Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:07 am UTC

TheStranger wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Yes, and the people in this country who are abusing that power are pretty much all white and male. (And absolutely all rich and straight, if we want to bring class and sexuality into this discussion as well...)


But again, its a function of the power they have not the color of their skin.

Also again, the power they have is itself partly a function of the color of their skin. If it weren't, people in power wouldn't be so disproportionately white.

Malice wrote:Most white males don't have any power.

Nonsense.

As a male, there is a certain amount of real power I have over a woman's safety and peace of mind solely because of the existence of rape. My walking with her at night makes her statistically less likely to be assaulted, and she knows that. So I can decide to walk her home, or not, and that decision can have a huge effect on whether she feels safe on her way home.

No, I do not abuse this power. Fuck, I don't even want this power. More than almost anything else, I wish the world were such that I didn't have this power. But that doesn't change the fact that the world is the way it is, and so I have this particular and very real power just because I am a man.

If I were more malicious, I could actually exercise the power I have because of the existence of rape. By simply making the occasional comment, I have the power to make the average woman I've never met feel far more uncomfortable than a woman doing the same thing would likely make an average guy feel.

But I need not exercise that power to have it. I need not want it to have it. I need not do anything other than merely be male, in a society where other men rape, to have it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Malice » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:26 am UTC

natraj wrote:I don't know. I don't think the comparison is really apt. There's a difference between blaming every individual white male for oppression and acknowledging that there is inherent privilege that comes with being part of that group.


Precisely my point. The statement I was addressing basically said, "Privilege = oppression", and I believe there's a difference.

Oppression is something you do. Privilege is something done to you. If the two are equivalent, then I can never stop oppressing women as long as other men exist who prefer me over them. If that's true, then how can I be blamed for it?

---

Some aspects of privilege really are that. Others only seem to be in comparison to oppression. As a guy, I can walk down the street at night without much fear of being raped. Is that a privilege? Only if you compare it to a woman, who does have to fear getting raped.
However, in my mind, not being afraid of rape is (or should be) the normal base state in any society. In this area, women are worse off; you might call that oppression. However, men aren't better off as compared to the normal state.

It's less important that things be equal than it is that things be normal. In other words, it's more important in this case that NOBODY has to fear rape than it is to have men and women fear rape equally.

Comparing men and women isn't going to get you anywhere. Comparing men and women to a common standard is more useful.

Edit:
Gmal, that power isn't a result of society, or you, or the people who run the world. It's a result of physicality. Obviously you can't intimidate any woman, because some of them will twist you into a pretzel for looking at them the wrong way. Why can you intimidate most women? Because you're bigger/stronger than most of them. That's like saying I have the power (or the privilege) to run because, you know, I was born with legs.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:40 am UTC

Malice wrote:Gmal, that power isn't a result of society, or you, or the people who run the world. It's a result of physicality. Obviously you can't intimidate any woman, because some of them will twist you into a pretzel for looking at them the wrong way. Why can you intimidate most women? Because you're bigger/stronger than most of them. That's like saying I have the power (or the privilege) to run because, you know, I was born with legs.

No, it's not.

I am pretty certain could intimidate the average woman who is the same size as me far more easily than she could intimidate the average man, just by leering and maybe commenting. This is because rape exists, and rape exists independently of physical size and strength. Weak men can commit rape, and strong women can get raped, because there's far more to it than physique.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Malice » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:21 am UTC

For that matter, men can get raped as well.

I still don't see how the "power" to frighten someone else by acting creepy is a privilege or oppression.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:34 am UTC

Malice wrote:For that matter, men can get raped as well.

Yes. But it happens less frequently, it's pretty much always done by other men, and it doesn't form a big enough part of our collective background expectations for an average guy to actively worry about it.

Malice wrote:I still don't see how the "power" to frighten someone else by acting creepy is a privilege or oppression.

It is just that: a power that you have because you are male. It is a power that *can* be used to further oppression, but even if you yourself don't use it for that, it's still a power you have based only on your sex.

Are you saying you honestly don't see how power figured into a discussion of privilege and oppression?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby chaosspawn » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:42 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Malice wrote:For that matter, men can get raped as well.

Yes. But it happens less frequently, it's pretty much always done by other men, and it doesn't form a big enough part of our collective background expectations for an average guy to actively worry about it.

That's what makes me think that rape is the wrong thing to bring up. It almost exclusively means something perpetrated by a man on a woman. If we had some sort of comparable offense that almost entirely consisted of something women did to men, then wouldn't the same dichotomy apply in reverse? I don't know, I can think of a few things in specific situations like custody of children, but nothing big in general. Then again maybe its arguable that the fact that the word means what it does is evidence of power imbalance. But say we replace rape with kill. Then I believe it's likely that people would be equally intimidated by someone of either gender or any race threatening to shoot them.

A perhaps tangential thought: It seems like if a man were raped by a woman that it would be relatively easy for society to ignore. Mostly because there's the stereotype that men always want sex, therefore the response would be "she didn't rape you because you really wanted it". Sounds like a familiar line...
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby cephalopod9 » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:52 am UTC

I do not much care what the title gets changed to so long as it is made clear that the complaints are with sexism and racism perpetrated by those in power as a faulty solution to preexisting injustices, and NOT the group of women who worked to get equal, having the same quantity, value, or measure as another, treatment. As I said, I will be more rational once that gets cleared up. Something about fairness maybe?

As it seems to me that "rights", much like "fair", describes an entirely human construct. Therefore, I don't expect there is any completely objective definition or standard. However, I don't think any definition of "right" should self infringe. It is possible for rights to be in conflict, one's right to food might interfere with another's. However, in such a case the real conflict stems from a lack of food not anyone's having a right to it.

That's what makes me think that rape is the wrong thing to bring up. It almost exclusively means something perpetrated by a man on a woman. If we had some sort of comparable offense that almost entirely consisted of something women did to men, then wouldn't the same dichotomy apply in reverse?

I think that is what makes it inequality.
Many situations will treat the sexes differently. A woman by the side of the street will probably more likely get help than a man, because of deeply imbeded biases in our society that tell use men are more dangerous than women. In a similar manner, discrimination imbeded within our societal perceptions are likely to make it harder for peope to be chosen for jobs or position that have a perceived paradigm to which they do not fit.
Image

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby TheStranger » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:06 pm UTC

A man raping a woman is not "men oppressing women", it is a man breaking the Law (as well as the moral and ethical codes of western civilization).
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:00 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Comparing men and women to a common standard is more useful.


Okay.. 50% of the population can walk down a dark street alone and have no reasonable fear of rape. The other 50% of the population requires a member of the first 50% to walk with them, and even that will not remove the reasonable fear of rape as there's the potential that the person they have chosen to accompany them will rape them during this walk, as most figures I've seen suggest that rape occurs most frequently between parties who have associated with each other prior to one raping the other.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Latentsage
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Latentsage » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:28 pm UTC

I think most of us can agree, rape is wrong and that it shouldn't happen. A simple point, of course, but it means that this is hardly a gender oppressing another (although it is admittedly, usually one gender raping another), because no one believes that rape should be happening...

Rather than making everyone equal to whatever group is oppressing them, there should be a human standard in place. All groups should strive for this standard. Not likely to occur of course, but it could work...

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Malice » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:51 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Malice wrote:Comparing men and women to a common standard is more useful.


Okay.. 50% of the population can walk down a dark street alone and have no reasonable fear of rape. The other 50% of the population requires a member of the first 50% to walk with them, and even that will not remove the reasonable fear of rape as there's the potential that the person they have chosen to accompany them will rape them during this walk, as most figures I've seen suggest that rape occurs most frequently between parties who have associated with each other prior to one raping the other.


Since most rapes, therefore, do not happen when women are walking down a dark alley, but instead are usually perpetrated by acquaintances, it stands to reason that women shouldn't rationally be as afraid as they are and shouldn't rationally need constant protection.

In the same way, if women were overly terrified of shark attacks, it would not be the fault of the sharks if they didn't go into the ocean. (To further the analogy, especially not the sharks who live in aquariums and don't attack anybody.)

In fact, that's a pretty important point. Just like most men don't actually run the world, most men don't rape, either. The fact that they could is immaterial; most of them don't. So what the hell are you complaining about?
Image

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:51 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:
Malice wrote:Comparing men and women to a common standard is more useful.


Okay.. 50% of the population can walk down a dark street alone and have no reasonable fear of rape. The other 50% of the population requires a member of the first 50% to walk with them, and even that will not remove the reasonable fear of rape as there's the potential that the person they have chosen to accompany them will rape them during this walk, as most figures I've seen suggest that rape occurs most frequently between parties who have associated with each other prior to one raping the other.


Since most rapes, therefore, do not happen when women are walking down a dark alley, but instead are usually perpetrated by acquaintances, it stands to reason that women shouldn't rationally be as afraid as they are and shouldn't rationally need constant protection.

In the same way, if women were overly terrified of shark attacks, it would not be the fault of the sharks if they didn't go into the ocean. (To further the analogy, especially not the sharks who live in aquariums and don't attack anybody.)

In fact, that's a pretty important point. Just like most men don't actually run the world, most men don't rape, either. The fact that they could is immaterial; most of them don't. So what the hell are you complaining about?


That you're somehow still not understanding what I'm saying.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby chaosspawn » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:59 pm UTC

I agree with what Malice states that the reasoning is flawed. Walking down a dark alley a rich man would have more fear of being mugged than someone who is destitute. Therefore are we now discriminating against this rich man because he has more fear of being mugged? I think this can almost be twisted to justify homophobia. If a man is afraid that he will be raped by a gay man while walking down said alley, then surely by your reasoning he is being oppressed by homosexuals. Furthermore, the fact that most rapes happen by someone the victim knows, means that the fear is a largely unjustified one.

I think that it's fair to say that those in power will generally try to keep it (by conferring benefits to themselves and prevent others from the same). Yet the sharing of power and such benefits is limited to a rather small circle around those who have power. However, the oppression of those who are not in power is a more widespread. Thus there is more of an issue in allowing those without power the benefits they should receive. While dealing with giving yourself and those around you more benefits is an issue, it is more difficult to combat and affects a much smaller amount of people. Power is a positive feedback, the more you have, the more you can grant to yourself and others you chose to. If there is a man in power, he will not just hand out benefits to anyone who happens to be a man. Instead they must meet many more criteria which likely center around how well that person is connected to him (similar economic standing, same social circles) and how similar their beliefs are (religion, politics, economics, etc.).

edit:
SecondTalon wrote:That you're somehow still not understanding what I'm saying.
My understanding is that because women fear being raped in a dark alley, and men less so, then women are being oppressed. I think this is wrong, because we cannot say that a well dressed man is more fearful of being mugged than a poorly dressed man, thus is being oppressed. Also I think it is not the fact that men exist which will worry the woman, but rather the area itself. I am unafraid of being robbed in my neighborhood, because well, let's face it, it's suburbia. I would be significantly more worried about being attacked in an area know for people being attacked on a regular basis. The fear thus is more motivated by economic standing than because of sexism or racism.

Also I think implicit in your reasoning is that both the rape and fear of rape are somehow acceptable or expected by society. I believe that this is not the case, and should not be the case. I believe that anyone walking down a street should not be afraid of criminal acts perpetrated against them. If the opinion of society is that a woman should expect to be raped, that is wrong, but if the thought is that a woman should not be raped, then I don't see how this is wrong.
Last edited by chaosspawn on Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:13 pm UTC

I think that it's fair to say that those in power will generally try to keep it (by conferring benefits to themselves and prevent others from the same). Yet the sharing of power and such benefits is limited to a rather small circle around those who have power.


Hi, welcome to English and Colonial American history, circa creation to 1920, give or take.

You're absolutely right.. those in power will generally try to keep it, unless persuaded otherwise by legal action and so forth. You've just discovered the fundamental rule behind the American Way... White Guys are in charge, and White Guys generally try to keep it that way. Every damn right that women have fought for is still being challenged and battled, from fundamentalist religions continuing to teach that a woman's place is to agree with her husband, to helpers who treat them as some fragile creature that needs constant protection via laws and statutes to protect them from the big bad world, as they're obviously too stupid and weak to get along without all the rules and laws created to go beyond merely curtailing discrimination and need the Government to insure that every workplace has a certain percentage of workers with ovaries.

In an ideal world, women would be treated basically the same as men in everything but interpersonal relationships. We obviously live nowhere near there, as I cannot read something regarding the Democratic Party Primaries without at some point coming across the sentence, or one like it, asking the question "Are we ready for a female President?"

That question constantly being repeated speaks volumes on the state of gender roles in this country.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby chaosspawn » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:39 pm UTC

I think you need add the qualification of Rich White Guys to the ones in charge. Being poor will get you oppressed just as much (if not more) than being female or non-white. I figure everyone here is hardly poor, meaning most men will fall into the aforementioned category, thus they likely have several privileges due to this. But then money counts for a lot in society. Do not Rich Black Guys and Rich White Gals also have privileges?

I don't disagree that society is not perfectly equal, but I think we're doing a decent job at it.

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/WestReport207.html
Table 1 Voter Willingness to Support Candidates of Various Social Backgrounds

Code: Select all

                1930s   1950s  1970s  1990s
Jewish          46%       -      -      92%
Catholic        60%       -      -      94%   
Female          33%       -      -      92%
Black            -       37%     -      95%
Atheist          -       18%     -      49%
Gay              -        -     26%     59%
Mormon           -        -     75%     79%
Last edited by chaosspawn on Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:11 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Malice » Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:06 am UTC

Rich, straight, white, tall, Protestant men with good hair.
Image

dosboot
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:26 am UTC

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby dosboot » Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:57 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:You're absolutely right.. those in power will generally try to keep it, unless persuaded otherwise by legal action and so forth. You've just discovered the fundamental rule behind the American Way... White Guys are in charge, and White Guys generally try to keep it that way. Every damn right that women have fought for is still being challenged and battled, from fundamentalist religions continuing to teach that a woman's place is to agree with her husband, to helpers who treat them as some fragile creature that needs constant protection via laws and statutes to protect them from the big bad world, as they're obviously too stupid and weak to get along without all the rules and laws created to go beyond merely curtailing discrimination and need the Government to insure that every workplace has a certain percentage of workers with ovaries.

In an ideal world, women would be treated basically the same as men in everything but interpersonal relationships. We obviously live nowhere near there, as I cannot read something regarding the Democratic Party Primaries without at some point coming across the sentence, or one like it, asking the question "Are we ready for a female President?"

That question constantly being repeated speaks volumes on the state of gender roles in this country.


Just so I understand: you are saying that "White Guys" with power are keeping their power amongst other white guys by making laws that discriminate against men? At best such laws can reinforce an image that white guys have power. When you get down to it though those laws are not giving any power to any white guy. They actually take away power and give it to women. Whether they are good laws or not that is what they do.

People on TV ask the question "Are we ready for a female President?" for ratings. It is a carefully phrased trap to cause controversy. Answering "No" doesn't necessarily say you yourself are a bigot, but it almost implies that you are. If a TV host could ask the question "Should a woman be allowed to be President?" and get a negative response they would.

I don't know any guys who: treat women worse than men, treat women better than men to make women feel inferior, or seriously ask questions like "Are we ready for a female President?" . I know there exist guys who hate women or wouldn't vote for one, but I honestly can imagine just as many women who hate men or wouldn't vote for one (given a choice). It says more about the genders not getting along rather than gender inequality.

User avatar
libellule
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:39 pm UTC
Location: The Ivory Tower

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby libellule » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:17 pm UTC

I don't think gmalivuk is putting the power in the hands of the rapist, but rather in the man who chooses to accompany or not his female companion. Her peace of mind is at his whim. That's the inequality. It's like visiting a third world country and being confronted with a whole bunch of very poor people begging. The decision you make to be irritated and turn away or to throw to them what is for you a trifle has an impact on their wellbeing that is disproportionate to the effect of your gesture on yourself.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Malice wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
The same can be said for oppression... why do white people get dumped on for oppression when we were only the most recent oppressors?
The society most everyone here belongs to is one in which straight white males have a shit ton of privileges that most of them (as evidenced by this thread) are unwilling to even admit exist.


Having privileges does not equal oppression. If someone comes along and hands me 1000 dollars because I'm white, am I oppressing people by not handing some of it out to people of other races?

If you just blithely spend the money without doing anything to address the inequality and racism inherent in your receipt of it?

Then yes. You're just allowing the problem to continue. Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice, and it's the wrong one, in my opinion.

Depending on who's offering it, and if you know at the time why, I'd go so far as to say accepting it in the first place is perpetuating the problem.

I call BS! I'm supposed to give up free money because the guy giving it to me is offering it without a good reason? If I take it, I'm somehow inherently obligated to "correct" the "racism" inherent in receiving free money for no good reason?

NO! I haven't taken any non-white person's money in that case, and assuming that the person giving me the White Dollars has not either, neither of us has violated anyone else's rights. Maybe the White Dollars Man is a bit of a mamzer, but that doesn't give either of us any obligation to "correct" anything.

I care about this kind of case quite a bit, since free gifts based on ethnicity or race occur all the time, and I will in fact receive one quite legitimately this winter. There's no obligation to take Gentiles on Birthright trips!
Last edited by aleflamedyud on Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:00 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re:

Postby Yakk » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:24 pm UTC

Here in the US, women still earn less money than men do, are expected to do more of the domestic work and child care, and outnumber men only in low-paying, low-status jobs.


.. and women out-spend men, get into higher education more often, are far less likely to be killed by violence, and live longer, etc etc. There are lots of statistics that show both are in pretty rosy shape.

I'd rather spend a million dollars than do a million dollars worth of work.

Why is "expected to earn more money" a good thing, while "expected to raise children more" a bad thing again?

Feminists are not out to make women "better" than men or to give women "special rights." They want equality--that is and has always been the goal. But when opportunity is skewed because of gender, race, and class, how do you promote equality of outcome?


You shoot those who have advantages in the kneecaps? (there is a reasonably famous science fiction short story about that: not shooting in the kneecaps (but that too probably), but removing any advantages in order to get equality of outcome.)

As a standard and practical example of what goes wrong with equality of outcome: changing the firefighter carrying capacity requirements so that the same percentage of males and females can pass the test. You might as well enforce that men should have an equal number of wet nurse jobs as women do.

But practically, a good part of what "keeps the peace" is the perception that everyone has a chance to gain power through "legitimate" means. Otherwise, you run the risk of people deciding it is better to tear down all of society rather than work with it. This sublimation of the urge to power keeps people pacified.

It is here that identity politics get ugly. One can amass a fair amount of power by finding or producing a disadvantaged identity and pushing how disadvantaged it is, then insisting that the identity be given help and subsidies. Once the subsidies start flowing, you can hook into the spigot and use it to lobby for more subsidies. For a concrete example of this happening, take a look at US Farm subsidies from the WW2 era, and look at how many have held on -- the lobby has a huge amount of clout because of how much it lobbies for it's perks.

...

Focusing on equality of outcome doesn't take into account differences in the pre existing population, or differences in what people value. If, statistically, population A chooses to value "earn more money", and population B chooses to value "more flexibility", then you will end up with different outcomes with regards to how much money each population earns unless you stack the deck to a ridiculous extent.

Now there are lots of flaws. A huge problem is intergenerational economic mobility: the American system is hitting some problems with that over the last 20 years. Fix that, and over time a lot of the economic problems of the existing underclass will be worn away over the decades.

I don't know any guys who: treat women worse than men, treat women better than men to make women feel inferior, or seriously ask questions like "Are we ready for a female President?"


Me and some friends played the game: which is going to be elected first?
A> Black president.
B> Non-black, non-white president.
C> Female president.
D> Openly Atheist president.
E> Openly religious, but non-Christian, president.
F> Arnold.

In that is the implicit question "Is the USA ready for a woman president".
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Belial » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:19 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:I call BS! I'm supposed to give up free money because the guy giving it to me is offering it without a good reason? If I take it, I'm somehow inherently obligated to "correct" the "racism" inherent in receiving free money for no good reason?


No. You're supposed to turn it down because, when a person comes to you and says "here, have some money for being white, because it's just so cool that you're white, and that makes you more deserving than everyone else," accepting it sends a message to the giver, everyone around you, and, in some way, to yourself. That message is: "This man's racism is totally acceptable. I *do* deserve this money."

In other words, as gmal said, you're perpetuating things. You are, in your way, making things worse.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Re: Re:

Postby Khonsu » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:29 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:You shoot those who have advantages in the kneecaps? (there is a reasonably famous science fiction short story about that: not shooting in the kneecaps (but that too probably), but removing any advantages in order to get equality of outcome.)


You're thinking of Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut for reasons I don't really understand. Wanting women to be able to earn the same amount of money for the same amount of work, to be able to dictate her body's homeostatis, and to be able to have the basic opportunities as a man to succeed is not a terribly accurate analogue to, say, poor Harrison being put in an awful, restrictive suit so he cannot be his superhuman self, or the TV orchestra being forced to play poorly because otherwise people at home would feel bad for not playing instruments. No one is trying to strip away the rights of rich, white, straight men (unless wanting Habeas Corpus back is taking away rights), only to give those same exact rights to the poor, the non-white, the LGBT folk, and women. No one is asking for something for nothing unless they are a goddamn waste of space with whom serious identity politicians do not deserve to be lumped. Some people are just bad apples. The pop-feminists that spell it "womyn" are no friends of mine. The lesbians who parade in the streets as if their preference is cause for celebration make me roll my eyes.

No one wants better. We just want the same as it has been provided to you--at birth, without any questions or demands in return, and without wondering if it was a good idea. Straight, white, rich men in the US automatically just have life easier, for a whole slew of reasons that really have no basis in that man's actual emotional, spiritual, intellectual merit.

Anyway, the fact that this topic is still going and people still want to say "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" or, more accurately, "I did nothing to garner my privileges, so even though I am complacent in fighting the system's inequalities, I feel I have no obligation to fight for the rights of my fellow human beings, even though this makes me a total dick" is my cue to not post in this topic anymore unless someone directly responds to me. You should be willing to do ANYTHING to make someone else's life less hellish or less inequal. Yes, the frivolous lawsuits about the man in the women's bath was dumb. Yes, the minority-specific grants and such shouldn't be necessary, but I feel they are necessary. The more you base privilege on merit when the system disproportionately awards merit to those who are rich, white, straight, and male, it doesn't matter if you believe in a meritocracy and the worth of a person's mind and soul without looking at the packaging, because the traits that are deemed worthy of merit (and the fancy college education and the fancy job) are not mental and emotional prowess, but have been defined as, and continue to be defined as: straight, white, rich, male.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Re:

Postby Yakk » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:32 pm UTC

Khonsu wrote:
Yakk wrote:You shoot those who have advantages in the kneecaps? (there is a reasonably famous science fiction short story about that: not shooting in the kneecaps (but that too probably), but removing any advantages in order to get equality of outcome.)


You're thinking of Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut for reasons I don't really understand. Wanting women to be able to earn the same amount of money for the same amount of work, to be able to dictate her body's homeostatis, and to be able to have the basic opportunities as a man to succeed is not a terribly accurate analogue to, say, poor Harrison being put in an awful, restrictive suit so he cannot be his superhuman self, or the TV orchestra being forced to play poorly because otherwise people at home would feel bad for not playing instruments. No one is trying to strip away the rights of rich, white, straight men (unless wanting Habeas Corpus back is taking away rights), only to give those same exact rights to the poor, the non-white, the LGBT folk, and women. No one is asking for something for nothing unless they are a goddamn waste of space with whom serious identity politicians do not deserve to be lumped. Some people are just bad apples. The pop-feminists that spell it "womyn" are no friends of mine. The lesbians who parade in the streets as if their preference is cause for celebration make me roll my eyes.


That isn't true -- people are trying to strip away rights of the rich. You can argue that this stripping away is justified, but claiming that taxes don't strip away the natural right to own things...

No one wants better. We just want the same as it has been provided to you--at birth, without any questions or demands in return, and without wondering if it was a good idea. Straight, white, rich men in the US automatically just have life easier, for a whole slew of reasons that really have no basis in that man's actual emotional, spiritual, intellectual merit.


I suppose people are born rich, in that if your parents don't give you up for adoption, they have a legal requirement to support you. But most of the wealth that is given to children is given freely by their parents, not out of any legal obligation.

In order to remove the advantage of being born rich, you would be forced to either tax the parents to a ridiculous degree (in effect making them non-rich), or have rather draconian restrictions on what the parents can do when raising their children. The alternative -- providing all of the luxuries that a rich parent often showers on their children of their own free choice to every person born in the USA -- is ridiculous.

So, what exactly is your plan to remove the advantages of being born rich without doing huge rights infringements?

Anyway, the fact that this topic is still going and people still want to say "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" or, more accurately, "I did nothing to garner my privileges, so even though I am complacent in fighting the system's inequalities, I feel I have no obligation to fight for the rights of my fellow human beings, even though this makes me a total dick" is my cue to not post in this topic anymore unless someone directly responds to me.


Blanket insults are not polite. If you are reduced to making points by insulting those who disagree with you, it is a good thing that you have left the discussion.

You should be willing to do ANYTHING to make someone else's life less hellish or less inequal.


That is a ridiculous statement to make. As a concrete example, there are people starving right now in, say, sub-saharan africa. If you where to give away all of your possessions and live in absolute poverty, you could make dozens or hundreds of people's lives less hellish and more equal to your own. If you choose to do this, congrats -- but claiming that everyone should be willing to do this is stretching.

Yes, the frivolous lawsuits about the man in the women's bath was dumb. Yes, the minority-specific grants and such shouldn't be necessary, but I feel they are necessary. The more you base privilege on merit when the system disproportionately awards merit to those who are rich, white, straight, and male, it doesn't matter if you believe in a meritocracy and the worth of a person's mind and soul without looking at the packaging, because the traits that are deemed worthy of merit (and the fancy college education and the fancy job) are not mental and emotional prowess, but have been defined as, and continue to be defined as: straight, white, rich, male.


Just because merit based selection produces results that you disagree with, does not mean that the trials are biased. And the degree to which the results disagree with what you want is not the degree to which the trials are biased.

Detecting bias by ignoring initial state and asserting that anything other than equal outcomes is a sign of bias in the process in question is pretty silly to me.

By that standard, schools in the USA are horridly biased against males. University admissions are biased against males. The power to purchase goods is biased against males. There is a huge anti-male violence and death bias. The criminal justice system is ridiculously biased against males. The family law courts are massively biased against males. The health care system is biased against males, because males have a lower life expectancy.

In order to enforce equality of outcomes in the above situation, should we randomly arrest, imprison and execute females to maintain an equal number of female prisoners and state sponsored murders? Should children be randomly taken away from their families and given to males, with money to raise the child garnished from their original family? Laws against admitting more males or more females to any given university program should be strictly enforced. Women should be killed randomly, and crippled randomly, in order to lower their life expectancy and functional lifespans to that of men. Stores that sell more goods to women than men should be shut down. I don't think those would be good things to do.

Detecting actual bias in a given process is a completely different thing, and a good thing to look for and fix. Claiming outcome based bias detection, and then enforcing equal outcomes based off of it, is evil. It is, I'll admit, easier to do than looking for actual bias, which is why it remains so popular.

There is actual bias and discrimination out there. Find it. Tear it out and kill it.

Don't use the state to generate more bias and discrimination on top of what is already present, and then call it Justice.

Edit: added some conditions to overly-broad statements.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 pm UTC

Besides, do you realize how few straight "white" ("white" is a big-tent group...) males are actually rich?

Belial wrote:No. You're supposed to turn it down because, when a person comes to you and says "here, have some money for being white, because it's just so cool that you're white, and that makes you more deserving than everyone else," accepting it sends a message to the giver, everyone around you, and, in some way, to yourself. That message is: "This man's racism is totally acceptable. I *do* deserve this money."

In other words, as gmal said, you're perpetuating things. You are, in your way, making things worse.

Bullshit. Unless I explicitly announce "Racism is good, so I get money.", I'm not sending any message at all. You perceive a message of racism because you look for one.

If a goddamn Neo-Nazi wants to come up and give me $1000 for being 25% German (which I am), I'll gladly take his money, especially because that gets $1000 out of the hands of a goddamned, anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi.

Guess what? People who are not minorities have rights, too. And you can't violate people's rights for what you consider the Right Way. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:33 pm UTC

SecondTalon? Where you at?

The brick walls have come back.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:30 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Bullshit. Unless I explicitly announce "Racism is good, so I get money.", I'm not sending any message at all. You perceive a message of racism because you look for one.


Clearly. Actions never communicate anything unless you explicitly state your motivations. Subtext is nonexistent. Implication is a nonsense word.

Why aren't you writing sociology textbooks?

Guess what? People who are not minorities have rights, too. And you can't violate people's rights for what you consider the Right Way. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Who said anything about violating rights? No one's saying you *can't* take the money, because none of us have the power to do so.

We're just saying it would be a bad thing for you to do so. When you develop a pattern of doing bad things, it tends to make you a bad person.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:32 am UTC

Clearly. Actions never communicate anything unless you explicitly state your motivations. Subtext is nonexistent. Implication is a nonsense word.

Why aren't you writing sociology textbooks?

Because I have better things to do with my time, like work on computer science projects.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby chaosspawn » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:54 am UTC

I want to say that taking money from someone who says that 'Hey you're X, therefore you can have some cash' is wrong. I was constructing the situation in my mind and was like "ha I'll donate it to a non-X charity". But I realized that this situation implicitly assumes that I don't actually need (as in for basic food and shelter) the money. In the situation that I need it to survive then I think I'd take it, because ultimately I don't think that I am above that. Yet, what if it's not some random guy handing it out on the street corner, but an actual organization, perhaps the same charitable organization I would have donated to in the first situation? If there's a special interest charity, aren't they doing the same thing as the hypothetical money giver is in the first scenario? They have attached the restriction you are X and desperately need the money, so maybe the second clause is an important distinction. (Or are there laws which actually forbid such a special interest charity?)
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:04 am UTC

Laws do not forbid racial or ethnic charities. That's called freedom, and freedom includes the freedom to be nice to our own kind over someone else's kind as long as it means we don't actually violate anyone's rights or discriminate in a way that violates meritocracy in certain isolated cases (like employment).

I actually take offense at the proposition that I should go find someone else to take my vacation this winter (Birthright Israel, payed for by Jewish philanthropies to Jewish young adults only) because it's somehow racist for me to receive money that Jewish people explicitly donated of their own free will to bring Jews to the Jewish State.

And you could rewrite that paragraph to refer to any other real-life instance of this kind of gift. I just bring this one up because it actually happens several thousand times each year.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Random832 » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:16 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Laws do not forbid racial or ethnic charities. That's called freedom, and freedom includes the freedom to be nice to our own kind over someone else's kind


Freedom to be nice to your own "kind" tax-free, you mean. I think it would be perfectly reasonable (though it doesn't presently seem to be the case) for the law to forbid such "charities" from being considered charities. I think that if the government gives an organization benefits like 501c3 status, that means "we encourage this sort of thing", and assumes a certain responsibility for their policies and actions.

I think that it's absolutely ridiculous that employment, a relationship between two private entities, cannot be discriminatory, but a charity, which is subsidized by the government by declaring donations to it tax-deductible and its own income tax-exempt, can.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:SecondTalon? Where you at?

The brick walls have come back.


Working. Them servers don't build themselves, you know.

dosboot wrote:I don't know any guys who: treat women worse than men, treat women better than men to make women feel inferior, or seriously ask questions like "Are we ready for a female President?" . I know there exist guys who hate women or wouldn't vote for one, but I honestly can imagine just as many women who hate men or wouldn't vote for one (given a choice). It says more about the genders not getting along rather than gender inequality.

I really don't have much to say to this other than.. Where the hell do you live? Sounds nice. Here, I've got women questioning whether or not a woman can head the Executive branch of the US government because "it's not a woman's place" or some equally stupid shit. Looking at that, sad to say, the question of "Are we, the entire population of the United States of America, ready for an individual who happens to count a uterus as part of her anatomy as our President?" becomes an actual, legitimate question. There's people out there who aren't ready for that. Thankfully they're in a minority now, but... anyway, moving on.
Yakk wrote:
Here in the US, women still earn less money than men do, are expected to do more of the domestic work and child care, and outnumber men only in low-paying, low-status jobs.
.. and women out-spend men, get into higher education more often, are far less likely to be killed by violence, and live longer, etc etc. There are lots of statistics that show both are in pretty rosy shape.

I'd rather spend a million dollars than do a million dollars worth of work.

Why is "expected to earn more money" a good thing, while "expected to raise children more" a bad thing again?


All that's really expected of a man.. even in this day and age.. is to go to work, come home, probably have dinner with the kids, maybe actually cook the dinner (See current Pizza Hut ad where the wife and kids are coming home worried that, on Dad's night to cook, he's going to make something completely inedible), help a little with the homework, watch TV with them, and.. that's about it.

That leaves the laundry, wiping of the kids noses, preparing lunches, cleaning the damned house, cooking at least half of the meals, grocery shopping.. if there's a baby, while the man's expected to change and care for the kid while Mom's out (probably grocery shopping or buying the other supplies the house needs) as soon as she's back.. it's all back on Mommy. All this while ALSO having a job that should be, in theory, contributing just as much income to the household, but usually doesn't, even though she usually works the same 40 hour (Read:60 hour) workweek that men do.

Of course women spend more than men! They're the only ones who shop!
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
rachel
Witch (?)
Posts: 2478
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby rachel » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:51 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:All that's really expected of a man.. even in this day and age.. is to go to work, come home, probably have dinner with the kids, maybe actually cook the dinner (See current Pizza Hut ad where the wife and kids are coming home worried that, on Dad's night to cook, he's going to make something completely inedible), help a little with the homework, watch TV with them, and.. that's about it.



It's very rare that even that much is expected of a man, or that a man feels like that much should be expected of them. Women are expected to keep up house and home, maintain the children and have a job. The family I work for, the wife is working full-time, attending school and makes an effort to spend time with the children as much as possible. The husband works and does very little in the way of housework, spending time with the kids, making sure that home-related bits and peices are all in place. It's disappointing how many men think that that is acceptable behavior. It just seems that a lot of men go into marriage under the impression that, now that they've gotten a wife, they are going to be taken care of. The don't recognize that it is a reciprocal thing. That responsibilities need to be shared. That after working 8+ hours a day, your wife doesn't feel like coming home to you sitting on the couch watching TV while the kids haven't eaten and the house is a wreck. Make an effort, that's all. As far as spending is concerned, because men are under the impression that all women do is shop and spend money on clothes/shoes/purses. Once you've got a home and kids to care for and a husband to worry about, it's rare that you get to buy clothes or shoes or a new purse. Take a look, all the money being spent is being spent on groceries, clothes/shoes for the kids, school supplies, daycare and not to mention that most of the married men I know have their wives buy them clothes. It's inconsiderate for men to expect so much from a woman when so little is expected of them. Luckily, I see less and less of those types of men around.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I played "porn" against my sister last night.
Meaux_Pas wrote:So in otherwords, it's like the best cake ever, covered in bees.


j&r-bffl

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

Too many men want their girlfriends/wives to be their mothers, because they don't want to grow up and take care of themselves.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:11 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Too many men want their girlfriends/wives to be their mothers, because they don't want to grow up and take care of themselves.


And too many women are probably guilty of staying in these kinds of relationships even when it's not necessarily what they want because they enjoy feeling useful and needed. At least, I know that I've done that.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:11 pm UTC

What generation are you people talking about? Mine was brought up knowing that we'd pretty much have to split work evenly with the wife if we wanted to maintain a stable household.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby zenten » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:32 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:What generation are you people talking about? Mine was brought up knowing that we'd pretty much have to split work evenly with the wife if we wanted to maintain a stable household.


Well, I was brought up that way. I don't think it stuck for many people though.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Yakk » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:00 pm UTC

First, how two people privately arrange their own division of labor is up to them. No, really.

The spending number was from the huge amounts of market research out there: the fact that women control more of the purse strings than men, statistically, is used to aim market research for commercial ends. Big dollars are involved.

And holding up the Pizza Hut "men are incompetent" commercial isn't a stellar example of how women are repressed.

Note that the number of hours you work does not determine how much you get paid. What determines how much you get paid is, for the most part, how useful your actions are to someone else, and how hard they are to replace. If you spend 8 years perfecting a high-demand skill, you will tend to get paid more. If you spend 8 years learning the details of 5th century Latin poetry, you will get paid less. That is, everything else being equal.

Now, the Latin poetry degrees might make your life better and happier, but the same effort aimed at market-demanded skills will make you earn more money. And I don't know about where you come from, but right now the response to changes in potential income correlate more with male education choices more than female education choices: this seems to indicate that men are, on average, aiming more for earning money.

That is why I think we should at best use "results based" bias detection as a way of looking for possible bias, not use it as strong evidence that there is bias in a particular step. That, however, isn't how I'm seeing the tool abused.

There is bias and discrimination. Find it and remove it. Adding more bias is wrong.

... (other posters)

Of course women spend more than men! They're the only ones who shop!


Sexist statement, due to it's over-breadth.

I actually take offense at the proposition that I should go find someone else to take my vacation this winter (Birthright Israel, payed for by Jewish philanthropies to Jewish young adults only) because it's somehow racist for me to receive money that Jewish people explicitly donated of their own free will to bring Jews to the Jewish State.


Assuming you take "Jewish" as a race, that is Racist. Remember at one time the Christian Monarchs only permitted Christians to "own" land (as the Monarch was the real owner of the land): discriminating positively by Race is Racist as well.

Now, Racist doesn't mean "you should be killed like the folk at Nuremberg": like many things, there are shades of grey. Some acts are worse than others, some acts are better.

And it is OK to be imperfect -- you do not have to hold all of your actions as being moral to view yourself as someone who strives to be moral. Your ideals should be harder to reach than you can manage. Accepting that you will fall short of ideals is a far better choice than defining all of your actions as ideal.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby Belial » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:08 pm UTC

Also, all that charity would have to do to *not* be racist is equally consider the requests of gentiles. I can't imagine there would be that many. Israel is not a terribly nice place.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby chaosspawn » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:41 pm UTC

But the point of the organization is specifically for Jewish people. Just as the point of a women's shelter is for women only and not men. Is it sexist? I think so, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Just because help is targeted towards one group doesn't make it immoral. I think the fact is that there are more women that are victims of domestic violence than men, and this is often done by the other gender, thus keeping them separate would generally be a good idea. (though perhaps lesbian/gay relations invalidate this reasoning). Yet I think that such places should at least refer any male callers to a men's shelter (if such exists) or just a general one.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that positive discrimination is not (always) a bad thing. I think it can help equalize the response to things especially if one group is more disproportionately affected. Also it can make the response more efficient overall, just as a specialist is better able to treat problems in their field better than a general doctor
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
tiny
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:34 pm UTC
Location: Below the fifth cellar.
Contact:

Re: Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby tiny » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:50 pm UTC

I just want to add a probably interesting fact/thought/concept to this discussion that doesn't apply to the english language:

In germany it is now rule that one has to mention both sexes in official texts. So it's not just '... um Lehrer zu werden...' but '... um Lehrer/in zu werden...' (the '-in' marks the genus femininum). If you don't want to do this, you have to at least mention in the beginning, that you use only the male form for legibility, but that everything written applies to women as well.

Personally I can understand the thought behind it - no Mister Teacher would like to be adressed as Misses Teacher, whereas women had to accept to be included into a male term for quite some time. Yet I feel like this is a bit over the top.
I see the male form as the established general form that is used when the sex of a person is not of relevance, whereas the use of the female form underlines the sex of the adressed person.
"I write what I see, the endless procession to the guillotine." ~ de Sade


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests