What I keep saying. It’s all about the narcissism.
We've probably all had a nightmare colleague like this entitled manbaby. All you can do is remain professional, do your job and as far as possible within those parameters limit your interactions. But for narcissists that's not good enough. You have to be validating their… https://t.co/Al8SwwNzfq
That’s what they mean when they talk about inclusivity. It isn’t just not excluding and not being hostile. It’s actively “centering” by self-marginalization. It’s being a willing participant in the inversion of oppression, as they see it.
We have seen this principle in effect in women’s sports also, with female players threatened with fines and the like if they forfeited soccer games against the Flying Bats, and in darts, where female players are to be penalised if they forfeit matches against male players.
I have noticed in these clashes of women’s rights versus men’s demands that often, the end result is the thing simply vanishes in the end. Giggle for Girls is no more, because it cannot be legally run without demanding blokes, and the entire point was a space free of those very demanding blokes. And for some of these demanding people, they are quite satisfied to see the women disappear, it’s no skin off their noses. But for some others? The ones who complain about being “misgendered accidentally” and being “correctly gendered deliberately, but you can tell they don’t really mean it”, the blokes who want to date actual lesbians? They won’t be satisfied if we disappear. They want us to obey, to be so cowed into submission that we don’t think for ourselves anymore. And that’s abusive, even if the abusers don’t realise that’s what they’re doing (and I do suspect some don’t, having little personal insight, and/or being raised with absurd levels of entitlement thanks to a culture that’s bowed and scraped to them for too long).
Arcadia, that is a brilliant summation of the problem. It all comes back to the same old thing – we are useful to fulfill men’s fantasies, whether sexual or otherwise. Other than that, we are to be ignored or even abused.
That’s what they mean when they talk about inclusivity. It isn’t just not excluding and not being hostile. It’s actively “centering” by self-marginalization. It’s being a willing participant in the inversion of oppression, as they see it.
We have seen this principle in effect in women’s sports also, with female players threatened with fines and the like if they forfeited soccer games against the Flying Bats, and in darts, where female players are to be penalised if they forfeit matches against male players.
I have noticed in these clashes of women’s rights versus men’s demands that often, the end result is the thing simply vanishes in the end. Giggle for Girls is no more, because it cannot be legally run without demanding blokes, and the entire point was a space free of those very demanding blokes. And for some of these demanding people, they are quite satisfied to see the women disappear, it’s no skin off their noses. But for some others? The ones who complain about being “misgendered accidentally” and being “correctly gendered deliberately, but you can tell they don’t really mean it”, the blokes who want to date actual lesbians? They won’t be satisfied if we disappear. They want us to obey, to be so cowed into submission that we don’t think for ourselves anymore. And that’s abusive, even if the abusers don’t realise that’s what they’re doing (and I do suspect some don’t, having little personal insight, and/or being raised with absurd levels of entitlement thanks to a culture that’s bowed and scraped to them for too long).
‘actively “centering” by self-marginalization’ – very good point.
Arcadia, that is a brilliant summation of the problem. It all comes back to the same old thing – we are useful to fulfill men’s fantasies, whether sexual or otherwise. Other than that, we are to be ignored or even abused.