Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 02 2019 02:51 Plansix wrote: I wasn’t trying to imply that you were. Apologizes. It was a rhetorical line of questioning, since the entire discussion started with people wanting to know the capital “R” Rules of engagement and if they have changed. I don’t believe the rules changed, to be honest. Even if both those stories were never published, no person wants any woman to remember them that way those dudes were. The biggest difference is that the public is more aware that dating for women is more fraught with risk than we were previously aware of.
both of the incidents i mentioned were not only shaped by how people have thought about sex and dating but actively shape how people think and will think about them. in other words, how women remember men and encounters with men is differently articulated in a changing discourse
your aversion to thinking temporally/historically/dialectically is beyond frustrating. you are constantly vacillating between admitting there has been change and stubbornly clinging to a dispersed presentism where nothing really changes
On March 02 2019 02:51 Plansix wrote: I wasn’t trying to imply that you were. Apologizes. It was a rhetorical line of questioning, since the entire discussion started with people wanting to know the capital “R” Rules of engagement and if they have changed. I don’t believe the rules changed, to be honest. Even if both those stories were never published, no person wants any woman to remember them that way those dudes were. The biggest difference is that the public is more aware that dating for women is more fraught with risk than we were previously aware of.
both of the incidents i mentioned were not only shaped by how people have thought about sex and dating but actively shape how people think and will think about them. in other words, how women remember men and encounters with men is differently articulated in a changing discourse
your aversion to thinking temporally/historically/dialectically is beyond frustrating. you are constantly vacillating between admitting there has been change and stubbornly clinging to a dispersed presentism where nothing really changes
The unspoken rules of society, the common decency we all try to uphold to some degree, hasn't changed. We are now talking about them. Bringing what we previously accepted without question, into questioning. The change has been in how we talk and deal with those unspoken rules of a decent society. Not with the rules themselves.
On March 02 2019 02:51 Plansix wrote: I wasn’t trying to imply that you were. Apologizes. It was a rhetorical line of questioning, since the entire discussion started with people wanting to know the capital “R” Rules of engagement and if they have changed. I don’t believe the rules changed, to be honest. Even if both those stories were never published, no person wants any woman to remember them that way those dudes were. The biggest difference is that the public is more aware that dating for women is more fraught with risk than we were previously aware of.
both of the incidents i mentioned were not only shaped by how people have thought about sex and dating but actively shape how people think and will think about them. in other words, how women remember men and encounters with men is differently articulated in a changing discourse
your aversion to thinking temporally/historically/dialectically is beyond frustrating. you are constantly vacillating between admitting there has been change and stubbornly clinging to a dispersed presentism where nothing really changes
There's some assumptions at work here. Are you sure that Metoo is changing how women remember men and encounters with them? Or is it just that now men are hearing how women have viewed these things for quite some time, and now women both have a platform of sorts to speak, and have finally had enough and decided to use it?
Plansix might not be perfectly articulating his position, but is it really that the rules have changed, or just that women are now reminding men that those rules were always there and frequently ignored? There are behavioural changes - probably - occurring (we have absolutely no way of measuring something like that) but that doesn't mean the underlying rules have.
Moreover, how many careers have actually been destroyed? Ansari seems to be returning to touring, and several other men hit by #Metoo have surfaced again (though most of the ones hit hardest, and justifiably, have not).
It is perhaps too early to talk about how things are changing, because we're in the middle of it. If, indeed, there is one.
On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote: that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say
I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed.
On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:
On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote: that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say
When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not.
It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with.
well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start
maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything
Do you think #metoo changed anything? And if so, what do you think it changed?
yes it obviously changed the rules of engagement. there are two clear examples, i think: the first is that ten years ago it would have been impossible to imagine someone like aziz ansari having his career flattened in response to an article alleging the things he apparently did. second, it would have been impossible to imagine a short story called Cat Person in the New Yorker leading to a 7 figure book deal
Is that true? I remember the story sort of... fizzling... and as far as I can tell he's more or less doing the same amount of work as before the incident. I had just been assuming that he didn't feel the need to take on more things.
I'm not even trying to like make a political point here (so sorry I guess off topic?) I'm actually just genuinely curious if his career is dead or not.
On March 02 2019 02:51 Plansix wrote: I wasn’t trying to imply that you were. Apologizes. It was a rhetorical line of questioning, since the entire discussion started with people wanting to know the capital “R” Rules of engagement and if they have changed. I don’t believe the rules changed, to be honest. Even if both those stories were never published, no person wants any woman to remember them that way those dudes were. The biggest difference is that the public is more aware that dating for women is more fraught with risk than we were previously aware of.
both of the incidents i mentioned were not only shaped by how people have thought about sex and dating but actively shape how people think and will think about them. in other words, how women remember men and encounters with men is differently articulated in a changing discourse
your aversion to thinking temporally/historically/dialectically is beyond frustrating. you are constantly vacillating between admitting there has been change and stubbornly clinging to a dispersed presentism where nothing really changes
The problem is I am dealing with your ill defined "Rules" which you have made little effort to articulate. What do you mean by rules?
1: Socially accepted practices in dating held by the general public of the US. 2: The modern understanding of consent as understood by women across the US. 3: The modern understanding of consent as understood by men across the US.
To name a few. You have proposed this vague amalgam what makes up romantic relations across a broad spectrum of understanding and condensed them down to this artifice of a Rules Set. As a topic of discussion, it is so mercurial and ill-defined that no one can really grasp or pin down what is being discussed. Let alone talk about how specific articles shaped the discussion of those topics. In all honesty, I doubt you could clearly articulate what the rules were before those articles were written and how they changed after the fact.
To further this point, I doubt any historian could give you a comprehensive breakdown of the rules of dating and romance in the US from 1900 to 1910. They could give you a vague understanding of how it went for specific social groups and regions, but there would be no "Rules" that could be clearly defined, with clear points of change linking a linear progression in those thoughts to today. That isn't how this works, especially in the pre-internet eras where we were far from a mono-culture.
The concept you have created is an artifice that poorly defines the topic you are attempting to discuss and leads to frustration you are not experiencing. People have tried to engage with it, but you continue to be frustrated with the discussions because the entire topic of Rules is kinda shit.
On March 02 2019 02:51 Plansix wrote: I wasn’t trying to imply that you were. Apologizes. It was a rhetorical line of questioning, since the entire discussion started with people wanting to know the capital “R” Rules of engagement and if they have changed. I don’t believe the rules changed, to be honest. Even if both those stories were never published, no person wants any woman to remember them that way those dudes were. The biggest difference is that the public is more aware that dating for women is more fraught with risk than we were previously aware of.
both of the incidents i mentioned were not only shaped by how people have thought about sex and dating but actively shape how people think and will think about them. in other words, how women remember men and encounters with men is differently articulated in a changing discourse
your aversion to thinking temporally/historically/dialectically is beyond frustrating. you are constantly vacillating between admitting there has been change and stubbornly clinging to a dispersed presentism where nothing really changes
The problem is I am dealing with your ill defined "Rules" which you have made little effort to articulate. What do you mean by rules?
1: Socially accepted practices in dating held by the general public of the US. 2: The modern understanding of consent as understood by women across the US. 3: The modern understanding of consent as understood by men across the US.
To name a few. You have proposed this vague amalgam what makes up romantic relations across a broad spectrum of understanding and condensed them down to this artifice of a Rules Set. As a topic of discussion, it is so mercurial and ill-defined that no one can really grasp or pin down what is being discussed. Let alone talk about how specific articles shaped the discussion of those topics. In all honesty, I doubt you could clearly articulate what the rules were before those articles were written and how they changed after the fact.
To further this point, I doubt any historian could give you a comprehensive breakdown of the rules of dating and romance in the US from 1900 to 1910. They could give you a vague understanding of how it went for specific social groups and regions, but there would be no "Rules" that could be clearly defined, with clear points of change linking a linear progression in those thoughts to today. That isn't how this works, especially in the pre-interent eras where we were far from a mono-culture.
The concept you have created is an artifice that poorly defines the topic you are attempting to discuss and leads to frustration you are not experiencing. People have tried to engage with it, but you continue to be frustrated with teh discussions because the entire topic of Rules is kinda shit.
@zerocool you are basically just wrong about this, and simply going back further and further into history (however far you personally have to go) should convince you if you stop to think about it. its a question of episteme, or, to avoid the appearance of hard boundaries, ideology and discourse
@iamdave they are well-founded assumptions and i think your questions either presume a rigid and faulty conception of “rules” or rely upon a non-existent subject position outside place and time (ie hypostasizing some “woman” who speaks to “herself” and others transparently, and is fully present to “herself”)
@logo yes. aziz’s career wasnt destroyed, but it was flattened. if you recall before last year he was riding high off his (stupid) book on dating, his popular comedy shows, and his netflix show Master of None which many hailed as a “woke” show. now he might still be working but as far as i know netflix has largely stopped pushing his content, no one cares what he thinks anymore, etc
@plansix lol you are really doubling down arent you
On March 02 2019 03:53 IgnE wrote: @zerocool you are basically just wrong about this, and simply going back further and further into history (however far you personally have to go) should convince you if you stop to think about it. its a question of episteme, or, to avoid the appearance of hard boundaries, ideology and discourse
@iamdave they are well-founded assumptions and i think your questions either presume a rigid and faulty conception of “rules” or rely upon a non-existent subject position outside place and time (ie hypostasizing some “woman” who speaks to “herself” and others transparently, and is fully present to “herself”)
@logo yes. aziz’s career wasnt destroyed, but it was flattened. if you recall before last year he was riding high off his (stupid) book on dating, his popular comedy shows, and his netflix show Master of None which many hailed as a “woke” show. now he might still be working but as far as i know netflix has largely stopped pushing his content, no one cares what he thinks anymore, etc
@plansix lol you are really doubling down arent you
Dude. Seriously. I can go to Ancient Egypt and prove I'm right. You can't go to a man or woman, rape/sexual assault them, and just walk away, thinking it is okay because "social ideology/discourse". I suggest you vacate the discussion because you are wrong on all accounts, no matter how many dead language words you use.
the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
On March 02 2019 03:53 IgnE wrote: @zerocool you are basically just wrong about this, and simply going back further and further into history (however far you personally have to go) should convince you if you stop to think about it. its a question of episteme, or, to avoid the appearance of hard boundaries, ideology and discourse
@iamdave they are well-founded assumptions and i think your questions either presume a rigid and faulty conception of “rules” or rely upon a non-existent subject position outside place and time (ie hypostasizing some “woman” who speaks to “herself” and others transparently, and is fully present to “herself”)
@logo yes. aziz’s career wasnt destroyed, but it was flattened. if you recall before last year he was riding high off his (stupid) book on dating, his popular comedy shows, and his netflix show Master of None which many hailed as a “woke” show. now he might still be working but as far as i know netflix has largely stopped pushing his content, no one cares what he thinks anymore, etc
@plansix lol you are really doubling down arent you
Dude. Seriously. I can go to Ancient Egypt and prove I'm right. You can't go to a man or woman, rape/sexual assault them, and just walk away, thinking it is okay because "social ideology/discourse". I suggest you vacate the discussion because you are wrong on all accounts, no matter how many dead language words you use.
in ancient egypt you couldnt or today you cant?
you should know, btw, that you are essentially begging the question: “doing something bad is bad (always)”
On March 02 2019 03:53 IgnE wrote: @zerocool you are basically just wrong about this, and simply going back further and further into history (however far you personally have to go) should convince you if you stop to think about it. its a question of episteme, or, to avoid the appearance of hard boundaries, ideology and discourse
@iamdave they are well-founded assumptions and i think your questions either presume a rigid and faulty conception of “rules” or rely upon a non-existent subject position outside place and time (ie hypostasizing some “woman” who speaks to “herself” and others transparently, and is fully present to “herself”)
@logo yes. aziz’s career wasnt destroyed, but it was flattened. if you recall before last year he was riding high off his (stupid) book on dating, his popular comedy shows, and his netflix show Master of None which many hailed as a “woke” show. now he might still be working but as far as i know netflix has largely stopped pushing his content, no one cares what he thinks anymore, etc
@plansix lol you are really doubling down arent you
Dude. Seriously. I can go to Ancient Egypt and prove I'm right. You can't go to a man or woman, rape/sexual assault them, and just walk away, thinking it is okay because "social ideology/discourse". I suggest you vacate the discussion because you are wrong on all accounts, no matter how many dead language words you use.
in ancient egypt you couldnt or today you cant?
you should know, btw, that you are essentially begging the question: “doing something bad is bad (always)”
Being ppedantic and obtuse are we now? That's your modus operandi so I'm not surprised.
On March 02 2019 04:02 IgnE wrote: the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
I would easily argue that norms are vague, shitty and an artifice that should not used to discuss a topic like romantic relations in a society as large as the entire population of the US. It works for things like "congressional practices" because of the contained nature of congress itself. It does not work on a topic as varied as dating.
In an attempt to discern what you are attempting to discuss, I would posit that you are talking about the a shift in the perceived "power" the act of seeking a romantic relationship. That women have asserted themselves to claim "new power" through increasing awareness the fraught nature of dating and existing as a woman. This "power" exists through their assertion redefine how they are allowed to respond to unacceptable and creepy behavior. Creepy behaviors, intentionally or accidentally, that would have received a polite rejection in the past now will receive an aggressive response. And that new response is an aggressive rejection of the behavior, which many men feel is an unfair change in the social dynamic. The articles you referenced detail this through the viewpoint of the women and find resonance in the readers. It changes peoples understandings of relationships and the social dynamics at play. It articulates the idea that asking a woman to enter a romantic relationship puts as much pressure and stress on her as it does on the man asking, especially if she is not interested. A concept we previously understood existed, but did not appreciate its scope and potential risks associated with rejection.
Now one could say these are "rules", but that is a poor definition of what I just detailed. What is or is not acceptable could not be listed with any assurance of accuracy. And what is an acceptable aggressive response could not be detailed. No "if-when flow chart" could be created showing how to respond to any given set of behaviors. What you are attempting to articulate exists, but its poorly defined by what we understand to word "Rules" to mean.
On March 02 2019 04:02 IgnE wrote: the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
I would easily argue that norms are vague, shitty and an artifice that should not used to discuss a topic like romantic relations in a society as large as the entire population of the US. It works for things like "congressional practices" because of the contained nature of congress itself. It does not work on a topic as varied as dating.
In an attempt to discern what you are attempting to discuss, I would posit that you are talking about the a shift in the perceived "power" the act of seeking a romantic relationship. That women have asserted themselves to claim new power through increasing awareness the fraught nature of dating and existing as a woman. This "power" exists through their assertion redefine how they are allowed to respond to unacceptable and creepy behavior. Creepy behaviors, intentionally or accidentally, that would have received a polite rejection in the past now will receive an aggressive response. And that new response is an aggressive rejection of the behavior, which many men feel is an unfair change in the social dynamic.
Now one could say these are "rules", but that is a poor definition of what I just detailed. What is or is not acceptable could not be listed with any assurance of accuracy. And what is an acceptable aggressive response could not be detailed. No "if-when flow chart" could be created showing how to respond to any given set of behaviors. What you are attempting to articulate exists, but its poorly defined by what we understand to word "Rules" to mean.
i think this could’ve gone just a little bit further too in recognizing that the change you are describing is also very clearly not a change of the ‘rules,’ however ill defined they may or may not be.
unless that’s what you had meant. but then it sounds like we’ve instead just conflated these rules with how breaking them is treated. which it seems ought to clearly be two different things.
The anxiety around the new dynamics presented by metoo movement and the discussion around is completely natural. It sucks and it would be great everyone could just ask out other people without risks on either end. And in this new, fraught aspect of relationships, it is hard to know how to move forward without inadvertently causing harm. And again, that sucks. But the anxiety that many men are feeling is the same anxiety that women felt for a very long time. Or in my opinion, forever. And that anxiety has not been diminished by the metoo movement. It has just given them a path to address the toxic dynamics that have been allowed to fester for far to long.
On March 02 2019 04:02 IgnE wrote: the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
I would easily argue that norms are vague, shitty and an artifice that should not used to discuss a topic like romantic relations in a society as large as the entire population of the US. It works for things like "congressional practices" because of the contained nature of congress itself. It does not work on a topic as varied as dating.
In an attempt to discern what you are attempting to discuss, I would posit that you are talking about the a shift in the perceived "power" the act of seeking a romantic relationship. That women have asserted themselves to claim new power through increasing awareness the fraught nature of dating and existing as a woman. This "power" exists through their assertion redefine how they are allowed to respond to unacceptable and creepy behavior. Creepy behaviors, intentionally or accidentally, that would have received a polite rejection in the past now will receive an aggressive response. And that new response is an aggressive rejection of the behavior, which many men feel is an unfair change in the social dynamic.
Now one could say these are "rules", but that is a poor definition of what I just detailed. What is or is not acceptable could not be listed with any assurance of accuracy. And what is an acceptable aggressive response could not be detailed. No "if-when flow chart" could be created showing how to respond to any given set of behaviors. What you are attempting to articulate exists, but its poorly defined by what we understand to word "Rules" to mean.
i think this could’ve gone just a little bit further too in recognizing that the change you are describing is also very clearly not a change of the ‘rules,’ however ill defined they may or may not be.
unless that’s what you had meant. but then it sounds like we’ve instead just conflated these rules with how breaking them is treated. which it seems ought to clearly be two different things.
You seem to have stumbled upon the another problem with the concept of "rules", which is that violation of them leads to some sort of punishment. What is the punishment for violating the rules of romantic relationship?
Several Democratic candidates have been quick to embrace reparations recently. Bernie Sanders is more cautious.
At a CNN town hall on Monday, a woman asked Sanders about his view on reparations, and at first he talked about trying to "put resources into distressed communities and improve lives for those people who have been hurt from the legacy of slavery."
Moderator Wolf Blitzer pushed him for a more direct response, noting that multiple presidential candidates have said they support reparations. Sanders answered the question with his own question — one that is now hanging over the 2020 Democratic field:
"What does that mean? What do they mean? I'm not sure that anyone's very clear," Sanders said.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, California Sen. Kamala Harris and author Marianne Williamson have all in some way said they are in favor of reparations for African-Americans — providing compensation to people hurt by discriminatory policies like slavery, Jim Crow laws and redlining.
on phone but source is npr. I'm torn on this, personally. Will update after work with more. But thoughts?
On March 02 2019 04:12 IgnE wrote: you know guys, ultimately it might be useful and good to appreciate the fact that rules can change. that human activity changes our being-in-the-world
I've written two posts on the last pages that address your rule thingy regarding how to achieve the sex thingy. Not inclined to comment?
You're also posting the same schtick in the dating advice thread and got some replies there. I'm struggling to grasp what you are really interested in here. (which might very well be due to the hedged posting style of yours)
On March 02 2019 04:02 IgnE wrote: the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
I would easily argue that norms are vague, shitty and an artifice that should not used to discuss a topic like romantic relations in a society as large as the entire population of the US. It works for things like "congressional practices" because of the contained nature of congress itself. It does not work on a topic as varied as dating.
In an attempt to discern what you are attempting to discuss, I would posit that you are talking about the a shift in the perceived "power" the act of seeking a romantic relationship. That women have asserted themselves to claim "new power" through increasing awareness the fraught nature of dating and existing as a woman. This "power" exists through their assertion redefine how they are allowed to respond to unacceptable and creepy behavior. Creepy behaviors, intentionally or accidentally, that would have received a polite rejection in the past now will receive an aggressive response. And that new response is an aggressive rejection of the behavior, which many men feel is an unfair change in the social dynamic. The articles you referenced detail this through the viewpoint of the women and find resonance in the readers. It changes peoples understandings of relationships and the social dynamics at play. It articulates the idea that asking a woman to enter a romantic relationship puts as much pressure and stress on her as it does on the man asking, especially if she is not interested. A concept we previously understood existed, but did not appreciate its scope and potential risks associated with rejection.
Now one could say these are "rules", but that is a poor definition of what I just detailed. What is or is not acceptable could not be listed with any assurance of accuracy. And what is an acceptable aggressive response could not be detailed. No "if-when flow chart" could be created showing how to respond to any given set of behaviors. What you are attempting to articulate exists, but its poorly defined by what we understand to word "Rules" to mean.
no i am talking about rules. below is a clip from mad men, which i believe to be “true” in the sense that it captures something “really existing” and important about the social rules that governed interpersonal relations at the time period.
it seems to be entirely fair to say that this behavior didn’t break the rules (understood within its specific context), and it also seems entirely obvious that saying this has nothing to do with how we might interpret or judge this behavior from within our context. it also seems utterly wrong, not to mention pointless, to say “no the rules havent changed”
i shouldnt have to offer this disclaimer but i will here because there seems to be a lot of confusion: the “rules” are not homogeneous across space and time, neither are they “timeless.” they are material, embedded in the world and in relations between people
EPT
