Reasons Aspies don't join/leave WP?

Page 12 of 15 [ 230 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Are you aware of individuals on the spectrum that have a) decided not to join WP, or b) left WP?
Poll ended at 24 Jun 2013, 2:11 pm

Yes, but I don't know why individuals left/didn’t join	15%	[ 13 ]
I don't know anyone else who left/didn’t join	28%	[ 24 ]
No, everyone I know who joined WP stayed	3%	[ 3 ]
Yes, they indicated they didn’t like "negativity"	13%	[ 11 ]
Yes, they thought this site was too positive towards ASDs	0%	[ 0 ]
Yes, they thought the site is too pro-cure	0%	[ 0 ]
Yes, they thought the site didn’t represent them	7%	[ 6 ]
Yes, they felt their views were ignored	2%	[ 2 ]
Yes, they thought the site was too depressing	11%	[ 10 ]
Yes, they felt awkward posting positive life experiences	2%	[ 2 ]
Other/Please explain	18%	[ 16 ]

Total votes : 87

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

04 Jun 2013, 5:47 pm

Shatbat wrote:

I do believe that is a sexist statement. I am sure an individual man can, after imforming himself properly and giving the matter the thought it deserves can know more about sexism against women than the average woman.

This is perhaps hypothetically possible, but I'll believe it when I see it.

The most prominent feminist man I am aware of posted about how he attempted a murder suicide with his girlfriend as a description of how hard life was for him and without consideration for said ex-girlfriend or her family. It also turned out that he had actively misrepresented several details of the incident. He also talked about flirting and having sex with his female students (he's a college instructor).

It's not impossible for men to learn about sexism against women and discuss it in an informed manner, but in my experience the guys who are quick to insist to a woman that something isn't sexist are not particular informed about it, and often appeared to be more invested in stopping the discussion entirely than with true concern about gender-related bias.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

04 Jun 2013, 5:51 pm

Case in point regarding my arguments: Two men in the past two pages have stated that saying that not accepting men as experts on women's experiences with sexism is itself sexist. One tried to claim that it was a "checkmate" against my arguments.

Victory? No. Consistent with what I have given as my reasons for not accepting men as experts? Very much so.

And I have failed at abandoning this thread. Score -9000 for self control.

nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

04 Jun 2013, 6:00 pm

Don't worry - you've got 99% of WP on your side

_________________
'Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality' C.G Jung

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

04 Jun 2013, 6:36 pm

39% of statistics are made up on the spot. Also, ad populum arguments are logical fallacies.

hanyo wrote:

I found that so called "sexist" line and I'll explain how I didn't see it as sexist.

"and I don't accept men as experts on what is and is not sexism."

I agree with that. I wouldn't accept men as experts on what is sexist any more than I'd accept white people as experts on racism or nonhandicapped people as experts on ableism, or strait people as experts on what it's like to be a target of homophobia. They haven't experienced it and probably don't understand it the way an actual target of it would.

I saw something wrong with that statement. Although it is true that being the target of something grants a greater understading of it, first, there are insights that an observer can offer, which someone who is directly involved wouldn't be able to. But that's not what bothers me.

Someone who considered that statement as true would automatically dismiss any man talking about sexism because he is a man, because of his gender, without considering him as an individual, and I consider that attitude to be sexist. Also, if there was a white man talking about racism and someone said "hey, you are white, you don't know sh**" then I'd consider that person to be racist too.

So first, Verdandi, you said that "it is not impossible for men to learn about sexism against women and discuss it in an informed manner". Doesn't that contradict the "I don't consider men as experts on what is and is not sexism"? Wouldn't that allow for some men to be experts on it? Case in point, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmpNw7U-YE

It is a forum on the topic of Steubenville, with one woman and several men. The men there showed good knowledge on sexism against woman, and gave some great insights. I'd consider some of them as experts. Dismissing what they had to say because of their gender would be incredibly sexist, in my opinion.

And I'd hoped to talk about L&D for a bit :lol:

but this one is important.

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

04 Jun 2013, 7:04 pm

Dox47 wrote:

So? My point was about context, which as can be seen below, doesn't seem all that important to you. You also don't seem to have any problem making insulting generalizations yourself, so long as they're about people you think deserve them.

I make the judgement that people who say sexist things are sexist.

Quote:

Okay, you're uncritically judgmental, gotcha.

When you post your opinions on a public forum, where words are your primary source of communication, they're open to criticism.

If you don't want your opinions being scrutinized, keep them in a private diary.

Quote:

I have no problem with my opinions being judged, what I'm trying to point out is that the manor in which it's being gone about in L&D is not working, and I think the call out culture is a contributing factor.

And I think the sexism is the main contributing factor.

Quote:

Maybe, maybe not, again, you don't get to just call bigotry and drop the mike, it's not that simple. Maybe you think it is, but it isn't. Especially on a forum specifically for people with a communications disorder, your views go from misguided to downright destructive in light of that fact.

This is sexism:

Quote:

sex·ism
[sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

If you make comments that fit the above criteria, they are sexist. Your "intent" doesn't matter.

If you want to post such comments in a public forum, you can expect to be "called-out" on them. Having Aspergers is not an excuse to act like a douchebag.

Quote:

Yes, they're all just sexist douchebags... See above.

Yes, they are.

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,672
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

04 Jun 2013, 7:20 pm

Verdandi wrote:

hanyo wrote:

^^^

That.

Hanyo is correct that I was referring to sexism against women. As I pointed out, one element of sexism against women is the insistence that men get to be the experts on everything, including women's experiences. I don't accept men as experts on women's experiences, and that includes sexism leveled against women by men. If a man insists that he did not say something sexist, I am not going to be inclined to take that statement as true, even if I assume that he believes it is true. This is because I have frequently been told that something sexist is not really sexist, and the rationalizations and excuses that usually accompany such a claim are rarely anything more than deflection.

A key point here is that racism vs. white people is not institutionally or economically supported, whereas racism vs. people of color is. A white person is significantly less likely to suffer hardship and discrimination based on skin color that impacts them on a more than personal level than a person of color. Sexism vs. men is similarly not institutionally supported whereas sexism vs. women is. A man is significantly less likely to suffer hardship and discrimination based on gender bias that impacts them on a more than personal level than a woman is.

Another key point is that people tend to sympathize with and defend power structures, especially power structures that benefit them. Men are under little pressure to do much about sexism because it doesn't really harm them directly, and white people are similarly under little pressure to do much about racism. This is why women are behind feminism and why people of color were behind the Civil Rights Movement. This does not mean that men or white people cannot ever understand racism or sexism sufficiently to discuss it, but it does mean that it's hard to accept denials of the occurrences of racism or sexism from such people because they are arguing in favor of a system that benefits them.

When a guy complains that men aren't allowed to complain about women without being told they're being sexist, this looks like numerous other discussions I've seen in which guys have expressed their frustration at being held accountable for what they say about women. They always have excuses and explanations. In this case, despite the fact that it's autistic men saying similar things to what NT men say about women, it is somehow the consequence of a communication disorder. Somehow, the fact that the women who object to these statements have the same communication disorder is not mentioned.

Nessa, my participation in this thread doesn't have anything to do with "ego" or "trying to wear anyone down." My participation is because I am arguing from principles I believe in, and I believe that Dox47 has advocated for a situation that would benefit men who participate in L&D at the expense of the women who participate in L&D. I do not believe that he has influence over how L&D will evolve over time, but I think the arguments I make may at least be helpful for others to read, or at least to see the patterns at work and how they are reinforced. It's not about "winning" or "losing" because as cilantro pointed out, there is no winning. It's about expression, at least for me.

I had also largely abandoned this discussion last night and my last response was intended as a clarification of some points that I felt needed clarifying based on one response from Dox47, rather than trying to engage him as fully as I had. However, it is difficult for me to avoid responding when I see my statements have been twisted and/or mischaracterized, whether or not such twisting or mischaracterization is intentional.

Men have their experiences too. Practically every time a guy in L&D talks about how he's been unable to find dates or get a GF, there is some female member who insinuates that he's only looking for sex and that is inherently sexism against men. I've previously pointed out in that forum that aspie or generally ASD men can have unique problems in dating due to lack in social skills compared to ASD women because culturally, the men are expected to do the initiating and a lot of female members object to that, that's why I don't bring it up anymore. It's simply fact. An exchange might go something like this:

Whenever an older male member talks how he's never managed to get a single date, and at least in one case I remember it was a man as old as 50, a younger female member might say "well, I've had problems too because I couldn't sustain my previous relationships". The older male member might point out that she's younger than him and that at least she's had a few relationships before. Then other female members may reply back saying "yes, it may be easier for us to get sex but usually women want fulfilling relationships not just sex", (notice again the insinuation that the man just wants sex rather than a fulfilling relationship like they do). Guess what, aspie men want fulfilling relationships too but the difference is that they often don't manage to get dates at all, while a lot the aspie women have already been on dates and even had previous relationships even if they weren't able to sustain them. Obviously, I'm not saying that aspie women don't have their own issues in that arena but some of the experiences are different.

So yes, there is a lot of sexism against women in the L&D forum and some guys don't recognise it sexism but equally, when guys complain about sexism against them, a lot of the same women who point out and complain about the misogyny, usually reply that misandry is rare. They don't realise that the above behaviour from some female is a form of sexism, which I've seen quite often unfortunately.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

04 Jun 2013, 7:29 pm

Shatbat wrote:

39% of statistics are made up on the spot. Also, ad populum arguments are logical fallacies.

hanyo wrote:

but this one is important.

I don't believe men are "experts" on sexism either, but only in the sense that they're not more qualified than women to tell women what we should, and should not, find offensive, and how we should, or should not, react to sexist statements.

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

04 Jun 2013, 8:55 pm

Fair enough, but the general "men can't be experts of sexism" statement carries a lot of unfortunate implications, while in your case it is only about an specific situation, where gender seems more of a situational thing (I don't know, but it is likely that most of the people who tell you the way you should react to sexism happen to be men. But if a woman did that it would be just as bad, so gender ultimately doesn't play a factor)

Also, now that I'm officially into this, it is as good a time as any other to talk about L&D. First, let's remember our ultimate goal: to find out what is wrong with it, and if we ever agree on it, it would be nice to try and find possible solutions. Something we can probably agree in is that it comes from continuous bickering between some men and some women, plus the fact that people in the spectrum as a whole tend to have negative dating experiences because of difficulty socializing and/or other factors, and some of that negativity is bound to show up there.

Dox original statement on what was wrong with L&D brought a point that I hadn't considered, up to then I figured the worst part of it was all the guys who kept complaining on how much their life sucked and how all women liked jerks as opposed to them who are oh so nice, and that gets old quickly. They're annoying. But the post made me wonder whether it is possible to be too hard on them, and too quick to jump at their throats. After all, they are victims of the circumstances and of the way they were shaped at the word. However, they are also to blame; I remember at least one case where a promising member was driven off WP because of negative comments posted by men like them. And I've already have had discussions where the conclusion was that many women didn't like to post their problems there because their threads tend to be filled up by men who complain about how lucky they are that at least they get dates, being belittling and dismissive towards women in general. That goes beyond mere complaining, and I believe that should not be tolerated. So Dox, on that one, if it was mere venting then I could see your point, but if they actively attack other people then I believe stopping them is the right thing.

Now, on calling out sexism. Sexism is not right, that much is true. The point of debate here seems to be, what is the right way to deal with sexism? Just ignore it, attack it viciously, or something in between? As it has been said, sexism can't just be ignored. However, Dox pointed out something important: there are better ways to deal with it than attacking the offender right away. If people perceive they are being attacked, the default response is to go on the defrnsive, and if they are in the defensive they are unlikely to change their view, in fact, they will strengthen them because they will feel commited to them. It's not the best of attitudes, but it is a very common one. And this is the part where XFilesGeek will hate me :lol: . I ask you: when you react to sexism, what is your goal? And would your reaction be the best way to accomplish that goal?

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

04 Jun 2013, 9:02 pm

Shatbat wrote:

39% of statistics are made up on the spot. Also, ad populum arguments are logical fallacies.

hanyo wrote:

but this one is important.

Shat, as much as you can study something, know the theory, watch other people experience it... it's still totally different to actually living it for most of your life.

I'm not saying men can't be experts on sexism against women - they can in theory but the amount would be tiny apart from FtM transgender, a very small amount have taken the time to truly understand it, but even so, they haven't lived it.
Certainly there are many men who could be considered experts on sexism against men - they have both the theory and the experience, and we really need more speaking out on that matter in a non-confrontational way.

It's just like someone trying to be an expert in racism when they are part of the majority, or someone trying to be an expert in homophobia when they are straight, or someone trying to be an expert in classism when they're not poor - or maybe someone trying to be an expert on a minority of any kind when they aren't part of it - hell the one all of us here can relate to, an NT studying autism, is nowhere near the same thing as actually living with it.

I'm not saying these people can't study it - but studying it and living it are two totally different things. That's why those who are study it, would do well to listen to what those who experience it tell them - yet often they do not. The same way many of those who experience it, would do well to listen to those who study it - and many of them do not.

Very few are in the position to be able to do both, and most of the time, even they are ignored. (This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves ever actually)

As much as we should judge an individual on their merits, there is only so far either study, or experience, can take you. The picture will always be incomplete without both.

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

Last edited by Kjas on 05 Jun 2013, 6:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

04 Jun 2013, 9:12 pm

I see your point them, and yes, experiencing something brings a lot of insight that merely studying it wouldn't. But isn't studying something still useful, even if it isn't accompanied with the experience? You seem to think something similar: "many of those who experience it, would do well to listen to those who study it". The original statement would dismiss those people who have studied it because they haven't experienced it. I can understand how someone with both study and experience would have greater understanding than someone with only the study. But my main point is that the second one shouldn't be completely dismissed either.

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

04 Jun 2013, 9:23 pm

Shatbat wrote:

No, I don't think either should be dismissed.
But right now, I see many from each side dismissing the other. That simply isn't going to work.

But from study, one cannot always see the long term implications of something.
Even if you lived something for a month - after that month you don't have to do it anymore - you get to go home and live life like always, although perhaps would you have more of an understanding and more empathy of those in that situation. You gain an understanding through experience, but really, it would only be scratching the surface. Most of the long term issues you would still be completely unaware of, yet much of the time it is those issues which ultimately have control and influence over the choices and options of those people, or the lack of them - the ones they often get blamed for by those above them in the hierarchy.

The problem is, many of those who simply study it fall in to the trap of blaming those long term effects on the said group, just the same.

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

04 Jun 2013, 9:36 pm

That is beyond what I was going for :lol: As new knowledge, I can do little more than absorb it and keep it in mind.

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Jun 2013, 4:20 am

Wow, we're down the rabbit hole now...

I'm going to snip and clip a bit to putt out stuff I want to focus on cause I'm sick of the fisking format, so don't take my formatting as an attempt to take things out of context, it's just a stab a brevity.

Verdandi wrote:

I don't accept men as experts on women's experiences, and that includes sexism leveled against women by men.

If a man insists that he did not say something sexist, I am not going to be inclined to take that statement as true, even if I assume that he believes it is true.

Is this not the definition of sexism, applying a double standard based on gender? Is it somehow different when you do it?

Verdandi wrote:

This is because I have frequently been told that something sexist is not really sexist, and the rationalizations and excuses that usually accompany such a claim are rarely anything more than deflection.

So you're turning a personal experience into a generalization, and then applying it to all men regardless of context? Again, sounds pretty sexist...

Verdandi wrote:

A key point here is that racism vs. white people is not institutionally or economically supported, whereas racism vs. people of color is. A white person is significantly less likely to suffer hardship and discrimination based on skin color that impacts them on a more than personal level than a person of color. Sexism vs. men is similarly not institutionally supported whereas sexism vs. women is. A man is significantly less likely to suffer hardship and discrimination based on gender bias that impacts them on a more than personal level than a woman is.

Oh, so you do think it's different when you do it. See, I believe that all bigotry is wrong, not that some is more wrong than others. There is no such thing as "reverse" racism, only "racism", and it's the same with other prejudices.

Verdandi wrote:

When a guy complains that men aren't allowed to complain about women without being told they're being sexist, this looks like numerous other discussions I've seen in which guys have expressed their frustration at being held accountable for what they say about women.

Ahem; did I ever specify that I was only talking about women chastising men? I'm equal opportunity, I'm advocating the same standard for everyone, something that from your statements I gather that you don't endorse. This also falls into your strawman pattern, attempting to assign me a position I don't actually hold. Nice phrasing by the way, not self serving at all. You should try and keep in mind that I'm not "numerous other discussions", I'm not treating you like a cardboard cutout, and I'd appreciate being shown the same courtesy.

Verdandi wrote:

They always have excuses and explanations. In this case, despite the fact that it's autistic men saying similar things to what NT men say about women, it is somehow the consequence of a communication disorder. Somehow, the fact that the women who object to these statements have the same communication disorder is not mentioned.

Have you been to L&D recently? Look at some of those posts and tell me that all those people are playing with a full deck, communications wise. All I'm saying is that it wouldn't kill you to give people the benefit of the doubt in light of a known condition, yet that seems to be a request too far.

Verdandi wrote:

Nessa, my participation in this thread doesn't have anything to do with "ego" or "trying to wear anyone down." My participation is because I am arguing from principles I believe in...

I would agree about the motivation to argue, something Nessa seems to have consistent trouble grasping. In my case, I also enjoy drilling for hypocrisy, and this is quickly turning into a major gusher.

Verdandi wrote:

I had also largely abandoned this discussion last night and my last response was intended as a clarification of some points that I felt needed clarifying based on one response from Dox47, rather than trying to engage him as fully as I had. However, it is difficult for me to avoid responding when I see my statements have been twisted and/or mischaracterized, whether or not such twisting or mischaracterization is intentional.

So, you seeing all sorts of dark intentions behind my statements is legit, but my analysis of yours is "twisting and mischaracterizing"?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Jun 2013, 4:25 am

Verdandi wrote:

What does this one guy have to do with anything again?

Verdandi wrote:

It's not impossible for men to learn about sexism against women and discuss it in an informed manner, but in my experience the guys who are quick to insist to a woman that something isn't sexist are not particular informed about it, and often appeared to be more invested in stopping the discussion entirely than with true concern about gender-related bias.

You shouldn't put so much trust in your experience, that's how prejudice develops.

I went to majority black elementary and middle schools and got treated pretty badly, I could legitimately state that the majority of black people I've met in my lifetime have been racist jerks, but I'm smart enough to know that my personal experience is statistically irrelevant and not a legitimate basis for judging an entire race.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Jun 2013, 4:30 am

Verdandi wrote:

Jeez, can you not go two posts without a major distortion? You said that a man cannot be an expert on sexism by virtue of his sex alone, and I said that not only was that sexist, but it undermined your position to the point of making it untenable, i.e. being checkmated. You aren't doing yourself any favors with this repeated, eh, let's be honest, lying.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Jun 2013, 4:39 am

XFilesGeek wrote:

I make the judgement that people who say sexist things are sexist.

Yes, I already noted your aversion to critical thinking.

XFilesGeek wrote:

Didn't I already answer this repeatedly?

XFilesGeek wrote:

And I think the sexism is the main contributing factor.

Of course you do.

XFilesGeek wrote:

This is sexism:

Quote:

If you make comments that fit the above criteria, they are sexist. Your "intent" doesn't matter.

Again, I already got your preference for superficial judgment, no need to keep hammering on it.

XFilesGeek wrote:

If you want to post such comments in a public forum, you can expect to be "called-out" on them. Having Aspergers is not an excuse to act like a douchebag.

Nor is it an excuse to mistake your own opinions for facts and become a censorious nanny. Oh, and get called out for that too, since it works both ways.

XFilesGeek wrote:

Yes, they are.

Yep, definitely got the preference for sweeping generalizations.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 12 of 15 [ 230 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Jump to:

Reasons Aspies don't join/leave WP? Post Reply New Topic

Reasons Aspies don't join/leave WP?