IMO, the worst sub-group is the intersection formed by the group of people who call themselves ‘rationalists’, those who have sexist views, and those who are looking to be edgy/gain some notoriety. This is because this group will often try to use their ‘rationalism’ to justify their harmful ‘-isms’ (sexism/racism etc)… using “”“”data”””“ and “””reason”″”, which generates a lot of controversy which helps them build more of a platform, etc.
In my opinion this is the most dangerous subcategory of sexist people (as opposed to the people who are just casually sexist out of convenience / or just because they can, but don’t have further motives beyond that) because if you dare questioning their methods or conclusions they call you ‘woke’, ‘irrational’, or ‘unscientific’ (by contrast, the former category will just accuse you of being too uptight, lacking a sense of humour, or making a mountain out of a molehill). These pseudo-rationalist people are dangerous because they are not simply being sexist, they are actively making the apology of sexism. As a woman, you can’t win against them, because you’re either agreeing with them that women are less smart/capable/intelligent, or you’re disagreeing with their ‘highly rationalist proof’, which they will claim proves their point, as you’re ‘clearly’ not clever or free-thinking enough to appreciate the ‘evidence’. This of course helps them get more attention, as more and more people either want to strongly agree or strongly disagree with them. Online, this behaviour drives comments, likes, and algorithmic traffic towards their profile, which serves their notoriety goals.
The reaction from the community, especially from other rationalist mouthpieces is almost a mirror of Fran’s experience. Until leaders have the courage to both admit there are systemic problems and that they need outside help to deal with them, these issues will continue to happen.
IMO, the worst sub-group is the intersection formed by the group of people who call themselves ‘rationalists’, those who have sexist views, and those who are looking to be edgy/gain some notoriety. This is because this group will often try to use their ‘rationalism’ to justify their harmful ‘-isms’ (sexism/racism etc)… using “”“”data”””“ and “””reason”″”, which generates a lot of controversy which helps them build more of a platform, etc.
In my opinion this is the most dangerous subcategory of sexist people (as opposed to the people who are just casually sexist out of convenience / or just because they can, but don’t have further motives beyond that) because if you dare questioning their methods or conclusions they call you ‘woke’, ‘irrational’, or ‘unscientific’ (by contrast, the former category will just accuse you of being too uptight, lacking a sense of humour, or making a mountain out of a molehill). These pseudo-rationalist people are dangerous because they are not simply being sexist, they are actively making the apology of sexism. As a woman, you can’t win against them, because you’re either agreeing with them that women are less smart/capable/intelligent, or you’re disagreeing with their ‘highly rationalist proof’, which they will claim proves their point, as you’re ‘clearly’ not clever or free-thinking enough to appreciate the ‘evidence’. This of course helps them get more attention, as more and more people either want to strongly agree or strongly disagree with them. Online, this behaviour drives comments, likes, and algorithmic traffic towards their profile, which serves their notoriety goals.
I’ve met my fair share of these over the years.
As one of the people quoted in the article I can heartily concur with this from personal experience (I’m really surprised by the disagrees).
Rationalist mouthpiece Eneasz Brodski wrote this https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/any-community-that-tolerates-trauma in response to me coming forward about a safety issue with a man at Vibecamp 2, which is a manual and encouragement on ostracizing victims of sexual violence.
The reaction from the community, especially from other rationalist mouthpieces is almost a mirror of Fran’s experience. Until leaders have the courage to both admit there are systemic problems and that they need outside help to deal with them, these issues will continue to happen.