That sounds like a fantastic environment for learning about these issues. I would have loved having access group like that growing up and feeling confused about masculinity as a whole.
That sounds like a fantastic environment for learning about these issues. I would have loved having access group like that growing up and feeling confused about masculinity as a whole.
I'm wondering if the people pushing toxic masculinity as "normal" have been double-downing on their efforts because of the recent trends of men abandoning that attitude. They see men who have...
I'm wondering if the people pushing toxic masculinity as "normal" have been double-downing on their efforts because of the recent trends of men abandoning that attitude. They see men who have found that there is another way, who realize that toxic masculinity doesn't lead to happiness, and that throws them into a panic that the only way of life they understand is being threatened.
I've been thinking about the same thing, and I hope that's the case. I want for this to be the death rattle of a dying ideology, and that in the future we see men like Terry Crews as the cultural...
I've been thinking about the same thing, and I hope that's the case. I want for this to be the death rattle of a dying ideology, and that in the future we see men like Terry Crews as the cultural touchstone for masculinity rather than James Bond.
I found the first paragraph and the first few sentence of the second paragraph really compelling--I thought this was a nice recap of an example of racism in the media. However, the last few...
My immediate thoughts are to look at who is committing these mass murders, and in virtually every case, it's a middle class white man. When it's a middle-class white man, the way we talk about it in America is to focus on mental illness. We talk about how there must be something wrong with them. If these were all African-Americans, or if these were all Muslims, the last thing we would talk about is mental illness. The focus would be on "culture". We would talk about religion.
This is how racism works. Racism disaggregates white people so each individual white person is discussed as an individual. Thus, it is an individual mental illness problem. Whereas when black people act or when Muslims act, it's collective--it's them, it's their culture, it's their religion. What racism does is it desegregates white people and aggregates people of color. The second thing I noticed, of course, is that they're all male. It's not that there's something genetic or biological or chronic about men's violence and picking up guns. There is something about the cultural meaning of masculinity.
I found the first paragraph and the first few sentence of the second paragraph really compelling--I thought this was a nice recap of an example of racism in the media.
However, the last few sentences really tripped me up, especially this one: "There is something about the cultural meaning of masculinity." Isn't he essentially doing to men what he said we shouldn't do to African-Americans or Muslims?
I might not be grasping something fully, so I would love to hear thoughts on this.
I know that I have no purpose that I haven't set for myself, unless it's to make rich assholes even richer. As for my privileged status in society: I think people working in social justice spaces...
I think this is one of the biggest issues of our time that so many men, both in the United States and around the world, feel like they do not have any purpose or that they are losing their privileged status in society
I know that I have no purpose that I haven't set for myself, unless it's to make rich assholes even richer.
As for my privileged status in society: I think people working in social justice spaces need to accept it doesn't matter how powerful your group is when you yourself don't have access to that power.
People working in social justice need to understand that the basis of white male hegemony are the three Cs: capital, connections, and credentials. If you have capital, you can buy connections and credentials. If you have connections, you can gain access to capital and people with credentials. If you have credentials, you can make yourself useful to people with capital and connections.
But if you're a white man who doesn't have any of the three Cs, and no means to attain them, then you're nothing poor white trash in the eyes of those who have capital, connections, or credentials. Working-class white people know this even if they don't have the words to explain it.
and so they latch onto hateful ideologies in order to find meaning and a sense of belonging
Why shouldn't they be angry enough to want to burn the whole corrupt society down? It's not like the left is there to say, "We're all getting a raw deal here, even if it's a different sort of raw deal. Let's work together and force the bastards to offer us a better deal."
Instead, we have adherents of leftist identity politics ignoring the way class oppression can intersect with and overshadow the privileges of race and sex to leave poor white men feeling attacked by both the left and the right, with no option but to take the hand of the fascist who promises a better way.
Angry men aren't a "problem" to be "solved". We have a right to our anger, and reasons for it.
There's a distinct difference between angry and hateful. You can be angry without being hateful. Perpetuating violence as a valid response to anger is not an appropriate way to handle things....
There's a distinct difference between angry and hateful. You can be angry without being hateful. Perpetuating violence as a valid response to anger is not an appropriate way to handle things. Violence is not a valid response to, well, anything - all it does is cause more violence.
Kimmel's response to "what is masculinity" started off with two words you almost always hear from people, "strong" and "stoic". I can't think of anything stronger, or more stoic, than looking at someone who's in charge and abusing their power and telling them that you're going to dismantle everything they've built and give it away to the very people they are trying to disenfranchise - that they're going to use their smarts, their willpower, their friends, and their own two hands but never raise a fist in anger.
This is the kind of masculinity that we need to highlight. The man who is a rock in a storm - providing stability and shelter for those he cares about in the middle of tumult. We need to highlight the Ghandis and MLKs of the world - the ones who stick to their principles in the face of great adversity and prove that change can be made, one man at a time. That change is all the more powerful without violence, because who is more manly than someone who when faced with the easy answer of violence chooses instead to take the high road?
Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Atticus Finch is the sort of man you admire, and he failed miserably. He couldn't even protect his own kids. But he could afford to be high-minded and principled...
That change is all the more powerful without violence, because who is more manly than someone who when faced with the easy answer of violence chooses instead to take the high road?
Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Atticus Finch is the sort of man you admire, and he failed miserably. He couldn't even protect his own kids. But he could afford to be high-minded and principled because he had Boo Radley looking out for him and his.
By all means praise the Atticus Finches of the world, and the MLKs and the Gandhis. But don't forget that Gandhi was working against an war-weary British Empire that could no longer afford to be an empire, and that if he failed, a violent rebellion would have followed. Likewise, do not forget that MLK succeeded in part because he had Black Power activists like Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Bobby Seale pushing a more radical agenda and a "by any means necessary" ethos that made MLK much more palatable to the white Establishment.
You can't have a good cop/bad cop routine without the bad cop.
TKAM is fiction. MLK and Gandhi are real. I don't agree with the good cop/bad cop mentality here. I admire someone who's able to do something without violence because it's absolutely the more...
TKAM is fiction. MLK and Gandhi are real.
I don't agree with the good cop/bad cop mentality here. I admire someone who's able to do something without violence because it's absolutely the more difficult path. But it is the right path.
do not forget
Both of these examples prove nothing. We can play "maybe" all day with situations from history and talk about the contributing factors.
At the end of the day the only piece of real science we have comes from violence prevention programs - these programs show that people can be more productive, cause less problems, promote upward mobility, etc. We know historically that violence usually leads to more violence and suppression usually leads to rebellion which often leads to war.
It's disingenuous to say that "MLK and Gandhi are real" while ignoring the entire segment of his argument stating that they succeeded due to the backing of a violent movement. I'm not sure that...
MLK and Gandhi are real.
It's disingenuous to say that "MLK and Gandhi are real" while ignoring the entire segment of his argument stating that they succeeded due to the backing of a violent movement. I'm not sure that he's correct about that—while it's true that movements from American civil rights to women's suffrage all had violent counterparts, correlation does not imply causation—but there's an argument there, and I also think it's dismissive to oppressed peoples to say that "I admire someone who's able to do something without violence because it's absolutely the more difficult path. But it is the right path." It's easy to say that from a position of power, but when you are actively being oppressed it's a lot harder to take the "more difficult path." For this reason, while I don't think I'll ever condone a violent movement, I find it incredibly hard to condemn violence from any oppressed peoples.
I should note that I absolutely don't agree with the idea that poor white males are as discriminated against as people of color, or women, or LGBT individuals. I think the bulk of the attitude is from the feeling that, as is commonly stated, equality feels like oppression to the oppressor. But your comment criticized rights movements well outside of the scope of the OP so I felt the need to make a comment.
I never said I'm condemning violence. I think it's the wrong path, and I disagree with it, but I absolutely understand why it happens and why it often seems like the only response. All I stated...
For this reason, while I don't think I'll ever condone a violent movement, I find it incredibly hard to condemn violence from any oppressed peoples.
I never said I'm condemning violence. I think it's the wrong path, and I disagree with it, but I absolutely understand why it happens and why it often seems like the only response.
All I stated was that I absolutely respect someone who when presented with these two options, chooses the more difficult but the better of the two.
But your comment criticized rights movements well outside of the scope of the OP so I felt the need to make a comment.
Reading your comments again, I think I'm likely reading more into what you wrote than you intended, so sorry about that. I'll list what you said that gave me that impression, though. None of these...
Reading your comments again, I think I'm likely reading more into what you wrote than you intended, so sorry about that. I'll list what you said that gave me that impression, though.
There's a distinct difference between angry and hateful. You can be angry without being hateful. Perpetuating violence as a valid response to anger is not an appropriate way to handle things. Violence is not a valid response to, well, anything - all it does is cause more violence.
I admire someone who's able to do something without violence because it's absolutely the more difficult path. But it is the right path.
We know historically that violence usually leads to more violence and suppression usually leads to rebellion which often leads to war.
None of these are particularly harsh statements, but combined they bring to mind the sort of aloof condescension I associate with "white moderates" as described by MLK. I think the worst offender is talking about the "right path," as it clearly implies that the alternative is the wrong path, and later praising MLK while conspicuously avoiding mention of Malcom X implies that activists like him were following the aforementioned wrong path.
Appreciate the insight. I'm always trying to work on my communication and I can see now how I may have unintentionally implied that one methodology is "wrong". To be clear, I avoided mentioning...
Appreciate the insight. I'm always trying to work on my communication and I can see now how I may have unintentionally implied that one methodology is "wrong".
To be clear, I avoided mentioning Malcolm X because it's not important to what I'm trying to highlight here. I admire someone who chooses the non-violent path, and that exists whether or not a violent path exists or is prevalent.
I also think that highlighting this accomplishment and associating it with "manliness" is absolutely important if we want to instill these values onto others. To me there is nothing more manly, but we don't see this in popular media. We don't hear about this when talking with friends. We don't read about these traits in a protagonist in a book. It's not as "sexy" as violence, so it doesn't get highlighted and people may not feel the same as I do - in fact, society and media appear to be indoctrinating people the other way.
The idea behind social justice is that generally, white men, even the "poor white trash" men, still have an easier time making connections, attaining wealth and earning credentials than minorities...
The idea behind social justice is that generally, white men, even the "poor white trash" men, still have an easier time making connections, attaining wealth and earning credentials than minorities do by virtue of being white and male. Yes, being poor is still way more difficult in modern society than it should be, but it's even more difficult if you aren't a straight, white man. You don't see these hateful ideologies gaining traction among other groups of people at anywhere near the same rate. It's simply about white dudes being afraid that they'll lose their status of being "above" others on the social ladder. A rising tide lifts all boats, and improving the quality of life for the most disadvantaged in our society isn't going to mean that poor white people are now in an even worse social position. The world isn't a zero sum game, and someone else getting a bigger slice of pie doesn't mean that other people's gets smaller.
That's true, but the truth is a bitter fucking pill to swallow, and castigating people for not being able to accept such a bitter truth doesn't make it easier to accept.
Yes, being poor is still way more difficult in modern society than it should be, but it's even more difficult if you aren't a straight, white man.
That's true, but the truth is a bitter fucking pill to swallow, and castigating people for not being able to accept such a bitter truth doesn't make it easier to accept.
If someone's reaction to being unable to accept the truth is violence and suppressing minorities, I don't give a shit about making it easier to accept. That is the reaction of a child, or someone...
If someone's reaction to being unable to accept the truth is violence and suppressing minorities, I don't give a shit about making it easier to accept. That is the reaction of a child, or someone who can't be a part of society if they can't feel better than other people. It's disgusting and these people deserve to be castigated.
On gut feeling I want to agree with you, but my rational mind is telling me to slow my horses. If we castigate these individuals, all we are accomplishing is reinforcing their beliefs - we are...
On gut feeling I want to agree with you, but my rational mind is telling me to slow my horses.
If we castigate these individuals, all we are accomplishing is reinforcing their beliefs - we are actively segregating and suppressing these individuals.
What we need to do is have open conversations with them. Why do they feel their rights are being infringed? Expose them to the plights of others. Show them how they can contribute to society and laud them for choosing the right path.
We need to educate them out of violence, not tell them to fuck off because they think violence is an appropriate response.
You can only educate those who want to be educated, though. Many of these people choose to remain ignorant of the plights of minorities, or they know about them and simply don't care. Yeah, some...
You can only educate those who want to be educated, though. Many of these people choose to remain ignorant of the plights of minorities, or they know about them and simply don't care. Yeah, some people have changed their views and left ideologies like white supremacy behind, and are working to help others to do the same, and that is fantastic. But we have been having these conversations for years now, and I would argue that many who still subscribe to these ideologies aren't doing it out of ignorance, but malice.
Show them how they can contribute to society and laud them for choosing the right path.
I feel like this is probably the best answer for most of these men, all things considered. However, I feel that rural America is going to have a hard time with this since more and more it seems that urban hubs are where opportunities lie.
And how much of that is because they are indoctrinated and isolated from the rest of society? How much of it is because people start conversations with them online by saying "you are wrong, and a...
Many of these people choose to remain ignorant of the plights of minorities, or they know about them and simply don't care.
And how much of that is because they are indoctrinated and isolated from the rest of society?
How much of it is because people start conversations with them online by saying "you are wrong, and a terrible person".
If they initiated a conversation with you doing the same, would you listen to them? It's not a good way to change someone's mind and I completely understand why they wouldn't if people aren't willing to have an honest conversation.
we have been having these conversations for years now, and I would argue that many who still subscribe to these ideologies aren't doing it out of ignorance, but malice.
And how experienced are you with their society? Are you really enough of an expert to claim anything about them in such broad terms?
For what it's worth I think there are some people who will never change, but they live in a society where this is reinforced on a daily basis. It makes me think of the pilot programs in Chicago and other major cities aimed at youth (often colored) and educating them that violence is not the right way. It has reduced violence in some of these cities by as much as 90%. Targeted intervention can often work better than we think, the key is education and someone these people can connect with.
I feel that rural America is going to have a hard time with this since more and more it seems that urban hubs are where opportunities lie.
Absolutely. We have a bit of a shit storm going on right now which is culminating in the radicalization of many young white males. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem we can't tackle. It means it's just a problem we have to tackle smartly.
I've gone from being a Randroid to being somewhat of a leftist and marginally less of an asshole, but it wasn't because random people online said shit like, "You know you're an asshole, right?" My...
How much of it is because people start conversations with them online by saying "you are wrong, and a terrible person".
I've gone from being a Randroid to being somewhat of a leftist and marginally less of an asshole, but it wasn't because random people online said shit like, "You know you're an asshole, right?"
Instead, I had to travel, I had to talk in person with people who lived in countries with more reasonable systems than the "fuck you I got mine" society of the USA. I had to broaden my perspective, and I had to do it on my own.
I'm glad it worked out for you. What worked for you won't work for everyone, however, and we need broad strategies to ensure that people are included. Your opinion and your plight are important...
I'm glad it worked out for you. What worked for you won't work for everyone, however, and we need broad strategies to ensure that people are included. Your opinion and your plight are important and need to be listened to by the "other side". If you reached out online and were met with vitriol, something tells me you'd be less willing to explore societies which prescribe to that particular ideology.
I've reached out, I've faced vitriol, and I kept exploring anyway. It helped that I remained fundamentally committed to individualism. If a feminist gave me shit for not being woke enough, that...
If you reached out online and were met with vitriol, something tells me you'd be less willing to explore societies which prescribe to that particular ideology.
I've reached out, I've faced vitriol, and I kept exploring anyway. It helped that I remained fundamentally committed to individualism. If a feminist gave me shit for not being woke enough, that was their problem, not mine, and certainly not a problem with feminism. Likewise with socialists, anti-racism activists, and the like.
Traveling, which in a certain sense is education, really does make it harder to hold on to such views. Also, your username validates your statement, ha.
Traveling, which in a certain sense is education, really does make it harder to hold on to such views. Also, your username validates your statement, ha.
I've made that mistake in the past debating religion when I first became an atheist in high school. I realize the futility of beginning a conversation that way, but that only applies when both...
How much of it is because people start conversations with them online by saying "you are wrong, and a terrible person".
I've made that mistake in the past debating religion when I first became an atheist in high school. I realize the futility of beginning a conversation that way, but that only applies when both parties would otherwise be arguing in good faith; I no longer believe that most of these people are interested in a discussion of that sort, regardless of how you start the conversation.
And how experienced are you with their society? Are you really enough of an expert to claim anything about them in such broad terms?
Growing up in the midwest, I feel like I can say I'm pretty familiar with them. I've known a number of people who have confederate flags in front of their houses and on their trucks, and I've had this conversation in person a number of times. The past few years have shown me that a far larger number of people are choosing to behave this way, and that I was wrong to have applied Hanlon's razor so liberally.
It makes me think of the pilot programs in Chicago and other major cities aimed at youth (often colored) and educating them that violence is not the right way. It has reduced violence in some of these cities by as much as 90%.
That number is uplifting for sure, but we run into the same problem with rural areas. It becomes much harder to implement these programs effectively when the population density gets low.
I still think you're making a mistake here, because you use the word "arguing". I'm not asking you to argue anything. In fact, I'm encouraging you to not say a word at first. I'm asking you to...
I realize the futility of beginning a conversation that way, but that only applies when both parties would otherwise be arguing in good faith
I still think you're making a mistake here, because you use the word "arguing".
I'm not asking you to argue anything. In fact, I'm encouraging you to not say a word at first. I'm asking you to listen to them. Understand why they hold the ideas they hold. Question them about it, so that they might question themselves.
Exposing them to other ideas comes much later. It's something to be extremely careful about, because it might come off as judging their values which will put them on the defensive.
The past few years have shown me that a far larger number of people are choosing to behave this way, and that I was wrong to have applied Hanlon's razor so liberally.
There are a lot of people out there, and you shouldn't let a few sour apples spoil the barrel.
That number is uplifting for sure, but we run into the same problem with rural areas. It becomes much harder to implement these programs effectively when the population density gets low.
Unfortunately yes, but that's where technology might perhaps help us out. I really don't know what a solution would look like for this problem, but it involves a lot more interpersonal relationships, even if they are mediated through technology.
I wasn't using the word "arguing" in the sense that you are, I should have said conversing there. I do understand how someone's circumstances could lead to these beliefs, reading books like...
I'm not asking you to argue anything. In fact, I'm encouraging you to not say a word at first. I'm asking you to listen to them. Understand why they hold the ideas they hold. Question them about it, so that they might question themselves.
I wasn't using the word "arguing" in the sense that you are, I should have said conversing there. I do understand how someone's circumstances could lead to these beliefs, reading books like Hillbilly Elegy have helped me with that, but I think that just about anyone who would change their mind on these things probably already has.
I agree that it's very difficult to change people's minds on these things, I've only succeeded in a couple of cases with close family and friends. The problem is that there are people out there with a vested interest in keeping these kinds of ideologies going, and their core values are so wildly different from ours that even getting them to question their views will only strengthen them because they want to put others down.
There are a lot of people out there, and you shouldn't let a few sour apples spoil the barrel.
That's easy to say, but it seems we already have a barrelful of spoiled apples on our hands. I'm certain there are some people out there who still might change their ways, just by the sheer number of humans in this country, but they are a shrinking percentage compared to the trolls making up more and more of the right wing.
Unfortunately yes, but that's where technology might perhaps help us out. I really don't know what a solution would look like for this problem, but it involves a lot more interpersonal relationships, even if they are mediated through technology.
I'm hopeful that tech like VR/AR could have applications in improving interpersonal relationships, I just hope that the right wing doesn't weaponize it the way they have sites like Twitter and Reddit.
Gotcha. That being said, the fact that you used the word arguing, makes me think that your intent might still be in the wrong place. If you've ever read the book "how to win friends and influence...
I should have said conversing there
Gotcha. That being said, the fact that you used the word arguing, makes me think that your intent might still be in the wrong place. If you've ever read the book "how to win friends and influence people", you've probably quickly learned that like most people, humans are pretty bad at communicating ideas. We get defensive very quickly about our core values, and it's really tough to reach someone without very strong communication skills and good intent. I can certainly see how repeated failure could sour your mood and intent and foil your plans to listen and provide feedback.
they are a shrinking percentage compared to the trolls making up more and more of the right wing.
I guess I'm just more optimistic than you are. I think they're desperately latching on to anyone that gives them attention, and if we gave them positive attention, they might listen to us too.
I just hope that the right wing doesn't weaponize it
There's always going to be hostile/negative actors, we just need to create a good plan to counter them.
It's been way too long since I read that, I'll have to give it a reread. I just wonder if there are enough humans out there with strong enough skills in communication to do the job, or to teach...
If you've ever read the book "how to win friends and influence people",
It's been way too long since I read that, I'll have to give it a reread.
We get defensive very quickly about our core values, and it's really tough to reach someone without very strong communication skills and good intent.
I just wonder if there are enough humans out there with strong enough skills in communication to do the job, or to teach others to do so.
I guess I'm just more optimistic than you are. I think they're desperately latching on to anyone that gives them attention, and if we gave them positive attention, they might listen to us too.
I wish I could be more optimistic, but it's getting harder and harder for me. I agree that they're desperate for attention, but I don't know that positive attention will make much difference in many cases.
There's always going to be hostile/negative actors, we just need to create a good plan to counter them.
Agreed. Is there any sort of framework for online spaces to use, aside from outright banning trolls, to keep their communities less hostile? I'm hoping Tildes can do a good job of it but I haven't seen or heard of another place on the internet that is making that a priority.
Probably not, but every rainstorm starts with a single drop of water. What's the alternative? If we don't give them positive attention they will seek it elsewhere. Sure, it might be damage...
I just wonder if there are enough humans out there with strong enough skills in communication to do the job, or to teach others to do so.
Probably not, but every rainstorm starts with a single drop of water.
I don't know that positive attention will make much difference in many cases.
What's the alternative? If we don't give them positive attention they will seek it elsewhere. Sure, it might be damage control, but I prefer damage control to inaction.
Agreed. Is there any sort of framework for online spaces to use, aside from outright banning trolls, to keep their communities less hostile? I'm hoping Tildes can do a good job of it but I haven't seen or heard of another place on the internet that is making that a priority.
It's becoming enough of a problem that people are actually making it a priority to fix. Unfortunately, it may have to slide to a much darker future before a good amount of resources are thrown at the problem (just look at global warming), but that's no reason we can't start to think of how to fix the problem now and what we can do to help prevent it today.
Good point. I think you're probably right, but we would need an enormous number of people to do this to help. It's way easier for trolls to just spit vitriol everywhere than it is to clean it up....
What's the alternative? If we don't give them positive attention they will seek it elsewhere. Sure, it might be damage control, but I prefer damage control to inaction.
Good point. I think you're probably right, but we would need an enormous number of people to do this to help. It's way easier for trolls to just spit vitriol everywhere than it is to clean it up.
It's becoming enough of a problem that people are actually making it a priority to fix.
I hope that the "Let's make our own Reddit" trend catches on, and I think that "we don't allow assholes here" is a great competitive edge for people looking for an online discussion space. I mean, it's what got me on Tildes!
Very well put. Your words remind me of what President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking...
Very well put.
Your words remind me of what President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Exactly. Most white men are useful idiots for the elite. They don't realize that America is a great big plantation, the rich are the masters, that everybody else are slaves, and that white people...
Exactly. Most white men are useful idiots for the elite. They don't realize that America is a great big plantation, the rich are the masters, that everybody else are slaves, and that white people who aren't rich are nothing but house slaves.
Right? Like, my shitty apartment is warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer than the castle of any king ever was. Yeah I have to work for it, but it's a hell of a lot better than the...
Right? Like, my shitty apartment is warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer than the castle of any king ever was. Yeah I have to work for it, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of having to hunt for my food or farm for my entire life.
The difference is that the fascists succeed in offering a compelling narrative, something at which the left continually fails miserably. I know this from experience, because being a Randroid isn't...
The difference is directing that anger towards the system that set up these circumstances versus joining a neo-nazi group and blaming it all on minorities / jewish people / muslims and enacting violence against them because of your misdirected anger.
The difference is that the fascists succeed in offering a compelling narrative, something at which the left continually fails miserably.
I know this from experience, because being a Randroid isn't all that different from being a fascist. It's easy to fall for Ayn Rand's bullshit when you're a loser -- somebody who's isolated and adrift without a better story to help you make sense of the world around you -- because the first tenet of Ayn Rand's bullshit is not only that you don't have to be a loser, but that that you have the potential to be a Romantic Hero™, and that the first step toward realizing that potential is to accept that it is good and rational to be the selfish asshole you always wanted to be if only you had the balls.
Fascist bullshit really isn't all that different. They offer losers a way to see themselves as heroes.
Good old-fashioned class struggle did it for me. I realized that I was being used, and that I was letting myself be used, because I identified with the assholes using me instead of with other...
What is a narrative from the left that would be appealing to you?
Good old-fashioned class struggle did it for me. I realized that I was being used, and that I was letting myself be used, because I identified with the assholes using me instead of with other workers.
That occasionally puts me at odds with the leftists who are all about identity politics, but that's where a good understanding of intersectionality comes into play.
I'd love to see more solidarity between the working class and minority groups. It's a two way street that both need to work on. Lately I've been wondering if it'd be helpful for middle class queer...
I'd love to see more solidarity between the working class and minority groups. It's a two way street that both need to work on. Lately I've been wondering if it'd be helpful for middle class queer people like myself to start turning up and supporting union rallies and strikes, but then I realised I don't even know if those kind of events actually exist in my city, or where to go to learn more. As a leftist, I'm starting to realise I'm actually very out of touch with a group I believe that I should be supporting.
The left's push for making higher education accessible to those with less money is the alternative narrative in my mind. That would certainly help with the difficulties dating educated women, as...
I don't really see an alternative narrative proffered elsewhere.
The left's push for making higher education accessible to those with less money is the alternative narrative in my mind. That would certainly help with the difficulties dating educated women, as well as the lack of physical labor jobs. This is an economic issue at it's core.
You're definitely right there. If it were clear and achievable for anybody to get an education without excessive debt or huge amounts of money, a huge socioeconomic burden would be lifted, at...
I agree, but it seems like the connection needs to be explicitly said that it would benefit men, otherwise they're likely to assume those policies are for "others" and not for them.
You're definitely right there. If it were clear and achievable for anybody to get an education without excessive debt or huge amounts of money, a huge socioeconomic burden would be lifted, at least in the US.
You can lead horses to water, but you can't make them drink. Even if the left succeeded in making access to public colleges and universities tuition-free for everybody, I think it's reasonable to...
The left's push for making higher education accessible to those with less money is the alternative narrative in my mind.
You can lead horses to water, but you can't make them drink. Even if the left succeeded in making access to public colleges and universities tuition-free for everybody, I think it's reasonable to say that many uneducated men will not go. They won't want to.
I certainly wouldn't, and I'm one of the few who managed to escape the trap of right-wing ideology on my own. Hell, I could go back to college and finish my degree right now if I wanted to, but I won't. I remember what my school years were like; I hated being a student, and I'm not willing to go back to the classroom.
I think you'll find that many uneducated men, especially men who dropped out of college, feel the same way. School is an unpleasant experience for boys and men, and it's sufficiently unpleasant that young men will opt out as soon as the law permits them to do so.
They certainly won't pay to suffer in school, either up front or via student loans; why should they?
Why was school an unpleasant experience for you? Also, are you in the US? I think if we can give our education system the proper tools to teach people, it would be more enjoyable and effective for...
Why was school an unpleasant experience for you? Also, are you in the US? I think if we can give our education system the proper tools to teach people, it would be more enjoyable and effective for everyone involved. A lot of the stress I've experienced in school was centered around being able to afford my student loans, and if college was tuition-free I would have been far less worried about my financial situation after graduating. I've genuinely enjoyed most of my actual classwork after high school.
The short version I was a weird fucking kid who learned to read too well, too fast, the school wasn't equipped to handle me, and I was my own worst enemy. The full story It was basically...
Why was school an unpleasant experience for you?
The short version
I was a weird fucking kid who learned to read too well, too fast, the school wasn't equipped to handle me, and I was my own worst enemy.
The full story
It was basically self-inflicted, but the adults around me didn't help much. I was not only a problem child, but practically an out-of-context problem.
Let me make something clear from the outset: I am not especially intelligent. However, I was reading for comprehension at an eighth grade level by the time I was done with first grade, and at college level by the end of second grade.
As a result, I got bored. I'd have the year's curriculum pretty much cold by the end of September, but I still had to sit there and wait to be spoon-fed knowledge I had already gotten on my own by reading the textbooks. Because I was still a little boy and not nearly as intelligent as my precocious reading made me seem to adults who didn't know any better, I acted out. Because I couldn't talk with kids my age about the books I had been reading, I came to despise them.
I don't remember doing or saying this, but according to my parents they had had a meeting with school staff when I was nine about getting me my GED and then going to college, or at least skipping directly to high school. The school staff were adamant in their refusal, saying that it was necessary that I have a "normal" childhood.
Meanwhile, I'm sitting there trying to make sense of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time even though I didn't have necessary foundation in either math or physics -- and damned well knew it. So, I hear this bullshit about having a normal childhood and decided to weigh in. I said something like, "In case any of you haven't noticed, normal nine-year-old boys aren't reading Stephen fucking Hawking and taking notes on everything they don't understand yet because they don't have the necessary background."
Needless to say, I didn't get to skip ahead. Instead, I was labelled a "discipline problem", and "emotionally handicapped" besides. The dumb fucks even had me on Ritalin for a while, but that just made me even worse.
Also, are you in the US?
Unfortunately, yes.
I think if we can give our education system the proper tools to teach people, it would be more enjoyable and effective for everyone involved.
As long as "the proper tools" includes knowing when to give a kid the address of the public library, help them get a library card, and tell the staff that the kid is to have full access to the adult section.
Absolutely. I had similar problems in my grade school growing up, although I wasn't quite reading Stephen Hawking at 9. A strong support structure for people to learn at whatever pace they're...
As long as "the proper tools" includes knowing when to give a kid the address of the public library, help them get a library card, and tell the staff that the kid is to have full access to the adult section.
Absolutely. I had similar problems in my grade school growing up, although I wasn't quite reading Stephen Hawking at 9. A strong support structure for people to learn at whatever pace they're comfortable with is fundamental to a good education in my eyes. I was lucky enough to have a few family members who saw my love of reading everything around me and would consistently give me books far more complex and adult than anything in a school library.
Training teachers to better handle kids that are already beyond what is covered in their courses is a must as well. If a student can demonstrate their knowledge of a subject and test out of it, why shouldn't they be allowed to take higher level courses? I think rather than keeping kids in the same class by their age for twelve straight years, we could let kids take classes the way many colleges do, where they can sign up for any course they have the prerequisite credits for. For example, a student in my grade was exceptionally good at math, to the point where he had completed our school's AP calculus course a year or two ahead of most. They allowed him to take higher level math classes at a local community college after the high school got out, and I think that's a great thing.
That sounds like a fantastic environment for learning about these issues. I would have loved having access group like that growing up and feeling confused about masculinity as a whole.
I'm wondering if the people pushing toxic masculinity as "normal" have been double-downing on their efforts because of the recent trends of men abandoning that attitude. They see men who have found that there is another way, who realize that toxic masculinity doesn't lead to happiness, and that throws them into a panic that the only way of life they understand is being threatened.
I've been thinking about the same thing, and I hope that's the case. I want for this to be the death rattle of a dying ideology, and that in the future we see men like Terry Crews as the cultural touchstone for masculinity rather than James Bond.
I found the first paragraph and the first few sentence of the second paragraph really compelling--I thought this was a nice recap of an example of racism in the media.
However, the last few sentences really tripped me up, especially this one: "There is something about the cultural meaning of masculinity." Isn't he essentially doing to men what he said we shouldn't do to African-Americans or Muslims?
I might not be grasping something fully, so I would love to hear thoughts on this.
I know that I have no purpose that I haven't set for myself, unless it's to make rich assholes even richer.
As for my privileged status in society: I think people working in social justice spaces need to accept it doesn't matter how powerful your group is when you yourself don't have access to that power.
People working in social justice need to understand that the basis of white male hegemony are the three Cs: capital, connections, and credentials. If you have capital, you can buy connections and credentials. If you have connections, you can gain access to capital and people with credentials. If you have credentials, you can make yourself useful to people with capital and connections.
But if you're a white man who doesn't have any of the three Cs, and no means to attain them, then you're nothing poor white trash in the eyes of those who have capital, connections, or credentials. Working-class white people know this even if they don't have the words to explain it.
Why shouldn't they be angry enough to want to burn the whole corrupt society down? It's not like the left is there to say, "We're all getting a raw deal here, even if it's a different sort of raw deal. Let's work together and force the bastards to offer us a better deal."
Instead, we have adherents of leftist identity politics ignoring the way class oppression can intersect with and overshadow the privileges of race and sex to leave poor white men feeling attacked by both the left and the right, with no option but to take the hand of the fascist who promises a better way.
Angry men aren't a "problem" to be "solved". We have a right to our anger, and reasons for it.
There's a distinct difference between angry and hateful. You can be angry without being hateful. Perpetuating violence as a valid response to anger is not an appropriate way to handle things. Violence is not a valid response to, well, anything - all it does is cause more violence.
Kimmel's response to "what is masculinity" started off with two words you almost always hear from people, "strong" and "stoic". I can't think of anything stronger, or more stoic, than looking at someone who's in charge and abusing their power and telling them that you're going to dismantle everything they've built and give it away to the very people they are trying to disenfranchise - that they're going to use their smarts, their willpower, their friends, and their own two hands but never raise a fist in anger.
This is the kind of masculinity that we need to highlight. The man who is a rock in a storm - providing stability and shelter for those he cares about in the middle of tumult. We need to highlight the Ghandis and MLKs of the world - the ones who stick to their principles in the face of great adversity and prove that change can be made, one man at a time. That change is all the more powerful without violence, because who is more manly than someone who when faced with the easy answer of violence chooses instead to take the high road?
Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Atticus Finch is the sort of man you admire, and he failed miserably. He couldn't even protect his own kids. But he could afford to be high-minded and principled because he had Boo Radley looking out for him and his.
By all means praise the Atticus Finches of the world, and the MLKs and the Gandhis. But don't forget that Gandhi was working against an war-weary British Empire that could no longer afford to be an empire, and that if he failed, a violent rebellion would have followed. Likewise, do not forget that MLK succeeded in part because he had Black Power activists like Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Bobby Seale pushing a more radical agenda and a "by any means necessary" ethos that made MLK much more palatable to the white Establishment.
You can't have a good cop/bad cop routine without the bad cop.
TKAM is fiction. MLK and Gandhi are real.
I don't agree with the good cop/bad cop mentality here. I admire someone who's able to do something without violence because it's absolutely the more difficult path. But it is the right path.
Both of these examples prove nothing. We can play "maybe" all day with situations from history and talk about the contributing factors.
At the end of the day the only piece of real science we have comes from violence prevention programs - these programs show that people can be more productive, cause less problems, promote upward mobility, etc. We know historically that violence usually leads to more violence and suppression usually leads to rebellion which often leads to war.
It's disingenuous to say that "MLK and Gandhi are real" while ignoring the entire segment of his argument stating that they succeeded due to the backing of a violent movement. I'm not sure that he's correct about that—while it's true that movements from American civil rights to women's suffrage all had violent counterparts, correlation does not imply causation—but there's an argument there, and I also think it's dismissive to oppressed peoples to say that "I admire someone who's able to do something without violence because it's absolutely the more difficult path. But it is the right path." It's easy to say that from a position of power, but when you are actively being oppressed it's a lot harder to take the "more difficult path." For this reason, while I don't think I'll ever condone a violent movement, I find it incredibly hard to condemn violence from any oppressed peoples.
I should note that I absolutely don't agree with the idea that poor white males are as discriminated against as people of color, or women, or LGBT individuals. I think the bulk of the attitude is from the feeling that, as is commonly stated, equality feels like oppression to the oppressor. But your comment criticized rights movements well outside of the scope of the OP so I felt the need to make a comment.
I never said I'm condemning violence. I think it's the wrong path, and I disagree with it, but I absolutely understand why it happens and why it often seems like the only response.
All I stated was that I absolutely respect someone who when presented with these two options, chooses the more difficult but the better of the two.
Can you help me understand how I criticized it?
Reading your comments again, I think I'm likely reading more into what you wrote than you intended, so sorry about that. I'll list what you said that gave me that impression, though.
None of these are particularly harsh statements, but combined they bring to mind the sort of aloof condescension I associate with "white moderates" as described by MLK. I think the worst offender is talking about the "right path," as it clearly implies that the alternative is the wrong path, and later praising MLK while conspicuously avoiding mention of Malcom X implies that activists like him were following the aforementioned wrong path.
Appreciate the insight. I'm always trying to work on my communication and I can see now how I may have unintentionally implied that one methodology is "wrong".
To be clear, I avoided mentioning Malcolm X because it's not important to what I'm trying to highlight here. I admire someone who chooses the non-violent path, and that exists whether or not a violent path exists or is prevalent.
I also think that highlighting this accomplishment and associating it with "manliness" is absolutely important if we want to instill these values onto others. To me there is nothing more manly, but we don't see this in popular media. We don't hear about this when talking with friends. We don't read about these traits in a protagonist in a book. It's not as "sexy" as violence, so it doesn't get highlighted and people may not feel the same as I do - in fact, society and media appear to be indoctrinating people the other way.
The idea behind social justice is that generally, white men, even the "poor white trash" men, still have an easier time making connections, attaining wealth and earning credentials than minorities do by virtue of being white and male. Yes, being poor is still way more difficult in modern society than it should be, but it's even more difficult if you aren't a straight, white man. You don't see these hateful ideologies gaining traction among other groups of people at anywhere near the same rate. It's simply about white dudes being afraid that they'll lose their status of being "above" others on the social ladder. A rising tide lifts all boats, and improving the quality of life for the most disadvantaged in our society isn't going to mean that poor white people are now in an even worse social position. The world isn't a zero sum game, and someone else getting a bigger slice of pie doesn't mean that other people's gets smaller.
That's true, but the truth is a bitter fucking pill to swallow, and castigating people for not being able to accept such a bitter truth doesn't make it easier to accept.
If someone's reaction to being unable to accept the truth is violence and suppressing minorities, I don't give a shit about making it easier to accept. That is the reaction of a child, or someone who can't be a part of society if they can't feel better than other people. It's disgusting and these people deserve to be castigated.
On gut feeling I want to agree with you, but my rational mind is telling me to slow my horses.
If we castigate these individuals, all we are accomplishing is reinforcing their beliefs - we are actively segregating and suppressing these individuals.
What we need to do is have open conversations with them. Why do they feel their rights are being infringed? Expose them to the plights of others. Show them how they can contribute to society and laud them for choosing the right path.
We need to educate them out of violence, not tell them to fuck off because they think violence is an appropriate response.
You can only educate those who want to be educated, though. Many of these people choose to remain ignorant of the plights of minorities, or they know about them and simply don't care. Yeah, some people have changed their views and left ideologies like white supremacy behind, and are working to help others to do the same, and that is fantastic. But we have been having these conversations for years now, and I would argue that many who still subscribe to these ideologies aren't doing it out of ignorance, but malice.
I feel like this is probably the best answer for most of these men, all things considered. However, I feel that rural America is going to have a hard time with this since more and more it seems that urban hubs are where opportunities lie.
And how much of that is because they are indoctrinated and isolated from the rest of society?
How much of it is because people start conversations with them online by saying "you are wrong, and a terrible person".
If they initiated a conversation with you doing the same, would you listen to them? It's not a good way to change someone's mind and I completely understand why they wouldn't if people aren't willing to have an honest conversation.
And how experienced are you with their society? Are you really enough of an expert to claim anything about them in such broad terms?
For what it's worth I think there are some people who will never change, but they live in a society where this is reinforced on a daily basis. It makes me think of the pilot programs in Chicago and other major cities aimed at youth (often colored) and educating them that violence is not the right way. It has reduced violence in some of these cities by as much as 90%. Targeted intervention can often work better than we think, the key is education and someone these people can connect with.
Absolutely. We have a bit of a shit storm going on right now which is culminating in the radicalization of many young white males. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem we can't tackle. It means it's just a problem we have to tackle smartly.
I've gone from being a Randroid to being somewhat of a leftist and marginally less of an asshole, but it wasn't because random people online said shit like, "You know you're an asshole, right?"
My answer to such people was always, "Why don't you shut up and sing the song, pal?"
Instead, I had to travel, I had to talk in person with people who lived in countries with more reasonable systems than the "fuck you I got mine" society of the USA. I had to broaden my perspective, and I had to do it on my own.
I'm glad it worked out for you. What worked for you won't work for everyone, however, and we need broad strategies to ensure that people are included. Your opinion and your plight are important and need to be listened to by the "other side". If you reached out online and were met with vitriol, something tells me you'd be less willing to explore societies which prescribe to that particular ideology.
I've reached out, I've faced vitriol, and I kept exploring anyway. It helped that I remained fundamentally committed to individualism. If a feminist gave me shit for not being woke enough, that was their problem, not mine, and certainly not a problem with feminism. Likewise with socialists, anti-racism activists, and the like.
I firmly believe that travel and education are the only way out of that mindset for anyone
Traveling, which in a certain sense is education, really does make it harder to hold on to such views. Also, your username validates your statement, ha.
I've been around a little haha but am pretty local recently. Might be time to sojourn abroad again.
I've made that mistake in the past debating religion when I first became an atheist in high school. I realize the futility of beginning a conversation that way, but that only applies when both parties would otherwise be arguing in good faith; I no longer believe that most of these people are interested in a discussion of that sort, regardless of how you start the conversation.
Growing up in the midwest, I feel like I can say I'm pretty familiar with them. I've known a number of people who have confederate flags in front of their houses and on their trucks, and I've had this conversation in person a number of times. The past few years have shown me that a far larger number of people are choosing to behave this way, and that I was wrong to have applied Hanlon's razor so liberally.
That number is uplifting for sure, but we run into the same problem with rural areas. It becomes much harder to implement these programs effectively when the population density gets low.
I still think you're making a mistake here, because you use the word "arguing".
I'm not asking you to argue anything. In fact, I'm encouraging you to not say a word at first. I'm asking you to listen to them. Understand why they hold the ideas they hold. Question them about it, so that they might question themselves.
Exposing them to other ideas comes much later. It's something to be extremely careful about, because it might come off as judging their values which will put them on the defensive.
There are a lot of people out there, and you shouldn't let a few sour apples spoil the barrel.
Unfortunately yes, but that's where technology might perhaps help us out. I really don't know what a solution would look like for this problem, but it involves a lot more interpersonal relationships, even if they are mediated through technology.
I wasn't using the word "arguing" in the sense that you are, I should have said conversing there. I do understand how someone's circumstances could lead to these beliefs, reading books like Hillbilly Elegy have helped me with that, but I think that just about anyone who would change their mind on these things probably already has.
I agree that it's very difficult to change people's minds on these things, I've only succeeded in a couple of cases with close family and friends. The problem is that there are people out there with a vested interest in keeping these kinds of ideologies going, and their core values are so wildly different from ours that even getting them to question their views will only strengthen them because they want to put others down.
That's easy to say, but it seems we already have a barrelful of spoiled apples on our hands. I'm certain there are some people out there who still might change their ways, just by the sheer number of humans in this country, but they are a shrinking percentage compared to the trolls making up more and more of the right wing.
I'm hopeful that tech like VR/AR could have applications in improving interpersonal relationships, I just hope that the right wing doesn't weaponize it the way they have sites like Twitter and Reddit.
Gotcha. That being said, the fact that you used the word arguing, makes me think that your intent might still be in the wrong place. If you've ever read the book "how to win friends and influence people", you've probably quickly learned that like most people, humans are pretty bad at communicating ideas. We get defensive very quickly about our core values, and it's really tough to reach someone without very strong communication skills and good intent. I can certainly see how repeated failure could sour your mood and intent and foil your plans to listen and provide feedback.
I guess I'm just more optimistic than you are. I think they're desperately latching on to anyone that gives them attention, and if we gave them positive attention, they might listen to us too.
There's always going to be hostile/negative actors, we just need to create a good plan to counter them.
It's been way too long since I read that, I'll have to give it a reread.
I just wonder if there are enough humans out there with strong enough skills in communication to do the job, or to teach others to do so.
I wish I could be more optimistic, but it's getting harder and harder for me. I agree that they're desperate for attention, but I don't know that positive attention will make much difference in many cases.
Agreed. Is there any sort of framework for online spaces to use, aside from outright banning trolls, to keep their communities less hostile? I'm hoping Tildes can do a good job of it but I haven't seen or heard of another place on the internet that is making that a priority.
Probably not, but every rainstorm starts with a single drop of water.
What's the alternative? If we don't give them positive attention they will seek it elsewhere. Sure, it might be damage control, but I prefer damage control to inaction.
It's becoming enough of a problem that people are actually making it a priority to fix. Unfortunately, it may have to slide to a much darker future before a good amount of resources are thrown at the problem (just look at global warming), but that's no reason we can't start to think of how to fix the problem now and what we can do to help prevent it today.
Good point. I think you're probably right, but we would need an enormous number of people to do this to help. It's way easier for trolls to just spit vitriol everywhere than it is to clean it up.
I hope that the "Let's make our own Reddit" trend catches on, and I think that "we don't allow assholes here" is a great competitive edge for people looking for an online discussion space. I mean, it's what got me on Tildes!
Very well put.
Your words remind me of what President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Exactly. Most white men are useful idiots for the elite. They don't realize that America is a great big plantation, the rich are the masters, that everybody else are slaves, and that white people who aren't rich are nothing but house slaves.
I mean slaves with iPhone's though so maybe that comparison is a tad hyperbolic.
Right? Like, my shitty apartment is warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer than the castle of any king ever was. Yeah I have to work for it, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of having to hunt for my food or farm for my entire life.
Depends how many hours a day you have to hunt and forage in my view. Then again I love camping in inclement weather.
If you have an iPhone, you're one of the house slaves.
The difference is that the fascists succeed in offering a compelling narrative, something at which the left continually fails miserably.
I know this from experience, because being a Randroid isn't all that different from being a fascist. It's easy to fall for Ayn Rand's bullshit when you're a loser -- somebody who's isolated and adrift without a better story to help you make sense of the world around you -- because the first tenet of Ayn Rand's bullshit is not only that you don't have to be a loser, but that that you have the potential to be a Romantic Hero™, and that the first step toward realizing that potential is to accept that it is good and rational to be the selfish asshole you always wanted to be if only you had the balls.
Fascist bullshit really isn't all that different. They offer losers a way to see themselves as heroes.
Good old-fashioned class struggle did it for me. I realized that I was being used, and that I was letting myself be used, because I identified with the assholes using me instead of with other workers.
That occasionally puts me at odds with the leftists who are all about identity politics, but that's where a good understanding of intersectionality comes into play.
I'd love to see more solidarity between the working class and minority groups. It's a two way street that both need to work on. Lately I've been wondering if it'd be helpful for middle class queer people like myself to start turning up and supporting union rallies and strikes, but then I realised I don't even know if those kind of events actually exist in my city, or where to go to learn more. As a leftist, I'm starting to realise I'm actually very out of touch with a group I believe that I should be supporting.
I've been thinking of joining the DSA, since there's a local in my area and they seem reasonably tuned in.
The left's push for making higher education accessible to those with less money is the alternative narrative in my mind. That would certainly help with the difficulties dating educated women, as well as the lack of physical labor jobs. This is an economic issue at it's core.
You're definitely right there. If it were clear and achievable for anybody to get an education without excessive debt or huge amounts of money, a huge socioeconomic burden would be lifted, at least in the US.
You can lead horses to water, but you can't make them drink. Even if the left succeeded in making access to public colleges and universities tuition-free for everybody, I think it's reasonable to say that many uneducated men will not go. They won't want to.
I certainly wouldn't, and I'm one of the few who managed to escape the trap of right-wing ideology on my own. Hell, I could go back to college and finish my degree right now if I wanted to, but I won't. I remember what my school years were like; I hated being a student, and I'm not willing to go back to the classroom.
I think you'll find that many uneducated men, especially men who dropped out of college, feel the same way. School is an unpleasant experience for boys and men, and it's sufficiently unpleasant that young men will opt out as soon as the law permits them to do so.
They certainly won't pay to suffer in school, either up front or via student loans; why should they?
Why was school an unpleasant experience for you? Also, are you in the US? I think if we can give our education system the proper tools to teach people, it would be more enjoyable and effective for everyone involved. A lot of the stress I've experienced in school was centered around being able to afford my student loans, and if college was tuition-free I would have been far less worried about my financial situation after graduating. I've genuinely enjoyed most of my actual classwork after high school.
The short version
I was a weird fucking kid who learned to read too well, too fast, the school wasn't equipped to handle me, and I was my own worst enemy.
The full story
It was basically self-inflicted, but the adults around me didn't help much. I was not only a problem child, but practically an out-of-context problem.
Let me make something clear from the outset: I am not especially intelligent. However, I was reading for comprehension at an eighth grade level by the time I was done with first grade, and at college level by the end of second grade.
As a result, I got bored. I'd have the year's curriculum pretty much cold by the end of September, but I still had to sit there and wait to be spoon-fed knowledge I had already gotten on my own by reading the textbooks. Because I was still a little boy and not nearly as intelligent as my precocious reading made me seem to adults who didn't know any better, I acted out. Because I couldn't talk with kids my age about the books I had been reading, I came to despise them.
I don't remember doing or saying this, but according to my parents they had had a meeting with school staff when I was nine about getting me my GED and then going to college, or at least skipping directly to high school. The school staff were adamant in their refusal, saying that it was necessary that I have a "normal" childhood.
Meanwhile, I'm sitting there trying to make sense of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time even though I didn't have necessary foundation in either math or physics -- and damned well knew it. So, I hear this bullshit about having a normal childhood and decided to weigh in. I said something like, "In case any of you haven't noticed, normal nine-year-old boys aren't reading Stephen fucking Hawking and taking notes on everything they don't understand yet because they don't have the necessary background."
Needless to say, I didn't get to skip ahead. Instead, I was labelled a "discipline problem", and "emotionally handicapped" besides. The dumb fucks even had me on Ritalin for a while, but that just made me even worse.
Unfortunately, yes.
As long as "the proper tools" includes knowing when to give a kid the address of the public library, help them get a library card, and tell the staff that the kid is to have full access to the adult section.
Absolutely. I had similar problems in my grade school growing up, although I wasn't quite reading Stephen Hawking at 9. A strong support structure for people to learn at whatever pace they're comfortable with is fundamental to a good education in my eyes. I was lucky enough to have a few family members who saw my love of reading everything around me and would consistently give me books far more complex and adult than anything in a school library.
Training teachers to better handle kids that are already beyond what is covered in their courses is a must as well. If a student can demonstrate their knowledge of a subject and test out of it, why shouldn't they be allowed to take higher level courses? I think rather than keeping kids in the same class by their age for twelve straight years, we could let kids take classes the way many colleges do, where they can sign up for any course they have the prerequisite credits for. For example, a student in my grade was exceptionally good at math, to the point where he had completed our school's AP calculus course a year or two ahead of most. They allowed him to take higher level math classes at a local community college after the high school got out, and I think that's a great thing.