Angry Men

[Paidiske]

I'm sorry but the longer you cling to this argument the sillier it sounds. Women have been too pregnant throughout history to resist subjugation and take leadership roles? Sorry but no. Next you'll be saying men impregnated women to keep them subservient.

No; I was saying that - especially in the days before effective birth control - women in the peak of their youth and strength were seldom warriors because of the practicalities of pregnancy etc.

Yeah I'm stopping you here because if it's anything like the US....very few people are incarcerated for drug use. Most are incarcerated for drug sales, trafficking, and possession. These most certainly are risk taking behavior...and you're completely ignoring all property crime.

Probably true about the sales etc vs. use. But my point is the risk factors identified for drug-related convictions leading to incarceration didn't include risk-taking behaviour but parental/family issues etc.

Let's say a law firm is looking to two defense attorneys. It's a job that requires specialized knowledge and talents. A woman is interviewed and accepts a starting pay of 150k. A man of similar qualifications is interviewed but tells them he cannot accept less than 175k because that's what another firm offered him, or that's his current pay, or that's what he makes now, or whatever reason he has....

You're saying that the firm should not hire him because of what they pay the woman? How is that fair to him? How is that fair to the firm? They may both be defense attorneys, and they may have the same job description....but one or the other may have unique talents or abilities, they may have a bigger workload or smaller role to play.

I don't see the sense in this. If he asks for a raise, should he only get it if she does as well? If you're saying that a man and woman should make the same amount as a cashier at McDonald's....I agree....but as far as I know, they do already.

If you can't answer any of the above answer this at least. Why should I work any harder than the laziest least valuable employee who does the same job if I only gain when he or she does?

I'm saying the law firm - and every other employer - should pay equally qualified and experienced men and women doing the same job, at the same rate. Whether they choose to do that by increasing or decreasing overall pay, or refusing to hire people who want more than x amount, or whatever, I really don't care. If there are problems with laziness or lack of performance, they should be dealt with, but that is a separate issue.

You should work well for your employer not only because they pay you but out of your own sense of integrity and purpose. But that's way off topic.

I will say that despite the Chinese people committing suicide off of the roofs of iPhone factories....Apple really can't make their products available to as many consumers another way. I bet they'd like to....but they can't.

They shouldn't, then. No gizmo is worth that human price.

Familiar with game theory? You're right....we would all benefit if we did what's best for each other. That's not what happens though...in reality, many are out for themselves. If you aren't one of them...you're losing out to those who are.

Maybe, maybe not. In this regard the church might actually be an exception. But that's not the point. If we all benefit from cooperating, then let's all do what we can to build a cooperative society.

Now who's arguing for exceptionalism? Is it evolution that is propelling women past men in this regard? Or god?

Neither. It's been noted that in various ways, our school systems, with their preferred teaching styles etc, can actually benefit girls more than boys. But - and it's a big but - that benefit is pretty useless when you run into misogynistic dinosaurs intent on holding doors shut against you anyway.

And yes, I have more anecdotes, but apparently you think they're irrelevant, so...

To what end? At what point is the vague goal achieved?

When every human being is treated consistently with worth and dignity, and given every opportunity to flourish. Regardless of sex, race, disability or any other major personal difference.

Sure....maybe shackles are a fashion symbol for freedom despite people being enslaved elsewhere. Symbols can mean different things to different people....unless it's the Confederate flag, then you're just racist lol right?

I wouldn't dare venture an opinion on the Confederate flag. But I notice you didn't comment on my points about objectification, commodification and consumer culture.

So if I just start posting a bunch of research and studies....you're going to ignore them? Are you doing aware they've found different personality traits in cockroaches?

Cockroaches have personalities, study finds

I don't think that's attributable to "nurture". It's not a result of one roach having loving parents. I'm flat out dismissing your theory.

That's fascinating about the cockroaches. But we are significantly cognitively more complex than cockroaches. I'm still planting my flag on the nurture side of the debate. Humans have significant neuroplasticity, can learn, grow, and adapt their behaviour. And we certainly demonstrate significant variance within each sex - more so than between the sexes - on almost any trait. You can dismiss my opinion, but I'm putting gender essentialism over the in pseudoscience bucket.

Let's say you're a peasant serf man with a wife you believe is your equal.....how does that get expressed? You support her career as a fashion designer? Perhaps you take care of the kids while she toils in the field for 16 hours.

Most of those women would probably have appreciated an avoidance of domestic violence. Used to be that a man had a "right" to beat his wife, and many did.

Yeah...were you under the impression women struggled harder for their rights and freedoms than the multiple groups of men who did so throughout history? As bad as burning at the stake may sound I'd prefer it to being drawn and quartered any day. Are you familiar with scaphism? Tar capping?

Execution of rebellious women is relatively gentle by comparison....yet they still seemed far less inclined to it. Probably all that pregnancy.

Pregnant women were allowed to "plead their belly" for at least a delay in execution.

I'm not saying women struggled harder or less hard than any other group (it was you who suggested we'd had it easy). I think it's not a contest. I don't care who's fought harder or whatever. I just want to see everyone treated rightly.

Name one not related to anatomy.

Ever have a lecturer refuse to discuss their subject with you because "men don't belong in [insert field here]"? Because the lecturer I had who refused to meet with me because "women don't belong in science" was memorable.

I don't think my anatomy actually affected my scientific ability at all...

Again...I'm not denying that feminism is unneeded in various nations around the globe...but that doesn't make any difference on whether it's needed here.

Well, first, "here" isn't the same place for you and me.

And second, you can't close it off like that. Either women deserve dignity and opportunity, or we don't. That isn't affected by geography.

 

[durangodawood]

...So before you get into my "nihilism"....explain what this "oppression" is and how it's occurring.

The example you used was womens suffrage.

The way you posed its was:
"Yup...[anti-suffrage] started by women, also pretty big, also had a lot of support. Let's imagine that I'm the emperor of the USA and I get to decide the rules for everyone. Who do I oppress? The women who want change or the women who don't?"

Sounded to me like you are ambivalent as to whether universal (among genders) suffrage was actually a net decrease in oppression. Thats what I mean by nihilism. If one cant be clear on that issue, then there's probably no issue one could side with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The example you used was womens suffrage.

The way you posed its was:
"Yup...[anti-suffrage] started by women, also pretty big, also had a lot of support. Let's imagine that I'm the emperor of the USA and I get to decide the rules for everyone. Who do I oppress? The women who want change or the women who don't?"

Sounded to me like you are ambivalent as to whether universal (among genders) suffrage was actually a net decrease in oppression. Thats what I mean by nihilism. If one cant be clear on that issue, then there's probably no issue one could side with.

Yeah...I can see my example for the idiocy of power dynamics isn't getting through. I'll try to simplify it and then move on.

Let's imagine a guy from a village somewhere that is constantly oppressed by his neighboring village. They have guns and he doesn't.

I can eliminate the opposing village....but not without violently oppressing them. I might have reduced one groups' oppression....but only by oppressing another. Power/oppression dynamics are frequently a dumb way to look at the world.

More importantly...I'm curious why you're still here. You said this earlier....

If we talk about the present then its much much better - through not finished - in many societies. Still awful in others.

Then you said this...

I think we're doing pretty well, in the west at least. But really, I'll defer to the women about what still needs to be done. I dont have their perspective on things that affect them.

So on one hand ...it seems like you have an opinion on the relevancy of feminism. Then it seems like you don't think you have a valid opinion because you aren't a woman.

Which is it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No; I was saying that - especially in the days before effective birth control - women in the peak of their youth and strength were seldom warriors because of the practicalities of pregnancy etc.

And I'm saying that the idea that they couldn't put off pregnancy for a year or two or five to have a revolution is silly. Entire empires have been overthrown in a matter of months. Your argument is ridiculous.

Probably true about the sales etc vs. use. But my point is the risk factors identified for drug-related convictions leading to incarceration didn't include risk-taking behaviour but parental/family issues etc.

And you're wrong. There's no parental or familial issues which require someone to sell drugs.

I'm saying the law firm - and every other employer - should pay equally qualified and experienced men and women doing the same job, at the same rate. Whether they choose to do that by increasing or decreasing overall pay, or refusing to hire people who want more than x amount, or whatever, I really don't care. If there are problems with laziness or lack of performance, they should be dealt with, but that is a separate issue.

The problem then is that you're taking subjectively valued things like "performance" or "experience" and pretending they can be objectively quantified.

If a man has five years practicing as a defense attorney and so does a woman....that does not mean they have the same "experience". The experience of one or the other may be more valuable to the employer and frankly, it's extremely presumptuous of you to assume you know better.

You should work well for your employer not only because they pay you but out of your own sense of integrity and purpose. But that's way off topic.

Most people work for gain.

They shouldn't, then. No gizmo is worth that human price.

Then you're complaining about the wrong people. Your argument is with consumers.

Maybe, maybe not. In this regard the church might actually be an exception. But that's not the point. If we all benefit from cooperating, then let's all do what we can to build a cooperative society.

Communism always fails because competition is human nature. We always seek to gain advantage. I can no more tell a smart person not to use their intelligence to their advantage anymore than I can tell a beautiful person to not use beauty to their advantage.

I mean, I suppose we could force people to be this way....but it would require an extraordinary amount of oppression.

Neither. It's been noted that in various ways, our school systems, with their preferred teaching styles etc, can actually benefit girls more than boys. But - and it's a big but - that benefit is pretty useless when you run into misogynistic dinosaurs intent on holding doors shut against you anyway.

Well we here in the US haven't undergone any significant changes in teaching....nor are any misogynists stopping women from doing anything (generally).

When every human being is treated consistently with worth and dignity, and given every opportunity to flourish. Regardless of sex, race, disability or any other major personal difference.

Do you honestly think that's an achievable goal? You must realize it's completely impossible for everyone to value what you think they should.

In the real world....some people dislike you for good reasons, and many dislike you for stupid reasons. We all have to deal with it...not just women.

I wouldn't dare venture an opinion on the Confederate flag. But I notice you didn't comment on my points about objectification, commodification and consumer culture.

Objectification is a result of evolution lol. As for commodification and consumerism....they go hand in hand. If you have a proposal for dealing with them, I'm definitely interested. My guess is you're going to tell me people should stop acting like people.

That's fascinating about the cockroaches. But we are significantly cognitively more complex than cockroaches. I'm still planting my flag on the nurture side of the debate. Humans have significant neuroplasticity, can learn, grow, and adapt their behaviour. And we certainly demonstrate significant variance within each sex - more so than between the sexes - on almost any trait. You can dismiss my opinion, but I'm putting gender essentialism over the in pseudoscience bucket.

Ok....well since you've not provided any evidence whatsoever, I'll just be dismissing your objection out of hand. Would it help if I posted studies on aggression in babies before any significant socialization can occur? How about studies on virtually every mammal studied showing the males are more aggressive?

Most of those women would probably have appreciated an avoidance of domestic violence. Used to be that a man had a "right" to beat his wife, and many did.

Again....the more you know about history, the less simple these things are.

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence by Malcolm George

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt. Such "treatments" for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

It may seem trivial to you....but there were very real consequences for not being in "control" of your wife back then.

I'm not saying women struggled harder or less hard than any other group (it was you who suggested we'd had it easy). I think it's not a contest. I don't care who's fought harder or whatever. I just want to see everyone treated rightly.

That's a nice sentiment. I believe you.

Ever have a lecturer refuse to discuss their subject with you because "men don't belong in [insert field here]"? Because the lecturer I had who refused to meet with me because "women don't belong in science" was memorable.

I don't think my anatomy actually affected my scientific ability at all...

Back to anecdotes I see. In the US there are maybe a couple dozen female only colleges....the last male only college was forced to admit women in my lifetime. Then this just happened....

No boys allowed: Women-only hotel opens in Spain on dreamy island of Mallorca

Which apparently isn't uncommon....

Female-only accommodations: What do women want?

What I meant though is "name one specific to women"....because men are excluded for being men all over the place.

And second, you can't close it off like that. Either women deserve dignity and opportunity, or we don't.

Of course I can close it off....they have dignity and ample opportunity. We have more women running for president the last two elections than I care to count and if they lose, it doesn't appear to be a result of oppression.

 

[Paidiske]

And I'm saying that the idea that they couldn't put off pregnancy for a year or two or five to have a revolution is silly. Entire empires have been overthrown in a matter of months. Your argument is ridiculous.

Except I wasn't arguing about why they couldn't have a revolution. I don't think they could necessarily even imagine the revolution, at that point.

And you're wrong. There's no parental or familial issues which require someone to sell drugs.

Then why is that a commonly identified risk factor in the crimes of those incarcerated for drug-related offences?

In fact, I'd argue that many-to-most people in prison for any offences have experienced parental or familial issues; it's well known that most of the prison population have a history of being abused.

The problem then is that you're taking subjectively valued things like "performance" or "experience" and pretending they can be objectively quantified.

If a man has five years practicing as a defense attorney and so does a woman....that does not mean they have the same "experience". The experience of one or the other may be more valuable to the employer and frankly, it's extremely presumptuous of you to assume you know better.

I stipulated that people with equal experience should be paid equally. I don't know enough about law to know the ins and outs of how that would be measured, but I'm pretty sure there would be a relevant metric (cases handled? Cases won? Clients served? Etc.). No, not everything that we do in the workplace which is of value can easily be measured objectively, but some things certainly can.

Then you're complaining about the wrong people. Your argument is with consumers.

In part, yes. But companies still choose how they're going to operate.

Do you honestly think that's an achievable goal? You must realize it's completely impossible for everyone to value what you think they should.

This side of the eschaton, no, I don't think it's an achievable goal. But I think it is one which is worth striving for, and in fact it is one which I have a religious imperative to strive for. And I think we can do better than we currently are.

In the real world....some people dislike you for good reasons, and many dislike you for stupid reasons. We all have to deal with it...not just women.

Dignity and opportunity have nothing to do with being liked or disliked (or they shouldn't). I can dislike you and still accord you dignity. I can dislike you and still be principled enough not to restrict your opportunities because of that.

Objectification is a result of evolution lol.

I disagree. It's a result of human beings failing to treat one another with that dignity I keep banging on about. If I respect you as a whole person in your own right, I can't treat you as basically a living breathing sex toy.

As for commodification and consumerism....they go hand in hand. If you have a proposal for dealing with them, I'm definitely interested. My guess is you're going to tell me people should stop acting like people.

Must admit I haven't given that as much thought or attention, but I suspect it's less about stopping people acting like people and perhaps more about stopping corporations exploiting people being people.

Would it help if I posted studies on aggression in babies before any significant socialization can occur? How about studies on virtually every mammal studied showing the males are more aggressive?

Not really, because I don't buy the idea that women have the problems we do simply because we're less aggressive than men.

Again....the more you know about history, the less simple these things are.

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence by Malcolm George

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt. Such "treatments" for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

It may seem trivial to you....but there were very real consequences for not being in "control" of your wife back then.

...and that therefore made domestic violence okay?

Back to anecdotes I see.

Which you asked for!

In the US there are maybe a couple dozen female only colleges....the last male only college was forced to admit women in my lifetime. Then this just happened....

No boys allowed: Women-only hotel opens in Spain on dreamy island of Mallorca

Which apparently isn't uncommon....

Female-only accommodations: What do women want?

What I meant though is "name one specific to women"....because men are excluded for being men all over the place.

I have mixed feelings about gender-segregated spaces and think that, in some contexts, there might be good arguments for them. (Must admit luxury hotels don't spring to mind as one of those contexts).

But I gave you a very specific situation; that of a lecturer refusing to help a student because she's a woman. I've never heard of a lecturer refusing to help a student because he's a man, and men "don't belong" in that field. Does that happen?

Of course I can close it off....they have dignity and ample opportunity. We have more women running for president the last two elections than I care to count and if they lose, it doesn't appear to be a result of oppression.

So feminism has achieved some things (good). That doesn't mean we don't need feminism any more. Even if feminism achieved every goal, feminism would need to remain as the underpinning baseline, otherwise we could easily slide backwards.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except I wasn't arguing about why they couldn't have a revolution. I don't think they could necessarily even imagine the revolution, at that point.

Why?

Then why is that a commonly identified risk factor in the crimes of those incarcerated for drug-related offences?

Again....you're confusing drug use with drug crime. It may be studying incarcerated people....but the reason they are incarcerated may be different from why they use drugs.

For a counterpoint....

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=study+on+risk+taking+behavior+in+men&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=O64K6YkzWmAJ

Sex differences in risk taking were examined by observing 480 3- to 11-year-old children at 4 different risk-taking locations at the San Antonio zoo. Frequency counts of boys and girls were made at the elephant rides, burro exhibit, children's petting zoo, and along a steep embankment of the San Antonio River. Baseline observations were made at the entrance of the zoo to ensure that boys and girls were equally represented. Girls were just as likely as boys to enter the zoo. However, at all 4 of the risk-taking situations, significantly more boys than girls engaged in risk-taking behavior. More boys than girls rode the elephants, petted the burro, fed the animals, and climbed the river embankment. Older boys and girls were more likely to take these risks than younger children. Thus, males, especially older ones, engaged in more risk-taking behavior than females within the context of this descriptive, naturalistic study.

I'm sure you think this is all due to socialization ...but it's hard to imagine so many parents encouraging risky behavior in 3 year old boys.

I stipulated that people with equal experience should be paid equally.

There is no "equal experience"....everyone's experience is unique. We may have similar experiences, but not equal ones.

In part, yes. But companies still choose how they're going to operate.

Right....a wrestler could choose not to cut weight. Of course, he's more likely to lose...and I don't know of any wrestler who doesn't want to win.

This side of the eschaton, no, I don't think it's an achievable goal. But I think it is one which is worth striving for, and in fact it is one which I have a religious imperative to strive for. And I think we can do better than we currently are.

Then you'll forgive me for not participating in your fruitless endeavor.

Dignity and opportunity have nothing to do with being liked or disliked (or they shouldn't). I can dislike you and still accord you dignity. I can dislike you and still be principled enough not to restrict your opportunities because of that.

If people ignored their emotions and behaved logically....I'd agree. It seems that is the exception though, not the rule.

I disagree. It's a result of human beings failing to treat one another with that dignity I keep banging on about. If I respect you as a whole person in your own right, I can't treat you as basically a living breathing sex toy.

Men cannot help being visually attracted. There's a billion studies behind this.

Must admit I haven't given that as much thought or attention, but I suspect it's less about stopping people acting like people and perhaps more about stopping corporations exploiting people being people.

So though goal here is to convince corporations to strive to be something other than successful. I think you'd have better luck stopping people from being people.

Not really, because I don't buy the idea that women have the problems we do simply because we're less aggressive than men.

Yet, on some level, you seem to think that the problem is with the way men are. We're "defective" in some way? Morally deficient? What is it?

...and that therefore made domestic violence okay?

If you judge history by today's standards you'll always be disappointed. One day people will look back and wonder how people like you and me were so immoral and oppressive.

Which you asked for!

Where??

I have mixed feelings about gender-segregated spaces and think that, in some contexts, there might be good arguments for them. (Must admit luxury hotels don't spring to mind as one of those contexts).

But I gave you a very specific situation; that of a lecturer refusing to help a student because she's a woman. I've never heard of a lecturer refusing to help a student because he's a man, and men "don't belong" in that field. Does that happen?

Of course....we just don't have a movement because nobody cares.

You gave an example of discrimination based upon sex....I did the same. You were denied help from a teacher....we have men denied entry to entire universities.

So feminism has achieved some things (good). That doesn't mean we don't need feminism any more. Even if feminism achieved every goal, feminism would need to remain as the underpinning baseline, otherwise we could easily slide backwards.

Why? Because the evil immoral men are just waiting for the opportunity to oppress women? Not because were naturally more aggressive, dominant, or risk taking....but some other vague reasons you don't want to give voice to?

Why not say how you really feel? Why have men been "running the world"? Why should you fear some possible oppression which no longer exists?

 

[Paidiske]

Why?

For the same reason that fish probably don't imagine inhabiting castles in the air. When your entire environment is constructed in a way that makes you think that your situation is normal and right, and doesn't encourage you to question that, how likely are you to put much energy into imagining alternatives?

I'm sure you think this is all due to socialization ...but it's hard to imagine so many parents encouraging risky behavior in 3 year old boys.

"Risky" is relative. I have no problem imagining that parents gave boys more leeway when engaging in risky behaviour than they gave girls.

There is no "equal experience"....everyone's experience is unique. We may have similar experiences, but not equal ones.

That doesn't begin to justify the gender pay gap.

Right....a wrestler could choose not to cut weight. Of course, he's more likely to lose...and I don't know of any wrestler who doesn't want to win.

Governments should require businesses to be ethical. Of course, part of the problem here is that the reason the example you gave happens in China is because their government isn't doing its job in that regard.

Then you'll forgive me for not participating in your fruitless endeavor.

Fortunately for you, forgiveness is also a religious imperative.

But it's not fruitless. Even if we never reach the ideal, my goodness things have improved.

If people ignored their emotions and behaved logically....I'd agree. It seems that is the exception though, not the rule.

I don't think it's about the gap between emotions and logic. I think it's about the formation of conscience.

Men cannot help being visually attracted. There's a billion studies behind this.

Attraction is not the same as objectification.

So though goal here is to convince corporations to strive to be something other than successful. I think you'd have better luck stopping people from being people.

Success needs to come with ethics. It seems to me that the more we converse, the more the gap between our views seems to be that I think ethics are imperative and you think they're impossible.

Yet, on some level, you seem to think that the problem is with the way men are. We're "defective" in some way? Morally deficient? What is it?

No! Have you not read my rejection of gender essentialism, the idea that our biology determines our behaviour, and so forth?

I think both men and women exist within a social and cultural matrix (patriarchy) which has structures and institutions and norms which disadvantage women.

That's nothing to do with "the way men are." It's to do with what our history has unconsciously built. And what we've constructed, we can deconstruct, and we can rebuild a better, fairer set of social and cultural matrices.

It's not anything about men as individuals. It's about the systems within which we play out our social roles.

Where??

When I said that transwomen (or men) haven't had the same sort of experiences of patriarchy as ciswomen and therefore don't have the same insight into the reality of patriarchy, and you said, "Name one not related to anatomy."

Of course....we just don't have a movement because nobody cares.

Well, there are MRAs...

You gave an example of discrimination based upon sex....I did the same. You were denied help from a teacher....we have men denied entry to entire universities.

Fair point. I'd like to know more about those universities and why they exist (as far as I know there is no such thing in Australia) before saying much about them.

Why? Because the evil immoral men are just waiting for the opportunity to oppress women?

Not consciously, but there's a saying in group dynamics; what is not consciously structured is unjustly structured. It's very easy for any group to be unjust to others simply by dint of the needs of those others being in their (collective) blind spot.

Not because were naturally more aggressive, dominant, or risk taking....but some other vague reasons you don't want to give voice to?

Well, this is interesting, because I didn't say (or think) that men are evil or immoral; but I would argue that if men are more aggressive and dominant, and use that to oppress others, that is indeed unethical. The thing is, though, I'm not actually arguing that men are inherently more aggressive and dominant.

Why not say how you really feel?

With the exception of censoring the occasional instance of frustrated profanity, I am saying how I really feel.

Why should you fear some possible oppression which no longer exists?

It still exists. I've experienced it in my own life. I'm not going to be gaslit about that.

 

[SkyWriting]

What are the root causes of male disenfranchisement?

Is that when guys get kicked out of a McDonalds?

 

[Ana the Ist]

For the same reason that fish probably don't imagine inhabiting castles in the air. When your entire environment is constructed in a way that makes you think that your situation is normal and right, and doesn't encourage you to question that, how likely are you to put much energy into imagining alternatives?

Well, I had a much longer post written and it got deleted....and I was about to rewrite it, then I realized....

You and I aren't talking about the same thing.

See....when I'm talking about oppression, I'm talking about a system of governance, or at least an institutional/societal/cultural norm.

When you talk about oppression....you seem to use it interchangeably with "unfair" or "discrimination" or "bias".

In my meaning....oppression isn't interpersonal....it's always systemic. Oppression is a person in China thrown in jail for criticizing the government, or a business that says "Irish need not apply", or a law that says gay people cannot marry.

It can't simply be unfair interpersonal treatment. That's not oppression....that's life. If a mother has two children and gives one child 1 cookie....and the other child 2 cookies....I don't consider that oppression. It's unfair to be sure...but not oppressive.

So what exactly do you mean by "oppression"?

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I had a much longer post written and it got deleted....and I was about to rewrite it, then I realized....

You and I aren't talking about the same thing.

See....when I'm talking about oppression, I'm talking about a system of governance, or at least an institutional/societal/cultural norm.

When you talk about oppression....you seem to use it interchangeably with "unfair" or "discrimination" or "bias".

In my meaning....oppression isn't interpersonal....it's always systemic. Oppression is a person in China thrown in jail for criticizing the government, or a business that says "Irish need not apply", or a law that says gay people cannot marry.

It can't simply be unfair interpersonal treatment. That's not oppression....that's life. If a mother has two children and gives one child 1 cookie....and the other child 2 cookies....I don't consider that oppression. It's unfair to be sure...but not oppressive.

So what exactly do you mean by "oppression"?

I mean the system of governance, but I also mean a heck of a lot more. I certainly would include unfair personal treatment, discrimination, and so on; especially when there are consistent patterns in that unfair treatment (eg. take the children with cookies; if child 2 consistently is favoured, that's worse than a one-off or if the mother takes it in turns to favour one child or the other. Now, cookies are trivial, but if we start talking about real life opportunities that matter...).

So oppression is systemic, to do with laws and institutional rules and so on ("hard" oppression, I guess), but it's also interpersonal ("soft" oppression, perhaps?). To give an example, I happen to be a landlady. At one point, when we were looking for new tenants, our real estate manager told us of a particular couple applying who were great applicants in lots of ways, but had a particular trait which is often associated with negative bias. It seemed to me that the real estate agent was giving me an opportunity to know this in advance and decline the applicants on that basis. (I was pretty appalled that they did that, but that's a whole other thing). But the real estate agent doing that, and - I'm guessing - the fact that they probably do it because some property owners do reject such applicants, would be an example of oppression of that group playing out through entrenched social bias. Especially if it's common enough that it makes it harder for that couple and others like them to get appropriate housing...

So I guess I mean any way of thinking, speaking or acting which diminishes the dignity and opportunity of others.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah...I can see my example for the idiocy of power dynamics isn't getting through. I'll try to simplify it and then move on.

Let's imagine a guy from a village somewhere that is constantly oppressed by his neighboring village. They have guns and he doesn't.

I can eliminate the opposing village....but not without violently oppressing them. I might have reduced one groups' oppression....but only by oppressing another. Power/oppression dynamics are frequently a dumb way to look at the world....

So are you suggesting that feminists, because they are hopelessly mired in post-modern power dynamics theory, would fail with this 2 villages problem, and also fail with your earlier female suffrage problem, whereas proper thinking people would typically get it right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I mean the system of governance, but I also mean a heck of a lot more. I certainly would include unfair personal treatment, discrimination, and so on; especially when there are consistent patterns in that unfair treatment (eg. take the children with cookies; if child 2 consistently is favoured, that's worse than a one-off or if the mother takes it in turns to favour one child or the other. Now, cookies are trivial, but if we start talking about real life opportunities that matter...).

So oppression is systemic, to do with laws and institutional rules and so on ("hard" oppression, I guess), but it's also interpersonal ("soft" oppression, perhaps?). To give an example, I happen to be a landlady. At one point, when we were looking for new tenants, our real estate manager told us of a particular couple applying who were great applicants in lots of ways, but had a particular trait which is often associated with negative bias. It seemed to me that the real estate agent was giving me an opportunity to know this in advance and decline the applicants on that basis. (I was pretty appalled that they did that, but that's a whole other thing). But the real estate agent doing that, and - I'm guessing - the fact that they probably do it because some property owners do reject such applicants, would be an example of oppression of that group playing out through entrenched social bias. Especially if it's common enough that it makes it harder for that couple and others like them to get appropriate housing...

So I guess I mean any way of thinking, speaking or acting which diminishes the dignity and opportunity of others.

Ok....well then I think we've dug down into the heart of the disagreement then. I can agree on laws and policies but the idea that interpersonal "fairness" requires an entire movement is always going to be fundamentally ridiculous to me, for many reasons.

Firstly, everyone deals with that in some way or form....and I do mean everyone. People get rejected or denied or discriminated against for being short, tall, fat, skinny, having a high pitched voice, a funny walk, an annoying laugh, a lazy eye....and who knows how many other things. Someone could be discriminated against for all sorts of reasons that we think they shouldn't....that's just life.

Secondly, it's not as if the biases we validate are anymore "fair" than the ones we don't. If someone is smarter than someone else...that's not necessarily an "earned privilege"....but everyone is fine with the advantages and opportunities going to the smart person. The same can be said of natural beauty, talent, extroversion, athleticism and so on....

Women have legal rights equal (perhaps greater than) men....and we don't legally allow people to discriminate against them on the job or in education. That's not to say it doesn't happen....but they have the option to seek legal recourse.

I see no further use for feminism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So are you suggesting that *snip*

I'm suggesting that you stop viewing social issues through a "power dynamic" lens. It's creating a distorted view of both the past and present.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok....well then I think we've dug down into the heart of the disagreement then. I can agree on laws and policies but the idea that interpersonal "fairness" requires an entire movement is always going to be fundamentally ridiculous to me, for many reasons.

Firstly, everyone deals with that in some way or form....and I do mean everyone. People get rejected or denied or discriminated against for being short, tall, fat, skinny, having a high pitched voice, a funny walk, an annoying laugh, a lazy eye....and who knows how many other things. Someone could be discriminated against for all sorts of reasons that we think they shouldn't....that's just life.

It is "just life," but I think we should try to change that as much as possible. Challenge the underlying thinking, raise the next generation with different attitudes, all of that.

Secondly, it's not as if the biases we validate are anymore "fair" than the ones we don't. If someone is smarter than someone else...that's not necessarily an "earned privilege"....but everyone is fine with the advantages and opportunities going to the smart person. The same can be said of natural beauty, talent, extroversion, athleticism and so on....

There's something to that; someone with severe intellectual disability is never going to be able to do things which very highly intelligent people can do. I think the point is making sure that even the person with severe intellectual disability has every opportunity to reach their potential.

Women have legal rights equal (perhaps greater than) men....and we don't legally allow people to discriminate against them on the job or in education. That's not to say it doesn't happen....but they have the option to seek legal recourse.

I see no further use for feminism.

We still have so far to go... you might have no further use for feminism, but just don't stand in the way of people seeking to create positive change.

 

[usexpat97]

I don't think we have a long way to go.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm suggesting that you stop viewing social issues through a "power dynamic" lens. It's creating a distorted view of both the past and present.

Which part of your presentation did I get wrong?
Feminists are mired in post modern power dynamics theory?
Such theory leads one to the impasses you propose?

I mean, I dont think Ive gave any indication at all that I'm disposed to "post modern power dynamics" thinking as a typical framework for analysis. So this shouldnt be about me. Its about your characterization of feminism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is "just life," but I think we should try to change that as much as possible. Challenge the underlying thinking, raise the next generation with different attitudes, all of that.

Uh huh....how? How do you plan to fundamentally change human nature? Keep in mind you're a part of a religion that's tried to do this for 2000 years through quiet instruction, faith, and oppression....with no real noticable results.

Being aware of biases doesn't fundamentally change them.

There's something to that; someone with severe intellectual disability is never going to be able to do things which very highly intelligent people can do. I think the point is making sure that even the person with severe intellectual disability has every opportunity to reach their potential.

I have no problem with providing opportunities. The problem occurs when people claim to be entitled to things by virtue of being a woman, man, black, white, etc.

You should be allowed to try for what you want...but that includes the possibility you'll never get it.

We still have so far to go... you might have no further use for feminism, but just don't stand in the way of people seeking to create positive change.

I stand in the way of anyone who seeks gains by my loss. I argue against those spreading lies. I don't apologize for it either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So this shouldnt be about me. Its about your characterization of feminism.

What part of my characterization aren't you understanding?

 

[Paidiske]

Uh huh....how? How do you plan to fundamentally change human nature? Keep in mind you're a part of a religion that's tried to do this for 2000 years through quiet instruction, faith, and oppression....with no real noticable results.

I don't think it is fundamentally changing human nature. It's changing the milieu in which we are nurtured.

For example, a bit over a hundred years ago, eugenics was popular with the thinking folks of Europe. Today it's abhorred. Prevailing social attitudes can change.

I have no problem with providing opportunities. The problem occurs when people claim to be entitled to things by virtue of being a woman, man, black, white, etc.

You should be allowed to try for what you want...but that includes the possibility you'll never get it.

Agreed.

I stand in the way of anyone who seeks gains by my loss. I argue against those spreading lies. I don't apologize for it either.

Life is not a zero-sum game. Affording others dignity and opportunities doesn't mean you have to lose anything.

And I don't know what "lies" you're referring to, so I can't answer that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think it is fundamentally changing human nature. It's changing the milieu in which we are nurtured.

For example, a bit over a hundred years ago, eugenics was popular with the thinking folks of Europe. Today it's abhorred. Prevailing social attitudes can change.

Oddly enough....with the advancement of gene editing and designer genetics, it could make a big comeback.

Agreed.

Surprised by this.

Life is not a zero-sum game. Affording others dignity and opportunities doesn't mean you have to lose anything.

If two people want the same land....they can both have the opportunity to compete for it, but only one can own. If two people want the same job....it's essentially the same thing, is it not? Unless there's two openings...only one can get the job.

So the problem in my opinion are people who say "five men work this job....the sixth opening should go to a woman". I disagree. A woman should be able to compete for it, but it should go to whomever the employer wants to hire.

Maybe that sounds silly to you....but there's an annoying number of people here in the US who would say that it should automatically go to a woman because there's a "disproportionate" number of men. Or just as bad....we should create extra opportunities for women that men don't have so they can "earn" the job (even though they were afforded extra opportunities).

And I don't know what "lies" you're referring to, so I can't answer that.

Well let's start with the "gender pay gap". Is it real? Almost certainly. Is it 0.80$ to the dollar? It sure doesn't look that way when you crunch the numbers....

Dispelling Myths About The Gender Pay Gap

It's more like 0.98$ to the 1.00$.

When comparing two people in the same profession, with the same seniority, working the same number of hours, and so forth, women earn $0.98 for every dollar that a man earns.

Now....maybe that 2 cents is because of discrimination. Maybe it's because of some kind of factor not considered. It's hard to say. What I can say is that the statistical data shows the feminist movement appears to be deliberately lying about inequality and demanding unearned wealth, opportunities, and advantages just because they're women.

That's wrong, and should be fought against.