When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

Because if what you want is for trans people to be accepted socially as people of the opposite sex, without question, then language and space use would need to reflect that.

The opposite sex. As in biological sex. Literally a post ago when I said there was no difference between biological and social definitions...that it was essentially the same thing. You replied....

No, it's not the same thing.

Now you're telling me that to achieve whatever you imagine this goal is....we need to alter language and deny biological reality. I'll make this as simple as possible for you....

If we have to alter language and deny biological reality to achieve the goal.....then the denial of biological reality and alteration of language is the goal.

I mean behaving towards that person as if they belong to the group with which they identify.

I still have no idea what this means. I've never asked anyone how they identify. Nor do I intend to. I can't imagine ever needing to.

No, I gave you Australian information, which shows that (even when things like equal qualification and hours worked are taken into account) there's still a gap.

I didn't see the chart that took those things into account. I saw mention of how those things can alter the results...and saw one chart that favored women....but there's no real wage gap. Men tend to make more because of the jobs they work, hours they work, etc.

The rate at which men kill women. Which you'd know if you'd read the first few lines.

Is that a joke? That suggests that nations like Japan don't have much of a patriarchy....nations like N Korea don't have any patriarchy....and that's despite being ruled by the men in one family lol.

Why would that be the judge of which society is most patriarchal?

My observation would be that overall, western curricula tend to overlook Asian history except where it impacted on the west.

Well I don't know if Chinese history is all that interesting to begin with but still....communism had a bigger impact on the west than fascism so it's a bit odd it's not covered in a similar fashion.

Anyway, Mao's method for eliminating different concepts from the political landscape was known as "unity, criticism, unity".


To quote...

This democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people was epitomized in 1942 in the formula "unity, criticism, unity". To elaborate, it means starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions through criticism or struggle and arriving at a new unity on a new basis. In our experience this is the correct method of resolving contradictions among the people.

So you start with a desire for "unity" saying essentially that we would all do better if we all agreed on whatever issue. Then anyone who disagreed is ruthlessly criticized and hounded until they accepted the new belief and admitted or apologized for holding the old belief. A struggle session looked like this....

Amazing, isn't it? He didn't need social media, or celebrities or anything other than an ignorant youth who believed they were making a better future.

Not at all different from the cancel culture and obligatory "apology videos" of today. Nothing new about this woke cult.

 

[Paidiske]

If we have to alter language and deny biological reality to achieve the goal.....then the denial of biological reality and alteration of language is the goal.

I would say, that we're shifting our social categories from being based solely on biological reality to being more flexible.

Men tend to make more because of the jobs they work, hours they work, etc.

Even when those things are taken into account, there's a wage gap, the "adjusted" wage gap. But even then, it doesn't take into account things like underemployment of women (where women have access to fewer hours than men), and so on.

Why would that be the judge of which society is most patriarchal?

I imagine it's probably because there is relatively robust data on it, compared to other possible measures.

However, although somewhere like North Korea is ruled by the men of one family, the rate at which men kill women across the country is probably not a bad proxy for other forms of male domination of women in a society at large. There's an oft-cited statistic that in Australia, a woman is killed by her male partner or former partner every nine days. (Another area where there's unfinished work for the feminist movement).

 

[trophy33]

There's an oft-cited statistic that in Australia, a woman is killed by her male partner or former partner every nine days. (Another area where there's unfinished work for the feminist movement).

I was unable to find such statistics.

Anyway, what will feminist movement do with that? Sexism "men vs women" will not help anybody. Its like saying that black communities have higher crime rates, therefore white movement has some unfinished work there.

We must stop dividing people "group A vs group B". There are simply good people and evil people.

 

[Paidiske]

I was unable to find such statistics.

Useful statistics – National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children This site says one woman every ten days; other sites say one a week or so; I suspect it depends exactly what time period you look at. The rate is horrifically high, whichever measurement you take.

Anyway, what will feminist movement do with that?

Work to challenge the attitudes shown to drive domestic violence. (Those attitudes are, by the way, rigid gender roles, gender-based hierarchy, and acceptance of violence). So, for example, work is being done with churches and other faith communities to do grass-roots education on these issues.

Sexism "men vs women" will not help anybody.

Neither will refusing to name the issues.

We must stop dividing people "group A vs group B". There are simply good people and evil people.

But when there is violence from men against women because we are women, and because of attitudes of being entitled to control women, how do we address that without being able to name it?

 

[trophy33]

Work to challenge the attitudes shown to drive domestic violence. (Those attitudes are, by the way, rigid gender roles, gender-based hierarchy, and acceptance of violence). So, for example, work is being done with churches and other faith communities to do grass-roots education on these issues.

Why is it, then, that many comparable countries without feminism have less violence than Australia, where you try to get rid of "gender-based everything" for decades? Does it make your society actually better or worse?

What important have you actually solved that countries without feminism do not have?

 

[trophy33]

But when there is violence from men against women because we are women, and because of attitudes of being entitled to control women, how do we address that without being able to name it?

The worldview of feminism - men vs women, women suffer because they are women etc.

What if the cause is somewhere else, not in sexes (or genders, I never know what definition you use in the moment)? What if your family structures, mainly fathers are weak or dysfunctional and therefore your society is full of violence and dissatisfaction? What if your society simply put away all the safety mechanism and protection of traditional society (firm family relationships, big families, present fathers, grandfathers)?

Instead, you put everything on government and laws and people in relationships live like two isolated individuals, without good examples from their own families.

 

[Paidiske]

Why is it, then, that many comparable countries without feminism have less violence than Australia, where you try to get rid of "gender-based everything" for decades?

Which do you consider to be "comparable countries without feminism"?

Does it make your society actually better or worse?

Well, I think it's better that women can vote, be educated, be employed, hold property, leave an abusive marriage, and so on.

What important have you actually solved that countries without feminism do not have?

Which countries have no feminism? Even Qatar, widely cited as the least feminist country in the world, there have been significant legal improvements for women in recent decades.

 

[Paidiske]

What if your family structures, mainly fathers are weak or dysfunctional and therefore your society is full of violence and dissatisfaction?

Well, sure, a father who will abuse or kill his partner's pretty dysfunctional. So how do we improve that dysfunction? We teach equality, respect, care.

 

[trophy33]

Which do you consider to be "comparable countries without feminism"?

Similarly developed, but without feminism (without anti-patriarchal movements). From Japan, South Korea to Poland, Portugal, Czech rep, Austria, Swiss...

 

[trophy33]

Well, sure, a father who will abuse or kill his partner's pretty dysfunctional. So how do we improve that dysfunction? We teach equality, respect, care.

You teach sons how to be good fathers. Daughters how to be good mothers. You teach structures that work.

Not some experimental ideology that does not work so far and only creates enmity between sexes (genders?).

 

[Paidiske]

Similarly developed, but without feminism (without anti-patriarchal movements). From Japan, South Korea to Poland, Portugal, Czech rep, Austria, Swiss...

Hate to break it to you, but there are feminist movements in all those countries.

See? I said "father" and you automatically think "father who will abuse or kill". Thats your worldview of men. Terrible.

Because you posed dysfunctional fathers as a potential explanation for domestic violence!

 

[Paidiske]

You teach sons how to be good fathers. You teach structures that work. Not some experimental ideology that does not work so far and only creates war between sexes (genders?).

Patriarchy sure doesn't work. We've tried it for millennia and seen all its shortcomings. Thanks, but it's time to try something different.

 

[trophy33]

Hate to break it to you, but there are feminist movements in all those countries.

Nothing even close to what you would like. English speaking countries are in total extreme regarding gender ideology and feminism.

 

[trophy33]

Patriarchy sure doesn't work. We've tried it for millennia and seen all its shortcomings. Thanks, but it's time to try something different.

This does not make any sense. Its like saying that democracy does not work, because we see all its shortcomings.

You tried something different and you cannot even make it to be safe. Criminality, depression, mental diseases in Australia/USA/UK and similar countries are getting worse and worse. Still do not think something is wrong?

 

[Paidiske]

You try something different and you cannot even make it to be safe.

We weren't safe before. At least now, I can earn an income, I can support myself, I can leave an abusive spouse, I can seek protection under the law. I'm a lot safer than, say, my grandmothers were.

 

[trophy33]

We weren't safe before. At least now, I can earn an income, I can support myself, I can leave an abusive spouse, I can seek protection under the law. I'm a lot safer than, say, my grandmothers were.

You, you, you... but as a society? Individualism will not make you safe for long, if you cannot walk your street at night and if your children cannot play outside.

 

[Paidiske]

You, you, you... but as a society?

As a society, women's lot has improved markedly. My example can be broadened to a whole generation.

 

[trophy33]

As a society, women's lot has improved markedly. My example can be broadened to a whole generation.

I hate to break it to you, but many women disagree. Most would prefer to have a functional family than a career.

Feminism tries to position itself like "for women", but its actually making the life worse for the majority of women.

 

[Paidiske]

I hate to break it to you, but many women disagree. Most would prefer to have a functional family than a career.

It's not either/or. It's quite possible to have both, and many of us do.

 

[trophy33]

It's not either/or. It's quite possible to have both, and many of us do.

No, its not possible, you will have to make serious compromises and put your children into the hands of state, for example, while you work.

Single working mothers (most existent in the most feminist societies, weird) surely are not too happy, at least they complain all the time.

Individualism will take you just so far, before the society will become totally dependent on government.