Subject: It's a religious rule for me.
Author:
Posted on: 2019-07-09 02:15:00 UTC
It's just the risk of people falling into that trap, I guess. It's certainly possible. I do not see you as subhuman and I certainly see you as friends, but we all have desires.
If there's at least one other person present, it's fine with me. Maybe we could work something out with two beta readers?
I think I at least went for the spirit of the PPC here, but I can tell that there are a lot of parts that need some serious paring down. Unfortunately, I can't tell which ones or how to pare them down. On top of that, there may be other flaws in my writing. I need someone who would be appropriate for this situation. SPaG checking is not needed.
Also, as a personal rule I do not communicate with girls one-on-one unless it's important enough to qualify, and unfortunately the PPC does not qualify. Keep that in mind.
Email is neo.skater.ppc@gmail.com.
I didn't mean to be sexist, and saying that stupid thing was a mistake. I apologize to you all.
Now, while we're on the subject: Is anyone, and I mean anyone, willing to volunteer to beta read my Permission Attempt?
I do appreciate that you apologized, but I would prefer it if your apology went further- like, going into "this assumption I made about women was inappropriate because x" or such. I wouldn't expect that sort of apology if you still couldn't interact because of your religion, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The part that bothered me specifically was the "we all have desires" part. For example, I'm a woman, and I'm asexual. So I don't actually experience that sort of sexual desire. There are probably other women on the Board who have sexualities incompatible with your gender identity, as well. I might be willing to beta your work in the future, but sorry, not this time.
I'm not saying it's not!
But, OTOH, Neo already apologized, and his subsequent comments very clearly explained what he meant. It certainly seems that he has a hard-and-fast relgious RULE here. That means it's not really because of some assumption he has about women in general. The way Neo himself describes it, it seems (my personal thoughts on the very concept of that sort of rule aside) to have been designed as some kind of safety precaution against the absolute minority.
Either way, I am, very seriously, asking if your request is necessary. That's down to your opinion. I don't know, and if you answer yes than I'll absolutely respect that. But I want to be sure, because the "good, now apologize harder" response to an apology (which, to me, is how you came across—this may not have beem your intention) tends to concern me. It's a pretty strong thing to say, and it really has the tendency to sting.
I'm not sure if it's any of my business though...
I did appreciate the apology, but the rule seemed less hard-and-fast to me, as some of the subsequent comments implied, since he appears to have said that he's now accepting female betas.
My main objection wasn't the rule itself, necessarily, but there were some implications in the comments about "we all have desires" that bothered me more. It's possible I misread the implication of that, but it did seem kinda dismissive of both women who might not be interested in men, which is something that bothers me a lot, or of people's ability to restrain their desires in general.
I did worry that I came across as "apologize harder," and thanks for pointing that out. He apologized for the rule, which is fine by me, but didn't retract or clarify any of the implications about women, and it's those implications that I would like an apology for, or explanation of.
I don't object at all to you asking me to clarify- I don't want to be hurtful at all, especially since he did apologize, something that I appreciate.
(I might also not have seen all of the comments that were made, which may mean I missed a clarification on Neo's part).
...and Thoth, I'm glad you said something, because I didn't want it to feel like I was dogpiling in some way (and I still don't)...so hopefully this comes across first and foremost as an attempt to explain and add context. I don't want to be hurtful either--I just think this is worth the time it took to write out, and hopefully the time it takes to read as well.
Two things:
-he's said he could used a female beta so long as there's a second person there. The rule prohibits one-on-one contact, not any and all interaction with women; a chaperone of sorts makes it acceptable. (Neo, do feel free to correct me, but as far as I can tell from the information you've given--and extrapolating from the version of this that I've run into--this seems accurate.) He didn't let go of the rule so much as finding an acceptable compromise that already exists. He's still not saying he'll correspond with a female beta one-on-one.
--supporting side point: this is much like how he's been communicating here and in the Discord chats--to my knowledge this has never come up before, and that's presumably because both the Board and the Discord are public-ish mixed gender settings, so he's been able to participate without breaking the rule.
-This point extrapolates more from the version I've run into (see my earlier posts for context, but essentially I think I'm talking about a very similar rule from a different religion), so, once again, Neo should absolutely feel free to correct me, but: I don't think the "we all have desires" bit is necessarily a conclusion he arrived at on his own when thinking about why this rule exists. In the version I know, it's one of the reasons why the rule was codified...sometime early on in the past two thousand years. It has to do with the modesty of both men and women (yes, I'm aware there are other genders, but the original ruling wasn't written acknowledging that), and I think preserving reputations as well? And not to distract men from religious study? A lot of factors go into it in the version I know, is my point--and my other point is that because the rule came in so long ago, it's phrased as though everyone either is or has the potential to be a sexually interested cisgender man or woman, regardless of the reality. Rules were also often made based on the majority (or the visible majority), to a certain extent, which that particular category was implied to be considered (I say this primarily because there are comparatively few mentions of anyone who didn't match that description, and a ton of discussion treating the category as the norm).
--an extra point: in the religion I've been talking about, at least, rulings were frequently made taking appearances into account. Individual cases could be decided at the discretion of the local leader, but that was different: you'll often see something like "one shouldn't do this lest someone else see and believe that person is breaking a certain commandment." Thus, had someone come to them with the question of "can I spend time alone with this woman, given that we're both asexual and have absolutely no interest in each other past talking excitedly about baking," it's possible they would have responded with "no, because others may see and become convinced that that isn't the case and you're behaving immodestly behind closed doors." Like I mentioned earlier--rulings, especially religious ones, were often made with what was viewed to be the majority of the community in mind. (There were even cases where a majority tradition became codified because it was so popular--and a bunch more where traditions became cultural laws of sorts despite not being officially put in place, but that's a tangent.)
I do understand that (and why) that particular implication bothers you. However, I'd like to raise the idea that that's part of how the rule was explained to him, rather than something he came up with in a vacuum. I've never researched this particular area much, since I don't follow this type of rule myself (except to some extent around people who do)**, but I'm sure there are groups who have been thinking about how it could/should be adapted in this modern age. There certainly are for all sorts of other religious concepts, across many religions. The idea of a further apology doesn't sit completely well with me because, at least from my context, it feels like asking for an apology for following and citing a traditional religious rule that, while using what's now considered exclusionary language, wasn't intended to offend or degrade either on his part or, as far as has been passed down to is, on the part of the people who codified it. While I can think of other traditional rule situations where I would be strongly on the side of further apology, this case seems more like one where it might be nice if he said that he hadn't intended offense with that line, and maybe that he'd think about different phrasing to use in the future to avoid this happening again. But to have to apologize a second time for saying that at all, when it came up in the context of explaining what was going on and what the rule was trying to prevent, seems a bit much to me.
And that's my five cents. Hopefully that both helps in some way and is readable--I've tried to go over it, but I'm not at my best today. Still, as someone who's come into contact with this type of religious rule before, in both life and in courses, I thought I'd try to bring in another perspective and some context.
~Z
**I can elaborate on that if you want me to/are curious, but essentially it boils down to respecting people who do follow that set of rules wholly or partially by following suit while interacting with them; a more minimal version of that around people who I think might follow some of this ruleset; and occasionally running into people who think *I* might follow it and not seeing an easy way to correct them or even feeling it's necessary, whether because I probably won't see them again or because I don't mind not shaking hands with them in that moment and probably won't see them again. That's as far as I go, though, generally--I just wasn't raised that way, and have never really felt strongly that I should take it on.
Again, I can elaborate--probably should, since I'm mostly talking about a different rule in the set now, and this kind of discussion (as well as the connected one about how people frequently dress to portray their religion *and different divisions within the same religion*) fascinates me--but I want to finish this message and post it sometime soon, so further tangenting can wait. Absolutely do ask if you want me to elaborate, though--and also if anything I wrote in this entire post is unclear or doesn't make sense. Like I said, I'm not at my best today.
Ah, I wasn't aware that the "female betas okay" rule came with a chaperone- I simply thought that the rule had been overridden in this case, since I'm not on Discord- that's the implication I drew from his post here. That certainly helps clarify the situation.
I do appreciate the context leading up to the rule. The main thing is, it isn't the rule that bothers me at all, and I'd be perfectly happy to follow whatever sort of code Neo would prefer in these situations.
It really is the implication that bothers me. While it does seem likely that the "we all have desires" bit is an explanation for the rule and not necessarily a statement of personal belief, the way it was phrased made whether or not it was personal belief or part of the religious explanation somewhat ambiguous, and still somewhat hurtful to me personally.
Since the idea of "further apology" seems to be the problem, perhaps asking for clarification would be more suitable and less likely to cause harm?
I do like the idea of exploring the idea of this religious rule further, since it is an interesting idea, but doing it on this thread might be awkward- I worry it would come across as making assumptions about Neo personally, or talking past him.
And this does come across as an explanation/addition of context, in case you were worried.
Yeah, in his explanatory post (this one), he said "If there's at least one other person present, it's fine with me. Maybe we could work something out with two beta readers?" The Discord channel is public by nature--it has its times when it isn't very busy, but people recap and lurk and it's just generally unusual to have only two people online for very long (while there's sometimes just one person, by the time a second joins, my experience has been that a third isn't far behind. This is usually while the North Americans sleep). It's just really not the same as having a private discussion, because it's available to anyone on the server. A beta, though...that's generally either a private discussion or comments in a doc, so since he's following the rule online as well it makes sense it'd kick in there.
I'm glad the context helped/was interesting (and that it came across the way I intended, too, yeah). I agree that line could be read as ambiguous, especially without the background of experience with that sort of rule--I'd support a request for clarification, though at the end of the day, that's not my decision. It does sound more reasonable, though.
I'm more than happy to keep on talking, but you make a good point. We could start a new thread, or label it firmly as a tangential discussion--"Tangent: Cross-Gender Interaction in Jewish Law" or something, in my case (oh G-d, I feel like I'm titling an essay. Halp. I even have a subtitle: something like "Then and Now," or "Historically and In Today's Variations"). Either way, it can be firmly separated from Neo as a person, unless he wants to join the discussion, in which case he'd be as in control of how personally he wants to discuss it as everyone else would be.
~Z
I'd be happy to start another thread, if you'd like!
I read that implication as well and would also like further clarification.
Word of warning, your rather ridiculous attitudes toward the gender of someone offering a considered opinion on your writing aside (I... really don't get how it's relevant, to be honest), calling the community you want permission to contribute to unimportant isn't exactly the attitude that gets you a warm welcome. And, to be honest, from what I've seen in the Discord, you should probably hang around a little longer before deciding if this is a universe that you really want to contribute to in the first place.
--Aegis
I hope you realize that by refusing to interact with women one on one, you're essentially locking yourself out of any sort of private interactions with a huge chunk of the community, and I can guarantee a lot of the guys aren't going to want to beta for you now that you've admitted to seeing us as, what, subhuman? Not worthy of conversation? Or are you that afraid we're going to accuse you of sexual misconduct over PMs?
Because either way, it really doesn't look good, and already says to me you've epically failed the 'community interaction' part of the Permission process.
It's just the risk of people falling into that trap, I guess. It's certainly possible. I do not see you as subhuman and I certainly see you as friends, but we all have desires.
If there's at least one other person present, it's fine with me. Maybe we could work something out with two beta readers?
Next time, it would be a good idea to add "for religious reasons" somewhere in there. It explains what's going on very quickly, which is a very good idea since you're interacting with a group for whom that is very much not the norm. The addition that it's a religious restriction tells us where you're coming from and, as you can see in this thread, makes us immediately more accommodating. To be frank, it also comes across as more respectful--both in that you're not randomly prejudiced against a good chunk of the community (which isn't a welcome attitude here) and in that you're letting us know up front what's going on and why. It's the difference between "I can't take the test that day because I'm forbidden to work" and "I can't take the test that day because of religious reasons forbidding me to do work, including writing, on the holiday that falls then." (True story, by the way. That's a real restriction.)
...actually, I could go simpler: "I can't take the test that day." vs "I can't take the test that day because it's a religious holiday (and there's a code of religious accommodation)." That's often enough.
And at this point I'm starting to ramble, so I'll stop and get a few more minutes of rest...
~Z
That's pretty interesting, actually--I've run into a similar rule (I'm assuming from a different religion, though for all I know it's the same one--it's just statistically unlikely, in my experience), but never thought about how it might manifest online. There's also little to no online use among a good chunk of the people who follow it, though I'm sure I could turn up something written for the ones who do go online a lot more.
If you don't mind the question--is this your own extension of that rule, or an official part of it? Either way, it's valid; I'm just curious. (And no need to answer if you'd rather not.)
I'm currently trying to avoid signing on to beta more things before I've made more progress on the two projects I'm already involved with (not to mention I'm skating in and out of busy times), but hopefully someone else will be able to come on board and help you with the editing process. Good luck!
~Z
I understand some religions prohibit men and women from interacting with each other without an escort. That's fine.
However, your post is vague on the subject of what trap you mean, which people you think are at risk of falling into it, and whose desires you're concerned about, and I have some concerns about potential conflict between our expectations of our members and your beliefs. Could you please clarify what you mean?
~Neshomeh