Archive for category: Thinking Out Loud

Mind The Straw, Sam

16 Sep
September 16, 2014

straw-bale-on-field

(Let me just apologize up front to the folk who visit this blog for the sporadic updates about game development. You’ll probably find this bewildering and/or irrelevant. Feel free to skip it, by all means. But I had a long-form thought I wanted to get down, twitter isn’t the best medium, and it seemed a bit much to hurl out randomly amoungst my friends and family on Facebook. So I thought to myself “you know, you do have a blog…”)

A couple of people in the skeptical community have been sharing this piece by well-known atheist writer Sam Harris, posted in response to…well, you should read the piece for the proper context, in his own words. I’m just going to critique it. He says some unfortunate things, in my opinion, and then falls prey to a common pitfall when discussing gender. It bugged me to the point where I felt like I needed to get down my thoughts.

(Let me say up front that I mostly like Harris and find him to be fairly clear-headed. Mostly.)

The first problem is that Sam reaches for an easy straw man counterargument in response to the charge of sexism. In fairness, misunderstandings arise, and these kinds of off-the-cuff remarks can be more poorly phrased than something carefully mulled over and written down. But still.

Here is where it starts. Harris relays their conversation to us.

She: Okay, let’s forget what you said about Sarah Palin. What you said about women in the atheist community was totally denigrating to women and irresponsible. Women can think just as critically as men. And men can be just as nurturing as women.

Me: Of course they can! But if you think there are no differences, in the aggregate, between people who have Y chromosomes and people who don’t; if you think testosterone has no psychological effects on human minds in general; if you think we can’t say anything about the differences between two bell curves that describe whole populations of men and women, whether these differences come from biology or from culture, we’re not going to get very far in this conversation.

She: I’m not saying that women and men are the same.

Me: Okay, great. So I think you misunderstood the intent of what I was saying. I was just acknowledging that some differences in the general tendencies of men and women might explain why 84 percent of my followers on Twitter are men. Unfortunately, we don’t have time to get into this, because there are 200 people standing behind you in line patiently waiting to have their books signed.

She: You should just know that what you said was incredibly sexist and very damaging, and you should apologize.

Me: You really are determined to be offended, aren’t you? It’s like you have installed a tripwire in your mind, and you’re just waiting for people to cross it.

If it’s not obvious, here, let me summarize the gist of the exchange :

Her: What you said is sexist.

Sam: Are you saying you think there aren’t any differences between men and women? If you think that, this conversation is over before it started!

You see it?

Sam’s response is an attack on a position that the other person didn’t state, a straw man argument. It is not the case that saying a particular generalization is harmful or biased means that you think the 2 genders are completely identical. It’s a huge reach to infer that from that comment, but it IS a great deal easier to knock down, as arguments go.

Sam then continues to build his pile of straw later, on his blog. Inviting us, his readers, to join him in laughing at the idea of someone denying that sex differences play even a small role in skewed gender representation in the management of powerful companies.

However, they are not the only factors that explain differences in social status between men and women. For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. How much of this is the result of sexism? How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20’s or 30’s to have families? How much is explained by normally distributed psychological differences between the sexes? I have no idea, but I am confident that each of these factors plays a role. Anyone who thinks disparities of this kind must be entirely a product of sexism hasn’t thought about these issues very deeply.

I’ve read the piece multiple times now, and I’m quite at a loss as to when either of the women claimed to hold that position. Again, it’s a straw man that Sam sets up, just to knock down. It’s very easy to seem intellectually superior when you make a show of knocking down exaggerated claims you’ve pinned on your opponent.

Anyway, Harris spends a lot of time talking about how he knows and respects women etc, and even points out that he recognizes the danger of skirting the “some of my best friends are black” style defense against accusations of sexism.

But simply pointing out that you’re aware of the pit looming in front of you isn’t enough. You have to actually change course to avoid it.

Personally, I would have hoped that if Sam had so much respect for and interaction with women, he might have picked up by now how many of them find comments about their “nurturing” natures to be patronizing as all hell, especially when reached for glibly as an explanation of why they are underrepresented in various fields or careers.

You see, and this really gets to the heart of what Harris missed here, these kinds of benevolent-seeming comments are often used to justify the differences created by deeply-entrenched structural sexism. You’ll hear things like women are too delicate for sports, too sensitive to go to war, they don’t like to get dirty, they’re more naturally inclined to soft skills like caring for children, they’re more supportive and less competitive than men, and so on and so forth.

These words, plotted out visually, would form a mental map around the core stereotypes of motherhood and femininity, the idealized archetype of woman (in the eyes of a lot of men). And these ideas have frequently been used to oppress women throughout history.

These kinds of things are examples of benevolent sexism, sexist concepts that, on surface examination, sound positive. Women are more caring, women are nicer, women aren’t as dirty. Isn’t that a nice thing to say about someone? How could anyone protest being called “the fairer sex”?!?!

But they straightjacket women and the ways they can express themselves in the world. They send signals to women about how they’re expected to behave and which careers they are expected to go into, and they have been used, over and over and over, to justify the inequality caused by deep-seated misogyny. No, we hear, it’s not sexism that keeps women out of certain careers, certain spaces, it’s because they’re just not inclined toward those kinds of things in the first place! It’s not that we’re keeping women out, it’s that they don’t even want to come in!

Which brings us back to Harris’s contentious comment.

There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

Well, obviously, if women don’t want to participate, the likely explanation is because they’re just not inclined to this kind of thing, this man-thing. This rough-and-tumble back-and-forth intellectual pugilism. Women are more gentle, you see. Softer. Nurturing.

Harris doesn’t want to acknowledge the (likely unintentional) sexism in this comment, but he doesn’t have real evidence that critical thought is more “intrinsically male”, more a part of our natures. And it’s unfortunate that Harris can’t see his quick, off-the-cuff reaching for that particular explanation first as part of a larger, problematic pattern experienced regularly by women in society.

And it’s doubly unfortunate that many of the prominent males in the community are, as we speak, closing ranks and working to discredit the sources and communities where the strongest feminist critique is coming from. It would be nice if they’d try to listen and understand instead of getting defensive. If I hadn’t already unfollowed Dawkins a long time ago, I would have had to, now. People you look up to, intellectually, making cringe-worthy comments is a fairly painful experience.

The ending paragraph slips from what could still be considered to be an honest mistake to an unfortunate bit of vindictiveness. I understand that he’s taking heavy flak and the urge to punch back is probably strong. Hell, I’m an argumentative guy, I get the urge to strike back.

Pretending to want to keep the harmony while taking the opportunity to throw some less-than-subtle kicks at whoever it was he was debating with is a shit move. It’s like firing a few tank shells across the border at a neighboring nation and waiting for a counter-attack, all while loudly proclaiming that you’re trying to keep the peace. That is not what the moral high ground looks like.

Start a fight or don’t, whatever, but just own it, Sam. And clear up all this the bloody straw.

Pricing Is Hard

15 Jul
July 15, 2014

System Crash is going to be priced at $15. Because I’m indecisive, mainly.

I mulled on it for ages and just couldn’t reach a decision. I basically hovered between 2 price points, $10 and $20. But for the life of me, I couldn’t settle on which was a better option. Some days I’d lean more toward $10, others I was almost certain that $20 was the better decision. Doesn’t help that I have no first-hand knowledge to go by, no past sales figures to compare. In the end, I just got tired of thinking about it. So I shrugged, said “ah, fuck it” and split the difference. $15 it will be!

Thinking about pricing is tricky. Especially since, as developers, I think we all have 2 viewpoints on the matter. Viewpoints that pull in two opposite directions. Our developer side and our gamer/consumer side. We’ve all had experience as gamers purchasing games, and we all know that offering a game cheaply can convince us to take a chance on a game.

So there’s the temptation to just set the price low and hope to cast the net wide. That’s where the lean toward pricing SC at $10 comes from.

But you’ve got to be careful with that. Humans have a tendency to only remember the hits and forget about the misses when trawling through our memories of the past for data to confirm impressions. That’s how John Edwards makes his living. You don’t remember the times a low price failed to persuade you to buy a game. So you don’t really, objectively know that price was the deciding factor, or even how much price weighs against other factors when you make decisions. It might just be that the price is easy to recall and compare objectively, so you it sticks in your memory. The more fuzzy parts of your decision-making might remaing hidden from you.

There’s also plenty of advice from people selling their games, that you shouldn’t price your title too low, that cutting your price in half won’t result in a more than double increase in units sold. And that the optimal price point is often higher than you imagine.

And I know that I, personally, am a pretty shit haggler. I tend to lowball myself. Based on advice I’ve read/heard about freelance work and so on, I suspect I’m not alone in that regard. So I know that I can’t really trust my instincts, that I should probably take whatever figure my gut thinks is reasonable and raise it by 30-50%. That’s where the urge to price SC at $20 comes from. Maybe even $25! Daring!

As an aside, it’s funny (and scary) to think about how the regular Steam sales have affected perception of $20-$25. There was a time when that was for the low end of (new) games. Now that’s like premium indie or slightly discounted mainstream. For the Natural Selection 2’s of the world.

It doesn’t help that there are many great games priced at $10. Some of which, if I’m honest, I think are better than System Crash. Which makes me feel presumptuous and nervous, pricing SC higher than those titles!

But maybe those games are priced too low, or are in later parts of the sales tail, or have alternate monetization, or some other factor. I don’t know! It’s one of those things where you just have to try not to panic and go with what you know is a good value proposition, if you’ll excuse the biz speak. I spend more than $20 just for a casual night out with friends for a few hours. System Crash is looking like it will have close to 80 missions at this stage! Overall, it’s good value!

I have to hold onto that, use it to steady my nerves. I’m not trying to gouge anyone here, but I also want to trade my output for what it’s worth, a fair price, traded honestly, for good value. And hopefully at least cover my expenses!

So fuck it. 15 bucks is what it will be.

On Anxiety And Measuring Success

03 Jul
July 3, 2014

Anxiety is paralyzing.

Or, at least, it is for me. I can only talk about my own experiences here. Other people might thrive under stress, I don’t know.

Tell me if you’ve ever experienced this. A giant deadline looms. Every time you think about it, your stomach clenches slightly. But, instead of doing the rational thing, instead of buckling down and focusing on making the best use of your time, you find yourself procrastinating. Flittering away your time on the most trivial distractions.

Which makes the anxiety even worse. Whenever you stop procrastinating, the anxiety rushes back, made all the more worse by the knowledge that you have even less time left, and compounded by the guilt you feel at having squandered time on procrastination.

Which, of course, makes the urge to go back to procrastinating, to distract yourself from your anxiety, even stronger. The proverbial vicious cycle. And even if you’re aware of it, it can be extremely hard to escape the cycle.

For myself, I’ve experienced this more and more frequently the closer I get to releasing System Crash. I’ve invested so much time, money and effort into the project that thinking about the outcome creates a churning mix of hope, fear and stress. And, unfortunately, I’m one of those people who hopes for the best but anticipates/plans for the worst. I would love for System Crash to do well, but mentally I’m braced for it to be a flop. Which is just realistic, very few people hit it out of the park on their first swing, and certainly I’ve made a range of mistakes that I cringe thinking about (though hopefully I’ll avoid them with the next project).

But that kind of “realistic pessimism” mindset means that, in my mind, the chance of failure far outweighs the probability of success. So the anxiety loop feeds on that. I think about the outcome, my mind imagines failure/disappointment, and I feel…well, I suspect it’s anxiety, but I’m not so consciously aware of that part. What I am aware of is a sort of draining away of my motivation and enthusiasm. I develop a creeping apathy toward my own project, and a strong desire to focus on something else.

So I’ll go off and paint, for example, even though I know it isn’t a priority, that I really should be getting my SC work done in my scant free time. But the painting is simple, relaxing and creative. And painting still feels like I’m achieving something, unlike goofing off playing video games for hours. The fact that it feels productive means that I don’t feel the guilt that I do when simply playing around, but it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, so there’s none of the anxiety either. My future, my self-identity, that isn’t caught up in whether I paint this fantasy monster well or not.

Another one is getting into pointless internet debates. I have strong opinions on things at the best of times. But I think that when I’m stressed, I give in to the temptation to argue far more. Again, I suspect it’s my mind distracting itself from one emotion with another. “But it’s important that this is said!” I think. But it isn’t important. The long-term work is what is important, my mind is just focusing on distractions to push away the stress, to alleviate the sense of looming identity-threat.

So that’s fairly sucky. I dunno, I hope I haven’t come off sounding neurotic here. I don’t want to exaggerate the problem. But it certainly is something I’ve noticed. Especially now, toward the end. The closer to the end I get, the stronger the resistance is. But what can you do about it?

Enough talking about the problem, what’s the solution?

Well, discipline helps. Being able to force yourself to soldier through, whatever you’re feeling. But I don’t find discipline alone does it. At least not for me, not long term. Maybe I’m just not disciplined enough, I don’t know. But it’s really hard to stand as stern taskmaster over your own mind when it’s that same mind experiencing the stress and wanting to escape it. I find that if you try to simply pit your will against your emotions, eventually your will crumbles. Willpower is a castle built on the rock of your emotions, your drive and desire. When the foundations start to crumble, the structure cannot stand for long.

So discipline alone hasn’t proven to be a great solution, for me. I can power through, but only for a while. A more permanent solution is required.

What else? Well, what’s really needed here is to address the source of the problem, that anxiety. The mind can’t carry that kind of burden for long, it will seek to put the burden down one way or the other. If you can’t find a more intelligent way to give your mind relief, the animal subconscious will do it for you, it will play its tricks with procrastination and so on.

So What I’ve found works best, for me, is to reframe the way you think about it. The anxiety comes from the sense of identity-threat and impending disappointment. From this line of thinking – “I’ve tried so hard, put in so much, what if it’s a failure?!? What if it’s a public failure?!?! Oh no!!! :(”

But what is it specifically? What is the “failure” I’m afraid of? Well, here, failure is the game being a financial flop. Not making enough money to cover its costs. Being disappointing, to me and others.

But surely that isn’t the only measure of success? Making money? I know it’s going to sound like hippy bullshit, but the only way I’ve found to truly relieve that anxiety long term, to achieve a measure of mental zen, is to redefine how I am choosing to measure success. Let the money be a nice, but not necessary condition for considering the project “successful.”

Instead, choose to measure success by :

– Whether you’re proud of what you’ve created. You’ll probably never be perfectly happy with anything you create, but you can be proud of it, nevertheless.

– The sense of pride and accomplishment you feel for actually having done it. You’ve done what you set out to do. You’ve taken the step most people can’t or won’t. You haven’t just talked the talk, you’ve walked the walk. You haven’t just dreamed about it, you’ve picked up your tools and turned it into a reality. That’s a powerful thing. Keep doing that and your life WILL change.

– What you’ve learned in the process. Education ain’t cheap, as a friend told me when I mentioned that I was stressed about the fact that I’d sunk so much of my savings into this project and I might see little in return. And that’s the plain truth. Education is expensive, but it’s the best investment you can make, investing in yourself .

– Whether the game finds an audience who enjoys it, no matter how small. Even if it’s just 3 people and one of them’s your mum. If it finds an audience who it resonates with, who enjoy playing it and are enthusiastic, you’ve built something that adds value to other people’s lives. That’s a great, rare thing. Treasure it.

– Fun. Plain old fun. Did you enjoy creating it? Do you still enjoy playing it? Look, it’s not going to be fun all the time. There will be long periods of hard or boring work. Lots of grinding. But in amoungst that, there should be plenty of moments where you felt that joy at creating something that excites you. Remember those moments, clutch them to your breast, let them feed your soul.

So that’s what works for me. Changing my own definition of what it means to be successful. When I do that, the anxiety melts away. I’m already successful. And I look forward to the future, I look forward to releasing System Crash and sharing what I’ve made with all of you. And then doing it again.

The doing must be an end in itself, not a means to an end. That’s the secret that I’ve found. The process is the reward. And when I keep that in mind, I can get back to creating from a place of joy and excitement. Instead of a cloud of fear.

Yoda had it right. Fear really is the path to the Dark Side.

Not All Men

29 May
May 29, 2014

If you’ve been paying attention to the news, you’ll probably have heard about the horrifying acts of Elliot Rodger, who, feeling that women owed him love and sex, and that they hadn’t given him his due, went on a murderous rampage to extract “revenge” for these imagined misdeeds of the female gender.

Just monstrous. More details have emerged since then, painting a grim picture of his twisted mindset. He seemed to be deeply immersed in the poisonous rhetoric of the Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) and the Pick Up Artist (PUA) community. It’s not my place to speculate about whether any mental conditions may have contributed to his actions, but it’s far from surprising that such hateful soil nurtured vile acts.

It’s easy to dismiss the context, to believe that evil people will simply find any reason to do evil, but that is wrong-headed. Causes are complex, but context is not insignificant. The Nazis didn’t discover antisemitism, their attitudes and atrocities grew out of a thousand years of deep-seated European and Christian antisemitism, frequent purges of Jewish communities across Europe.

Horrifying acts grow where hatred is nurtured.

After Elliot’s suicidal rampage, of course, many took to blogs, news sites and social media to express their and anger and horror, to call out the attitudes that nurtured this killer. Society reeled, especially women. Many used twitter, under the hashtag #YesAllWomen, to give voice to their own experiences with men who treat sexual attention from women as a right to be demanded, by force if necessary. Story after story poured out, a torrent of grief and horror and anger and solidarity.

And, this being social media, it was very quickly derailed.

I hesitate to call it trolling. There HAS been trolling of the feminist response, no doubt. I’ve seen facebook pages put up calling Elliot a hero, but they bear the hallmarks of 4Chan. In terrible taste, but they don’t ring true as anything other than an attempt at “teh lulz” by horrible, bored children.

What I’m talking about specifically is the #NotAllMen hashtag that quickly rose in response. Less outright trolling and more a sort of obliviousness or defensiveness, nitpicking. Which, in the context, stops seeming harmless and comes across as almost malicious. An attempt to derail women’s expression of their daily, lived experience for the sake of ego. I’ll discuss that more in a bit, but let’s just carry on with recounting events, first.

So the #YesAllWomen hashtag involved women pouring out their souls and experessing their horror, the #NotAllMen responded by nitpicking how that expression was phrased, because it hurt men’s feelings, and basically online war erupted. I’ve read almost as much rage against the “Not All Men” men, as I have about Elliot Rodger and his murder spree. Of course, that may simply be my personal filter bubble, so don’t take that as proof of anything. Elliot Rodger, being dead, is probably not quite as actively argumentative as the Not All Men. I don’t intend it as a criticism, it’s just my personal view of how it’s unfolded.

Here’s a fine example, by the excellent writer Penny Red – “Let’s call the Isla Vista killings what the were: misogynist extremism”.

You can see how the article is kind of broken up into two halves, the first focusing on Elliot, the second on the Not All Men thing. And that’s not a unique rant. Feminists have been expressing their frustration with this kind of response for a while now, long before Elliot Rodger. So much so that this satirical cartoon was created, quickly spreading across the net.

2014-04-10-pltm196

And here’s a deeper discussion of the thoughts and frustration behind it, why it’s so annoying for feminist bloggers – “Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument.”

For the rest of this article, I’m going to talk about this “Not All Men” thing. If you’re wondering why I’m not going to talk about Elliot Rodger more, or the PUA community and how atrocious sites like Return of Kings (I refuse to link to that trash, but you can read about their comments in regard to Elliot here) is, it’s not because I think that those issues aren’t much more important, pressing subjects to focus on.

It’s because I think those topics have already been covered by so many women who deal with this reality, who have put it much better than I ever could. I don’t have anything new to add to that conversation. Please, read the links I’ve posted. These are horrible events, and it’s worth taking the time to examine them, and think about what we can do or how we, especially men, might be contributing to the environment that nurtured Elliot.

Anyway, like I said, I’m going to talk about the “Not All Men” thing for the rest of this blog post. There, I might have something new to offer to the conversation. Because, at one point, I was a Not All Man.

A long time ago, and thankfully not on the internet. I made that particular argument to my mother, in my teens, after I’d brought home some feminist literature I’d found at the library.

I was visiting the library nearly every week at that point, bringing home a satchel full of books at a time, and I’d found the section on gender studies while browsing around the extremely interesting (to a teenage boy) shelves devoted to books on sexual practices.

Ever curious, particularly about the exotic species known as “women”, I checked out these books in the hope of gleaning some insight into how women viewed the world. I was a shy young man attending an all-boys school. Much of my “insight” into the female of the species was second hand knowledge, garnered from books and TV and so forth.

So I went home, and read them. And fairly quickly started feeling angry and defensive. Many of the books seemed to burn with rage at men at the injustices perpetrated against women. All men, it seemed to me.

When my mother came home, I bombarded her first with the ideas that I’d read, then with my feelings of injustice and unfair generalization. It was one thing to say that some men are horrible, and do horrible things, on that point I more than agreed. But I felt I was being tarred and feathered with the monsters. Because I had a penis, I was guilty of the same crime. Not at all fair, I ranted!

My poor mother. She said that, for my own sake, I probably shouldn’t read that kind of book. And for a while, I didn’t, and I didn’t think much of the radical feminists. I had that frequently encountered view amongst both men and women, that feminism has done much good but the “bra-burning radical types” took it too far, into man-hatred, and that in the modern era feminism had become largely irrelevant.

And that was my opinion for a while. It’s not like I spent that much time thinking about it, honestly. It was, at the time, one of those views that, once settled on, didn’t come up very much. I treated women the same as I always had, as equals, but in my mind there was a box to which I’d dismissed “the radical, unreasonable feminists.” Who were not like normal, reasonable women, of course.

Fast forward to today, more than a decade later, and my views on these matters have matured, deepened, become significantly more nuanced. I am aware of more sides to arguments of all sorts, these days, and look back on the shallow opinions of teenage and early-twenties Gareth with much wry bemusement. Kids, man.

Which brings me to why I felt the urge to talk about this subject, even though it’s an emotionally-fraught one liable to blow up in my face. Because that “Not All Men” cartoon…well, it bugs me ever so slightly.

Even though I can see where it’s coming from and fully sympathize with the frustration, I remember teenage Gareth making that argument. And I remember that I wasn’t actually making it in bad faith. I wasn’t playing Devil’s Advocate, I wasn’t trying to derail important discussion about the mistreatment of women. I just didn’t want to be counted with the monsters. I felt targeted by that accusatory anger, and I didn’t feel like I’d done anything to deserve it. I was a nice guy, why take it out on me, protested the voice in my head.

That’s understandable, isn’t it? You can respond with “yes, but why bring it up then, when something more important is being discussed, if not to attempt to derail, to shift focus?” Maybe. But isn’t that also maybe being a bit ungenerous? When someone, never mind a teenager, feels defensive and says “hey, that’s not fair!” they’re not necessarily using that as a gambit, the moving of a chess piece, part of a larger, deceitful stratagem to diffuse and deflect your point. Humans and our emotional responses to things that threaten our sense of self are not necessarily all that rational or well-considered. Sometimes we do dumb things, without malevolent intent, that piss off other people.

And I know, teenage Gareth’s motives aren’t necessarily the same as the commonly-encountered Not All Man, and feminist bloggers will have more direct contact with that breed of animal. Perhaps my empathy is misplaced. But I still do worry about this kind of thing, a little bit. I worry it might be part of a trend in life that I find disagreeable, and see all too frequently. That I do myself, all too frequently. A tendency we all have to be ungenerous about the motives of people who we don’t agree with on some topic.

I’ll give an example I’ve seen, one made by “my” side, the liberal and progressive side. In a pro-life, pro-choice debate on abortion, I’ve seen comments like “the pro-life people don’t want to allow abortions because really, they just don’t want women to have any rights at all.”

That is ungenerous. It’s a complex, difficult issue, abortion. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t believe the majority of pro-life folks have any other motive besides the reasonable viewpoint that recognizable human life starts at point X instead of at point Y, where the pro-choice people put it. And thus terminating even an early pregnancy is seen to be ending a human life without its consent, something most consider murder. But it’s like we can’t stop at simply disagreeing where recognizable human life starts and what exact rights a mother has under those circumstances, we have this urge to take it further, to emphasize the villainy of someone who holds a different viewpoint. It’s easier to hate and dismiss cartoon caricatures, I guess.

Which is not to say that there aren’t real villains out there, that there aren’t atrocious viewpoints floating around that need to be squashed. But I fear this tendency drives us to hate people who aren’t actually that different in viewpoint from us, or who are potentially future allies, with a bit of time and understanding. What might have happened if young Gareth had expressed his opinion on the internet, instead of to his mother. I like to think I’m smart enough to have come right anyway, but I don’t know.

I fear that in the angry momentum built up behind the memes and blog posts about the Not All Men, we may be falling into that trap. Taking someone whose stance merely aggravates and interpreting their motivations in the most villainous light. Saying that not only are they wrong, they’re motivated by a desire to discredit or deceive. Because what could someone who seemingly rushes to the defense of misogyny be, but a sort of arch-misogynist? The devil’s advocate, the guy who knowingly defends the bad guy, that guy’s almost worse than the bad guy himself.

Which brings up the thought – if they’re defending the misogynists, and I’m (as some may interpret it) defending them, am I then the arch-arch-misogynist? Heh.

I worry about the nuance-stripping nature of these kinds of memes. I worry about what it does to how we communicate with each other, and our potential for finding common ground. I worry bout overload, where one person speaks to ten thousand, they directly answer back, overwhelming an individual’s patience and restraint. There’s an xkcd cartoon where he talks about being patient with people asking “dumb” questions, because you have to remember that no matter how tired you may be of certain topics or questions, there is always someone engaging with it for the first time. Some newb for whom this is their first encounter with the subject.

I wonder if something similar may be at play here? If you imagine sub-cultures as large networks of interconnected ideas and people and so on, there are those who sit at the heart of the network, and those along the edge. The people in the center are switched on, deeply engaged, much more aware of nuance and context and history than the outliers.

I worry about when the person in the center has a conversation with the person on the edge, who may be young, inexperienced, or just someone who hasn’t thought through the issue at hand. I worry about the wearing down of patience, and the temptation to lash out.

It’s a hard problem to solve. Because it’s a lot to ask for, that kind of restraint of anger in the middle of a terrible situation.

It’s completely understandable that women who are incandescent with rage and grief and horror at some new atrocity in a long line of atrocity inflicted on their gender, who have found the bravery to stand up and speak out against it in public, knowing the horrible, potentially-dangerous people their words will attract, don’t have it in them to stop and take the time to patiently guide some newbie making a superficial, stupid objection that misses the forest for the trees, or a stupid comment they’ve heard a thousand times. It’s hard to be patient and generous and understanding at the best of times, never mind the worst, and it’d be beyond presumptuous to demand that victimized women must be politely considerate toward men whose attitudes may help deflect blame from the perpetrators, when expressing their thoughts at times like these.

It would be unreasonable to criticize someone for not having the patience of a saint, not unless we ourselves are saintly. And who is? But, at the same time, I know it’s probably also unrealistic to expect the ignorant and inexperienced to have a good grasp on how to navigate these conversations carefully and considerately. So I worry about our ability to have these discussions, in this format. I worry about actively alienating the merely inexperienced and thoughtless, turning them into enemies.

I worry that if we take the people who say things like

“I’m not a feminist, I’m a humanist! If your goal is to treat people equally, why call it feminism? That implies bias toward women’s concerns only!”
“Why call it patriarchy if it’s not all men? How can it be a patriarchy if many men aren’t benefiting it? Isn’t that raging at the wrong target?”
“How can you say I’m part of the patriarchy? I’ve never treated women badly in my life!”
“Men are also assaulted, you know!”
“Why try to make me feel like it’s my responsibility, just because I have a penis? It wasn’t me who did it! Implying I’m guilty because of my genitals is sexism!”

and act like they’re practically MRAs, well, we’ll drive them to the MRA movement and their atrocious “Red Pill” nonsense. I worry about how quickly we divide the world into allies and enemies. I worry what someone who is now where young Gareth once was might become, in the crucible of the internet rage machine. And I worry that someone reading this blog is going to interpret it as me saying these are bigger worries than women being brutalized and murdered. ;)

So, at the end of it all, what’s the answer? What do we do? Who do we assign fault to? I don’t know, and blaming anyone really isn’t the point of this piece, I hope that’s clear. The point was just to share my experience, and say that this is complex, and hard. All I have is a hope that somehow we can get better at understanding each other.

And somehow find a way to create a world that treats women better. Just days after Elliot Rodger went on his rampage, on the other side of the world, a pregnant woman was stoned to death by her family, for marrying for love. There isn’t a country on Earth where women are safe from these kinds of depredations. We’ve made improvements, but it’s not nearly enough.

Whatever our misunderstandings and disagreements, however different our life experiences, we must find a way to fix this. Men, women, all of us.

*And just in case it’s not clear, I really hope no one takes this piece as justification to start sneering at feminists in the comments. I’m a feminist, I believe in feminism. I think it’s important. The fact that there are difficulties with understanding and communicating with each other online, especially in emotionally-fraught situations or via forms of social media that constrain communication, proves nothing besides that this kind of thing is hard, and that we’re all flawed humans. I wrote this not as a critique of feminism, but because I felt the need to put my thoughts and experiences into words. I like almost everyone who comments on my blog, please don’t lead me to making a frowny face. ;)

Economics, History and Star Wars

02 Apr
April 2, 2014

Ran across this interesting post while browsing, thought I’d share it. It’s on economics and history as viewed through the lens of Star Wars. But most of all, it’s about viewpoint.

Interesting.

Oh, and if you can get your hands on the book he mentions, Economix, I highly recommend it. It’s basically a history of the development of economic thought in comic form, far more interesting than it sounds. I studied economics for 2 years in varsity, and that’s the best, most engaging and easily digested work on economics I’ve ever encountered.

More Than Skin Deep

20 Nov
November 20, 2013

flickr-words

 

I’ve always loved words. And I’ve also always had a deep and abiding admiration for those who use them well. Whether it’s an insightful and engaging analysis of the world around us or building fantastical worlds of the imagination, good writing resonates. And it’s a skill I want for myself. Read more →