Vicky Mochama at metro: men don't see women as people.......

Post Reply New Topic

Vicky Mochama at metro: “Until men become Fathers of Daughters, they’re not certain that women are people”.


using the Harvey Weinstein scandal to incite anti-male sentiments



http://archive.is/xxrYQ

I think you're reading way too much into that.

For one its not even a very clearly written article but it would appear it was about an actor talking about their personal experience of having daughters to raise. Not really seeing the incitement of anti-male sentiments.

This was a television public service campaign in the USA.

Daughters would tell their father, "how will men respect me, if you don't respect women".

The statement is very clear. It was the author who read too much into the actor's statement because it validated her misandric stereotype.

I guess I can see that because it seems like he was more just trying to say that having daughters caused him to rethink some of the prejudices he had toward women. But they were trying to spin it into 'men don't view women as people' in general. And I don't even think he was saying he didn't see women as people but just that he had pre-determined ideas and learned to change the way he thinks about it.

I think there's something about the combination of media with the internet that's causing certain journalists to write articles which would have, in previous times, been thoughts they would have kept to themselves.

It's all about traffic.

Journalists used to be judged by the quality of their work. Now they're judged by their ability to generate clicks.

In most cases, the author of the clickbait is guilty of projection. In the example raised by the OP, Vicky Mochama is quite open about her belief that men are subhuman and can only ascend to the lowest echelon of humanity by fathering daughters.

Redneck points shotgun at boys chest.
"Halt, who goes there? Muh teen daughters sexuality is muh personal property and muh ticket to financial prosperity and genetic immortality."

I suppose they were back when they married them off themselves.

It seems like a very 21st century distortion that her views get taken as interesting, let alone in any way representative. While the skeptic community is ripping into plenty that's of valid concern they'll also hit plenty of absurd journalistic fluff and they seem to be two somewhat distinct issues.

If she's representative of anything it's of the media outlet she writes for, along with either their ideological viewpoint or their recognition that articles of the type Mochama specialises in make for much site traffic - or perhaps even both.

But yeah, the "skeptic community" is just another identity group with all the usual foibles.

WTF did I just read?

Is she saying that certain men treat women badly because they don't see them as human? I agree more with what this guy says:



It's because they know they are human that they want to hurt them.

Nope, she's saying all men are subhuman unless they've received the blessing conferred upon them by becoming a father to a daughter, wherein they become just about acceptably human but still a figure of scorn.



I disagree. I believe most harmful behaviour is caused by either self-loathing or a desire to project inward pain onto someone else, no matter the feelings for that person, and often in spite of them. For example, abusive behaviour in relationships is often the result of an inability to deal with negative emotions caused by pain, rejection, shame, etc, and not by hatred of the other person.

Simplifying "harm caused" to "manifestation of hatred" is incredibly simplistic (and far too trite for a channel calling itself "Big Think").

The Hobbit, presumably.

It isn’t fair, my precious, is it, to ask us what it’s got in its nassty little pocketses?

Speaking of critiques of empathy, I always felt - especially being on the spectrum and it being assumed that our failure in empathy is a large piece of the disorder - that the whole thing didn't add up. Part of the problem is that I do score above NT on the pop EQ tests, whether that means anything or not I don't know, I'm PDD-NOS so its possible that this is just not a factor.

What I have noticed though - our culture, especially in games of sexual attraction and rejection, is playing a deliberately monopolistic game. On some level it's who gets to add their genes to the next generation but you get to see that most people seem to have a serious embrace of things like what often gets called 'pettiness' deeply secured in their selection mechanisms. I don't think empathy in any way interferes with that, and I always found it bizarre that men (especially on the spectrum) could constantly be accused of lacking empathy but then to look around us it doesn't seem like the world we're immersed in is an altruistic love-fest that makes islands of a handful of men and even fewer women who just can't seem to get what's happening on a higher level of understanding than their own. Additionally if we're ideally supposed to be practicing genetic quality control through ostracizing people who seem different and preventing their dna from passing forward - wouldn't a generalized empathy be completely pernicious to that function?

Jordan Peterson's been particularly critical of empathy, not over its existence but over just how focused and finite it is (that is criticizing people's claim of it as a generalized virtue) - ie. with women in particular it's mostly honed for her children, next in-group children, and somewhere toward the back and near the edge of where her in-group gets exchanged for out-group men who are in her in group who think differently than she does. I don't think it's appropriate for us to suggest that empathy doesn't exist, or well... that gets confusing to some degree because of how often and badly people interchange the words sympathy and empathy - ie. you really can't have empathy in the full sense but a high degree of sympathy is possible... but regardless though I think we've mythologized it as a skillset to be much more than it is, and when we think of a humanity who is fighting themselves for places within social hierarchy when they don't have an actual enemy it's really difficult to make heads or tales of even superior empathy being directly equated to a person being a superior moral actor. It's one of perhaps a dozen areas in modern sociology where the pieces that one would think should line up and dovetail almost perfectly if they lived up to the hype simply don't.

^

Most long-winded way of saying "Hi, I have an ASD" I've read to date.

People on the spectrum don't have a failure of empathy, we have a problem of expression, sensory processing and social etiquette which combine to turn social interaction into a real-world game of minesweeper.

As for "men lack empathy":
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/re ... fficulties
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/re ... en-request

In short, men tend to jump straight to solutions whereas women tend to look for the cracks. There are obviously exceptions, but the difference in approach seems to be innate rather than learned.