10 ms·

Your above comment is dead, so I can't reply to it. Replying here: > The idea that MRA's and feminists are two ends of a single spectrum is one of those cognit

by dlss 10y ago

Your above comment is dead, so I can't reply to it. Replying here: > The idea that MRA's and feminists are two ends of a single spectrum is one of those cognitive line-fitting traps we nerds fall into. While I'm all about detecting and uncovering cognitive biases (hardcore LessWrong expat, reporting for duty!), I don't believe GP's analysis was wrong. Just a guess, but I expect the people you're using to mentally represent MRAs are the equivalent of tumblr feminists (who also should consider treatment options in my opinion). Here's my line based model that attempts to not straw-man either group: Fringe-MRA: war on men Reasonable-MRA: there are some men's issues worth talking about (circumcision, work related injury and fatality rates, prison over-representation, gendered divorce laws, etc). Middle: Meh, what's on TV? Reasonable-Feminist: there are some women's issues worth talking about (FGM, right to drive/vote/work, right to serve in the military, pay equality/glass ceiling, etc). Fringe-Feminist: patriarcy! I don't see why this way of arranging the data should qualify as falling in to a line fitting trap. It seems like there are genuine issues on both sides, and a significant paranoid delusional component to be found at both ends of the spectrum. What am I missing?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I don't see why this way of arranging the data should qualify as falling in to a line fitting trap. Because its a nice, convenient, abstractly appealing linear arrangement that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues? "There is general, society-wide, active oppression of men" is a view that opposes and is mutually exclusive with the comparable view with "women" replacing "men", but "there exists issues specific to men that are worth addressing in society" is not exclusive with the comparable view toward women, and in fact they are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.)
- nailer 10y ago
  > but "there exists issues specific to men that are worth addressing in society" is not exclusive with the comparable view toward women, and in fact they are frequently found together Completely agreed. Not sure how people self label is particularly relevant: someone who understands both sets off issues and is male wouldn't generally want to be labelled as an 'MRA' or 'male feminist' either as both have awful reputations.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It is not at all the case that "feminism" has the same reputation as "Men's Rights Activism". It sounds like they should, because the intuition of people on message boards is that they should occupy two different ends of a spectrum with a "balanced" point in the middle. But, as I said: that spectrum does not exist. "Feminism" is a historical movement with a radically different context than Men's Rights.
    - nailer 10y ago
      Asides from that yes they obviously have different reputations and history, and that your comment isn't a response to my comment: Thomas could you please either apologise or disengage as discussed earlier? Thanks.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I'm responding to your claim that both MRAs and feminists have "awful" reputations, which is false. MRAs do indeed have a checkered reputation. Feminism, on the other hand, is one of the more important social movements of the last 150 years. That fact is why MRAs are usually careful to refer to "third wave feminists".
        dlss 10y ago
        I'm really confused by your reply here. 1) I find it hard to believe you didn't understand what GP meant, even if he could have said it better. 2) sidestepping the issue of offending someone and instead arguing semantics isn't a very cool conversational move. However, perhaps #1 is the case, so I'll try to clear the air. Here's my take on what the two of you are saying: > I'm responding to your claim that both MRAs and feminists have "awful" reputations, which is false I have personally heard more complaining about feminists, though I take that to be more an indication about the relative numbers of Feminists and MRAs in the world. In my experience people with a strong ideological viewpoint have bad reputations outside of social circles dominated by that ideological viewpoint (Conservative Christians, Scientologists, Anarchists, Hard-Line Libertarians, MRAs, Feminists, etc) <-- hopefully you're not all of those, and so at least one was a good example. Which is to say I think you're saying that in the circles you personally hang out in, feminists are generally highly regarded... which is to say you mostly hang out with feminists... and that GP is saying that in the circles he hangs out in feminists are not highly regarded... which is to say there are fewer feminists per capita than in your social circle. I think both GP and you should have been more careful about misrepresenting your personal experiences as somehow universal. If you had, you would probably have avoided this back and forth. > Feminism, on the other hand, is one of the more important social movements of the last 150 years Feminism and feminists aren't the same thing. For example, Capitalism was an incredibly important idea globally, and is widely regarded as a good thing. Capitalists on the other hand are generally viewed as greedy. Incidentally, capitalists will often try to frame themselves as part of capitalism to subvert this negative impression... roughly the same thing you're doing here with respect to feminism.
- dlss 10y ago
  > that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues? The model was an attempt at describing what the mental states were, rather than the distribution of individuals over those states. > in fact [interest in gendered issues] are frequently found together This was quite useful, thank you! > are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.) I disagree with this -- most feminist views on men's rights issues are of a different character than MRA views on men's rights issues in my experience. So while I believe the views are strongly anti-correlated, I disagree that anti-correlation should be the basis for the specific line I drew above, as there's nothing in principal that prohibits a belief in both at once. I don't think that's a basis for calling it a cognitive trap though. Like, the similarity at the fringes is absolutely there.

by dlss 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I don't see why this way of arranging the data should qualify as falling in to a line fitting trap. Because its a nice, convenient, abstractly appealing linear arrangement that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues? "There is general, society-wide, active oppression of men" is a view that opposes and is mutually exclusive with the comparable view with "women" replacing "men", but "there exists issues specific to men that are worth addressing in society" is not exclusive with the comparable view toward women, and in fact they are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.)

nailer 10y ago
> but "there exists issues specific to men that are worth addressing in society" is not exclusive with the comparable view toward women, and in fact they are frequently found together Completely agreed. Not sure how people self label is particularly relevant: someone who understands both sets off issues and is male wouldn't generally want to be labelled as an 'MRA' or 'male feminist' either as both have awful reputations.
- tptacek 10y ago
  It is not at all the case that "feminism" has the same reputation as "Men's Rights Activism". It sounds like they should, because the intuition of people on message boards is that they should occupy two different ends of a spectrum with a "balanced" point in the middle. But, as I said: that spectrum does not exist. "Feminism" is a historical movement with a radically different context than Men's Rights.
  - nailer 10y ago
    Asides from that yes they obviously have different reputations and history, and that your comment isn't a response to my comment: Thomas could you please either apologise or disengage as discussed earlier? Thanks.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I'm responding to your claim that both MRAs and feminists have "awful" reputations, which is false. MRAs do indeed have a checkered reputation. Feminism, on the other hand, is one of the more important social movements of the last 150 years. That fact is why MRAs are usually careful to refer to "third wave feminists".
      - dlss 10y ago
        I'm really confused by your reply here. 1) I find it hard to believe you didn't understand what GP meant, even if he could have said it better. 2) sidestepping the issue of offending someone and instead arguing semantics isn't a very cool conversational move. However, perhaps #1 is the case, so I'll try to clear the air. Here's my take on what the two of you are saying: > I'm responding to your claim that both MRAs and feminists have "awful" reputations, which is false I have personally heard more complaining about feminists, though I take that to be more an indication about the relative numbers of Feminists and MRAs in the world. In my experience people with a strong ideological viewpoint have bad reputations outside of social circles dominated by that ideological viewpoint (Conservative Christians, Scientologists, Anarchists, Hard-Line Libertarians, MRAs, Feminists, etc) <-- hopefully you're not all of those, and so at least one was a good example. Which is to say I think you're saying that in the circles you personally hang out in, feminists are generally highly regarded... which is to say you mostly hang out with feminists... and that GP is saying that in the circles he hangs out in feminists are not highly regarded... which is to say there are fewer feminists per capita than in your social circle. I think both GP and you should have been more careful about misrepresenting your personal experiences as somehow universal. If you had, you would probably have avoided this back and forth. > Feminism, on the other hand, is one of the more important social movements of the last 150 years Feminism and feminists aren't the same thing. For example, Capitalism was an incredibly important idea globally, and is widely regarded as a good thing. Capitalists on the other hand are generally viewed as greedy. Incidentally, capitalists will often try to frame themselves as part of capitalism to subvert this negative impression... roughly the same thing you're doing here with respect to feminism.
dlss 10y ago
> that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues? The model was an attempt at describing what the mental states were, rather than the distribution of individuals over those states. > in fact [interest in gendered issues] are frequently found together This was quite useful, thank you! > are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.) I disagree with this -- most feminist views on men's rights issues are of a different character than MRA views on men's rights issues in my experience. So while I believe the views are strongly anti-correlated, I disagree that anti-correlation should be the basis for the specific line I drew above, as there's nothing in principal that prohibits a belief in both at once. I don't think that's a basis for calling it a cognitive trap though. Like, the similarity at the fringes is absolutely there.