Feminism

[Noxot]

Feminism is good but sin tends to corrupt good things. So it's not always good. Humans tend to swing too far from one side of the pendulum to the other. Neither right or left is wholly correct all the time. The right seems more masculine and the left seems more feminine to me. Republicans love the old, liberals the new. Jesus remarked that both are part of his kingdom.

People are first God's beloved before they are anything else. Men do mistreat women sometimes and sometimes they can earn more than women. That could be because men are often more likely to insist on things ( give me a raise or I will find another employer who values my abilities) while women are more likely to agree and try to get along. Some men do think that women can't do their job better than they can. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it's not.

One flaw of some liberals is that they sometimes believe in equal outcome. They tend to not like that IQ is a thing. Smarter people often have an advantage to succeed in the world. All humans are equal because we are all humans and made in God's image. But it's wrong to take away the uniqueness of a person. Males and females are alike in more ways than they are different, but we are all different enough that trying to equalize some things means putting down x persons skillset and abilities. Flaws are often important for the souls development. a persons virtues might give them an illusion of superiority.

 

[Larniavc]

When people believe that they are unjustly treated, many will react. It rarely goes well.

Are people who view equality as oppression a lost cause, then?

I certainly hope not.

But as society changes the old ways get left behind and the young folk find their own way and if that way is to treat men an women equally I’m all for it.

I do have to wonder why anyone would be against equality.

 

[Larniavc]

In game design, if you build player characters or factions that have exactly the same abilities, you have a balanced game where everybody has the same opportunities, but it makes for a pretty dull game. We call this symmetrical balance. However, if you build player characters or factions that have different abilities, you can still get an equilibrium where everyone stands an equal chance of winning, like a game of rock-paper-scissors. That is asymmetrical balance.

Men and women usually have different goals. Given their role as male, men "win," from an evolutionary standpoint, by maximizing reproductive quantity. Hence why polygyny was so common among rulers in the ancient world. (If you've got a better idea about how to swarm your neighbors with loyal warrior-sons, I'm all ears.) Women "win" more by a balance between quality and quantity. On the one hand, they need to pump out as many of their own children as possible, but on the other hand, because of the resources needed for gestating and nursing children, women have to make sure each child stands a maximal chance of survival. Hence, quality. Consequently, both sexes have different priorities in childrearing. But neither set of priorities is ever "winning" against the other, because they counterbalance. The male's goals keeps the female's in check, and vice-versa. If you remove one, the other runs rampant. It would be like taking "rock" out of the paper-rock-scissors game; scissors would just always win or tie.

The problem I see with feminism (and Marxism generally) is that it talks as if there is only one type of social power, namely the one that most characterizes males. But there are other forms of social power, not so easily noticed, that women have long employed as a way to counterbalance male forms.

Yeah but that’s what it was like in dungeons and dragons times not modern day.

There is no need to out breed the Kingdom next door any more.

And if you rolled up two fighters with point buy but told the one who was playing a shield maiden “akshully you pay x1.5 for each point of strength because you’re a girl’ that player would leave your table.

 

[Larniavc]

And surviving means avoiding mistakes.

It means making mistakes and learning from them. Then communicating that learning (and then letting them makes their own mistakes anyway, lol).

 

[Larniavc]

The survival game is constant, and when you take your eyes off of playing it, it will find a new way to eat you.

Nothing has tried to eat me I a long time.

 

[Larniavc]

But it has gone on to promote sexual permisivnes, divorce and contempt for (wo)men.

And that’s a man’s job!

 

[Noxot]

I do have to wonder why anyone would be against equality.

There are certain forms of "equality" that are no good. Trying to reduce everyone to a lowest common denominator is bad because it makes equal the lowest with the highest. "I want a professional heart surgeon to do surgery on me, not the janitor". Sometimes people want to destroy something valuable in the name of equality.

 

[Larniavc]

There are certain forms of "equality" that are no good. Trying to reduce everyone to a lowest common denominator is bad because it makes equal the lowest with the highest. "I want a professional heart surgeon to do surgery on me, not the janitor". Sometimes people want to destroy something valuable in the name of equality.

But that’s not equality. In your example the janitor bypasses the 6 or 7 years training the surgeon had. That’s preferential treatment to fast track the janitor.

I don’t get the analogy.

 

[Daniel C]

Are people who view equality as oppression a lost cause, then?

I certainly hope not.

But as society changes the old ways get left behind and the young folk find their own way and if that way is to treat men an women equally I’m all for it.

I do have to wonder why anyone would be against equality.

''Are people who view equality as oppression a lost cause, then?''

Yes I think they are.

An Atheist who believes the world should revolve around their own personal ideas is too far gone to reach.

 

[Nithavela]

In game design, if you build player characters or factions that have exactly the same abilities, you have a balanced game where everybody has the same opportunities, but it makes for a pretty dull game.

Ever heard of chess?

 

[Noxot]

But that’s not equality. In your example the janitor bypasses the 6 or 7 years training the surgeon had. That’s preferential treatment to fast track the janitor.

I don’t get the analogy.

Extreme forms of equality do not care if you earned something or if you have some superior skill. No one can be too high above others because it's unfair to everyone who is average. The Russian communist did not like the Ukrainian farmers and so they stole their land and caused a famine.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Are people who view equality as oppression a lost cause, then?

I certainly hope not.

But as society changes the old ways get left behind and the young folk find their own way and if that way is to treat men an women equally I’m all for it.

I do have to wonder why anyone would be against equality.

The sinful nature of humanity, that's why. George Orwell put it this way. All people are equal. Some are more equal than others. History shows a swinging pendulum. Society goes from one extreme to the other. My dad was all for racial equality. Then he moved to a society with a large percentage of blacks. He changed in a few months. Living near and working with people who are entirely different culturally is much easier to talk about than to practice.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Ever heard of chess?

Yes. A game where the queen starts in asymmetrical positions and the white player goes first every time. But with so small an asymmetry, most people find it boring.

 

[Nithavela]

Yes. A game where the queen starts in asymmetrical positions and the white player goes first every time. But with so small an asymmetry, most people find it boring.

They don't start in asymetrical positions, they're just mirror-symmetrical instead of point-symmetrical. And it's one of the oldest and most popular board games in the world. I would say that most people find any given thing boring. Many other classical board games like checkers, go or shogi also have perfect symmetry.

Sports almost always operate on a symmetrical ruleset. And even those games where each team takes up different roles, those roles are switched during the game to allow for an equal play experience. (As is during competetive chess)

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Feminism also seeks to ensure that a women is paid equally to man for the same work

What examples are there where a man and a woman are working the same job, same position, doing the same work, where a woman is making less money solely because she is a woman?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

They don't start in asymetrical positions, they're just mirror-symmetrical instead of point-symmetrical. And it's one of the oldest and most popular board games in the world. I would say that most people find any given thing boring. Many other classical board games like checkers, go or shogi also have perfect symmetry.

Sports almost always operate on a symmetrical ruleset. And even those games where each team takes up different roles, those roles are switched during the game to allow for an equal play experience. (As is during competetive chess)

This is a very odd point for you to criticize. But if you must, then allow me to clarify the point. It is only that asymmetrical balance is more interesting. And the interesting quality of sports--if you consider them interesting; apart from baseball, I don't--is when opposing teams have asymmetrical abilities (z.B., one has better pitchers, but the other has excellent fielders). But then again, your country considers soccer a fun pasttime, so I can understand that you're at a disadvantage on the subject of interesting sports.

 

[Paidiske]

What examples are there where a man and a woman are working the same job, same position, doing the same work, where a woman is making less money solely because she is a woman?

It happens frequently. A company offers its employees contracts with different salaries and forbids them to discuss it, hoping it won't become obvious that they're underpaying the women relative to the men. Or a woman follows a man in a role and the contract she's offered has a lower pay rate. That sort of thing.

It's less frequent in roles that are paid by the hour, because those tend to be both more transparent and more highly unionised.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

It happens frequently. A company offers its employees contracts with different salaries and forbids them to discuss it, hoping it won't become obvious that they're underpaying the women relative to the men. Or a woman follows a man in a role and the contract she's offered has a lower pay rate. That sort of thing.

can you provide an example where this actually happened where a woman went into the same position doing the same work for the same time and was paid less solely because she was woman? you've explained how it can happen but where has this actually taken place?

for example, a man went into the same position as her when she left and made more money than she did doing the exact same thing on the same level.

 

[Nithavela]

This is a very odd point for you to criticize. But if you must, then allow me to clarify the point. It is only that asymmetrical balance is more interesting. And the interesting quality of sports--if you consider them interesting; apart from baseball, I don't--is when opposing teams have asymmetrical abilities (z.B., one has better pitchers, but the other has excellent fielders). But then again, your country considers soccer a fun pasttime, so I can understand that you're at a disadvantage on the subject of interesting sports.

Germany is hardly the only nation that has soccer as its most popular sport. It's the most popular sport of the world. I don't care much about soccer, or sports in general. But in board games, I prefer those with symmetrical balance.

I think you are taking your own bias on what is entertaining and pretend that this is some absolute law. It isn't, and the huge success of chess, go and yes, soccer proves that the vast majority of people prefer symmetrical balance, at least as far as the rules are concerned.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

the WWE has had similar situations where they give out contracts to their performers and tell them to not discuss their contracts with other employees of the company. this is between men. this is based on how valuable one is to the company. one person is more profitable to the company than another and makes more money. the mistake happens when an employee increases in value but is not paid in accordance with his value to the company.

point being it's about how valuable you are to the company.