Female traffic light signals at pedestrian crossings

Post Reply New Topic

On this site, I've disagreed with other feminists on topfree equality and legal prostitution, for starters. I don't feel the need to hunt down arguments with my fellow feminists, but I do enjoy them when they come my way.

Likewise, I don't need to go out hunting for places where I see women treated dismissively with regard to their talents, or subjected to harassment. I have the opportunity to address that far more often. I expect to have even more opportunities, as people get more comfortable defining their own gender roles in ways that stir up the haters. My feminism includes all genders.

People should totally pursue their special interests, but don't imagine that the topic contains the importance. The importance of an obsession is in the obsession, and an interest can turn into an obsession if you start to think everyone should feel your level of emotional charge.

Feminist Frequency frequently lies and scams.

Shame on them, in that case. Lying gives our opponents unlimited ammunition to mull over again and again. The truth hurts plenty, and we should keep hitting people with the truth, over and over.

I feel their pain, too. I grew up in West Texas, believing I was a good person with a clear picture of human decency. Then I somehow got A Handmaid's Tale, and suddenly those traditional values didn't look so decent. It hurt. I felt really tormented, obviously, an undiagnosed teenage aspie who suddenly has to rebuild his value system. I guess I was a Culture War Baby, but I dealt with it.

The actual bullies were the malicious jerks who physically bullied me for gender nonconformity, not the brutally frank Ms. Atwood and her confrontational ideas.

I am sorry for that happening to you, but that doesn't seem like a gendered issue.

Anita Sarkeesian only became big because people tried to silence her. She'd have been forgotten a long time ago if people had just ignored her instead of getting up in arms over her nonsense. The more people rant and rave about her, hurling all sorts of ridiculously immature abuse at her, the more ammo she has to boost her publicity with. Controversy gets attention.

Who tried to silence her? She is known for finding sexism in anything, collecting huge sums for her charity to complete a project and not finish them. She claims harrasnent for disagreeing with her. Plenty of her opponents are at risk of being silenced. Plenty of her opponents get threats. She is the one complaining.

Which makes no sense whatsoever considering what I just wrote, but whatever.




And onwards marches the doublespeak! It doesn't compensate, but it can produce results, but it doesn't need to be worked at. What. If it produces results that mitigates the effect of the deficit, then that is compensation. It might not fully cancel it out, but it is still compensating. And if working on skills that help mitigate the impact of the deficit increases the degree to which it does just that, then what sense does anything you just said make?

And yes, deficits in the social realm is a defining characteristic of autism. But you seem to be confused as to what "deficit" means. It means a value that falls short of an expected benchmark. It does not mean that someone excised a part of your brain and cauterized the area, setting whatever value could have been there to a permanent 0.




Yes, and it still doesn't make sense. In what way is a spouse leading a perfectly happy existence with their seemingly normal but secretly psychopathic partner in any way similar to another spouse who meets, dates, falls for and eventually marries an autistic person? The pair with the autistic partner would likely be a case of "what you see is what you get", while the psychopath couple would be literally the opposite.




So, "being autistic" is a wrongful act that one inflicts on others now? Do you even listen to yourself?

And yes, if one person feels they are not being hugged, kissed and told they are loved enough by their partner, and instead of saying something they secretly resent their partner for it, then they are at fault. They're not wronged, they are comitting a wrong. And we are talking about people who have known each other for long enough, and like eachother enough to get married. I'm not sure how they manage to suddenly be surprised when the autistic person behaves like an autistic person.



She is. And I'm entitled to express that she's a histrionic, hateful, scientifically illiterate, disingenuous woman-child throwing a temper tantrum rather than practicing even the slightest bit of introspection. She, if anyone, is having a harmful influence on those unfortunate enough to be in her presence.




I'm not sure what to say to that. Watch out for naked greeks carrying shiny shields?

Resubmitted for review: (sorry, my turn with the Zinfandel.)


I think what I understand you to be saying is that there is a failure to produce an output because of a lack of awareness of a receptor. Is this right?

Anyway,

I don't understand what is unclear.


That is what I said.


The benchmark in this case would be satisfying one's partner's emotional needs.


Similarities can appear in the dissimilar.


Being autistic is not a wrongful act; it is what it is. "Inflicting" one's autism on another, which I take to mean as offering more than possible, is wrong.

Bluntly, autism is not a picnic for others to be around. You mentioned before that you have been in relationships with autistic people and are close to autistic people. The same is true of me. Being around other autistics has been useful in that their behaviour has made me aware of my own annoying characteristics. I agreed already that compensation can result in improved communication. However, this does not replace the intrinsic connection that NTs experience with each other. It is not defeatist to realize what is impossible and to adjust one's plans accordingly. It is a waste of time lament the impossible.

I feel that autistic people have let NTs set the agenda (well, I guess it couldn't be otherwise.) But their game works for them, not everyone.


Two wrongs make a marriage.

It's the Streisand Effect allover again.

it is uncertain how many men would masturbate over the female walk sign and by the time they are finished, it says " don't walk" again.

i think it is totally inappropriate as it may clog the streets with flashers.

the curb crawling problem might explode when crossing requires dressing in dresses

No problem at all.

Now let's see. Imagine you have an electrical device. You plug it into some outlets, and it recieves power and functions as desired. You plug it into other outlets and nothing at all happens. Into some outlets, it won't even plug at all. What you wrote is the equivalent of observing these circumstances, and drawing the conclusion that something must be wrong with the cord.




That is a succinct and quite accurate assessment, yes. Though it's arguably a give-and take situation, and not just based on awareness or unawareness. Merely both being aspies isn't enough for what I would consider a connection.




What is unclear is that you seem to be occupying multiple contradictory positions at once.

You say the deficit in social skill can't be compensated for, but then you agree that practiced skills, such as analysis, can lessen the impact of the deficit (thus compensating), but then you maintain that the deficit is fundamental to autism and can never be improved on or compensated for.




No. If that were the benchmark, then single people could never be diagnosed as aspies. The benchmark is an estimate of the average persons degree of social competence, and then that is measured against that of a suspected aspie to determine if it's A: lower and B: so low that it can be resonably expected to cause problems for the person in the now and in the future. This is the dilemma for people seeking diagnosis late in life; to shut of their compensating strategies and put their actual difficulties on display. I've been there, and I suspect you have, too.

That being said, if an aspie was to be driven to work hard on their deficits and develop compensating strategies to the point where they may even come across as above average in social competence, it would still be considered a disability due to the hard work that they had to put in that "normal" people wouldn't have needed to.




That is true in general, but you're still not explaining anything with regards to how anything remotely similar would transpire in these two situations.

Scenario 1: Person marries a sociable, successful, charming and intelligent other person. Everything is fine and dandy, the perfect couple. They live together for, say 15 years, until one day when a partner goes berserk and murders the other.

Scenario 2: Person marries an aspie. Like all marriages, it has its ups and down, but sadly, over time, the partner finds that the downs are no longer outweighed by the ups, and decides to leave their aspie after, say, the same 15 years. Then they proclaim themselves to have developed a legitimate mental disorder from the marriage, and goes to complain online.




I don't have quite so high an opinion of myself and my power that I expect my mere presense and countenance to quell into submission the minds of the poor, feeble souls unfortunate enough to find themselves inside my predacious aura. (a fact sorely lamented by the more photophobic parts of my mind)

But just to be safe, I only surround myself with people understanding enough to know when they need to be accomodating, smart enough to appreciate my good sides and who know that I'm rarely malicious when I stumble socially, and with enough spinal fortitude to tell me when I'm being a dick.



The same is true for people in general, but I take your meaning.




In the interest of honesty, my relationships never went past an ill-defined "we're something" stage. But yes, I have been something a couple of times.




Same here. I have observed traits I'm very glad I don't have (don't think I could live without sarcasm), and I've been jealous of aspies with a functioning level higher than mine. I think my most annoying trait is that I'm a smug know-it-all, but that's hardly a trait exclusive to aspies.



See, I'm not convinced such a thing exists. Put two NTs and an aspie in a room together, and the NTs are probably going to get along better with eachother than with the aspie, but that's by no means a given and just as true for any number of other categories of people; two women and a man, two christians and a muslim, two conservatives and a liberal, two vegans and a carnivore et cetera.

I've seen nothing that points squarely at some ephemeral special connection that all people of average neurological makeup share with each other that we simply lack. My personal observations are, however, that NTs tend to have lower emotional walls, they make decisions I would consider very important (such as mate selection) with significantly less gravity and on much flimsier grounds, connect, disconnect and reconnect emotionally with relatively little fallout, and seem to me to exist on a significantly more superficial level.

I by no means want to disparage or generalize about NTs, but that is what the NT-majority social game looks like from the outside.




You have yet to establish aspies in functional relationships as being impossible. This is not a situation where an exception proves a rule, but rather one where an exception disproves it entirely. And I know for a fact that there are NTs on this site in relationships with aspies.





I don't think there is such a thing as a game that works for everyone.



I'll take your word on that. I've no plans to be married.


(Also, I apologize to the OP and to the mods for the OT, but I think the discussion was valuable.)

I think we just disagree. The ephemeral and elusive something's absence cannot be compensated for with learned behaviour, I think.

In which case I'm back to my original position of you being wrong.