Discussion:
Why female SF-authors who married a man who makes more than herself should shut up
(too old to reply)
pataphor
2015-08-17 07:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Actually I mean female feminist SF authors, but since the condition is
so prevalent I went for the shorter and more catchy title.

In fact this is not about female feminist SF authors at all, but it is
intended for every girl or woman who at some in her life worried why
all relevant men made more money than she.

And since women also often suffer from an invisibility illusion I
hereby summon all the men invisible to those women to help counteract
the effect. The thing is women only 'see' a very tiny subset of men,
and if you're cursed by a selective attention to only let good
baby making targets into your world view, no wonder you start wondering
and talking about it in your supergirl circles about why *all*
(~relevant) men are making more money than you. Ask any other woman you
meet, do they get less than the men she can see? Of course.

Since many people are impressed by pretty pictures and since my
computations only lead to people not getting the point and to
them starting to generate world view confirming statistics I hereby
summon the spirit of Randall Munroe to draw me a zipper.

It is not exactly necessary to draw things at this point, I firmly
believe that someone somewhere who gets my point will draw the
necessary venn diagrams of relevant men and the thought bubbles filled
with texts like "fuck, every man I can see makes more than me".

The zipper's tooth represent the men to the left and the women to the
right who are married to them, and since we have an income scale to the
left and since all women are married to the zipper tooth above them
they all feel like they are making less than their husbands.

And, to prevent some female SF-authors pointing at their couch potatoes
claiming these unsuccessful men aren't worth much, no, we're only
counting the time of marriage, and were they making more than you at
the time you made such a world altering decision. And I don't mean your
inner world but want to point at the wider political effects of the
global women's predilection to choose what they later complain about
the effects it produced.

I guess at this point only a very few readers won't have catched on
about what is going to happen to the zipper and the effect this
operation will have on the accompanying
thought-venn-diagram-woman-cluster-speaking-bubbles, but here you go.

The zipper is opened, the womens teeth all move one place up, or the
men's teeth all move one place down, depending on how one sees the
effect of women starting to preferentially marry men one rung below
them on the ladder.

The zipper is now closed again, and behold see how your world implodes.

P.
j***@gmail.com
2015-08-18 21:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by pataphor
And since women also often suffer from an invisibility illusion I
hereby summon all the men invisible to those women to help counteract
the effect. The thing is women only 'see' a very tiny subset of men,
and if you're cursed by a selective attention to only let good
baby making targets into your world view, no wonder you start wondering
and talking about it in your supergirl circles about why *all*
(~relevant) men are making more money than you. Ask any other woman you
meet, do they get less than the men she can see? Of course.
Unfortunately this argument does not work. You can tell them there are a lot of men who are invisible to them, but they will still not see those men.

The problem is that women of course do not want to pay attention to losers. And for each woman, losers tend to be men who are less wealthy (or whatever) than them. If you tell them they should pay attention to losers, you are basicly telling them that they are losers themselves. It's insulting.

Men often think in terms of what ought to be done. Not always, but often. Men talking about sports tend not to talk about what anybody ought to do about the situation, although sometimes there's a thought about what different coaches could do different. But, like, American libertarians talking about freedom tend to come up with specific laws that should be changed, and then they argue about how to get the laws changed. Though sometimes they just talk about how unfair it is and how much better it will be later. What these women are doing is the latter. They are not discussing what to do. They are proving that they have a consensus. The world is a bad place because of bad men. They can agree on that without having to discuss what to do about it.

If you join the discussion and disagree in any way, you are declaring that you are the enemy. They are all trying to prove that they agree with each other, and you do not agree. So they will scorn you. Facts and logic are not involved. Using facts and logic to say that they are wrong about something, is a male trick. The point is to show that they are safe together, not to establish some kind of truth.

It's probably better to just stay out of it. Either you agree with them about everything to show that you are one of the herd, or you prove that you are not one of the herd and therefore an enemy. Unless you want one of those roles, there is no place for you.

I should learn from my own example and stop doing it.
pataphor
2015-08-22 17:02:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by pataphor
And since women also often suffer from an invisibility illusion I
hereby summon all the men invisible to those women to help
counteract the effect. The thing is women only 'see' a very tiny
subset of men, and if you're cursed by a selective attention to
only let good baby making targets into your world view, no wonder
you start wondering and talking about it in your supergirl circles
about why *all* (~relevant) men are making more money than you. Ask
any other woman you meet, do they get less than the men she can
see? Of course.
Unfortunately this argument does not work. You can tell them there
are a lot of men who are invisible to them, but they will still not
see those men.
The problem is that women of course do not want to pay attention to
losers. And for each woman, losers tend to be men who are less
wealthy (or whatever) than them. If you tell them they should pay
attention to losers, you are basicly telling them that they are
losers themselves. It's insulting.
Maybe you are right and they won't listen. But I still think we should
not limit ourselves to arguments that are potentially listened to. Much
like I tend to view this format differently than a blog, I am trying to
express ideas, if that means I -- following some train of thought --
use a word 15 times in row, I don't care, if it is still close enough to
my thoughts that my fingers will type it. Maybe I could replace all
mentions of "111111" by "1"*6 as inevitably happens when I revisit my
python code often enough, a little tweak here, a little tweak there,
and my code becomes much more readable. I could also start writing some
fan-service Usenet posts that carefully balance stylistic elements
with information content. In fact I recently read some article along
that line on a popular blog titled "how to become a better writer".
Make short sentences. Remove unnecessary words. Don't use distractions.
I mean, sure, if you're writing for five year olds, it would work. But
it is not my task here to endlessly polish my prose till it shines. And
even if was, this format doesn't allow editing, and if it would then it
would be moderatable (see I invented a word, and now I force you to
read my gloating about it in a subsentence between parens, disrupting
the flow) which is what would allow sociopaths to get in and steal our
mops.

Uuuuh, I don't even know what set me off on that path, it is slightly
besides the point and overshoots, but at least it brings us closer to
what I really wanted to say.

Not only do I not care (as much) about form and polish, but I also think
we should try to flesh out our arguments more, unfettered by trying to
pander to popular opinion. I have said it before, we should use the
weakness of this form as a strength in that it allows us to paint more
freely. Let others write nice blogs.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Men often think in terms of what ought to be done. Not always, but
often. Men talking about sports tend not to talk about what anybody
ought to do about the situation, although sometimes there's a thought
about what different coaches could do different. But, like, American
libertarians talking about freedom tend to come up with specific laws
that should be changed, and then they argue about how to get the laws
changed. Though sometimes they just talk about how unfair it is and
how much better it will be later. What these women are doing is the
latter. They are not discussing what to do. They are proving that
they have a consensus. The world is a bad place because of bad men.
They can agree on that without having to discuss what to do about it.
OK. After that last escapade, and I probably wouldn't have had the guts
to write it if I hadn't also thought of something to write that has
more substance, I feel like I should now try to explain what I think
should be done, apart from whether people will listen or not, or whether
they ever read here, or whether the form it is in will make their
brains hurt. The sociopaths are always the one who are dressed
better and come across more licked, see it as a way to put at least some
obstacles in their way until they copy that distinctive careless look
too.

So what?

Two things.

First thing is we have to put the whole thing into perspective. Say you
donate ten bucks to a homeless person you meet en route to the city,
assuming you walk to the city. This guy now has a place to sleep for
the night and maybe some cigarettes or, if he forgets about sleeping,
he can buy a few cans of beer. But those same ten bucks could
possibly have saved 10, no 100 lives in Africa, depending on whether
you dropped some rice over a famine stricken area from your subsidized
helicopter trip or whether you sent a shovel to dig waterholes or
performed some magic with malaria nets.

So basically, what women are asking for, a better treatment or some
raise in salary is already far in the negative from a global
utilitarian standpoint, and all leverage they have must rely on them
being seen as nearer to the benefactor, just like that homeless guy.

In fact it's some kind of shady deal they are suggesting to even
consider their interest to have some kind of priority.

Now that we've put the *kind* of deal we're entering into in the right
kind of perspective (yes I used kind kind of two times) even though we
had to slightly abuse an effective altruist argument we don't
completely support, but again, even if off, it brings us in the
right ball park, we can start to speculate how, if seen from the
slightly line jumping female asker we can still help them to achieve
their goal of gaining equality. I mean I don't even have equality
myself, but what the heck let's help these already privileged bastards
anyway, just because we like solving problems like that.

So two, it stands to reason that if you want someone to cooperate, one
should not just ask, but also present at least a model of how this
would also be good for the asker. I am of the opinion that scolding or
harassing or repressing speech doesn't help much, especially from a
situation of trying to propose a deal that is already detrimental to
the community at large. I am talking about some bonding here, us
against the rest of the world. Like wouldn't it be nice to also have
the female input about how a good heroine (or hero!) would behave in a
hypothetical situation and wouldn't it be a real good discussion starter
if we had some female SF writers providing that. Now I am on your side,
I always want to know what a good person should do.
Post by j***@gmail.com
If you join the discussion and disagree in any way, you are declaring
that you are the enemy. They are all trying to prove that they agree
with each other, and you do not agree. So they will scorn you. Facts
and logic are not involved. Using facts and logic to say that they
are wrong about something, is a male trick. The point is to show that
they are safe together, not to establish some kind of truth.
I had a discussion today with someone claiming that if things were easy
everyone would be rich. I tried to point out that if you throw a
handful of dice some will show six eyes, it doesn't mean those sixes
worked harder than the ones showing only 1 eye. In fact all dice
ending up with six eyes on top would not be a likely outcome at all.
So naturally we have some distribution with winners even if there was
no difference in merit or capacity. The question is can the huge
differences in outcomes be explained by cumulative interest and old
boys networks, or do we still need to assume some people work harder or
provide a better service? Maybe it is all beginners luck with
subsequent amplification because of the capital advantage?

In fact it is worse, we have people repeatedly playing double or
nothing and the winners end up with the capital. And capital influences
politics. After that we have some privileged offspring inheriting that
capital, and even if the risky genes of their parents tend to revert to
the population average there is no reason to assume they are any
smarter.

It may be so that we're now in a situation were more males were
selected, it doesn't necessarily have to be so, nor is it a sign of
better being suited for better positions.

Again missing the point, probably now totally, not even landing us near
to what we should talk about when answering group cohesion, but still,
somehow, this seems to be a way to diffuse the argument so that we can
even start to decide to look for a better direction, not bound anymore
by silly tribal or gender affiliations.
Post by j***@gmail.com
It's probably better to just stay out of it. Either you agree with
them about everything to show that you are one of the herd, or you
prove that you are not one of the herd and therefore an enemy. Unless
you want one of those roles, there is no place for you.
Sure, not there, but that's why I am here. I makes no sense to try to
push the car when you're still inside, or to move the carpet when
you're still standing on it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I should learn from my own example and stop doing it.
OK. Thanks anyway for answering my post and for moving the discussion
ahead a tiny bit and for providing me with something that I can use to
tentatively further map this space. Although I might shut up myself if
nothing new comes up,

P.

Loading...