When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

We can achieve fairness and equality by pointing to the disadvantage itself and not the identity

But you can't do that, when the disadvantage is because of particular identity markers (such as gender or race). How can you point to the disadvantage of racism, without noting race as part of the picture?

That way if anyone, blacks, women, disabled, whites, able bodied, whatever person is a valued individual who has dignity and worth and should be given those natural God given rights which no State or human can deny.

I agree that this is the ideal, but while people are denied opportunities because of their race or gender or disability, we need to be able to name that and address it. Refusing to acknowledge it doesn't stop it from happening.

Subjugated legally?

Dismantling feminism would return women to a state without legal rights within marriage.

Can you give me the percentage that are....

1. Married.
2. Unemployed and not seeking employment.
3. Not retired.

Because unfortunately, once we get rid of the single fathers and fathers who work from home, I expect that percentage is much smaller.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Kuperberg has spent nearly 10 years researching stay-at-home parenting. She said right now about 14% of dads with young children are out of the workforce, not actively looking for a job and taking care of the kids full time. Pre-COVID, that number was in the 1-5% range.

The 1-5% range. That means it's not an option for 95-99% of men.

I can't easily find those figures; I'm not sure if they're collected with those categories.

But that said, apparently it's 14% now. And I don't buy the idea that it's not an option for the rest. That they don't take up the option doesn't mean they don't have it.

How does one quantify those things?

If someone weren't doing their job. Weren't visiting the sick and dying, weren't holding services properly, weren't caring for their people. That's the obvious baseline and where most of the complaints have teeth.

Yeah...absent from their children's lives, they get blamed for "not being there" all the time.

Fair enough. I haven't seen that, but if you say it happens, I guess it does. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and suggest that there's not nearly as strong a cultural narrative that "working fathers are bad fathers," as there is that "working mothers are bad mothers."

Great....what you're telling me is that as long as other people are around to raise your children, it's not that difficult to have children and a career.

Unless you're a hermit single parent, that's pretty normal, though. To share life with a spouse, to have give and take with extended family. Being a parent doesn't require being within arm's-length of junior 24/7 for eighteen years.

I mean....the irony of you not seeing the fact that you'd rather work 3 days a week, and need other people to do the parenting while you're absent, as indicators that it's actually extraordinarily difficult to do both....is a bit strange.

It's a strange fact, but true, that a child has two parents. If each work three days a week, both can work and junior's not neglected. This is not rocket science, surely?

It's not based on reproductive biology. It's based on ability and competence.

But the claim that ability and competence differ signicantly between the sexes is the claim that this differs by reproductive biology. Which is nonsense.

Then the theory falls apart completely. Why should we compensate for wealth and not beauty or height or intelligence?

Beauty or height don't matter for most situations in life.

Privilege theory is just a child crying about the world not being fair.

No, the world isn't fair. But we can change the degree to which that's true. Wouldn't a fairer world be a better world?

You said potential and desires. Desires tend to outstrip potential.

My point with that was about what field or area of interest they might want to enter. So they shouldn't (for example) be pushed to fulfill their potential in a very academic field if actually their desire is to be a concert pianist.

Women don't want men to be stay at home dads. While 91% of men fully support a woman staying home to care for the kids only 26% of women would support a man doing it.

No, I don't think, on the whole, women want a role-reversal of the traditional model, where she's a breadwinner full time and he stays home altogether. It's not really that brilliant a model for anyone. I think we'd prefer a more equal sharing of both roles (where both work and both take on responsibility for a share of the domestic front).

It's time to recognize that it's promises have failed and women know this.

Really? Its promises have failed? I have an education, I work in a field I'm passionate about and good at (which until very recently denied to women), I'm able to support myself financially, I share life as an equal with my spouse, I have medical options around my fertility, and I am able to participate in my society to the extent I desire.

Those aren't failures. They're massive victories. Ones we don't want to see lost.

It appears more.ane more that you personal.experiences have jaded your glasses.

There was a time when I thought feminism had achieved its aims and there really were no fights left to be fought on that front. Then yes, reality smacked me in the face and I started to see some of the ways in which that's not true. Jaded? Perhaps. With reason.

 

[Robban]

But you can't do that, when the disadvantage is because of particular identity markers (such as gender or race). How can you point to the disadvantage of racism, without noting race as part of the picture?

I agree that this is the ideal, but while people are denied opportunities because of their race or gender or disability, we need to be able to name that and address it. Refusing to acknowledge it doesn't stop it from happening.


Dismantling feminism would return women to a state without legal rights within marriage.

I can't easily find those figures; I'm not sure if they're collected with those categories.

But that said, apparently it's 14% now. And I don't buy the idea that it's not an option for the rest. That they don't take up the option doesn't mean they don't have it.

If someone weren't doing their job. Weren't visiting the sick and dying, weren't holding services properly, weren't caring for their people. That's the obvious baseline and where most of the complaints have teeth.

Fair enough. I haven't seen that, but if you say it happens, I guess it does. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and suggest that there's not nearly as strong a cultural narrative that "working fathers are bad fathers," as there is that "working mothers are bad mothers."

Unless you're a hermit single parent, that's pretty normal, though. To share life with a spouse, to have give and take with extended family. Being a parent doesn't require being within arm's-length of junior 24/7 for eighteen years.

It's a strange fact, but true, that a child has two parents. If each work three days a week, both can work and junior's not neglected. This is not rocket science, surely?

But the claim that ability and competence differ signicantly between the sexes is the claim that this differs by reproductive biology. Which is nonsense.

Beauty or height don't matter for most situations in life.

No, the world isn't fair. But we can change the degree to which that's true. Wouldn't a fairer world be a better world?

My point with that was about what field or area of interest they might want to enter. So they shouldn't (for example) be pushed to fulfill their potential in a very academic field if actually their desire is to be a concert pianist.


No, I don't think, on the whole, women want a role-reversal of the traditional model, where she's a breadwinner full time and he stays home altogether. It's not really that brilliant a model for anyone. I think we'd prefer a more equal sharing of both roles (where both work and both take on responsibility for a share of the domestic front).

Really? Its promises have failed? I have an education, I work in a field I'm passionate about and good at (which until very recently denied to women), I'm able to support myself financially, I share life as an equal with my spouse, I have medical options around my fertility, and I am able to participate in my society to the extent I desire.

Those aren't failures. They're massive victories. Ones we don't want to see lost.

There was a time when I thought feminism had achieved its aims and there really were no fights left to be fought on that front. Then yes, reality smacked me in the face and I started to see some of the ways in which that's not true. Jaded? Perhaps. With reason.

There are plenty of people who visit the sick and dying and who care for others.

Difference is, clergy get paid for it.

 

[Paidiske]

There are plenty of people who visit the sick and dying and who care for others.

Difference is, clergy get paid for it.

Not exactly. We get paid to free us up from the need for secular work, so that we can devote our time to the church.

But my point to Ana was that, for example, if someone is dying and requests last rites, and I don't go, that is a clear case of pastoral failure, for which I can be held accountable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dismantling feminism would return women to a state without legal rights within marriage.

Are you under some mistaken impression that without the feminist movement....we'd immediately repeal all your right?

If so....why?

I can't easily find those figures; I'm not sure if they're collected with those categories.

Right, well if we're talking about men having an option....there has to be a choice, right? Men who are fired and currently staying home aren't necessarily choosing.

But that said, apparently it's 14% now.

Because of the economic devastation of covid. Normally 1-5% is the more accurate picture.

And I don't buy the idea that it's not an option for the rest.

It's not.

That they don't take up the option doesn't mean they don't have it.

They don't have it.

If someone weren't doing their job.

Abstract.

Weren't visiting the sick and dying,

Quantifiable.

weren't holding services properly,

Abstract.

weren't caring for their people.

Abstract.

That's the obvious baseline and where most of the complaints have teeth.

You aren't giving me much to work with here. Do you still think you're in a leadership position?

Fair enough. I haven't seen that, but if you say it happens, I guess it does. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and suggest that there's not nearly as strong a cultural narrative that "working fathers are bad fathers," as there is that "working mothers are bad mothers."

Bad parents. Anyone can create a child...but we're talking about parenting. If you pay someone else to watch your child because you're gone 70% of the time....the child can still turn out well, but it's not because of you. You can still be a good parent that other 30% of the time...but you're unlikely to be as good a parent as those home raising their children.

It's a strange fact, but true, that a child has two parents. If each work three days a week, both can work and junior's not neglected. This is not rocket science, surely?

Employers have their own interests. If you're splitting the work of an employee who does 6 days a week...are you also getting paid half as much?

But the claim that ability and competence differ signicantly between the sexes is the claim that this differs by reproductive biology.

It's not. Most jobs don't require the use of a penis or vagina.

Beauty or height don't matter for most situations in life.

Are you kidding? You cited a study showing height bias lol.

Halo effect - The Decision Lab

The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that distorts our overall impression of a person and can therefore influence how we treat them in the future.

thedecisionlab.com

The halo effect, is perhaps the only bias as significant as the women are wonderful effect. For all the droning about white privilege there's very little talk about these robustly proven biases that have a far far greater impact on outcomes.

No, the world isn't fair. But we can change the degree to which that's true. Wouldn't a fairer world be a better world?

That's a rather philosophical discussion. You sure you want to have it? I'll argue against fairness.

My point with that was about what field or area of interest they might want to enter. So they shouldn't (for example) be pushed to fulfill their potential in a very academic field if actually their desire is to be a concert pianist.

And they may not have the potential to be a concert pianist.

No, I don't think, on the whole, women want a role-reversal of the traditional model, where she's a breadwinner full time and he stays home altogether.

No kidding.

It's not really that brilliant a model for anyone. I think we'd prefer a more equal sharing of both roles (where both work and both take on responsibility for a share of the domestic front).

Some perhaps.

Really? Its promises have failed? I have an education, I work in a field I'm passionate about and good at (which until very recently denied to women), I'm able to support myself financially, I share life as an equal with my spouse, I have medical options around my fertility, and I am able to participate in my society to the extent I desire.

Those aren't failures. They're massive victories. Ones we don't want to see lost.

Some don't.

There was a time when I thought feminism had achieved its aims and there really were no fights left to be fought on that front.

There really aren't. I recall a time when women were complaining about room temperatures. When that's the last hill to die on...it's over. When the biggest feminist movement in decades does more damage than good...it's done.

 

[Paidiske]

Are you under some mistaken impression that without the feminist movement....we'd immediately repeal all your right?

If so....why?

Does "dismantling feminism" not also suggest removing the changes that feminism has brought?

Right, well if we're talking about men having an option....there has to be a choice, right? Men who are fired and currently staying home aren't necessarily choosing.

You could argue that either way. There are lots of mums who feel trapped in caring roles they didn't necessarily choose.

Because of the economic devastation of covid. Normally 1-5% is the more accurate picture.

You don't think that, like working from home, this might become part of the "new normal"?

They don't have it.

Why not?

Abstract.

It's pretty quantifiable whether someone's actually running services in accordance with norms and expectations.

Do you still think you're in a leadership position?

I lead a faith community in its local mission, so, yes.

If you pay someone else to watch your child because you're gone 70% of the time....the child can still turn out well, but it's not because of you. You can still be a good parent that other 30% of the time...but you're unlikely to be as good a parent as those home raising their children.

I don't think parenting is limited to what you do in the direct presence of your child.

Employers have their own interests. If you're splitting the work of an employee who does 6 days a week...are you also getting paid half as much?

Generally, yes.

It's not. Most jobs don't require the use of a penis or vagina.

Exactly. So what's this twaddle about men being more able or competent?

Are you kidding? You cited a study showing height bias lol.

Maybe, but since we don't (for example) put our heights on our resumes, it's not nearly as relevant in being considered for a job as some other factors are.

That's a rather philosophical discussion. You sure you want to have it? I'll argue against fairness.

Seems to me you've been doing that throughout this thread...

And they may not have the potential to be a concert pianist.

Sure. But if they do have the potential and the desire, they shouldn't be prevented from it.

I recall a time when women were complaining about room temperatures.

Which I'd agree is relatively trivial. But it's far from the only battle left to fight on equality.

 

[Robban]

Not exactly. We get paid to free us up from the need for secular work, so that we can devote our time to the church.

But my point to Ana was that, for example, if someone is dying and requests last rites, and I don't go, that is a clear case of pastoral failure, for which I can be held accountable.

I do not know what "last rites" are.

Will say though, I journeyed a long way to visit my dear, dear sister, one of two twins, we had not seen so much of each other since childhood.

Aware herself she did not have much time left she was in good spirits,

her last words to me lifted me off the floor, so to speak,

"I love you to bits Robban".


"Beautifully absurd
by Tzvi Freeman,


The world is absurd, very absurd.
to repair ugly absurdity,

you just can't be normal.

You need an alternative absurdity.


We call it "Divine madness."

Cheers Tzvi.

 

[stevevw]

But you can't do that, when the disadvantage is because of particular identity markers (such as gender or race). How can you point to the disadvantage of racism, without noting race as part of the picture?

But we already have this with our current system where no one can be denied certain natural Rights regardless of race, gender or any other identity. Identity politics skews this by dividing society into identity groups Rights over this this natural God given individual Right. It divides society by pitting one identity against the other based on a narrow view of what causes disadvantage. It simply doesn't work.

We could come up with unlimited interpretations of what is disadevantage and it would be impossible to police. It would cause antagonism because people will always believe that their identity is more important than another and because its all based on subjective and arbitrary measures (depending what assumptions you make) which can never be determined objectively it would cause chaos and instability.

I agree that this is the ideal, but while people are denied opportunities because of their race or gender or disability, we need to be able to name that and address it. Refusing to acknowledge it doesn't stop it from happening.

I don't think using our natural Rights and whether an individual rather than idenity is denied those Rights is saying we cannot identify when minorities are denied or disadvantaged. Its just a different starting point for measuring and identifying disadvantage due to injustice.

Using identity politics as the basis can misidentify disadvantage due to injustice because it assumes all disadvantage is caused by injustice and theres no objective way to determine this based on subjective beliefs of identity politics. In some ways modern society and life is a disadvantage for everyone and some if not a lot of disadvantage just comes from no one unjustly denying others. It is what it is.

Taking this position I believe is more honest, it puts the responibility back on individual worth but it also means taking responsibility for yourself regardless of what life throws at us while still valuing the the human individual and their natural Rights. Sort of like the Golden Rule.

That way when anyone regardless of identity is denied these basic natural Rights we have a clear measure without identity of injustice. That means regardless of identity we need to address this. But it also allows for natural disadvantage.

For example new immigrants suffer higher levels of unemployment which will impact their life, housing, education choices, even putting food on the table. We already recognize this disadvantage not because the system has purposely designed itself to oppress new immigrants but because new immigrants in an alien system they have immigrated to are at a disadvantage.

But that will also apply to anyone not because they are new immigrants, a particular ethnicity or gender but because of different reasons in life people become disadvantaged. Its the basic prinicple of the Welfare State which has been a part of the West since its formation. Well at least until Christians came along.

if there is any oppressive system that is driving modern society its economics. As they say money is at the root of all evil. That motivates people to purposely deny other unjustly because its a powerful motivator over peoples good will. Money has no identity it affects everyone. But then some say f it wasn't for capitalism there would be more poor people in the world. I guess if we shared more, reduced our greed that may help.

I think its a complicated dilemma for modern society. All these ideas of indivisualism, social and academic status, material standing, position, career ect are feeding identity politics and the like and its become a great big mess, its messing everyone up. Modern society makes people sick and its like a vicious cycle that feeds into itself and will be hard to stop.

 

[Paidiske]

I do not know what "last rites" are.

The poem is beautiful. Thank you for sharing it.

Last rites are the rituals done with someone preparing for death. They can include prayers, confession, receiving communion, and so on, depending on the person's wishes and state of health at the time.

 

[Paidiske]

But we already have this with our current system where no one can be denied certain natural Rights regardless of race, gender or any other identity.

In theory. In practice it's not working that way.

I don't think using our natural Rights and whether an individual rather than idenity is denied those Rights is saying we cannot identify when minorities are denied or disadvantaged.

But if, when an individual is treated unfairly, you refuse to notice that it's because of gender or race (for example), and you refuse to notice the pattern of such unfair treatment across a gender or race, you become blind to the systemic or cultural problem. And if you are blind to it, you can't address it.

 

[stevevw]

In theory. In practice it's not working that way.

No its more than theory as the West has proven its worth over 100s of years. But now ideologues have come along and politicized everything we no longer believe in these truth principles but rather have replaced them with identity politics. You can't judge what is happening now as being caused by the principles we no longer practice.

Its getting back to those principles that will remedy the problem. It won't eliminate descrimination but it will set a clear standard and minimize the ideological thinking that is dividing society.

But if, when an individual is treated unfairly, you refuse to notice that it's because of gender or race (for example), and you refuse to notice the pattern of such unfair treatment across a gender or race, you become blind to the systemic or cultural problem. And if you are blind to it, you can't address it.

No I disagree, upholding these truth principles I mentioned automatically addresses descrimination across the board because decrimination is identified regardless of identity. If that happens to happen with more identities than others then this will also be identified. hey theres a lot of (X) identity not having their rights met in this or that situation for example.

The point though is the measure is of 'Rights denied only' without any other determination because the Rights are fundemental, natural and inalienable as they are Goed given and not determined by humans who can be biased in the first place with working out denial of Rights by identity as the basis. Two completely different starting points which will ineviable lead to two different outcomes.

In fact I think the idea of noticing the differences in Rights by group identity is what causes descrimination. It means a persons value is their identity and not that they are a human identity with the same unified Rights and worth. It begins to pit this identity measured against that identity based on subjective measures where identities or positions of disadvantage are potentially unlimited because its all arbitrary according to the position from where a person stands which could be many.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Does "dismantling feminism" not also suggest removing the changes that feminism has brought?

I was just thinking of more like calling it a wrap.

You could argue that either way. There are lots of mums who feel trapped in caring roles they didn't necessarily choose.

They didn't choose what exactly? Don't women have agency?

You don't think that, like working from home, this might become part of the "new normal"?

No....there's a certain irony in AI. We imagined robots picking strawberries and the like. We got writing and painting and organizing machines that will replace a lot of these female jobs. If you can do it from home....good chance you won't be needed in 10 years.

Why not?

Because it's not an option. Women climbing the ladder of professional work tend to imagine they deserve a man who makes more....not less than them.

It's pretty quantifiable whether someone's actually running services in accordance with norms and expectations.

Not really. You gave me three subjective abstractions.

I don't think parenting is limited to what you do in the direct presence of your child.

That's probably a rationalization.

Generally, yes.

Then why not just have one parent work and the other dedicate more time to parenting?

Exactly. So what's this twaddle about men being more able or competent?

Those aren't the only differences between men and women. You saw the IQ distributions.

Maybe, but since we don't (for example) put our heights on our resumes, it's not nearly as relevant in being considered for a job as some other factors are.

And yet senior management is on average considerably taller.

Seems to me you've been doing that throughout this thread...

Would you recognize beauty without ugliness, intelligence without stupidity, honesty without liars?

The variety of people ensures we aren't equal....and therefore things can never be fully fair. If you could snap your fingers and everyone was suddenly equally attractive....do you imagine you'd like that world?

I like diversity.

Sure. But if they do have the potential and the desire, they shouldn't be prevented from it.

What good comes from pursuing the desire without potential?

Which I'd agree is relatively trivial. But it's far from the only battle left to fight on equality.

Women are outperforming men on many important metrics. Men have it harder from things like suicide to higher education to homelessness.

Most western countries recognize a crisis men are facing....even if they cannot put a name or description to it.

Yet you seem to wish women climb ever higher. What's equal about that?

 

[Paidiske]

No its more than theory as the West has proven its worth over 100s of years.

Sorry, but there are entrenched problems which we have failed to deal with. I don't accept your premise that everything is fine. It isn't.

You can't judge what is happening now as being caused by the principles we no longer practice.

So, what, a hundred years ago we didn't have disadvantage on the basis of race or sex? Surely you don't expect me to be so poorly acquainted with history that I actually believe that?

If that happens to happen with more identities than others then this will also be identified. hey theres a lot of (X) identity not having their rights met in this or that situation for example.

Not if you take those traits out of the question.

In fact I think the idea of noticing the differences in Rights by group identity is what causes descrimination.

No. It recognises it; it doesn't cause it. This is like saying that the idea of checking roads for potholes is what causes potholes.

They didn't choose what exactly? Don't women have agency?

We often have very limited options.

Because it's not an option. Women climbing the ladder of professional work tend to imagine they deserve a man who makes more....not less than them.

I think you get to a point where what he makes doesn't matter so much as how he's prepared to work as part of a team. But I can concede that it might take time for attitudes to catch up to that reality.

That's probably a rationalization.

Not at all. Part of parenting is fostering growing independence and relationships outside the nuclear family.

Then why not just have one parent work and the other dedicate more time to parenting?

Because then both miss out; one on much of the family side of life and the other on the satisfactions of work outside the home.

Those aren't the only differences between men and women. You saw the IQ distributions.

Where most people, men and women, are under the overlapping part of the bell curve. For the vast majority of people, sex differences in IQ have no bearing on anything in life.

And yet senior management is on average considerably taller.

You know, maybe we'll get to the day when height seems like the most entrenched unfair social advantage and it's time to do something about it. I'm not really sure we're at that point yet.

Would you recognize beauty without ugliness, intelligence without stupidity, honesty without liars?

The variety of people ensures we aren't equal....and therefore things can never be fully fair. If you could snap your fingers and everyone was suddenly equally attractive....do you imagine you'd like that world?

I like diversity.

I don't think diversity is a problem. I think using diversity to justify withholding opportunity from some people is a problem, though.

What good comes from pursuing the desire without potential?

Enjoyment, perhaps. That might end up being more of a hobby than a career.

Yet you seem to wish women climb ever higher. What's equal about that?

I wish to remove the barriers women continue to face. I also wish to remove the (quite different) barriers men face. It seems to me that doing both is quite compatible since many of the underlying causes are part of the same (patriarchal) system. That seems pretty equal to me.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, but there are entrenched problems which we have failed to deal with. I don't accept your premise that everything is fine. It isn't.

I am not saying everything is fine. I am saying we already had a good basis for dealing with injustices and descrimination though it wasn't perfect all the time it worked for the most part. That is up until around 10 years ago even. But over the last few decades these foundational principles I have mentioned have been undermined by a new ideology infecting society especially in the West.

During this short Leftist ideology has influenced our institutions, policies and laws. So the Woke type ideas are already in place but they are failing miserably. They are causing inequality and descrimination even though ideologues claim they are about equality and inclusion.

Up until that time I think we were dealing with entrenched problems. Like I said no system is perfect but what the West has established through years of living out those truths are the best basis for achieving an equal and just society. Now this is all at risk thanks to ideologues politicizing everything. You can identify entrenched descrimination without having to be Woke you know.

So, what, a hundred years ago we didn't have disadvantage on the basis of race or sex? Surely you don't expect me to be so poorly acquainted with history that I actually believe that?

No you missed the point, 100 years ago we had horrific disadvantage and that is what has helped us understand human nature and how we can live together. The UN Human Rights came after the horrors of WW2 when we realized we needed to make Universal Rights for all. Through these experiences we have come to know certain Truth Principles that stand regardless of human ideologies.

Whenever we have moved away from this Truths is when we have problems. Right now is one of those times with the infiltration of Leftist progressive ideology that discounts those Truths in place of subjectively determined truths basede on identity politics.

Not if you take those traits out of the question.

What do you mean by traits. If you mean identity then the destinction will still stand. It doesn't matter what identity because the identity of being human, in Gods image qualifies the person their Rights. So really it is the God given Rights that stand as the measure and not the identity.

So if say if new immigrants are suffering more disadvantage in a particular situation due to unjust practices denying them it is wrong. But it will also be wrong if that happened to white locals or gays or women or whoever so long as they are humans. We just would not measure it by identity group first but rather as humans with dignity and worth.

Once this is identified it will be self evident the systemic issues that deny these Rights and therefore need addressing. The important thing is its not politicing things which seems to be the agendea of ideologues today.

This is how the US and other Nations Constitutions, Universal Human Rights and the Civil Rights movement began under Martin Luther King Jn and how charities help the needy up until the political ideologues took over and began to put a spanner in the works which has resulted in our divided society today.

 

[Paidiske]

I am saying we already had a good basis for dealing with injustices and descrimination though it wasn't perfect all the time it worked for the most part.

No, it didn't. That's why we needed a feminist movement, a civil rights movement, and so on. It's why we still need them.

You can identify entrenched descrimination without having to be Woke you know.

Maybe. But what you're talking about - a situation where we can't talk about the differing experiences of differing identity groups - doesn't seem to me like it would allow for that very well.

What do you mean by traits.

I mean you can't identify sexism if you're not willing to identify sex as part of a pattern of discrimination. You can't identify racism if you're not willing to identify race as part of a pattern of discrimination. If you only want to see each person as an individual, then if they have bad experiences - shrug - something bad happened to someone, but you can't see the underlying cultural patterns and reasons for it because you're not willing to consider populations or groups.

Our society was always divided. It's just that some people got to pretend that it wasn't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We often have very limited options.

Ok...I've literally been talking about an option that women have essentially had for centuries. An option to be a housewife. An option 99%-95% of men don't realistically have.

And you're sitting there telling me some wife in an abusive relationship doesn't have the option to choose not to marry her abuser....or divorce her abuser...or call the police on her abuser and have him thrown in jail while she leaves.

See the irony there?

I think you get to a point where what he makes doesn't matter so much as how he's prepared to work as part of a team.

Generally speaking, that point doesn't seem to exist for most women. High income and highly independent are the ones able to hire professional matchmakers when they aren't able to find a husband. The trend these matchmakers have seen over the years regarding such women is literally the opposite of what you're describing.

They get asked about what they want in a husband and the description is so absurdly unrealistic they end up describing less than 1% of men. Men who basically have so many options they would never choose these women. I feel lucky I'm not a Gen Z or young person now trying to navigate the dating scene....it's a nightmare.

But I can concede that it might take time for attitudes to catch up to that reality.

Attitudes need to do a 180. I'm not saying that women need to stop working but if they choose to pursue a career and casually date throughout their 20s....feminism should be more honest with these women about what the outcomes of that are romantically. I don't feminism is entirely to blame, social media has a part to play, but feminism sure isn't helping.

Not at all. Part of parenting is fostering growing independence and relationships outside the nuclear family.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Because then both miss out; one on much of the family side of life and the other on the satisfactions of work outside the home.

You're in a career that it sounds like you deeply enjoy and find very meaningful. The reality is, that isn't true for most people or most careers. It's unfortunate that so many women find this out a little too late.

There's literally a video short of a 22yo woman crying about having to work an 8 hour day, how she's so exhausted, how she wishes she could just put her feet up and relax....and she blames the feminist movement and you can tell she feels like she barely missed this opportunity to be a stay at home wife and keep a home.

I don't want to say to a certainty that these videos are far more common than a woman talking about how much she loves her work and career....but it definitely seems that way. The video I'm describing got at least 6 million views.

Where most people, men and women, are under the overlapping part of the bell curve. For the vast majority of people, sex differences in IQ have no bearing on anything in life.

Not true.

Top psychologist: IQ is the No. 1 predictor of work success—especially combined with these 5 traits

Does a high IQ definitely set you up for more success down the road – be it in terms of career advancement or higher salaries? The answer, essentially, is yes, according to researchers.

www.google.com

IQ is the strongest predictor of work success...by a lot. The fact that more women are clustered around the middle of the bell curve and less so at the tail ends is a rather simple and elegant explanation for why we see more men impoverished and homeless and more men in highly valued, high income, leadership positions.

I'm guessing they don't cover these things in women's studies.

You know, maybe we'll get to the day when height seems like the most entrenched unfair social advantage and it's time to do something about it. I'm not really sure we're at that point yet.

I don't expect feminists to ever get there, because I don't see feminism advocating for anything that doesn't directly benefit women and women only.

I don't think diversity is a problem. I think using diversity to justify withholding opportunity from some people is a problem, though.

One might imagine you'd be outraged then at the thought of 1 out of 6 hiring employees directly admitting to discriminating against straight white men. Yet when I showed you the stat....not only did you not express surprise or outrage, you didn't even express disagreement with the practice.

Enjoyment, perhaps. That might end up being more of a hobby than a career.

A lesson better learned early than late.

I wish to remove the barriers women continue to face. I also wish to remove the (quite different) barriers men face. It seems to me that doing both is quite compatible since many of the underlying causes are part of the same (patriarchal) system. That seems pretty equal to me.

I don't agree. I don't see many barriers women face to believe in that don't require a degree of mind reading or outright negative assumptions about men. Meanwhile, there's a multitude of barriers specific to men that are either ignored or generally no one cares about.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok...I've literally been talking about an option that women have essentially had for centuries. An option to be a housewife. An option 99%-95% of men don't realistically have.

For a lot of women, it hasn't been an "option," it's been a cage.

But here I am arguing for broadening options for men and women, and you're reacting as if this is a bad thing, why?

Generally speaking, that point doesn't seem to exist for most women.

I suspect it might take a generation or so for cultural expectations to shift.

Attitudes need to do a 180. I'm not saying that women need to stop working but if they choose to pursue a career and casually date throughout their 20s....feminism should be more honest with these women about what the outcomes of that are romantically.

I'm not sure I'd really promote casual dating for anyone. You can pursue a career and marry younger, if that's what you want.

Not sure what you mean by this.

There seems to be some weird idea that good parenting means constantly being physically present with your children, monitoring their every moment and constantly having some sort of input. But that's not really good parenting at all.

You're in a career that it sounds like you deeply enjoy and find very meaningful. The reality is, that isn't true for most people or most careers. It's unfortunate that so many women find this out a little too late.

That's true, but even for people who don't have a deep sense of vocation to their work, it can be very rewarding. Most mums I talk to want to work, at least part time, because being at home full time is not something they find challenging, rewarding, or fulfilling at all.

There's literally a video short of a 22yo woman crying about having to work an 8 hour day, how she's so exhausted, how she wishes she could just put her feet up and relax....and she blames the feminist movement and you can tell she feels like she barely missed this opportunity to be a stay at home wife and keep a home.

I'm laughing at her idea that apparently being at home (with children?) would be easier. That kid needs a reality check.

I mean, it does depend what work she does and what conditions she's in, because some workplaces are pretty horrific, but heck, in most of them you at least get a tea break.

I don't want to say to a certainty that these videos are far more common than a woman talking about how much she loves her work and career....but it definitely seems that way.

Those of us who love our work and careers probably aren't making videos about it.

IQ is the strongest predictor of work success...by a lot. The fact that more women are clustered around the middle of the bell curve and less so at the tail ends is a rather simple and elegant explanation for why we see more men impoverished and homeless and more men in highly valued, high income, leadership positions.

No, it's convenient, but it's not an adequate explanation.

For example, the reality is that there are fewer services (like emergency accommodation) for men. I can always find a homeless woman a bed; there are times when I can't find one for a homeless man. That's got nothing to do with IQ and a lot to do with poor design of our social services.

(And there are more women than men in poverty, so it's not true for impoverishment anyway).

One might imagine you'd be outraged then at the thought of 1 out of 6 hiring employees directly admitting to discriminating against straight white men. Yet when I showed you the stat....not only did you not express surprise or outrage, you didn't even express disagreement with the practice.

I'd want to know a lot more about it. I suspect that it's about attempting to correct for bias in favour of straight white men, which (while it might not be perfect) is at least understandable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For a lot of women, it hasn't been an "option," it's been a cage.

Skip the melodrama.

But here I am arguing for broadening options for men and women, and you're reacting as if this is a bad thing, why?

You're arguing for more options for women. I agree with that much.

I suspect it might take a generation or so for cultural expectations to shift.

It's been several generations since women have been allowed in the professional marketplace.

I think you should consider there's limited number of ways we can configure society that will work.

Anyone that argues for a need for a "collective consciousness" or "shift in consciousness" or redefining of masculinity or femininity is in denial of the concept above.

I'm not sure I'd really promote casual dating for anyone. You can pursue a career and marry younger, if that's what you want.

Right but women don't typically marry younger and men don't typically marry older. Women generally prefer men with a higher income than themselves and men generally prefer women who can have children.

There seems to be some weird idea that good parenting means constantly being physically present with your children, monitoring their every moment and constantly having some sort of input. But that's not really good parenting at all.

It's not a weird idea. Parenting isn't easy and requires developing certain skills.

Pick any endeavour that requires the development of a skillset and tell me who is more likely to do better at it, all other things being equal....

1. The person who spends less time at the endeavour.

2. The person who spends more time at the endeavour.

Obviously, it's number 2, right?

There's nothing at all odd about telling you a person who spends more time parenting will likely be a better parent.

That's true, but even for people who don't have a deep sense of vocation to their work, it can be very rewarding.

Or it is merely work.

Most mums I talk to want to work, at least part time, because being at home full time is not something they find challenging, rewarding, or fulfilling at all.

Perhaps they shouldn't be mothers then.

I'm laughing at her idea that apparently being at home (with children?) would be easier. That kid needs a reality check.

She seems to be part of an increasing population of women.

I mean, it does depend what work she does and what conditions she's in, because some workplaces are pretty horrific, but heck, in most of them you at least get a tea break.

I have no idea. I think the point is that she doesn't want to work.

Those of us who love our work and careers probably aren't making videos about it.

Perhaps. You don't seem to hesitate to look down upon those women who prefer to stay at home and be a mother and wife though.

No, it's convenient, but it's not an adequate explanation.

What's inadequate about it?

If IQ strongly correlates to work success, and more men are distributed at the higher end of the IQ scores than women (over 3 to 1 I think) then why wouldn't you expect to see more men at the upper echelons of success than women.....always?

For example, the reality is that there are fewer services (like emergency accommodation) for men. I can always find a homeless woman a bed; there are times when I can't find one for a homeless man. That's got nothing to do with IQ and a lot to do with poor design of our social services.

You're talking about the lower boundaries of IQ....which similarly have a preponderance of men over women.

(And there are more women than men in poverty, so it's not true for impoverishment anyway).

See above. The fact that less men are in the average means there's more men distributed at both ends of the bell curve, the upper and lower.

I'd want to know a lot more about it. I suspect that it's about attempting to correct for bias in favour of straight white men, which (while it might not be perfect) is at least understandable.

You're acting like this is some mystery. As if we've been living in alternate dimensions where for the last ten years where in my universe, the political left has been droning on and on about white male privilege and the need for "proportional representation" (which is just a fancy way of saying racial and sexual discrimination). Honestly, I find it really insulting for you to sit there and pretend that you don't know why it's happening. Just be honest, unless you've been in a coma for the past 10 years, you know exactly why it's happening. I'm going to be real nice at this point and start with the assumption that you aren't one of those people on the left that supports this blatant sexist and racist discrimination. I'm going to assume that you're not about to try and justify racial and sex discrimination for "reasons" because frankly, racist and sexist people have never imagined themselves to be morally bereft people....they always imagined that the reasons for their racism and sexism were always justified, always for some greater good. They aren't. They're just racists and sexist.

So please, don't prove my assumptions wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

That's true, but even for people who don't have a deep sense of vocation to their work, it can be very rewarding. Most mums I talk to want to work, at least part time, because being at home full time is not something they find challenging, rewarding, or fulfilling at all.

I remember a few months after we had our first. The other half was taking 6 months off before going back to work. At the time at Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London - where there was excellent child care for those who worked there. But it was hard yakka - family was a few hours down the motorway, and we'd just moved into the area, so no real circle of friends and so no real help available. I did my best to help but I'd often see her standing in the kitchen with this 1,000m stare.

One evening having dinner, which she had prepared as I had a decent commute to get home, I spilt something on the table, and Caz, in that high pitched voice you use when talking to small children, said 'Oops a daisy, never mind!' We stared at each other and she simply said 'Oh, god. I need to talk to real people'. It could have been funny, but it wasn't at the time.

Now our two live ten minutes and twenty minutes away and both sets of in-laws are minutes away as well. With 3 grandkids (and another due in the next 48 hours) I'm not sure they realise how lucky they are compared to some.

 

[stevevw]

No, it didn't. That's why we needed a feminist movement, a civil rights movement, and so on. It's why we still need them.

Your forgetting that the existing system allowed for a Feminist and Civil Rights movement to happen in the first place. If otherwise like Russia, China, Middle east and most Asian nations people would not even be able to protest.

Initially the Womens and civil Rights movements were genuine appeals for equality and justice in fact the Civil Rights movement began within the Black Church. But then it became politicized through Feminist and Critical Race academics and radicals who took over which has resulted in what we have today. This is now rolling back the long held principles I have mentioned the West was built on.

Maybe. But what you're talking about - a situation where we can't talk about the differing experiences of differing identity groups - doesn't seem to me like it would allow for that very well.

No the West allows people to speak of their experiences under freedom of speech and expression. Thats an important part. But its not the only part. What has happeneed today in a Postmodernist society is that Identity has become the only means for what is truth and reality even trumping objective reality.

This is not a good situation as we know in the past how we can delude ourselves with ideologies and beliefs which then lead to devastation for many in denial of freedoms.

I mean you can't identify sexism if you're not willing to identify sex as part of a pattern of discrimination. You can't identify racism if you're not willing to identify race as part of a pattern of discrimination. If you only want to see each person as an individual, then if they have bad experiences - shrug - something bad happened to someone, but you can't see the underlying cultural patterns and reasons for it because you're not willing to consider populations or groups.

We do identify when people are denied their Rights based on race or sex and now gender. I think part of understanding problems today is taking a Critical view of all influencing factors. But Critical analysis is different to Critical theory as it comes with baggage in assumptions and beliefs about the world before any analysis is done. As I said it begins from a distorted base so everything else becomes distorted.

Anyway as I said its recognised that Identity politics, CRT and other Critical ideas don't work. It actually creates racism and sexism. For example Trans identity Rights erases womens Rights because the two cannot exist at the same time. That is what happens when you make identity the defining factor for differences because there will inevitably be divisions that conflict because people are different individually and there can be multiple interpretations. Its a back the front faulty mechanism.

That is why I say that we already had a good system at least closer to the truth in how we can best live together because it reflected the reality we had already learnt in developing a way for everyone to live together such as Democracy, Enlightenment, Individual freedom and liberty, individual natural Rights and Rule of Law. They have worked for millenia and these new ideologies have only come along in the last 10 years messing everything up.

Our society was always divided. It's just that some people got to pretend that it wasn't.

I disagree. Its become more and more divided in the last 10 to 20 years. We have gone from womens and race issues to many divisions between people in culture wars. We have gone from around 90% Christian belief in the West which follows a large majority of agreement on most issues to splintered divisions and confliect on these issues including a growing polarization of views, where language is seen as violence and people are willing to actually get violent and harm others.

At least in the past we had the major parties agreeing on a fair amount and there wasn't too much difference and people had more trust in them. But in recent times thats all gone out the window. The only pretending I can see at the moment is the new ideology thats been foisted on society that is causing all this division and conflict.

We are arguing about the Rights of some new identity thats based on subjective feelings and just popped up in the last 5 minutes while kids are being sex trafficked around the world. We say BLM while white kids are going hungry. How many identities do you want. I mean we should not even have to say that its a white kid or black kid. Its a kid thats going hungry or being abused thats all a kid who has dignity and worth. One of Gods children.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your forgetting that the existing system allowed for a Feminist and Civil Rights movement to happen in the first place. If otherwise like Russia, China, Middle east and most Asian nations people would not even be able to protest.

Initially the Womens and civil Rights movements were genuine appeals for equality and justice in fact the Civil Rights movement began within the Black Church. But then it became politicized through Feminist and Critical Race academics and radicals who took over which has resulted in what we have today. This is now rolling back the long held principles I have mentioned the West was built on.

No the West allows people to speak of their experiences under freedom of speech and expression. Thats an important part. But its not the only part. What has happeneed today in a Postmodernist society is that Identity has become the only means for what is truth and reality even trumping objective reality.

This is not a good situation as we know in the past how we can delude ourselves with ideologies and beliefs which then lead to devastation for many in denial of freedoms.

We do identify when people are denied their Rights based on race or sex and now gender. I think part of understanding problems today is taking a Critical view of all influencing factors. But Critical analysis is different to Critical theory as it comes with baggage in assumptions and beliefs about the world before any analysis is done. As I said it begins from a distorted base so everything else becomes distorted.

Anyway as I said its recognised that Identity politics, CRT and other Critical ideas don't work. It actually creates racism and sexism. For example Trans identity Rights erases womens Rights because the two cannot exist at the same time. That is what happens when you make identity the defining factor for differences because there will inevitably be divisions that conflict because people are different individually and there can be multiple interpretations. Its a back the front faulty mechanism.

That is why I say that we already had a good system at least closer to the truth in how we can best live together because it reflected the reality we had already learnt in developing a way for everyone to live together such as Democracy, Enlightenment, Individual freedom and liberty, individual natural Rights and Rule of Law. They have worked for millenia and these new ideologies have only come along in the last 10 years messing everything up.

I disagree. Its become more and more divided in the last 10 to 20 years. We have gone from womens and race issues to many divisions between people in culture wars. We have gone from around 90% Christian belief in the West which follows a large majority of agreement on most issues to splintered divisions and confliect on these issues including a growing polarization of views, where language is seen as violence and people are willing to actually get violent and harm others.

At least in the past we had the major parties agreeing on a fair amount and there wasn't too much difference and people had more trust in them. But in recent times thats all gone out the window. The only pretending I can see at the moment is the new ideology thats been foisted on society that is causing all this division and conflict.

We are arguing about the Rights of some new identity thats based on subjective feelings and just popped up in the last 5 minutes while kids are being sex trafficked around the world. We say BLM while white kids are going hungry. How many identities do you want. I mean we should not even have to say that its a white kid or black kid. Its a kid thats going hungry or being abused thats all a kid who has dignity and worth.

Two facts commonly left out of descriptions and teachings of the feminist movement in the US are....

1. It was overwhelmingly opposed by women. It's not a small margin either though I don't recall the exact numbers. I'm not just talking about the suffregette movement either....I don't think a majority of women supported either the equal rights or voting or entering the professional workplace unil the late 40s or 50s. There's a variety of reasons for this but generally...I don't think they saw much appeal in doing the work their husbands did....and the ability to be drafted was tied to rights like voting.


2. This fact explains why it survived despite fact #1....big corporate sponsorship and support. Why? Because a large influx of extra workers drives down wages. This influx didn't really occur in significant numbers until we were well into the cold war years so if your father or grandfather fought in Vietnam or lived through it...there's a high chance they were still able to support their families off 1 income. By the 80s and 90s.....2 income families were increasingly the norm (as well as divorce and single mothers) and wages were increasingly flat. Thanks feminism!