From Male Nerds Think They’re Victims Because They Have No Clue What Female Nerds Go Through:
“Science is a way that shy, nerdy men pull themselves out of the horror of their teenage years. That is true. That is so. But shy, nerdy women have to try to pull themselves out of that same horror into a world that hates, fears and resents them because they are women, and to a certain otherwise very intelligent sub-set of nerdy men, the category “woman” is defined primarily as “person who might or might not deny me sex, love and affection.”
“(And you ask me, where were those girls when you were growing up? And I answer: we were terrified, just like you, and ashamed, just like you, and waiting for someone to take pity on our lonely abject pubescence, hungry to be touched. But you did not see us there. We were told repeatedly, we ugly, shy nerdy girls, that we were not even worthy of the category “woman.” It wasn’t just that we were too shy to approach anyone, although we were; it was that we knew if we did we’d be called crazy. And if we actually got the sex we craved? (because some boys who were too proud to be seen with us in public were happy to fuck us in private and brag about it later) … then we would be sluts, even more pitiable and abject. Aaronson was taught to fear being a creep and an objectifier if he asked; I was taught to fear being a whore or a loser if I answered, never mind asked myself. Sex isn’t an achievement for a young girl. It’s something we’re supposed to embody so other people can consume us, and if we fail at that, what are we even for?)”
Influential executive producer Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, How to Get Away With Murder) receives the Sherry Lansing Leadership Award and gives an incredibly moving speech. Full transcript on Medium.
“Woman after woman. Each one running and each one crashing. And everyone falling. How many women had to hit that glass before the first crack appeared? How many cuts did they get, how many bruises? How hard did they have to hit the ceiling? How many women had to hit that glass to ripple it, to send out a thousand hairline fractures? How many women had to hit that glass before the pressure of their effort caused it to evolve from a thick pane of glass into just a thin sheet of splintered ice?”
“For whiteness to maintain its superiority, membership had to be strictly controlled. The “gift” of whiteness was bestowed on those who could afford it, or when it was politically expedient. In his book “How the Irish Became White,” Noel Ignatiev argues that Irish immigrants were incorporated into whiteness in order to suppress the economic competitiveness of free black workers and undermine efforts to unite low-wage black and Irish Americans into an economic bloc bent on unionizing labor. The aspiration to whiteness was exploited to politically and socially divide groups that had more similarities than differences. It was an apple dangled in front of working-class immigrant groups, often as a reward for subjugating other groups.
A lack of awareness of these facts has lent credence to the erroneous belief that whiteness is inherent and has always existed, either as an actual biological difference or as a cohesive social grouping. Some still claim it is natural for whites to gravitate to their own and that humans are tribal and predisposed to congregate with their kind. It’s easy, simple and natural: White people have always been white people. Thinking about racial identity is for those other people.
This comprehension of whiteness could also dissuade many white people of such detrimental and pervasive racial notions, such as, “Why is black pride OK but white pride is racist?” If students are taught that whiteness is based on a history of exclusion, they might easily see that there is nothing in the designation as “white” to be proud of. Being proud of being white doesn’t mean finding your pale skin pretty or your Swedish history fascinating. It means being proud of the violent disenfranchisement of those barred from this category. Being proud of being black means being proud of surviving this ostracism. Be proud to be Scottish, Norwegian or French, but not white.”
A friend pointed me to a blog called Angry Homosexual where a (presumably) asian gay man lists why gay asian men shouldn’t date white guys. I don’t agree with most of it and it seems awfully bitter but there’s a bit:
“2. You’ll eventually get dumped for a younger, cuter Asian. White people invented the concept of leasing a car and trading it in when it’s old, and they’ve carried that concept over to their dating lives too. 97% of the time when you see an East-West (Asian-White) couple, it’s an older white guy with a substantially younger Asian. Because there are many more Asians seeking white guys than vice versa, white guys have plenty of choice, while potato-seeking Asians have to settle for whatever they can get. Usually, it’s an older, often chubbier white guy who, for all his shortcomings, is, well, white. Years down the road when you’re getting a bit long in the tooth, you can expect to be traded in for a younger, hotter Asian model, and there will be plenty of those to choose from.”
A lot of this point of view is treating the white guy like a prize to be won which inherently devalues the asian man in the equation. There’s a lot of bullshit in gay dating dynamics and when you add in race or ethnicity you get a whole new level of bullshit.
I’ve always thought this is such a big piece of the puzzle. From Reddit:
“In reality, the great depression pretty much evened the playing field as far as wealth. The problem we have today evolved as a result of GI’s returning from WWII. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers came home, bought a house, and started a family. But black soldiers were denied the opportunity. The Federal Hosing Administration would not insure loans to black families, and even if they did, often times developers wouldn’t sell to black families. So, whites got suburbia, blacks were limited to inner city developments. So while white families were building equity in their homes, black families were renters and getting nothing out of it. Eventually, black families that were responsible had saved up enough to by a nice new home in suburbia, but there was a great fear from the white community (a fear pushed by the slimiest realtors) that the influx of black families would depress real estate values. White people flooded out to newer developments, which of course made the real estate values plummet. Black families, having finally bought a house, got to immediately see their life savings go down the drain with their now worthless property.
After World War Two, America had a chance to fully bring the black community into the fold with every other ethnic group (all of whom were able to join the middle class after the war) but instead we dropped the ball big time, leaving a lasting schism in our society.”
Full comment http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1witn6/what_actually_controversial_opinion_do_you_have/cf2j3h7
“His status as a Cardinal has been juxtaposed with repugnant comments about his character. In this narrative, he can’t be a ‘thug’ because he went to Stanford. But his Stanford-ness isn’t what magically makes him not a thug. …
“And then what? Had he gone to the University of Miami, would he be just another link in the chain of thug athletes from the U? Probably. What if he went to a Historically Black College, like Morehouse or Howard? Or what about a junior college? Or what about Harvard?
“All of these things would unfairly impact the thug narrative of Richard Sherman. And that’s unfortunate, because the ‘He went to Stanford’ card was long used as a way to get people off his back. And while the intentions were good, and helped shift some of the conversation about him back in his favor, it shouldn’t be a primary argument when given the all-too-common task of proving someone isn’t a thug. If anything, it’s harmful logic. Because the next Richard Sherman may not have attended Stanford. So what then?”
“Sadly, it’s bigger than just streaming, and it’s bigger than just gender. You also see similar accusations about people who are told their bisexuality/pansexuality/transness is ‘just for the attention’, for example. People of color often experience it when talking about racism, with earnest conversations about experiences and perceptions being seen as ‘race baiting’. You see it applied to body modifications as well. It often gets posed as a question: ‘why does a person who does/identifies as [x] have to be so vocal about it?’ It’s a coded way of saying someone is just looking for attention, and it’s a form of marginalization, because it assumes by default an illegitimacy for that person’s identity and experiences. Under this thinking, the identity characteristics of people who fall outside the accepted norms aren’t that way in earnest — they’re that way as a sort of contrarian act. For those who do largely fit the norms, I can understand why it’s easy to think that, as much of their identity development has been in rejecting pieces of the norm that they interface with. Maybe they reject mainstream music, or AAA games. Maybe they embrace fringe technology. Perhaps it’s rejecting what they see as the dominant religion or political beliefs. These rejections happen organically for them, relative to whatever their ‘normal’ is, and they view them as fundamental parts of their beliefs. As such, when faced with someone who’s counter to dominant culture in a particularly striking or individual way (particularly those who violate norms that the observers have made a conscious choice to accept rather than reject), it’s often easier to explain their existence within a framework of norm-rejection, which gives them the internally-consistent belief that people are, say, ‘bisexual just for the attention’. Instead of assuming that most people who identify as bisexual are doing it in a way that’s consistent with their own personal experiences, they assume that the identity came about as a rejection of a cultural norm, and that the rejection is so strong that, of course, it’ll definitely get attention. What’s interesting about that, is the idea that attention is fueled largely by the very value imbalance that these kind of accusations imply. The outcries that people make when someone defines themselves as say, ‘bisexual’ or a ‘girl gamer’ create the very attention that people are, paradoxically, decrying. I can’t speak about Kaceytron specifically, as I’m not familiar with her, but the post someone else made about her has been seen by and commented on by thousands of people. In decrying her attention-seeking behaviors, the person who posted it not only signal-boosted that, but also revealed their own desire to call attention to their perspective — an attention-seeking behavior that is probably invisible to the poster and many of the people agreeing with the image’s message. /u/imuya brought it up relative to streaming, but the fact of the matter is that much of what we do are attention-seeking behaviors. Why do you keep in touch with your friends? Why do you comment on reddit? Why do you tweet? Whenever there’s a social component to something there’s an element of attention embedded in it, because the task becomes relatively meaningless if there isn’t an audience. Reddit itself is like a veritable pressure-cooker for attention, with everything you do on the site being a vector for it. I’m writing this comment in the hopes that other people will see it; I’m writing it with the understanding that anyone on the site can respond to it; and, even more, I’m able to have a direct proxy for the audience’s opinion of it in the form of reddit’s voting system! I can’t imagine a system more designed to reward attention-seeking behavior, especially because an upvote is structurally analogous to saying this needs more attention by nature of reddit’s sorting methods (displaying highly upvoted articles and comments first). The point of all of this is that a behavior being attention-seeking isn’t wrong in and of itself — in fact, that’s a reality we are all complicit in if we’re on this very site. Instead, it’s often the intent of the behavior and the manner and space in which it’s executed that are far more important in terms of gauging authenticity.”