Categories
domestic violence guns men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny

Can’t Drive, Can’t Shoot: Idiots respond to news that the YouTube shooter was female

Modified screenshot of news coverage earlier today

By David Futrelle

More than a few observers were surprised, as was I, by the news that the “active shooter” on the YouTube campus today was not another young man angry at the world, but a female YouTuber who blamed company policies for a drop in her channels’ views who shot and wounded three others before taking her own life. [Note: This paragraph has been corrected; see bottom of post for more details.]

Naturally, a bunch of Twitter dudes decided to respond to the tragedy with jokes about women being as bad at shooting as misogynistic idiots insist they are at driving.

https://twitter.com/AnthonyChannin2/status/981308137549500421

https://twitter.com/gregvegas/status/981289349542117381

https://twitter.com/Mason0010/status/981277110831431680

https://twitter.com/elderindro/status/981294495420608512

Others made inane “ironic” jokes about glass ceilings being broken, welcoming the female shooter, whose name has not yet been released, to the boys club.

https://twitter.com/WeWuzVikings/status/981308119904083969

Others made jokes about sandwiches and how this means women should stay in the home lol lmao #AmiriteFellas?

https://twitter.com/sinndustries/status/981303664160706560

https://twitter.com/bk5950/status/981306476147937280

https://twitter.com/pvrgist2/status/981296657655529473

Then there were these dudes:

Congratulations, fellas! Amazing work all around. Really doing your gender proud.

NOTE: This post has been corrected. The initial news reports suggested the shooting may have been related to a domestic dispute, and I said something to that effect in the first paragraph. The police later released the name of the shooter, Nasim Aghdam, a YouTube creator. NBC is now reporting that she was angry with YouTube for allegedly discriminating against her and filtering her channel in such a way that she lost a lot of her audience.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

165 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Scild

“Didn’t see your correction until after Steph! Mea culpa. I’m a bit too trigger happy tonight; need to cool it down a bit. AFK time! Nite nite my ducks.”

No worries I have zero idea why I was reading it with a “h”!

Night – or good afternoon from “the future”!

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@dslucia.

“Both Kupo and myself have noted that this is not what anybody was actually arguing. Nobody here made that assertion, so your attempt to divert the conversation toward that is… well, let’s say “dishonest”.

It’s not dishonest. It’s how I read Scild’s post.

They clarified – I understand their clarified position and agreed. That’s it. Hence me saying we’ve moved past that.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

I suspect that the comment that Steph is questioning is this one from Scildfreja:

If a murderer is mentally unwell, that’s not the cause of their violence. The cause of their violence is a belief that they are justified. It’s entitlement.

Which Steph has taken to mean “mental illness can never contribute to someone’s violent actions!” instead of (and this is my interpretation of the quote) “whether or not someone is mentally ill, the ultimate cause of their actions is the fact that they felt justified in acting in such a fashion and made the choice to do so.”

She also combined her question with a defense of Feministguy’s post, (for no reason that I can discern- it’s a pretty obvious case of him attributing violence to speculated mental illness), which has muddied the waters. I’m pretty sure these are two separate queries, though.

In any case, this line of inquiry is a moot point, since, regardless of how one might want to consider how mental illness might contribute to the violent actions a person chooses to do, it is forbidden to speculate on this topic on this blog.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

we have this mental health arguement again? mrex returned?🤦

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

unless it’s that he assumed her mental heath caused her actions without evidence that it did?

this is exactly what feminist guy did 🤷

Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
2 years ago

First of all:
I’ve seen Steph Tohill comment here before, before “Feminist” guy showed up, so if any puppetry was going on, I’d suspect the sock was on the other foot.

I don’t, fwiw. I think since Steph had not bothered to read the comments policy, Steph was unaware this behavior was a problem, and a PRATT. I’d like Steph to go back and reread it again, especially this bit:

You don’t have to agree with all the rules and/or cultural norms here; but while you’re commenting here you are expected to respect them. If you think a rule is really, really wrong or ridiculous, don’t argue about it in the comments; send me an email about it.

Steph, if you want to rules lawyer about this, you can point out that we are arguing back against you instead of emailing David. In my case at least, this is because I’d prefer you to see the point and be able to continue to comment appropriately here.

Secondly, I’d like to applaud everybody’s comments above explaining the reasons for the rule.

I’d like to suggest a further update to the comment policy – maybe a link to a subpage on the “mental illness causes violence” theory, based on the comments made here, especially dslucia’s

https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/04/03/cant-drive-cant-shoot-idiots-respond-to-news-that-the-youtube-shooter-was-female/comment-page-2/#comment-2079847

I have a third point I would like to raise, but will put it in another comment.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

in the thread with mrex before I shared plenty of links about mental illness and violence – maybe we can include these and some more in this page about false believes of what makes people commit violence?

https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/02/15/on-gab-some-are-blaming-yesterdays-school-shooting-by-a-possible-white-supremacist-on-the-jews/comment-page-3/#comments

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

People have already addressed the problems around conflating criminality and mental illness very well. So I’ll just chip in with a minor, but possibly related, bugbear of mine.

It’s a common whinge of mine that reports of legal matters are invariably wrong. Now that’s not a ‘fake news’ thing. I used to provide legal advice to some newspapers here. Journalists try their best; but they’re rarely legal experts or have anything beyond a layperson’s assumptions about mental health. There’s also a frenzied scramble whenever an event like this happens for copy. In the old days it was speaking to anyone who vaguely knew the subject. That was bad enough, but now it’s even worse when there’s rapid scanning of social media posts without even verifying whether they’re actually anything to do with the subject; or even if they are, what the context might be.

The false logic of “bad thing, therefore not ‘normal'” is common enough; but even the ‘verified’ stories should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt. An example from my night lawyer days: “History of mental illness” turned out to be “Once went to hypnotherapist to try to stop smoking”.

Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
2 years ago

My third point is on the topic Steph has raised about the existence of legal defences regarding “insanity”.

IANAL, so if this is a suitable topic for discussion as a general topic, not as we speculate it might apply in this or any other specific case, I’d love to hear from law Mammotheers.

My understanding is that in cases where the person can be tried, obviously the defence can use it, and the evidence in that individuals case can be weighed. Also that it can be used when the person being tried can’t participate in their own defense because of mental illness.
In any case, it’s individual to the case, and holds force only after judgment is made.

In this case, we will never have that trial. In Australia, in such cases, AFAIK, we must have an inquest, but these are very lengthy unglamourous procedures, and the media have long moved on before the findings are released, and public opinion is already firmly set. Or the justice system hurries to action instead of investigating fully, in order to move to the next, higher body-count case.

As far as I’m concerned, the idea her crime was caused by, or contributed to by, mental illness, should only apply if a properly conducted inquest says so.

ETA: Oooh, Alan, goody!
Any thoughts?

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Croquembouche,

On the subject of reading the comments policy.

“You’re who this blog is really meant for. The comments too, provided you can participate in a generally constructive manner and can treat those you disagree with here with a certain degree of respect. Snark is fine; attacks and accusations and namecalling, not so much. “

Pots and kettles suddenly come to mind.

“Steph, if you want to rules lawyer about this, you can point out that we are arguing back against you instead of emailing David. In my case at least, this is because I’d prefer you to see the point and be able to continue to comment appropriately here.”

I have not once tried to “rules lawyer”, I have no issue with rules established on a private page.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

Steph

no one attacked or accused or name called you – they observed what you were arguing and told you what they thought and that you didn’t follow comments policy. that is discussion and observation.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ Croquembouche

Oooh, Alan, goody!
Any thoughts?

Heh, many, and you know I never miss an opportunity to blather. The interface of the law and mental health is messy and, to a large degree, arbitrary. I have been thinking about doing an overview. Currently though it’s obviously a raw subject, and also some of the points may be a bit triggering. I know there’s people here who’ve had less than satisfactory dealings with the powers that be and I wouldn’t want them to suddenly encounter topics here that might bring back bad memories.

I think what I could do is maybe compose something over the weekend and then stick a link to it on Google drive; if that’s something people would like to read about?

Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
2 years ago

@Valentin, yes, that was an excellent comment full of excellent links. I didn’t say it at the time, but thank you for it.

@ Steph Tohill, I made a point saying I didn’t believe you were a sock puppet OR a sock puppeteer. I made a point of saying I wanted you to be able to continue to comment.
In what way is this not constructive, respectful; in what way is it an attack or an accusation or name calling?

The rules lawyering thing I brought
up to highlight the fact that by continuing to respond to you seriously we are ourselves giving you the benefit of the doubt, while bending the policy ourselves. It was not an accusation that you had already rules lawyered.

I note this is the only point you responded to, by quoting a rule that doesn’t apply to this case.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Valentin,

I am pretty sure “prat” falls under namecalling unless it has a different meaning here?

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill
PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times

As for you having violated comments policy that is debatable.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Croquembouche

But I didn’t see the need for you to raise it again, or comment on rules lawyering given this post a while ago:

“It’s not dishonest. It’s how I read Scild’s post.

They clarified – I understand their clarified position and agreed. That’s it. Hence me saying we’ve moved past that.”

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ Steph

PRATT here is an acronym for “Point refuted a thousand times”. It’s not being used in the English sense.

ETA: Ninja’d!

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Tree

Aha. I’m a Brit. No familiarity with that term apart from as “prat”.

Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
2 years ago

@Alan, I’d love to see that.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ Croquembouche

Your wish is my command. Now I’ll just have to remember how to spell M’Naghten (not that any of the legal texts spell it consistently).

Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
2 years ago

@ Steph Tohill,
I’m not sure what it is that you think I have unnecessarily raised again.
If its the spirit and intention of that bit of the comments policy – well, I think maybe you do need to reflect on it a little more , instead of leaping to a defensive position.

People have been reacting for reasons they’ve described very clearly. You’ve acknowledged almost none of them.

Scildfreya in particular is regarded as a beautiful miracle of clarity round these parts, for those who are willing to speak and listen in good faith.

People are continuing to show you good faith by continuing to engage with you. Please stop seizing on misinterpretations of what we have said or acronyms we use to dismiss us.

Maybe try reflecting on and responding to what we have actually said? Like, thoughts or questions about the automatic stigmatisation of certain kinds of criminals as mentally ill, and the resultant splash damage to MI people and the broader community.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Croquembouche

I think you’re just going back over old ground that’s been done and dealt with so didn’t (and don’t) understand you raising it again.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

the automatic stigmatisation of certain kinds of criminals as mentally ill

I’ve started on that article because it’s more interesting than what I’m meant to be doing but, at the risk of spoilers, you may be interested to know “Asshole is not a mental illness” is sort of enshrined in law.

As used in this Article, the terms “mental disease or defect” do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

I remember I heared somewhere that in Soviet times criminal behaviour is considered mental illness – any kind of criminal behaviour, which is same logic as these people who say “normal” people can’t do such horrible things! they must have mental illness! this means people don’t have to think about what consequences will come from their behaviour.

Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
Croquembouche, extrenely mamal omen
2 years ago

@ Steph,
I don’t feel you’ve dealt with the old ground at all, but clearly you don’t intend to either. OK. Whatever.

@Alan, this sounds interesting!

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

Steph,

i believe croquembouche and others such as me, raise this issue “again” because it seems like even if you say you agree with one small part of what scild said, you don’t want to understand main issue. instead you want to attack comments policy, once time to disagreeing with it (and misinterpret) and another time to use part of it to say people broke the rules and attacked you. which no one did. I understand you thought PRATT is same as English insult – but this already explained. I often misunderstand things on here too, so that is quite usual.

However, I feel you fixed on small things, small misunderstanings, but didn’t really want to change your mind on the main discussion, or think about what you said and why this argument is harmful. i know maybe you are new and didn’t seen before comments – but most people here have this same argument EVERY time David writes about shooters or violence and they are tired of it. (I know I am tired!). and this is one reason why it is in comments policy.

this arguement is not new or fresh or some “hard topic” we must discuss.

it is very rarely in any place, not just here and not just on internet that people talk about that mentally ill people are vulnerable, require help, care and support. mostly it is about some how it is their fault- they chose to be this way, they seek attention, if they just TRY really hard they can get better. or it is about that they are violent.

this are basically only public discussions about mental illness and it is so fucking harmful! so I believe it is very important in this place where we have some control, if people try to stay this discussion we shut it down! there is enough of it already without our contribution. it is about solidarity and compassion.

dslucia
dslucia
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill

I think you’re just going back over old ground that’s been done and dealt with so didn’t (and don’t) understand you raising it again.

Just because you have “moved on” from something, that means nobody else is allowed to address it?

You’ve shown an underlying resistance toward accepting the word of the commenters here. (And a complete disregard for some of those words as it happens, but I understand, I can be quite long-winded.) Now, I believe I can empathize with that, because for a long while when I started reading the comments here, I would occasionally feel pretty defensive for various reasons.

So what I’m going to say is that the vast majority of users on this website who respond to anyone to argue with them while giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’re not trolling, argue with the intention of that person learning how to better navigate sensitive topics like this one.

It’s great that you looked at the comments policy and understood Scildfreja’s clarification and revised your positions accordingly, but part of the point is that you were pushing back against those in the first place. And the entire time, you’ve been baulking at everyone else here as well.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@Steph

In case you missed the blockquote instructions, here they are again:

If you see a quote button, highlight the quoted text inside the message box and click the “quote” button. If you don’t see a quote button, wrap the quoted text with the following tags:

<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>

The above will look like this after you post:

quoted text

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@Steph

I’m a bit confused. You said this a page ago:

I’ve already updated my stance on feminist guy’s comment now that I was able to find it.

But I couldn’t find any post of yours prior to that which said anything along the lines of “oh! There the comment is! Yeah, that was totally out of line.”

The closest I could find was you saying “yeah, IF feministguy was internet diagnosing, I understand the side-eye”.

How was the commentariat expected to know that you found the post and revised your stance if you did not tell us that? It seems like you have skipped acknowledging what you have changed your mind on (and not just with regard to feministguy), instead snapping out “why are you still talking about that? I revised my stance!” to people who have not been told you revised your stance or what you revised it TO. This is not a good way to have a good-faith discussion.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Catalpa – I am genuinely not snapping, so you shouldn’t take it that way.

Just don’t get why something that has been dealt with is being rehashed over and over and over. That’s all. It’s like flogging a horse that is dead, buried and long since rotted away!

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

It’s like flogging a horse that is dead, buried and long since rotted away!

not really though since you’re still talking about it at the top of this page of comments. more like we can’t see a horse, but you can and you said it is dead and we ask for proof.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Croquembouche

I dealt with the old ground right here:

“Thanks for the taking the time to offer the broader explanation and yes I agree. A knee jerk default to “they have mental health issues” as a defence for murderous behaviour is problematic.

And if that’s what Feminist Guy did I understand the side eye!”

And here:

““I was only taking issue with the assertion that mental health issues can never be a causative factor in somebody’s behaviour which is contrary to current accepted medical/legal opinion.

That’s all.

I’ve already updated my stance on feminist guy’s comment now that I was able to find it.”

And here:

“@Schild

Fairy Muff. I read the articles frequently but rarely read the comments / rarely comment so wasn’t aware of the frequency of such comments BTL.

Although I have noted and am frequently annoyed by the media tendency to leap to diagnose mental health as driving murderous behaviour. Well murderous behaviour by white people.”

And here:

“It’s not dishonest. It’s how I read Scild’s post.

They clarified – I understand their clarified position and agreed. That’s it. Hence me saying we’ve moved past that.”

I don’t see what new needs to be added.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

““I was only taking issue with the assertion that mental health issues can never be a causative factor in somebody’s behaviour which is contrary to current accepted medical/legal opinion.

well this is one thing some people still don’t agree about – so here is your answer why this conversation continues 🤷

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Valentin

“instead you want to attack comments policy,”

??????!
I said: “I have not once tried to “rules lawyer”, I have no issue with rules established on a private page.”

Shadowplay
2 years ago

Jesus. Give it a rest, would you?

@Valentine

Good leave so far?

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@dslucia

“It’s great that you looked at the comments policy and understood Scildfreja’s clarification and revised your positions accordingly, “

Well exactly. So it seems silly to continue to “@“ me asking my view on it.

solecism
solecism
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill

I said: “I have not once tried to “rules lawyer”, I have no issue with rules established on a private page.”

As a bystander here, it sure as hell feels like you’ve been rules lawyering from my perspective–first the comments policy, and then individual commenters. I get that it doesn’t feel like it from your perspective. But really, just stop. Now you’re arguing about whether you’re arguing. It’s annoying AF.

People here have been handing you tools to climb out of the hole, and you just keep using them as shovels to dig deeper. Can you please just shut up and listen for awhile, or at least stop responding and allow the conversation to move on to something else? Three pages of comments and most of them have been people dealing with you.

I’m new here and haven’t managed to get into no-you-did skirmishes with multiple regular commenters. It’s not that hard to avoid, really.

Don’t bother to reply to me directly. I am not interested in engaging further on this particular pages-long derail.

@OP
The myth that women can’t shoot or drive…I think about the statistic that the single largest job in the USA is as driver, and that the job is held predominantly by white men. So that tired bullshit joke is preemptive defensiveness to hold onto that particular job market, maybe? Where are all the jokes now about how self-driving cars can’t drive? Especially in the wake of the AZ incident…

(See what I did there?)

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@solecism
Oh, but the AZ incident was surely an example of women being unable to drive, since the safety driver was a woman. (Don’t get me started on how well cars can drive autonomously. I’ll rant for days.)

Edit: forgot to add HOLY SHIT the amount of misogyny against that safety driver for not pleasing their boner enough.

Also, hello and welcome!

Shadowplay
2 years ago

So that tired bullshit joke is preemptive defensiveness to hold onto that particular job market, maybe?

I think it’s too old for that? I remember that jokes about women drivers were old when I were a kid – and that were back in the late 50’s, when jobs were for life and seemingly grew on trees, so there wasn’t exactly a lot of fear about being replaced.

Shadowplay
2 years ago

In unrelated news, Stormfront is going subscription only. The headline gave me a chuckle (More accurately, I laughed like a hyena)

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Steph,

I don’t know if defending someone who violated the comment policy is in itself a violation of the policy, but since the purpose of the policy is to avoid these kinds of arguments from happening constantly, doing it is not going to go over well. The best thing to do if you think someone has been unfairly accused of violating it is to email David about it. Don’t argue about it. If you just want to clarify why it was a violation and want to ask, fine. But accept the explanation right away or if you disagree, again, email David instead of arguing it.

Since you were defending a comment you didn’t even read in the first place, the best thing to do is apologize and drop it. I know people’s first impulse is usually to defend themselves but it’s not always the right thing to do.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@Steph

I am genuinely not snapping, so you shouldn’t take it that way.

That’s what you’re taking away from my comment? That I used the word “snap” and since I did you don’t have to listen to the rest of it? Don’t tone police me, please.

My point is that you have not been clearly communicating what your stance is on things. You seem to have been expecting people to read your mind, and declaring that a topic is dead when you haven’t addressed people’s concerns.

Just don’t get why something that has been dealt with is being rehashed over and over and over.

It’s because you said “yeah, but the legal system considers mental illness to contribute to people’s crimes. Why shouldn’t we be able to talk about that?” And have never walked back on that point. (Saying “I agree it’s messed up that people immediately jump to mental illness as a cause” doesn’t negate you wanting to talk about how, since the legal system acknowledges mental illness, the comments policy should also apparently allow for that.)

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

Good leave so far?

it is nice to be at home but some struggles since my girlfriend left her job because she got bullied. I agree with her but i hope she can find a new job soon, because we will struggle soon with money 😕

Shadowplay
2 years ago

Damn, sorry to hear that my friend. Even when someone does the right thing, they wind up paying somehow. 🙁

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

she did necessary thing – she is the victim here and I blame her colleagues fully for this situation. if she would let me I will go and talk to them about what they did, but it is useless.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

Good morning! I see we are still having a tussle. Please allow me to internet diagnose the problem!

Steph, you’re doin a bit of this:

My comments have already move on past this.

I’ve already updated my stance on feminist guy’s comment now that I was able to find it.

(i.e. using ‘we’ve already moved on from that!)

and not a whole lotta this:

Fairy Muff. I read the articles frequently but rarely read the comments / rarely comment so wasn’t aware of the frequency of such comments BTL.

(i.e. acquiescing to arguments made)

Case in point, dslucia made a large and excellent post about why we don’t internet diagnose back on the second comment page and what you did that caused offense. Your reply was to ignore all of it but the one thing you felt you had footing on by pointing out that you didn’t know which of Feministguy’s posts was being talked about. Which is a fair thing to say, but in refusing to acknowledge those things being said, we sort of have to take it as a given that your mind wasn’t changed by it.

Then later, you say things like “My comments have already move on past this.” or “it seems silly to continue to “@“ me asking my view on it.” It’s not at all silly to do so, because you have scarcely acknowledged the change in your opinions, and those acknowledgements come separated from the places they would be expected – in the replies to the arguments. The distance between them makes it harder to know where your position is.

That is my perception of why we’re still having a tussle! Serves 6 to 12, add salt to taste.

Where do you stand on this now, anyways? Has anything we’ve said swayed you?

EDIT: @Valya, I know we’ve talked on the discord about it, but please let your girlfriend know that there is a whole mob of internet strangers who are cheering for her and wishing her well!

Shadowplay
2 years ago

@Valentine

She did right. No question at all.

I understand too well the urge to have a wee chat with her ex-collegues, but she is also right there too. It wouldn’t be for the best.

You’re a good person. 🙂

solecism
solecism
2 years ago

@Shadowplay

I think it’s too old for that? I remember that jokes about women drivers were old when I were a kid – and that were back in the late 50’s, when jobs were for life and seemingly grew on trees, so there wasn’t exactly a lot of fear about being replaced.

True. *Thinks about it*

But maybe we should take into account the legacy of WWII? Where women stepped into so many male-coded jobs civilian-side. And did well (of course), and enjoyed it, and didn’t necessarily retire willingly back into the kitchen/birthing parlor (and all the other labor-intensive work coded female) with an aw shucks when men returned from the war front to resume their old life exactly as they left it. As if. Plus, so many women were involved directly in the war effort but prohibited from combat duties. Thus many ended up as Army drivers. Including my grandma as a WAC.

And then add to that the slowly evolving legal/social status of women from property to wards of their fathers/husbands/brothers to fully legal adults. The jokes about women drivers are reminiscent of how some people like to joke about kids trying to drive and the car landing in the lake, for example. Like, how cute they’re trying to play grown-up. Best leave it to the real adults, tho.

Basically, the 50s were an era of doubling down on the white male privilege, and the Civil Rights era happened just when it did for a reason, yo. Along with all the other liberation movements of that time and building on it into the 70s onward.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

that is too kind!)) I know I would just make things worse if I went to confront them! but hard not to feel angry about it.

Shadowplay
2 years ago

@solecism

Good point. I personally don’t remember it in our family ( neither Mom nor Dad put up with that sort of shit. Hell, Dad’s older sister flew Spitfires during the war, for god’s sake! ) but jokes and general dismissal as a way of reinforcing “the traditional woman’s place” after a time of turmoil makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Thank you for the food for thought. 🙂

@Valentine

Yep. It’s hard not to feel angry. Harder still not to want to do something about it.