their posts. The thrust of his argument does has merit.
And lets all be honest. We know its ridiculous to confer legitimacy on wife beater. Feelings can be wrong and improper. They can be overblown and they can be misplaced and misdirected. None of these is 'valid'. I've no doubt we've all been at the wrong end of this. Hypothetical Wife beaters feelings of anger might absolutely be real, they're not valid. You've said before I think you've seen or experienced abuse? Apologies for bringing this up, but their feelings fueling their acts are absolutely not valid.
Insectum7 wrote:Seems like a huge chunk of maturity is learning how to keep feelings in check while you use other faculties to suss out what's actually going on.
And that includes certain people keeping their gob shut before telling someone that their feelings aren't valid because they didn't speak out in a situation they didn't feel safe in.
But on the flipside, their feelings of "unsafe" can be unjustified projection.
Tiberias wrote:Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context.
When did I say "regardless of context"? I said that their feelings were valid - that wasn't, however, irrespective of context. *You* might choose to ignore context (such as the context in your prior example about the abuser being drunk, a goalpost you very hastily shifted, I might add), but *I* didn't ever say that.
Oh boy. Let's do this!
You yourself literally said that people should never have to feel insecure in a game store when they are being looked at, NO MATTER on whether the situation gets cleared up later, because their feelings are valid in that moment. That's ignoring context! Entirely!
And you accuse me of shifting goalposts? How intellectually dishonest can you be?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Feelings are valid, but those feelings do have a context of their own. The feelings are real, the feelings are valid, but they *do* have context. Clearly, you don't know what I was actually arguing, do you?
So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.
No, what's more messed up is that you thought that the two could be in any way related, and you chose to make that comparison. Why on earth did you think that was a smart thing to do?
That's not the messed up part, are you kidding? Or purposefully missing the point?
The two hypothetical scenarios are not equally as bad, but the logic YOU apply to them is the same, thats the truly messed up part here. It's actually mind boggling the intellectualy dishonesty at display here.
I suggest we do the sensible thing and part ways here, I certainly can't convince you and I'm prepared to die on that hill. And honestly, after that last few posts of yours, I couldn't care less.
Glad to see that loads of posters lack the maturity to keep this thread on topic. I lack time to clean it up currently as I have 19hrs of my shift left so I will just leave this locked.
