Tiresias

Karma: 507

Tiresias Feb 24, 2023, 8:58 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: “EA is very open to some kinds of critique and very not open to others” and “Why do critical EAs have to use pseudonyms?”
I don’t want to write this, but I wonder if it might be helpful for this post to lay out why being open to a broader set of critiques is important. I agree with this post for the record.

Tiresias Feb 24, 2023, 8:48 PM
13 points
11 ∶ 4
in reply to: Liv’s comment on: Consent Isn’t Always Enough
Hm, I also struggle with mental health and I know it’s hard. I absolutely do not want to suggest that your mental health is not important. I do want to know more about what you view as the primary purpose of the community. While improving mental health is a value of mine, I do not see EA’s primary function as a place to improve one’s mental health. I think that can often be a benefit of EA, and I think EA has a duty to not worsen people’s mental health. But the main purpose of EA is not to improve the mental health of the community members. If that makes sense.

Friends and meaningful relationships are absolutely important to have in one’s life, and I derive so much value from the meaningful relationships I have within EA. But there are many ways to both (1) develop meaningful relationships within EA that don’t violate any of the norms people have suggested and (2) develop meaningful relationships with people outside of EA. It might mean some people have to change some of their behavior, but not in a way that would ruin their life. It might limit the number of potential romantic options, but it doesn’t preclude you from romance altogether. If we see the primary purpose of EA as doing good, and not as a place to develop meaningful relationships, setting norms that limit certain types of conduct is reasonable.

Tiresias Feb 24, 2023, 8:00 PM
19 points
8 ∶ 3
in reply to: Liv’s comment on: Consent Isn’t Always Enough
Can you share more about what important aspects you think I’m missing? My best guess is you’re reading my use of the word “fun” narrowly (which is probably poor word choice on my part), thinking I mean something like sex/parties/drugs. So to clarify, what I mean is “personal enjoyment” which can include things like meaningful relationships. I obviously like personal enjoyment and want more of it for myself and others. But when, on a community level, we find personal enjoyment in conflict with doing good in the world, I want the community to choose doing good.

But that might not be what you’re saying I’m missing.

Tiresias Feb 24, 2023, 7:25 PM
70 points
52 ∶ 7
in reply to: Liv’s comment on: Consent Isn’t Always Enough
EA is my community, most of my friends are in EA, and it is so much fun. But if I had to choose between EA as “professional” or “fun,” I would choose professional in a heart beat. What has brought us together is a commitment to doing good, and doing good in the world, not personal enjoyment, should be the guiding star for choices we make in regard to the EA community.

If a norm is important for a professional community to have, even if it means that community might end up being less fun for me, we should absolutely institute that norm.

Tiresias Feb 24, 2023, 12:44 AM
37 points
9 ∶ 0
in reply to: breadthofdebate’s comment on: Consider not sleeping around within the community
Wanted to comment that, as a woman quite involved in EA, I relate to your post. I didn’t initially find being hit on that demoralizing, but as time progressed I’ve been feeling more and more like many men in EA are simplifying a good chunk of my existence to my appearance, and this has severely harmed my view of myself. I have consciously stepped back from the community so I can remind myself that my value is not in my sexual appeal, and build my self-esteem back up. Ironically, in some ways, being involved in the community (as opposed to holding EA ideals from afar) has made me less focused on impact and more focused on sexuality. I still find the community valuable and want to continue engaging in it, but I can also absolutely see why many women would completely cut themselves off after the experiences I have had.

Tiresias Feb 23, 2023, 6:49 PM
1 point
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: allskies’s comment on: A statement and an apology
This may be nitpicky about your word choice, but my original comment is framed outright as speculation as to what Owen meant, so I’m not making conclusions.
But, as I state later in the original comment, what Owen meant by the comment is not the biggest factor in this situation. The comment has an ambiguous meaning and that ambiguity might lead the women to think he meant (or has some chance of meaning) the first version of what I laid out. The details of their relationship Owen shared in his statement do not make me think he had a good reason for thinking this was an appropriate statement. Even if they have a history of oversharing (which she may have felt pressured to do with him in the first place), it’s still not clear whether this is oversharing or a statement of the first type that I described. Both are versions of the meaning I posited involve “oversharing,” it’s just that the second version of what I posited had a meaning that more more “merely oversharing” rather than also having all this other implication laid into it.

Tiresias Feb 23, 2023, 6:36 PM
5 points
4 ∶ 9
in reply to: MaxRa’s comment on: A statement and an apology
I think it is possible to find someone sexually attractive and not objectify them. But, I think it is hard for people (both men and women) to view women sexually without objectifying them. There are a few studies that demonstrate this, though I haven’t seen a massive body of literature on this, which means I view these studies with some skepticism. Specifically, the studies will find that people can view sexual images of men without objectifying brain responses, but cannot do the same for women. Women are consistently objectified in a way men aren’t when viewed in a sexual context. See this study, this other study by the same authors, this study, or this study. (There may be more studies on this; I spent a few minutes googling and reading abstracts based on a memory of a study press release I read some time ago).
The issue here is not that people are sexually attracted to women, it’s that this sexual/romantic attraction becomes the primary way they view the woman.
Sometimes when I bring up this trend (finding women sexually attractive often involves a high level of objectification, and this is harmful to women), people’s response is “It’s natural/normal so it isn’t a problem.” But the behavior is harmful, and leads to systemic oppression. That it’s extremely common and may be largely innate means it’s more challenging to solve, not that we should not put effort into solving it.
There are a few things I recommend men do to try to curb this behavior. (1) Try to notice when you are engaging in this behavior. That is, when you are speaking to/thinking of a woman and viewing her primary as a sexual/romantic option. (2) When you do notice it, try to reframe her in your mind, actively thinking of things like her professional accomplishments or personality. [This is going to be very difficult to do, and you will not be perfect at it.] (3) Do not talk about her to other people in an objectifying way, which (in the broad definition I’m using now), includes talking about her primarily as a potential romantic partner. This means, if you meet a woman and you’re interested in her, when you talk about her to others, you should spend some time describing her general qualities in addition to the fact that you are interested in her, and avoid bringing up that you think she’s hot altogether. (4) Don’t expect perfection, but consistently strive to be better. Acknowledge objectification is normal, and don’t beat yourself up about doing it. But don’t feel like it’s a problem you can ignore either.
These are not hard and fast rules for every situation, but this is generally the approach I recommend.
Let me dive into an example of what can seem like innocuous behavior, but can actually be harmful to women, and contribute to a bad environment for women, especially when gender ratios are skewed and this sort of thing happens often.
You’re single and want to be in a relationship. You meet a woman at an event/party and develop a crush on her. You get back to your friends and say something like “I just met this woman named Phoebe. I’m not sure if she’s into me but I’m into her” and you don’t say much else about her.
This is pretty innocuous and it’s really not that bad on the scale of things. But it can still be harmful. Let’s say you met another man at the event/party, and you also really liked him, but you’re straight so it’s not in a romantic/sexual way. When you’re summarizing your time at the event/party to others, you might mention him and talk about the reasons that you like him, things that focus on his personality and who he is as a person. But with Phoebe, in this example, the only thing you’re saying about her is that you like her. So now, Phoebe’s building a reputation that is not built on her personality, but her role as a romantic/sexual partner. This other man, though, gets to build a reputation for his personality.
The harm goes away if you spend some time describing the non-appearance based reasons of why you like Phoebe. But, again, if the major focus of your conversations about Phoebe is just that you like her, that can be harmful in the way described above. It’s real subtle stuff, but maybe this example shows how even innocuous things can be harmful, and why they should be avoided (with a lot of leeway for not being perfect about it), even if they’re extremely normal.

Tiresias Feb 23, 2023, 1:25 PM
11 points
3 ∶ 4
in reply to: quinn’s comment on: A statement and an apology
I don’t think the only reason the women felt uncomfortable here is because of power dynamics. The power dynamics just made the situation much worse. But you should generally try to avoid making people uncomfortable, particularly in a way that touches on their membership in part of a marginalized group.
So, one way I think all men, not just those in power, should modify their behavior is to refrain from making sexual comments. Especially with people you don’t know well yet. If you know someone quite well, and they seem to be making these comments themselves, and you have a level of trust and security with each other, you can be much more open with what you talk about. But for people you don’t know that well, for people who haven’t initiated this sort of thing themselves, just don’t make sexual comments.

Tiresias Feb 23, 2023, 1:15 PM
1 point
3 ∶ 3
in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: A statement and an apology
I get the impression you are trying hard to do good here, and I appreciate that. I also find this comment extremely disheartening, as even a thoughtful attempt to try to work through the harm of this behavior minimizes the harm and leaves out a big portion of the harm. I’m guessing many, many others in EA share a similar perspective to you, and that is just bumming me out right now. I love so many parts of EA, but I’m being reminded about how, as a women, my entire existence will be swimming uphill against these sorts of perspectives. It’s demoralizing to me, and even though I found the original TIME piece to be extremely uncharitable, I also newly believe that oppressive perspectives about gender and a failure to recognize these perspectives is a major contributor to why the gender ratio is so imbalanced.
I’m not saying you in particular are bad here, or that you are particularly bad. I see that you are being very thoughtful and trying to work through this. It’s just disheartening to see someone who is so thoughtful and operating in good faith still continue—in my view—to get it wrong. I know that this is inevitable in communities, but I also do not enjoy the process of going up against this sort of thing. My impulse is just to go seek refuge and security in a group that understands this sort of thing more, likely a group of mostly women.
For my explanation (though I could’ve gone into more detail) about the harm done, see this comment I made in reply to another one of your comments.
This is a pretty emotional comment, and I’m not sharing to make you feel bad or anything. Or even to say that you’re wrong to share your explanation. I’m sharing my emotional response to your comment to help people imagine what is maybe a cause for the gender imbalance/women feeling demoralized about EA.

Tiresias Feb 23, 2023, 1:00 PM
13 points
11 ∶ 8
in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: A statement and an apology
My take is the action is quite bad, though its origins were in clumsiness. But people not intending to do harm can still do quite bad things. I have two theories as to what Owen even meant, one of which is much worse than the other, but both still result in the action itself being quite bad.
One version is, Owen felt attracted to this women, her presence caused him to want to masturbate, and so his sharing this information meant (at least to him) “I am very sexually attracted to you and cannot treat you ‘normally’ until I have masturbated.” This is truly appalling behavior, though I can understand why someone who is socially obtuse about these things might not realize the extent of its harm/its appalling nature. It’s just this whole implication of “Frequently, I do not think of you in terms of your accomplishments or personality, but rather your looks and body. I indulge in my sexualization and objectification of you and am making little attempt to remedy that. I want you to know that I think of you sexually, and I will leave and think about your body as I go engage in this sexual act. Only after this will I be able to think of you as a full, fully fleshed out person with value that stems from things other than your sexual appeal. But you should know, at any time I may revert to objectifying you.”
A second version is, Owen wanted to masturbate for unrelated reasons, and was oversharing.
Frankly, based on his apology, and his linking his behavior to his shame about feeling attracted to people, it seems more likely to me that the situation is the former. Since he’s making it sound like attraction played a role here. But it’s hard to tell. And regardless, whether it’s the first situation or the second is unclear to the woman, leaving in her mind that it very well could be the first situation. This could make her feel extremely uncomfortable and harm her in other ways—such as internalizing that a large part of her value stems from her sexual appeal.
What links here?
- Tiresias's comment on A statement and an apology by Owen Cotton-Barratt (Feb 23, 2023, 1:15 PM; 1 point)

Tiresias Feb 23, 2023, 12:32 PM
5 points
5 ∶ 1
in reply to: reluctant_burner’s comment on: A statement and an apology
I appreciate the comment, and agree that accurately understanding motivations is important for effective reform. I also agree that a lot (if not most) of the harassment/women face in EA come from sentiments like the one you’re describing in this comment. Admitting fault and vulnerability can be difficult to share, and I’m glad you’re doing so.
I also agree with S.E. Montgomery’s reply that some of this comment rubbed me the wrong way. As I mentioned, my guess is that most sexual harassment stems from sentiments like the one you described. It comes from an understandable place—romantic longing—but has oppressive outcomes. This means, even if the emotional origin is sympathetic, the men who hold this perspective should still work to change their perspective. The specific manifestation of romantic longing that I find ends up being oppressive is one which causes men to see EA women they encounter primarily as potential romantic/sexual partners. Rather than say, having their thoughts about a woman shaped by her professional accomplishments or personality. This is de-personifying, and leads to many harmful behaviors. If you meet a woman and categorize her primarily as a romantic/sexual interest, you are much less likely to instinctively think of other aspects of her. For example, if you learn of a new opportunity, and are thinking of people who might be matches for it, just on a gut level, it makes it more likely you’ll forget about her when you’re not in a romantic/sexual state-of-mind. Or, if you describe her to other people, if you are primarily commenting on her appearance/your interest in her, what you are then not commenting on (at least as much) is other aspects of her, aspects you would describe if you were meeting a man. This causes other people to view her in a de-personifying way, even if they’ve never met her/don’t have any romantic/sexual interest in her. Maybe she gets a reputation for being a “hot EA” rather than a reputation for something like “early career but seems good at x/y skills, and quirky in z way.” Usually, it’s more subtle than this, but still quite harmful.
Your comment is reflecting on this, and I appreciate that. But some sections come across as you are still framing women’s primary role, at least here, as potential romantic partners. I think you could write a comment about this motivation and how you are still wrestling with it in your own life, without indulging it it so much. Sorry if that’s too forward.
One sentence that stood out to me in particular:
“Selfishly, I’d love to see more mid-late 20s or older women join.” This gives me the impression that the main thing you think of when you think of older women joining is how it benefits your dating prospects. That’s at least the framing here, though in real life I would guess you oscillate more between this framing and a more personifying one. But this specific sentence has no real reason for being here. There’s some self-reflection that this perspective is harmful (the “selfishly”) but not enough in my view. If this statement was necessary to include, I would have liked to see more caveating along the lines of “I don’t like that this is how I think and I’m trying to change it, but …” But since this statement seems unnecessary to me, I’m wondering why it’s even included.
The section that S.E. Montgomery commented on about EA’s gender ratio also stood out to me. As they already explained, it read to me like you were saying one important reason to work on the gender imbalance is to help men date. That seems like a nice benefit of improving the gender ratio, but far and away from the most important reasons for it. Framing it in a dating context feels uncomfortable.
I’m going into detail about this comment not because I want to chastise you or anything, but because this serves (to me at least) of an example of where a lot of harassing/objectifying/oppressive behavior towards women comes from. It’s a subtle thing, so I want other people to read this, see an example worked out in real life, and have that inform their thoughts in the future. This comment isn’t egregious or anything; and I think it is quite valuable for many reasons (namely, the content itself, describing motivations). But I also wanted to point out in detail what I saw as flaws.