Copied from one of my forum posts elsewhere on the intertubes (feel free to track down the original if you like):
I haven’t exactly had great role models growing up, at least not real live ones. My dad was physically abusive to me and my mom, my mom was emotionally abusive. The other adults around me were, at best, mediocre. Most of what I understand of ethics and morality I learned from television. Thankfully, my parents had an eye for good TV, which mainly included Star Trek. I’ve been an avid follower of the sci-fi cultural drama ever since, because it always questioned and was never quite settled with an easy answer.
So I learned to always question, and was never settled with an easy answer. This did me well in school and has done me well in my career. I engaged with the sciences, the humanities, with politics, eventually settling in to an amazing role that blends many of my passions and interests into one. I’m fortunate to have a career I love, built from my sweat, blood, work, and tears. Something I can truly say is my own, through and through. In the ‘practical’ matters of life, I have succeeded far beyond what anyone could have expected from me when I was growing up. I moved from an isolated little kid from a broken family (parents divorced messily when I was 13) to one who stands on his own two feet, doing some amazing things, helping lots of people, and with a great future laid out.
Yet, as with most things it seems, my price for this has been in my relationships. I have suffered bitterly with poor relationships. Over a decade of dating (I’m 31) and I have more broken hearts strewn in my past than I would wish on anyone. I’ve been gutted, through and through, with constant lies, abuse, manipulation, and even outright theft, by multitudes of women over the past several years. One broke up with me during her family’s new years eve party, another bailed on me because she wanted to ‘try things out with another guy’ and then came running back (unsuccessfully) when that didn’t work, another chewed me out extremely harshly for being too tired to spend more time with her after coming back from a cross-country interview. Countless others have just flat out lied about who they are, what they wanted, etc. and put the blame for that on me.
And then there’s my ex-wife… *shudder* What she did is the stuff of nightmares, literally. The trauma she caused gives me sleepless nights, makes my mind wander, distracts me through the day, and that was over four years ago.
Time and time again I try, looking for the problem. I’ve looked at the women I date, which covers a very wide range, and I can’t find the problem. I look at myself, but can find no problem there, even after cross-checking with friends, family, and otherwise. I don’t understand the problem, and I keep running into it, again and again and again.
I *may* be just a very difficult person to match, I’m a phenomenally deep thinker, I regularly engage with philosophy, religion, politics, the ‘big question’ fields. I have my own personal sense of morality that I’ve constructed over the years. I lack a lot of the social conditioning that most people have (one of the quirks of homeschool), so I’m not susceptible to the same persuasions that most are. My interests are diverse, including theater, needlework, programming, law, astronomy, and dance, just to name a few. I’m proud of what I’ve achieved, and I recognize that I’m but a blip in the cosmos. I sometimes wonder if that uniqueness, which has so benefitted me in every other area of my life, is why my relationships suffer as they do.
I’ve tried so many different things, raising and lowering my standards, different venues, different kinds of women, passive and active approaches, the results are basically the same all-around: I get heartbroken in some fashion, and often completely unexpectedly.
I have a good life, a very good one in fact. This part of it, though, has suffered greatly, and I have many, many many many, scars from it. Nothing seems to work, and nothing seems to help. I’m, simply put, lonely. It’s hard to shake the feeling that the best I can hope to achieve is to bounce from heartbreak to heartbreak, or to just give up on it altogether and resign myself to loneliness. I bounce between both ends, determination and despair, far more often than I would like.
I may be ‘only 31’, and really just facing a problem in one part of what is otherwise a rather idyllic life, yet it’s a part that drags all the other ones down. The worst thing about it, my happiest relationship memories are from my marriage, yet because of the character of my ex, I can’t say those were honest memories, given how I was lied to and manipulated in that relationship.
What’s harder is being surrounded by people in happy relationships all the time. I often feel like Tantalus must have felt: eternally hungry, with food just out of reach at all times. Oh I understand surface impressions aren’t everything, and many ‘happy couples’ aren’t as happy as they seem. I still argue that they’re better off in this area than I am, and it’s torturesome for me to see that.
I think these challenges are why I’m so drawn to Fredrick Nietzsche’s philosophies, the abridged version being ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’, and there’s no doubt that I’m a stronger person for the suffering I’ve endured. I’ve overcome the kinds of emotional stress that would completely cripple many people; I’ve endured countless sleepless nights due to the emotional trauma of my relationships; I’ve tested my character by not being vindictive on those who did me harm. Yet when is enough, enough?
I don’t really know whom this is directed at, the universe maybe? As a plea for compassion? I’m tough enough to take this, probably tougher still, yet when I tell friends of the depth of my suffering, the only explanation any of them can come up with is that I must have dome some truly horrendous things in a past life.
I’ve made some remarkable things out of this life, why am I not allowed to share it with someone? *sigh*. I’m not really looking for advice, I’ve gotten so much, and found it all rather worthless in my situation (not that its worthless advice, it’s just worthless because nothing seems to work). Compassion is appreciated, but fleeting. I guess I’m asking for prayer, that something will change for me, and somehow I’ll find myself with someone to share what I’ve built with.
- Jason
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Understanding Privilege
I think it's pretty clear I've had a lot on my mind lately. Funny how having free time does that.
I wonder a lot what exactly 'male privilege' means. I think I understand how privilege works in sociology: having an advantage due to characteristics that aren't related to one's actual skills and abilities. Whites have a privilege over Blacks because of multiple generations of being the owners of production, rather than its servants (I use that word very loosely, as slaves is just as valid). Over time this generates far more capital among Whites, which gets passed generationally to more Whites.
There's a lot to this though. Inter-racial families are an unfortunate rarity, despite the advantages (I'm speaking mainly genetically here). Is it fair to say that Whites have 'privilege' in this case, when there's other factors that are required to sustain that privilege beyond just the existence of the initial advantage. I think this is one of the reasons that privilege gets treated as a systemic problem.
It goes beyond just capital though, in post-modern societies there's particular paths, behaviors, and interactions that give one an advantage. How one presents, what skills one has, who one knows. Granted these are things that are (generally, but not always) within the control of the individual, though where does one learn what are advantageous ways of presenting, skills to have, and people to know? I'd argue that a lot of that comes from the environment that an individual is raised in.
I'd also argue that context matters significantly in which combination of presentation, skills and social ties are most advantageous to the individual. For example, I come from an upper-middle class background. Both my parents imparted in me the value of the traditional education system. They were preparing me to find advantage in the world they knew: the upper-middle class world, where I could find an advantage by pursuing and achieving a college degree.
They weren't wrong either, I have many of the advantages I do because I achieved that degree. The value of that degree, however, was imparted by my parents value of education. Yes, I bring much of my own unique individuality to that, however if not for my parents imparting their beliefs, I would have had nothing to start with.
I believe, and I think sociological theory would support me, that the same process happens for many, if not all, children. They learn from their parents, and their early environment, what behaviors, skills, and connections provide an advantage. The problem is, it's limited to their environment. I doubt my fancy-pants policy degree would matter worth a whiff in Richmond, CA though.
For those who don't know, Richmond, CA is one of the roughest neighborhoods around San Francisco. Oakland gets a lot of the attention, but it's really Richmond that houses the most challenging environment. There's a particular part called the 'iron triangle' (due to how the rail lines cross the area) where violence and death is not uncommon. I have a friend who grew up there, and falling asleep to gunshots was a regular occurrence.
Everything I got from my parents wouldn't matter a whiff in that environment. I was raised in an environment where the norms are vastly different than the iron triangle. In a lot of ways, it's a completely different culture.
Traditional rhetoric would identify me as having 'privilege' over people who grew up in the iron triangle. I wonder though, what exactly that means? I have advantages in the upper-middle class environment, I was raised in it, and understand its nuances and subtleties. I am much better at 'playing the system' in the upper-middle class world than anywhere else, because I've been exposed to it much longer.
But that understanding doesn't extend beyond that realm. It actually presents itself with a phenomenal challenge if I ever wanted to migrate outside of an 'upper-middle class' environment. That 'privilege' that I have here, in upper-middle class world, is lost as soon as I step outside of it. This applies not just to 'downsizing' my class status, but also to 'upsizing'. I don't understand the environment to survive as a wealthy individual any more than I do as a poor one.
Yet the argument is that the rich are privileged in what they have over me. I find myself confused with that argument, as much as I'm confused by how I have privilege over the poor. In much the same way that I would loose my advantages outside my upper-middle class environment, so would others loose their advantages in their environment.
Yet the common view of 'privilege' would have this top-down perspective of how I'm exploited by the rich, and how I exploit the poor because of these learned advantages. Ignoring how I feel on the matter (in some ways I do and others I don't) for the moment, as that's got a ton of bias in it already (which I touch on a little here), let's think this through for a moment without my personal experiences on the matter.
There's apparently a 'hierarchy' of privilege, with some at the top, middle, and bottom (all to varying degrees), and varying influences (gender, race, age, etc.) determining where a person would fall in this hierarchy. What determines privilege though? Yes, a poor person, with their experience, background, and understandings of what methods of presentation, value of skills, and use of social connections is most advantageous would do, on average, more poorly than someone like me in an upper-middle class environment, however it also works in reverse. Same applies between me and the rich. There's no inherent hierarchy in that chain.
Often, though, along with discussing privilege is discussed power. Let's examine the power dynamics between different class groups then.
Also, I realize I'm using only three class groups, divided among a subjective socio-economic status, which can be fairly criticized. It's a simple illustration that helps me draw into my larger point.
Anyhow, So, what's the power dynamic between me and the poor? This gets super-complicated, but I think the main one is that I'm more protected from the influence of actions of the poor on me. Consider how the culture of the poor relates: it's more dangerous, more prone to physical violence. There are laws in place to protect people from that. I would argue to protect people like me from that, as in 'middle class' society, that's considered a disadvantageous way to behave (violently). However in poorer environments that could be an advantageous way to behave.
The irony, though, is that middle-class behavior standards also apply to poor individuals, so they end up caught between middle-class authority, and the advantages gained in their environment by acting in that way. The same thing happens between middle-class and the rich. Middle-class constantly complain about how they're getting swindled by the rich, and in much the same way that's because the behaviors, standards, and whatnot of the rich are applied to the middle-class (I would say this is more due to the exceptions in laws, rather than their explicit intent, but the result is similar), creating the same basic dynamic, and therefore causing 'oppression'. It's more complicated and pervasive than just within the legal system, but I figured I'd start simple.
So then, would privilege be to have been raised in the environment of a group with at least some power over other groups? I think there's more to examining this issue than just that definition, but it's a good place to start.
Let's examine that power though, as one of the things I would argue is that it only exists within that group. This is somewhat self-evident as we're defining privilege as being in a group that can exert power over other groups, but I wanted to explicitly mention it, because as soon as someone falls out of that group, their power falls with them, and they need to re-calibrate their behavior to match their new environment.
How does one stay in their group though? Generally by taking advantage of the environment of that group: by presenting in advantageous ways, by learning the most useful skills, and by knowing the right people. If someone doesn't do that, they fall out of the group, or lat least the amount of capacity they have in that group is rather minimum.
Doesn't this inherently limit the range of behaviors and actions that those within the group can perform though? Doesn't that homogenize the behavior of the group? Oh sure things change over time, but as it changes, the group will re-homogenize around the new 'optimum strategy'. In a way, it's inherently limiting to be in that position. I would argue it works across all groups too, not just 'privileged' ones. If you want to succeed in a poor environment, you'll need to 'act poor', because that's where the advantages in that environment are.
Doesn't that inherently trap people's behaviors within their class? Or, to put the argument more pointedly: doesn't that mean that the people in the most privileged positions are just as limited by the norms of their group as those who don't have that privilege?
I won't dispute the idea that one group can have power over another, but I would argue that doesn't mean either group has more individual flexibility to operate outside of their group. There are rules, policies, guidelines, standards, expectations, and norms that are applied upon each individual depending on their group.
I say this because there seems to be this interesting idea that people higher up on the privilege chain have more capacity to do more stuff than those lower on it. I would argue that we're all pretty equally stuck by the norms of our group, even if that group does give us power over other groups.
Does this mean I'm stuck to forever live my life within the realm of middle-class America? Possibly, and rather likely too. There's always exceptions and I'm already an exception in other ways as it is. So, what does it really mean that I'm 'oppressed' and that others have 'privilege' over me? Basically that there's a group of people who can exert influence on my life whether I like it or not, and they can do it because they have a different upbringing than me.
And what does it mean that I 'oppress' others and have 'privilege' over them? Same thing really, just in reverse. There's a group of people that I can exert influence on whether or not they like it, and that's largely because of my upbringing.
There's a lot of discussion about breaking down this privilege, which I can only assume means either breaking the ability for one group to exert power over another (which I think is impossible), or by homogenizing everyone into a single group (which I have a multitude of objections to).
I think, though, this rant has gotten long enough, and I've got more than enough food-for-thought already to work with for any future posts I put out there.
Always welcoming of thoughts, feedback, ideas, and whatnot. I've actually got a Twitter account now (despite my distaste of social media) which would be a great venue to engage me on. I'm at @Calvin_xc1.
Cheers everyone.
- Jason
I wonder a lot what exactly 'male privilege' means. I think I understand how privilege works in sociology: having an advantage due to characteristics that aren't related to one's actual skills and abilities. Whites have a privilege over Blacks because of multiple generations of being the owners of production, rather than its servants (I use that word very loosely, as slaves is just as valid). Over time this generates far more capital among Whites, which gets passed generationally to more Whites.
There's a lot to this though. Inter-racial families are an unfortunate rarity, despite the advantages (I'm speaking mainly genetically here). Is it fair to say that Whites have 'privilege' in this case, when there's other factors that are required to sustain that privilege beyond just the existence of the initial advantage. I think this is one of the reasons that privilege gets treated as a systemic problem.
It goes beyond just capital though, in post-modern societies there's particular paths, behaviors, and interactions that give one an advantage. How one presents, what skills one has, who one knows. Granted these are things that are (generally, but not always) within the control of the individual, though where does one learn what are advantageous ways of presenting, skills to have, and people to know? I'd argue that a lot of that comes from the environment that an individual is raised in.
I'd also argue that context matters significantly in which combination of presentation, skills and social ties are most advantageous to the individual. For example, I come from an upper-middle class background. Both my parents imparted in me the value of the traditional education system. They were preparing me to find advantage in the world they knew: the upper-middle class world, where I could find an advantage by pursuing and achieving a college degree.
They weren't wrong either, I have many of the advantages I do because I achieved that degree. The value of that degree, however, was imparted by my parents value of education. Yes, I bring much of my own unique individuality to that, however if not for my parents imparting their beliefs, I would have had nothing to start with.
I believe, and I think sociological theory would support me, that the same process happens for many, if not all, children. They learn from their parents, and their early environment, what behaviors, skills, and connections provide an advantage. The problem is, it's limited to their environment. I doubt my fancy-pants policy degree would matter worth a whiff in Richmond, CA though.
For those who don't know, Richmond, CA is one of the roughest neighborhoods around San Francisco. Oakland gets a lot of the attention, but it's really Richmond that houses the most challenging environment. There's a particular part called the 'iron triangle' (due to how the rail lines cross the area) where violence and death is not uncommon. I have a friend who grew up there, and falling asleep to gunshots was a regular occurrence.
Everything I got from my parents wouldn't matter a whiff in that environment. I was raised in an environment where the norms are vastly different than the iron triangle. In a lot of ways, it's a completely different culture.
Traditional rhetoric would identify me as having 'privilege' over people who grew up in the iron triangle. I wonder though, what exactly that means? I have advantages in the upper-middle class environment, I was raised in it, and understand its nuances and subtleties. I am much better at 'playing the system' in the upper-middle class world than anywhere else, because I've been exposed to it much longer.
But that understanding doesn't extend beyond that realm. It actually presents itself with a phenomenal challenge if I ever wanted to migrate outside of an 'upper-middle class' environment. That 'privilege' that I have here, in upper-middle class world, is lost as soon as I step outside of it. This applies not just to 'downsizing' my class status, but also to 'upsizing'. I don't understand the environment to survive as a wealthy individual any more than I do as a poor one.
Yet the argument is that the rich are privileged in what they have over me. I find myself confused with that argument, as much as I'm confused by how I have privilege over the poor. In much the same way that I would loose my advantages outside my upper-middle class environment, so would others loose their advantages in their environment.
Yet the common view of 'privilege' would have this top-down perspective of how I'm exploited by the rich, and how I exploit the poor because of these learned advantages. Ignoring how I feel on the matter (in some ways I do and others I don't) for the moment, as that's got a ton of bias in it already (which I touch on a little here), let's think this through for a moment without my personal experiences on the matter.
There's apparently a 'hierarchy' of privilege, with some at the top, middle, and bottom (all to varying degrees), and varying influences (gender, race, age, etc.) determining where a person would fall in this hierarchy. What determines privilege though? Yes, a poor person, with their experience, background, and understandings of what methods of presentation, value of skills, and use of social connections is most advantageous would do, on average, more poorly than someone like me in an upper-middle class environment, however it also works in reverse. Same applies between me and the rich. There's no inherent hierarchy in that chain.
Often, though, along with discussing privilege is discussed power. Let's examine the power dynamics between different class groups then.
Also, I realize I'm using only three class groups, divided among a subjective socio-economic status, which can be fairly criticized. It's a simple illustration that helps me draw into my larger point.
Anyhow, So, what's the power dynamic between me and the poor? This gets super-complicated, but I think the main one is that I'm more protected from the influence of actions of the poor on me. Consider how the culture of the poor relates: it's more dangerous, more prone to physical violence. There are laws in place to protect people from that. I would argue to protect people like me from that, as in 'middle class' society, that's considered a disadvantageous way to behave (violently). However in poorer environments that could be an advantageous way to behave.
The irony, though, is that middle-class behavior standards also apply to poor individuals, so they end up caught between middle-class authority, and the advantages gained in their environment by acting in that way. The same thing happens between middle-class and the rich. Middle-class constantly complain about how they're getting swindled by the rich, and in much the same way that's because the behaviors, standards, and whatnot of the rich are applied to the middle-class (I would say this is more due to the exceptions in laws, rather than their explicit intent, but the result is similar), creating the same basic dynamic, and therefore causing 'oppression'. It's more complicated and pervasive than just within the legal system, but I figured I'd start simple.
So then, would privilege be to have been raised in the environment of a group with at least some power over other groups? I think there's more to examining this issue than just that definition, but it's a good place to start.
Let's examine that power though, as one of the things I would argue is that it only exists within that group. This is somewhat self-evident as we're defining privilege as being in a group that can exert power over other groups, but I wanted to explicitly mention it, because as soon as someone falls out of that group, their power falls with them, and they need to re-calibrate their behavior to match their new environment.
How does one stay in their group though? Generally by taking advantage of the environment of that group: by presenting in advantageous ways, by learning the most useful skills, and by knowing the right people. If someone doesn't do that, they fall out of the group, or lat least the amount of capacity they have in that group is rather minimum.
Doesn't this inherently limit the range of behaviors and actions that those within the group can perform though? Doesn't that homogenize the behavior of the group? Oh sure things change over time, but as it changes, the group will re-homogenize around the new 'optimum strategy'. In a way, it's inherently limiting to be in that position. I would argue it works across all groups too, not just 'privileged' ones. If you want to succeed in a poor environment, you'll need to 'act poor', because that's where the advantages in that environment are.
Doesn't that inherently trap people's behaviors within their class? Or, to put the argument more pointedly: doesn't that mean that the people in the most privileged positions are just as limited by the norms of their group as those who don't have that privilege?
I won't dispute the idea that one group can have power over another, but I would argue that doesn't mean either group has more individual flexibility to operate outside of their group. There are rules, policies, guidelines, standards, expectations, and norms that are applied upon each individual depending on their group.
I say this because there seems to be this interesting idea that people higher up on the privilege chain have more capacity to do more stuff than those lower on it. I would argue that we're all pretty equally stuck by the norms of our group, even if that group does give us power over other groups.
Does this mean I'm stuck to forever live my life within the realm of middle-class America? Possibly, and rather likely too. There's always exceptions and I'm already an exception in other ways as it is. So, what does it really mean that I'm 'oppressed' and that others have 'privilege' over me? Basically that there's a group of people who can exert influence on my life whether I like it or not, and they can do it because they have a different upbringing than me.
And what does it mean that I 'oppress' others and have 'privilege' over them? Same thing really, just in reverse. There's a group of people that I can exert influence on whether or not they like it, and that's largely because of my upbringing.
There's a lot of discussion about breaking down this privilege, which I can only assume means either breaking the ability for one group to exert power over another (which I think is impossible), or by homogenizing everyone into a single group (which I have a multitude of objections to).
I think, though, this rant has gotten long enough, and I've got more than enough food-for-thought already to work with for any future posts I put out there.
Always welcoming of thoughts, feedback, ideas, and whatnot. I've actually got a Twitter account now (despite my distaste of social media) which would be a great venue to engage me on. I'm at @Calvin_xc1.
Cheers everyone.
- Jason
Monday, September 22, 2014
Sampling Bias
One of the more interesting research concepts that's been on my mind lately is sampling bias, or put simply, what happens when your sample doesn't represent your population?
This has been coming up a lot for me because of a few things:
This has been coming up a lot for me because of a few things:
- A good friend of mine that I have regular political conversations with has had vastly different experiences with the same group of people that I have had. I've found most liberals, feminists, and LGBT's to be rather moderate, rational (though not always informed), and highly capable of intellectual discussion. His experiences have been much more extreme.
- The whole #GamerGate thing (and really any heated online discussion) paints a lot of rather... 'colorful' pictures of both sides of the discussion, yet when I actually engage someone 1-on-1, I find things tend to (not always) be more moderate, rational, and level-headed.
- Since my job involves a degree of research design, it's a regular question I face professionally. 'who can we sample, and how are they different from those we can't?'
It's the first point that's really driven it home for me, as I'm more personally vested with my friend than I am with #GamerGate, or my job.
Side note: If you're not familiar with #GamerGate, Three of my more recent posts touch on different facets of the issue, here, here and here.
I'm really starting to wonder exactly how much of our understandings, impressions, assumptions, and whatnot is framed by these inconsistencies of experiences. Naturally each of us is limited in our personal sampling frame to our personal experiences, but as any good researcher would tell you, that's (at best) a step above a convenience sample, and is unlikely to be representative of the group as a whole. Yet we still form our opinions based on this bias sample.
So, I must wonder, if we're forming opinions based on our personal experiences as an override to something less bias, then how can anyone really trust their understandings of any group at all? This gets back to the idea of media bias, and the Orwellian nightmare. If the state controls what information we have, then that's creating a bias on our understanding of our environment and ability to come to broad-based insights.
Yet aren't we self-imposing the same kind of Orwellian nightmare on ourselves by functioning on personal experience? If our own personal experiences are as influential to how we perceive the world around us, and those experiences are based on bias sampling, then how can we help but form an improper concept of our world?
Going back to the real-world examples: My friend has had very negative experiences with individuals of a liberal persuasion (thankfully excluding myself), to the point where his perception has shifted from the belief that there's different objectives between the groups, to the suspicion that liberals pose a real threat to him and those with his perspectives.
My experiences have been radically different, with liberals and conservatives holding space for different views, debating each other, sometimes getting heated, but not being hateful or threatening (overall, there's always individual exceptions).
So, since both of our samples are quite bias (Mine mostly from the San Francisco, Boston, D.C. and Denver areas, and his mostly from South Carolina), where can an accurate picture of liberals be found? I'm not entirely sure, I can't say that my perspective is any more legitimate than his as I have no evidence, given that I have a rather limited knowledge of the full scope of the sampling biases involved.
Don't get me wrong, I *like* my perspective more, not just because it paints the group I associate with in a more positive light, but also because it's more positive in general. That's personal bias though, and doesn't make for objective generalizations.
Now, it's easy to take this concept to its logical conclusion and state that there's no way to get to an objective generalization of our perspectives. I would argue this stops short of a full analysis though, in that the goal is not necessarily to reach it, but to reach for it. It's similar logic used in the #GamerGate debate to support the idea that objective journalism is important (link here) as in doing so improves who we are and what we do. Complete objective generalizations is the perfect goal, reality gets in the way, and we still end up better off for the attempt than if we throw up our arms in nihilistic futility.
That may be me just being overly Nietzschian though (-:
Anyway, it's a food for thought.
Best thinking folks.
- Jason
Sunday, September 21, 2014
I'm Tired
I'm tired. The world's been a cruel place to me. It's also been wonderful and amazing, but dishearteningly cruel at the same time. In much the way Tantalus suffered by having food to quench his hunger eternally in sight, but out of grasp. What have I done to deserve this punishment?
I look around me and see people happily content in their relationships, or sometimes not quite so, but still in them. I try to find my own slice of that happiness, and yet it seems I'm forever locked at the gates of a relationship, never allowed to step in.
The one time I was able to make my way in, I was brutally and savagely punished for it, as if having a relationship is something that is eternally forbidden to me and any attempt to have one is deserving of the same torment that those in Tartarus suffer for their crimes.
Yet in trying to understand my ostracization I find nothing but lies, misdirection, and manipulation. No one can tell me what the problem with me is that makes me somehow unworthy of the land of relationship; when I ask I get nothing but half-truths, dissemblements, and dismissals.
I feel like an outcast, good for little but exploitation from others and to be their emotional whipping post. I feel like my value is less than that of a slug, and I am cast aside by so many at that same level of value.
*sigh* What am I to do about it? I've tried so many different things, everything but being as deceptive, back-stabbing, manipulative and dishonest as everyone else. They say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. What was left out was that the one-eyed man is king only of himself, as everyone else would have cast him out for being able to see.
I'm so tired of fighting this alone, it's as if the whole world is against me. One of my favorite parts of Shakespeare's Hamlet is what I consider the most mis-understood part of all time.:
To be, or not to be, that is the question—
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be)
Most see this as about death and/or suicide. I see it as a morality question: should one suffer the immorality (slings and arrows) of a comfortable life (outrageous fortune), or should one hold true to ones morals (take up arms) and challenge the overwhelming tide of abuse, loneliness and sorrow (sea of troubles) that comes from being resolved in one's morality? I've always chosen the latter as I refuse to let the impositions of what I see as an immoral society control my actions, much less my thoughts and feelings.
I believe this is the root of my suffering in relationships. Because the cultural view on what a relationship is 'supposed' to be, and how I do not conform to it, I fail spectacularly.
One thing I can say for sure is that it has served as an excellent filtering mechanism for people who are too caught up in social norms to actually see what's in front of them.
I just hope there really is an extraordinary woman out there who can see what's in front of her, rather than just the filter that society tells her to see with.
- Jason
I look around me and see people happily content in their relationships, or sometimes not quite so, but still in them. I try to find my own slice of that happiness, and yet it seems I'm forever locked at the gates of a relationship, never allowed to step in.
The one time I was able to make my way in, I was brutally and savagely punished for it, as if having a relationship is something that is eternally forbidden to me and any attempt to have one is deserving of the same torment that those in Tartarus suffer for their crimes.
Yet in trying to understand my ostracization I find nothing but lies, misdirection, and manipulation. No one can tell me what the problem with me is that makes me somehow unworthy of the land of relationship; when I ask I get nothing but half-truths, dissemblements, and dismissals.
I feel like an outcast, good for little but exploitation from others and to be their emotional whipping post. I feel like my value is less than that of a slug, and I am cast aside by so many at that same level of value.
*sigh* What am I to do about it? I've tried so many different things, everything but being as deceptive, back-stabbing, manipulative and dishonest as everyone else. They say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. What was left out was that the one-eyed man is king only of himself, as everyone else would have cast him out for being able to see.
I'm so tired of fighting this alone, it's as if the whole world is against me. One of my favorite parts of Shakespeare's Hamlet is what I consider the most mis-understood part of all time.:
To be, or not to be, that is the question—
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be)
Most see this as about death and/or suicide. I see it as a morality question: should one suffer the immorality (slings and arrows) of a comfortable life (outrageous fortune), or should one hold true to ones morals (take up arms) and challenge the overwhelming tide of abuse, loneliness and sorrow (sea of troubles) that comes from being resolved in one's morality? I've always chosen the latter as I refuse to let the impositions of what I see as an immoral society control my actions, much less my thoughts and feelings.
I believe this is the root of my suffering in relationships. Because the cultural view on what a relationship is 'supposed' to be, and how I do not conform to it, I fail spectacularly.
One thing I can say for sure is that it has served as an excellent filtering mechanism for people who are too caught up in social norms to actually see what's in front of them.
I just hope there really is an extraordinary woman out there who can see what's in front of her, rather than just the filter that society tells her to see with.
- Jason
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Criticism and Advancement: Why I Support Both GamerGate and Feminist Frequency
Disclosure: I do financially support Feminist Frequency, and after my rant here you may understand why a bit better.
Let me say straight up that I'm rather fond of Fredrick Nietzsche's philosophies on how suffering, pain, and adversity is the path to growth and strength. As such it should come as no surprise that criticism, differing viewpoints, alternative perspectives, and even personal attacks are welcome (though challenging) experiences, because they help me refine my opinions, strengthen my rhetoric, and harden my proverbial skin.
This is a big part of why I support GamerGate, and also why I support Feminist Frequency. These days a lot of people would argue that these two should be in separate camps, and that I'm some kind of abomination, hypocrite, or somehow mentally deranged or whatnot. A lot of this connects back to my very Nietzscheian perspective. Put another way, there's a wonderful piece of dialog in Star Trek: TNG (S2E21 "Peak Performance", about a minute in) that I'll draw from to give another perspective on it:
Data: "For over nine millennia, potential foes have regarded the Zakdorn's as having the greatest innately strategic minds in the galaxy."
Worf: "So no one is willing to test that perception in combat?"
Data: "Exactly."
Worf: "Then the reputation means nothing."
Now replace a strategic mind and combat with pretty much any form of idea, concept, or whatnot. The same still applies, unless an idea is able to survive the rigor of being challenged by other ideas, it cannot be said to truly deserve any renown. Also, by going through the process of surviving that challenge it becomes more robust, more refined, and more capable.
Unfortunately there's one thing that will kill the ability for an idea to survive these rigors: censorship. If there's no dialog to challenge an idea with, then how can it be challenged? If it cannot be challenged, then how can it be reputable?
Using this logic it's pretty clear why I support GamerGate, I believe. Censorship limits the ability for ideas to be challenged, and also to grow. Using similar logic I support Feminist Frequency, as what good is gaming of we 'sacred cow' it and censor criticism of it? If gaming is truly to grow, evolve and improve then it most accept such criticism and respond, either through rebuttal or revision (or both).
So, my ideology puts me at a rather interesting split between the more radical (I'll get into what exactly I mean by 'radical' in another post at another time), and more publicly seen, sides of GamerGate and gaming feminism. Both sides would accuse me of selling out to the other, GamerGate for supporting Sarkeesian, and gaming feminism for buying into a distraction from feminist issues. I would debate either on those points though, gladly, for exactly the reasons I've stated above. I support discussion, I support my ideas being challenged, I support being beaten down, because I know how to pick myself up and go at it again (-:
Now there are moderates on both sides, and those like me who straddle the middle, who can completely understand what I'm saying here. I'm hoping this is the majority, though sadly I know it's not a vocal majority. Level-headedness and clear thinking doesn't tend to jive with being highly vocal. The voice of reason often gets crowded out in the open room.
Regardless, I think there needs to be more people like Sarkeesian, bringing more perspectives on gaming, including critiques of Sarkeesian's work. I also feel the same about GamerGate, and something I've been appreciating the twitter feed for the diversity of opinions I come across on it, both the ranting scathing hateful stuff, the thoughtful contemplation, and everything in-between.
Hopefully that provides insight into my stance on a few things.
- Jason
Let me say straight up that I'm rather fond of Fredrick Nietzsche's philosophies on how suffering, pain, and adversity is the path to growth and strength. As such it should come as no surprise that criticism, differing viewpoints, alternative perspectives, and even personal attacks are welcome (though challenging) experiences, because they help me refine my opinions, strengthen my rhetoric, and harden my proverbial skin.
This is a big part of why I support GamerGate, and also why I support Feminist Frequency. These days a lot of people would argue that these two should be in separate camps, and that I'm some kind of abomination, hypocrite, or somehow mentally deranged or whatnot. A lot of this connects back to my very Nietzscheian perspective. Put another way, there's a wonderful piece of dialog in Star Trek: TNG (S2E21 "Peak Performance", about a minute in) that I'll draw from to give another perspective on it:
Data: "For over nine millennia, potential foes have regarded the Zakdorn's as having the greatest innately strategic minds in the galaxy."
Worf: "So no one is willing to test that perception in combat?"
Data: "Exactly."
Worf: "Then the reputation means nothing."
Now replace a strategic mind and combat with pretty much any form of idea, concept, or whatnot. The same still applies, unless an idea is able to survive the rigor of being challenged by other ideas, it cannot be said to truly deserve any renown. Also, by going through the process of surviving that challenge it becomes more robust, more refined, and more capable.
Unfortunately there's one thing that will kill the ability for an idea to survive these rigors: censorship. If there's no dialog to challenge an idea with, then how can it be challenged? If it cannot be challenged, then how can it be reputable?
Using this logic it's pretty clear why I support GamerGate, I believe. Censorship limits the ability for ideas to be challenged, and also to grow. Using similar logic I support Feminist Frequency, as what good is gaming of we 'sacred cow' it and censor criticism of it? If gaming is truly to grow, evolve and improve then it most accept such criticism and respond, either through rebuttal or revision (or both).
So, my ideology puts me at a rather interesting split between the more radical (I'll get into what exactly I mean by 'radical' in another post at another time), and more publicly seen, sides of GamerGate and gaming feminism. Both sides would accuse me of selling out to the other, GamerGate for supporting Sarkeesian, and gaming feminism for buying into a distraction from feminist issues. I would debate either on those points though, gladly, for exactly the reasons I've stated above. I support discussion, I support my ideas being challenged, I support being beaten down, because I know how to pick myself up and go at it again (-:
Now there are moderates on both sides, and those like me who straddle the middle, who can completely understand what I'm saying here. I'm hoping this is the majority, though sadly I know it's not a vocal majority. Level-headedness and clear thinking doesn't tend to jive with being highly vocal. The voice of reason often gets crowded out in the open room.
Regardless, I think there needs to be more people like Sarkeesian, bringing more perspectives on gaming, including critiques of Sarkeesian's work. I also feel the same about GamerGate, and something I've been appreciating the twitter feed for the diversity of opinions I come across on it, both the ranting scathing hateful stuff, the thoughtful contemplation, and everything in-between.
Hopefully that provides insight into my stance on a few things.
- Jason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)