A generation of young women schooled in "be kind" rather than "stay safe"

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

Here's an excellent article that exposes how the younger generations of women have been presented with a version of feminism via "education, social media, and popular culture that's been reframed around the language of inclusion, allyship, and the rejection of exclusionary boundaries".

It's a detailed exploration, far too long to summarise, but looks at why so many young women have been caught up caught up in "allyship at all costs", to the detriment of their own safety. As an older feminist, it seems really helpful in proposing that we mustn't dismiss young women's views. Their social learning took place in an environment where their genuine compassion and care for the young who got caught up in thinking they could change sex was understandably their priority. They have a genuine compassion for these unwell young people and a desire to be supportive and helpful. These positive aspects were reinforced and anyone who posed questions, raised dissent or concerns was excluded and often punished. They were never allowed to explore the issues that are essential for an in depth understanding of the complexities and risks to safety.

"Young women's support for transgender identity claims, including claims that undermine sex based rights, is not irrational. It is the predictable product of social learning in an institutional environment that has framed affirmation as compassion and boundary setting as bigotry, transmitted through online cultures that punish dissent, to a demographic with high empathic responsiveness and incomplete access to the history of why sex based protections were established".

It deserves a wide readership.

https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2058056297593864606

Archive link: https://archive.ph/tFywd

I'm not sure you've quite understood that article - it seems to explore possibilities rather than limit. But never mind.

It resonates with a lot of women, feminists, parents and those who work with the young. It also ties in with the growing realisation about some of the negative impacts of social media and limiting free speech are having on young people. That's not confirmation bias or misogyny. It's responsible adults exploring some of the unintended consequences of social developments and trends.

Maybe people who spend time on here arguing that lesbians should accept men as sexual partners will view it differently? Who knows?

Gosh, was that an ‘old hag’ accusation I just saw used to shut women up? I think it was.

Apparently OP is old, bigoted and should stop trying to protect young women from the dangers older women see all to clearly.

Yes and you have to police yourself sometimes against internalised misogyny and the feeling that it’s a woman’s job to be nice and accommodate others even at the cost of one’s own desires and comfort.

I have mentioned on here before about my treat (in difficult weeks of work and elderly care) of disappearing to a lovely cafe and enjoying a book with cake and coffee or wine. Bliss. I was recently approached by an older man ( despite the numerous empty tables round about). He said ‘ you won’t mind if I join you as he prepared to sit down’. I automatically smiled but said ‘ No, I prefer to be alone thanks’. He gazed at me astounded and a member of staff ushered him to another table. I actually felt mean for a minute - the usual middle aged Christian upbringing mum kicking in ..maybe he was lonely, maybe he hasn’t spoken to anyone else today etc etc…but I had a word with myself and thought no. I’m important too and it’s not my job to entertain a strange man at the cost of my own peace or need for a break.

I'm not sure you've quite understood that article - it seems to explore possibilities rather than limit. But never mind.

Ah no. It points the finger at social indoctrination.

It resonates with a lot of women, feminists, parents and those who work with the young.

It's Interesting it's never the young who are directly queried about how they arrive at their conclusions but conveniently relies on the heresay of others who happen to provide confirmation bias. The same pattern occurred with the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria 'research' where disgruntled parents from anti trans forums were the 'source' for evidence rather than the horses mouth effectively discrediting the entire project forcing a retraction.

It also ties in with the growing realisation about some of the negative impacts of social media and limiting free speech are having on young people. That's not confirmation bias or misogyny. It's responsible adults exploring some of the unintended consequences of social developments and trends.

The misogyny is in the assumption that exclusively women are vulnerable to suspending rational thinking because of their inherent emotional/psychological 'weaknesses'. Where have we heard that before?

Maybe people who spend time on here arguing that lesbians should accept men as sexual partners will view it differently? Who knows?

Perhaps, but that's not relevant to me so don't know why you are bringing it up.

Boys are just as prone to be led up the garden path, but they're not so relevant in this particular context, because the messaging for boys is different.
Girls get told to be kind and supportive and to put other people's wishes ahead of their feelings. Boys get told that too much empathy is unmanly and not asserting themselves is weakness.
So suggestible girls feel they have to affirm without question, let men into women's spaces and turn on girls who can still assert their boundaries; and suggestible boys admire Andrew Tate, coerce their girlfriends into pornified sex and despise boys who treat girls with respect.

It may have started that way @OneSnugGoose but it took on a bit of a life of it's own.

I LOVE your name - have a bit of a thing for geese and snugs!

We are talking about generations of women not a 'suggestible' small minority who support trans people so the implication is inherent weakness in female rational thinking because it applies to a massive cohort.

So much this for me.

I have daughters, nieces, god daughters and I see that they do not even know what they have lost!

During a chat with my god daughter a while ago, she proudly told that we should accommodate expanding the term "woman."

She has friends who blah blah blah. She saw it as generosity, and I could see she felt slightly sorry for me, being behind the times.

It struck me that I have lived in a golden age for women. Readily available contraception, sex before marriage, access to credit, employment, education and on and on. I did not fight for any of it - I was simply born in the right place at the right time. I enjoyed the fruits of the labour of all those amazing women who went before me, and piece by piece, laid this down for me.

Therefore, I am very happy to fight this movement for my daughters and god daughter who really do not see how badly this could go!

The pornification of female singers and actors is mind blowing at the moment.

It keeps getting more and more debased.

This is always weird to me.

Trans activists love a definition.

They love to define and redefine definitions.

In fact, it is hard to find a definition they don't enjoy.

Except when it comes to biology.

Then they don't like definitions at all - biology doesn't define them

Like feminist activists of the past century thought biology shouldn't define them?

Em..., nope.

No. Feminists of the past believed they could be a woman with a woman's biology and whatever else they wished to achieve. Biology plus. They aimed for that and many succeeded.

Now it seems that female biology is so scarily defining that to be yourself you have to chop bits of it off and call yourself a man. Modern feminism has gone backwards into defeatism. It's very depressing.

Camille Paglia talked about this, in an ideal world yes you can do as you please and experience no heightened risk. I would love to be able to say to young women that it’s perfectly fine. The reality is when my own DD is old enough to be out I’ll be talking to her about not drinking too much, be careful, etc etc.

I said it before on here, we are teaching children not to have boundaries when we tell kids that a man in their bathroom needs to be treated with kindness instead of deep suspicion, oh and we lie to them as well “thats not a wolf, thats a sheep, don’t be a fucking bigot Agatha!”. It’s actually insane that anyone thinks that making grown ass men who damn well know they are taking the piss comfortable is more important than actual safety.

You don’t really understand feminism do you? Bless your little heart. Nice try at a gotcha though. Might need more research. 4/10 for effort.

I’ve seen people believe stuff that clearly isn’t true on the Israel stuff and this in the same vien imo. If someone makes a claim you have to automatically believe them otherwise you are a bad person. Any expression of scepticism on your part is a moral failing. i think it’s much more corrosive than we acknowledge when we tell children to believe blatant lies.

For what it’s worth, that sounds pretty creepy to me. If there are no other tables, a ‘do you mind if I join you?’ is polite. If there are plenty, the assumption your space is his to encroach on is a bit much. A woman wouldn’t do that to a man.

@OneSnugGoose people were saying "be kind" online long before Caroline Flack and not just as a generic phrase but as a buzzword. That's just when it really took off. Your repugnance is a bit odd.

It might not have penetrated everyone's social circle but there was a lot of "be kind" offline as well. In particular - and of particular importance to the current issue - it was (and is?) a major sentiment expressed on little girls' clothing. Girls specifically - kindness doesn't matter for boys, apparently.

Every generation of women is socialised in be kind rather than stay safe.
That's why women stay with troubled men who abuse them when the man is ill or has an addiction or has mental health issues.
That's why they give time to men who are odd and make them feel uneasy if they're 'nice' and 'it's a shame'.
That's why women care for aging fathers who abused them and think they can love damaged men better, and have sex they don't want.
The young trans ally women are just the latest example of the manipulation of women to see men as victims and themselves as saviours.
It relies not just on the socialisation to be kind in an altrustic way, but also offers something in return, by giving them an illusion of power. By doing this thing, you have the power to fix a problem.

Fully agree @5128gap

'Be Kind' isn't actually true to it's mantra.

'Everyone is worthy of respect' is a better sentiment and saying everyone matters explicitly.

Be kind ultimately became a set of prescribed values which has hierarchy. Women are placed near the bottom of this hierarchy through their invisibly.

Everyone is worthy of respect actually subconsciously adds the point that everyone matters so has an element of self. Self respect is an element which is massively over looked and unvalued.

This is what we teach DS.

Sometimes you have to be tough with people to be kind too. Being kind carries this sentiment of being rather wet and passive. But if we really believe in the worth and value of someone, sometimes we have to be 'big fat meanies' and tell them to belt up, stop being so selfish and lazy and also have respect for others - because it's not all about them. It's a crucial part of everyone being respected. The free passes given out to a narcissist minority by be kind have been utterly toxic.

The whole suicide thing has been built on falsehoods, lies and coercive patterns of behaviour that have failed to be identified by those in authority. This is really concerning. Institutions should understand these patterns and know the difference between someone who really is in mental distress and have better strategies to deal with them. You don't relieve someones mental stress by just doing what they say - anxiety is often driven by avoidant type behaviour. By indulgence you can make the problem worse if you validate it. Again sometimes a firm no and then handholding someone through something they don't really want is what is necessary.

Be kind was a simple slogan which people thought would provide a simple solution. There are no simple solutions in life to big problems. The sooner we get this through thick heads the better. Life sometimes isn't fair. We can't get everything we want in life. And sometimes it's ok for others to say no and put themselves first because it is better for their safety and wellbeing and society in general.

Somehow in repeating be kind like robots we forgot these other important life lessons to our cost.

What is it with posters who have a female name in their username and misogynistic posts? This week has been full of them.

Be kind has been used as a phrase to bully my dd. "I want that - give it to me or you are not being kind". Its been awful, I've had to reteach my dd about be kind, to emphasize that the first person to be kind to is herself (put on your own oxygen mask first), that being kind is a two way street. Its been hard but we got there in the end.

I have advantages though I'm a 'hag' raising a teen, I'm way beyond being nice and kind for the sake of it.

That thread posted above was a real eye opener for how be kind is weaponised against women.

I’ve told this story on here before, but I think it’s relevant here too:

When my DS was tiny, there was a “mommy blogger” with 4 kids (two older boys and a set of girl twins) who had some very interesting house rules. The main one was the following triplet:

Safe, respectful, kind - in that order

And that set of rules covered all eventualities - so they didn’t need a whole list of “don’t hit your brother, don’t throw food on the floor, don’t splash the bath water,” they just needed “safe, respectful, kind” in that order.

The illustrative example she gave was this. Small child runs onto the road. First thing you, the adult, do is run and grab the child and pull them off the road. Safe first. Technically it was disrespectful to the wishes of the child, who wanted to run onto the road, but safe always comes first. Technically it was also possibly unkind - you probably scared the child with your response, you might have hurt their arm a bit. But safe always comes first.

Once you have a safe situation, then you deal with respectful. Respectful, she described (knowing her audience was her young children) as being safe towards other people’s feelings and belongings. So just because you’re not being unsafe by drawing all over your brother’s new trainers, you’re not being respectful - they’re his, and it’s his decision what happens to them. And just because you aren’t being unsafe and physically hurting your sister by calling her names, you are not being respectful - you are hurting her feelings.

And then once you have a safe and respectful situation, then you can think about being kind. And kind is when you go above and beyond - when you offer someone some of your snack, or you help them tie their shoelaces when they’re struggling, or you tell them that you like their drawing. It’s doing something extra to make someone happy. But kind is useless unless you are first safe and respectful - it would be kind for me to let my DS have ice cream for breakfast every day, but it wouldn’t be safe to his health. Same with respectful - it might be respectful for a child to obey an adult who tells them to break the law, but it isn’t safe.

Oh and the rules are self-reflexive - you need to be safe to yourself, and respectful of your own needs/boundaries, before you are kind and treat yourself.

The thing that strikes me now is the placement of kind in that triplet. It’s not at the beginning. It’s emphatically not the most important thing - it’s the least important (of three important things). And it never, ever, overrides safe or respectful.