Degrees of X-ist-ness follow-up
May. 2nd, 2008 05:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIn the last post, I suggested a hierarchy of being pro-X.
1. Thinking that X.
2. Thinking that X needs campaigning for.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that X is one of few most important issues in society.
It seems many people felt (5) was extremely wrong, I'm not quite sure how to phrase it differently. There's a continuum from thinking X is true/good and I'm an X-ist, to X is overwhelmingly important. Almost any cause has extremists, and they have to go somewhere on the scale, and they go in (5), but (5) also includes people who justifiably believe in the overwhelming importance of X.
I got bogged down in deciding to what extent X actually was overwhelmingly important. Should have avoided specifying it? What should category (5) be? Should it refer to an how important X is seen to be? Or how important X is seen relative to how important it really is? But that is so subjective. Or should it separate out into a hierarchy of how important X is? But that could require any gradation.
But the point is, I think it's also of relevance to another contentious definition: atheism.
1. Not believing in a God.
2. Thinking atheism is important, wanting other people to be atheist, or thinking that non-religiousness is in some ways damaged by society.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
The difference here is that technically atheism refers only to (1), but people drift meanings of words a lot, and so extend "atheist" down the intuitive scale. I think this is why people understand what you mean if you say someone is "very atheist", despite the fact that taken literally, that has no meaning. I think this is why "more atheist" means "thinking atheism is important more" rather than "believing in God less" (because the latter is meaningless).
And it also puts an intuitive meaning to "fundamentalist atheist". Regardless of what fundamentalism originally meant, now people use it in a way so that "fundamentalist atheist" means "atheist (5)".
Eg. Richard Dawkins seems to be (1), (2), (3) and (4), and my confliction about him can be directly attributed to the difference between (4) and (5). I agree with him that atheism is important and respect him for (3) and (4), devoting himself to supporting a message that I agree with. But I disagree with him that (5) religion is a fundamental problem in the society. (That's closer to the truth in America, maybe, but still, I don't think it of all religion.)
1. Thinking that X.
2. Thinking that X needs campaigning for.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that X is one of few most important issues in society.
It seems many people felt (5) was extremely wrong, I'm not quite sure how to phrase it differently. There's a continuum from thinking X is true/good and I'm an X-ist, to X is overwhelmingly important. Almost any cause has extremists, and they have to go somewhere on the scale, and they go in (5), but (5) also includes people who justifiably believe in the overwhelming importance of X.
I got bogged down in deciding to what extent X actually was overwhelmingly important. Should have avoided specifying it? What should category (5) be? Should it refer to an how important X is seen to be? Or how important X is seen relative to how important it really is? But that is so subjective. Or should it separate out into a hierarchy of how important X is? But that could require any gradation.
But the point is, I think it's also of relevance to another contentious definition: atheism.
1. Not believing in a God.
2. Thinking atheism is important, wanting other people to be atheist, or thinking that non-religiousness is in some ways damaged by society.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
The difference here is that technically atheism refers only to (1), but people drift meanings of words a lot, and so extend "atheist" down the intuitive scale. I think this is why people understand what you mean if you say someone is "very atheist", despite the fact that taken literally, that has no meaning. I think this is why "more atheist" means "thinking atheism is important more" rather than "believing in God less" (because the latter is meaningless).
And it also puts an intuitive meaning to "fundamentalist atheist". Regardless of what fundamentalism originally meant, now people use it in a way so that "fundamentalist atheist" means "atheist (5)".
Eg. Richard Dawkins seems to be (1), (2), (3) and (4), and my confliction about him can be directly attributed to the difference between (4) and (5). I agree with him that atheism is important and respect him for (3) and (4), devoting himself to supporting a message that I agree with. But I disagree with him that (5) religion is a fundamental problem in the society. (That's closer to the truth in America, maybe, but still, I don't think it of all religion.)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 12:24 am (UTC)My counterexample: "X is one of few most important issues in society. Y needs campaigning for. Everyone else in society is working hard at solving X. My expertise lies in solving Y. Therefore, I will contribute to Y instead of X."
I am X(5) but not X(3).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 03:19 pm (UTC)-(1)- women and men do experience the world differently
-- this means that for any single interaction they have different prior expectations (just call me Dr Bayes)
-(3)- so they will likely parse/respond/react to the same things in different ways (& have different posterior expectations)
-- people don't always believe (1) and then don't understand why (3) (I really liked some example on a post of the guy offering a backrub and the sequence of thoughts that might go through the woman's mind and the guy just thinks he's being nice), and that's the "it" that people who don't "get it" don't get
-- why the differences? maybe
-- (i) nature: things which are "typical of" men/women
-- (ii) nature: things which are affected by male/female hormones
-- (iii) nurture: OMG look a vicious circle.
-- do the differences favour men? favour women? People focus on men but there are times when women get an advantage due to unconscious cues and behaviour. Being aware of and pointing differences that disadvantage you you have to, honestly, admit to and point out and act on differences that advantage you (but really you can only get away with pointing out how other people are advantaged if you are admitting to/acting on your own first and you have to be very careful if you're talking to angry people). But "A is different from B" is - symmetric, and women don't know what it's like to be a man, just make inferences from your (collective) behaviour.
-- lots of other things cause differences in world experience, colour, weight, hair colour (fascinating thread somewhere on changing responses purely on dying one's hair), disability, sexual orientation, particular personality types, (although only some are visual cues). So the issues are very grey and blurry at the edges and you really can't consider any individual experience as representative (and yet how else can you get a feel of things except by listening to stories).
And people like, well, me and many of the people I know, are very very careful talking about things that are grey and blurry like this, because it's so difficult not to end up coming to something so inclusive you've got nowhere, although I see some people doing it (the talking) very well indeed and am always impressed and want to steal what they've written.
maybe this should have gone on your other post rather than this more generic one, but I've written it now.
so X: men and women receive different world experiences (over a lifetime, not from any specific interaction)
then (varying levels of Does It Matter), I'm not sure, maybe it's okay to treat people differently in some cases, but I think it is (Quite to Very important) that people believe in the differences, and learn to notice when they are occurring. I think there's a risk of writing off any one experience or any one person as not being an experience to do with gender.
I've been wondering about this and related issues for some time as our new dept. women's group is growing, but not seeming to have any good female focus: both, what are we trying to achieve, and how do we respond to the Nice Guys that get upset about it. I think that my response to the Nice Guys is that because they are always Nice and Treat People Equally they don't realise/believe in this (X). But why should we have a specific women's group? Just to have a space where (X) does not occur, or at least occurs less, because it's nice? If we go for the "well, we're just a club - not any specific feminist agenda, it's just that only women are to be running this club", we get the "girls want to get together and discuss pink handbags" thing, which seems ... both right and wrong.
um. pls send neat tidy conclusion? with kitten?