5 ms·

> Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn. I'm not American. You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't p

by Latty 10y ago

> Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn. I'm not American. You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't possible you have subconscious bias in line with what we see in studies. > No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born? > We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son. What? So you are saying because the child hasn't experienced sexism yet because it isn't born, planning for it to experience it and how to handle that is worthless? That makes no sense. > So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men? I imagine so - but she has experience being a girl as a child, and so it's going to be easier for her to teach a girl about the issue. The article was about her struggle to understand how she was going to do that with a boy - a situation she is unfamiliar with. > All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it. The article is literally all about how she is worried about being able to teach someone (her son) when she hasn't lived that perspective. That's literally the point of the piece - her trying to understand how she'll teach her son about this aspect of the world. > There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with. Are you really arguing we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning? I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true. It's not an argument that somehow the idea is invalid. Feminism has a definition, and it doesn't involve discriminating against men. > this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting. You seem to think that assuming your child will have to deal with sexism is in some way judging it - that's not true. We all deal with it in some way or another, this is just a good parent trying to prepare their child and educate them. They aren't blaming the child or "interpreting it's behaviour in bad faith" - they are talking about how to educate about an issue. You just want to paint all feminists as crazy, and then use that as an excuse in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad. It's horseshit. Sexism is real. Feminism is a force for good in the majority form it's encountered.

Chris2048 10y ago
> You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't possible you have subconscious bias in line with what we see in studies. You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification. > planning for it to experience it The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism. > I imagine so I don't. > That's literally the point of the piece It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway. > we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning? Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad" Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term. > I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true. I disagree, there are plenty of fields that are more discriminating wrt their membership, and more objective in their knowledge base. How many 'mathematicians' would agree that 1 + 1 = 3 in set of integers? I'm not saying that feminist technically don't always agree, I'm saying they often don't agree. There isn't enough internal critique to ensure that kind of consistency. > Feminism has a definition Shame it's not adhered to - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Feminism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Femi... > We all deal with [sexism] in some way or another Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism? > trying to prepare their child and educate them It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination. > You just want to paint all feminists as crazy No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement. > in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad what I wrote: > this type of feminism is bad doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type".
- Latty 10y ago
  > You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification. I'm not being specific because I'm talking about a general thing. You are the one claiming that people worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it is wrong. Introspecting on your own biases is important if we want to stop sexism and racism. Google for studies (first results: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1), there are tons. Subconscious bias is hardly a contentious point. > The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism. "interfere" - you mean teach. That's what we do with children. You say they have a low bar - and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts' because you don't think it's important enough to care about. > I don't > It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway. Then you are misreading the article - intentionally or not - and coming away afraid from a message that is not in any way harmful to men. > Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad" So we agree then - this site that is clearly out to try and paint Feminism as bad is wrong. > Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term. Except it's not ambiguous, I have explained what I am talking about multiple times. You claim that most feminists deviate from that, which is exactly the fear I am talking about. Most feminists are reasonable - you and others like you just paint them as crazy by misrepresenting their points (see the article). > Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism? Are only victims the ones that need to know about an issue? Are women the only victims of sexism? Are men who are sexist not hurt by their own sexism in some way? Are men who's loved ones are victims of sexism not hurt in some way? Your question is stupid on a number of levels. Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism. > It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination. Sure, and fundamental christian nutjobs would call an education in science indoctrination. You just disagree with the facts of the matter. > No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement. Your takeaway from that article was completely unjustified. It's clear - intentionally or not - you have, in at least one instance (which is all I can say about you personally), twisted a feminist's words in order to be outraged at what she is saying and imply it's wrong. > doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type". Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article - you like to pretend it's a subset of only the extremists, but it isn't. You think it's wrong for a mother to teach her child about sexism, which is an attack on feminism in general.

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't possible you have subconscious bias in line with what we see in studies. You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification. > planning for it to experience it The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism. > I imagine so I don't. > That's literally the point of the piece It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway. > we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning? Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad" Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term. > I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true. I disagree, there are plenty of fields that are more discriminating wrt their membership, and more objective in their knowledge base. How many 'mathematicians' would agree that 1 + 1 = 3 in set of integers? I'm not saying that feminist technically don't always agree, I'm saying they often don't agree. There isn't enough internal critique to ensure that kind of consistency. > Feminism has a definition Shame it's not adhered to - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Feminism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Femi... > We all deal with [sexism] in some way or another Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism? > trying to prepare their child and educate them It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination. > You just want to paint all feminists as crazy No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement. > in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad what I wrote: > this type of feminism is bad doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type".

Latty 10y ago
> You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification. I'm not being specific because I'm talking about a general thing. You are the one claiming that people worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it is wrong. Introspecting on your own biases is important if we want to stop sexism and racism. Google for studies (first results: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1), there are tons. Subconscious bias is hardly a contentious point. > The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism. "interfere" - you mean teach. That's what we do with children. You say they have a low bar - and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts' because you don't think it's important enough to care about. > I don't > It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway. Then you are misreading the article - intentionally or not - and coming away afraid from a message that is not in any way harmful to men. > Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad" So we agree then - this site that is clearly out to try and paint Feminism as bad is wrong. > Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term. Except it's not ambiguous, I have explained what I am talking about multiple times. You claim that most feminists deviate from that, which is exactly the fear I am talking about. Most feminists are reasonable - you and others like you just paint them as crazy by misrepresenting their points (see the article). > Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism? Are only victims the ones that need to know about an issue? Are women the only victims of sexism? Are men who are sexist not hurt by their own sexism in some way? Are men who's loved ones are victims of sexism not hurt in some way? Your question is stupid on a number of levels. Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism. > It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination. Sure, and fundamental christian nutjobs would call an education in science indoctrination. You just disagree with the facts of the matter. > No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement. Your takeaway from that article was completely unjustified. It's clear - intentionally or not - you have, in at least one instance (which is all I can say about you personally), twisted a feminist's words in order to be outraged at what she is saying and imply it's wrong. > doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type". Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article - you like to pretend it's a subset of only the extremists, but it isn't. You think it's wrong for a mother to teach her child about sexism, which is an attack on feminism in general.