4 ms·
You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is equivalent to men. That's just not true, quite clearly. There are a ton of studies showi
by Latty 10y ago
You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is equivalent to men. That's just not true, quite clearly. There are a ton of studies showing material differences and known social issues that affect women more than men (higher rates of attack/abuse, different expectations in terms of sexual activity, abortion legislation, expectations of marriage & childbirth, etc...). If you move beyond the most developed countries, it quickly falls to horrific levels with things like FGM (yes, I also think circumcision is a problem that affects men and shouldn't be done, but it's clearly not equivalent to FGM).
Even if it was equivalent, that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's.
> Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape law disproportionately affect women?
I mean, why is it suddenly limited to law? Rape clearly disproportionately affects women (more women are raped). Again, this isn't to say there are not men's rights issues (under-reporting of rape, etc...) there too, but that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant. It also has outcomes that can't happen to men (pregnancy). It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it). In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels. If you truly think that women are not seriously affected by this issue, you clearly are not looking.
> I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as representative of feminism?
The thing I said after that statement - dismissing feminism as unnecessary and making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.
> What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?
If they do, they are wrong to do so. However, sites like the one this article was on propegate the idea that all feminism (or at least a large part of it) are doing that, when they aren't. The article about the woman's son is an example - they make a reasonable article sound like man-hating nonsense. This is to instil fear and make people reject feminism in a knee-jerk response.
> This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You have to assume some definition of equality first.
Equality means people should not be defined by their gender (or anything else like race, etc...), but rather by who they are. Of course reality has differences between genders. If most women are shorter and there is a necessary height requirement to do a job then you will have less women doing the job - but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman. It's simple in concept - not in execution of the law, obviously, but that's besides the point - complexity in enforcement doesn't justify villainizing those trying to improve the situation.
> In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little loaded...
Of course it's loaded, the issue is loaded. There was a time when women were literally property, just like slavery. Just as racism is better, but not solved, the same is true for women's rights.
> Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).
Again - it's not simple in execution. Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split (not to mention the potential for the causes being indirectly the result of sexism themselves). That's just one issue however. It being complicated doesn't mean we should just give up on equality.
> If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face today? On average, our families are equal.
A nonsense example against a strawman argument. I'm not claiming equality means we should just average all wages or something dumb.
- Chris2048 10y ago> You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is equivalent to men The reason you say 'imply' is because I didn't actually say this. You said they aren't equivalent, and I asked for qualification. The difference is the burden is on you, not me; You can't flip it around and say "Well, prove it isn't". Demonstrating anything is hard, especially something this broadly stated, which is why I never made any such claims in the first place, and if I had I'd make it a less broad. But yes, I strongly suspect men and women are equal in many places, but not world wide, or even in all localities, which is again why I don't want to have to prove your generalisation; If I feel I can demonstrate something, I'll narrow down the claim as appropriate. > There are a ton of studies showing If you gave a citation, I might be able to get some context from it, e.g country, culture etc. I'm not keen on assuming a universal form of feminism, nor do I assume you need to be a feminist to fight gender inequality (much like you don't need to be religious to be good - "Without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion"). Tell me social calculus you are using to determine that "abortion legislation affects women more than men". Seems to me you need to decide on a very specific definition of "affect". > If you move beyond the most developed countries There is little feminism. It's nice to chalk all women's' rights progress up to feminism, more "feminism by the dictionary"; but that's not the same as "feminism the ideology" - that feminism is a very specific culture of beliefs and discourse that isn't necessary or sufficient for the improvement of women's rights. The lack of distinction is on purpose, to make it seem like there is only only set of beliefs compatible with the development of women's rights. > that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's That's true, unless "focusing on women's issue" also involves promoting ideologies. In cases where that ideology is harmful to men, it's more akin to a christian organisation refusing funding for men with HIV. > why is it suddenly limited to law The context here is when people say "what about men". in the context of any subject, this is not done to change the topic, but the change the focus of the topic. "what about men" in the context of rape, is in the context of rape law, and how it also affects men. However, it could also be in the context of prison rape. Maybe that is a worthy topic, but I'd also argue that it is a different topic (prisoners rights/care, and the disproportionate number of men in prison). > that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant. Agreed, but I didn't say this. you brought up disproportionate effect. > It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it). which society? Can you demonstrate this is a common opinion in modern western countries. I hear this all the time, but have met few people that don't aggressively disagree, or at least have a more nuanced opinion. > In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels. Which places, in relative to burden on 'perpetrator'. There are other places where an accusation of rape can be devastating without any burden of proof. Maybe we should be talking specifics? > making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist. Can you quote me on that? I have a broad view of what constitutes "feminism" (pretty much anything), and a different view on how feminist discourse is often practiced. > If they do, they are wrong to do so. No one will yank their feminist credentials though, and people will still equate feminism with good; "it can't be bad, it's feminist". If no one denies harmful groups the feminist label, it can no longer be assumed that feminist groups aren't harmful. > but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman Can I be a surrogate then? Or the legal mother of my child? (I'm male, obv) > There was a time when women were literally property Not anymore, and not during my lifetime - so what has this got to do with anything? "there must be some subconscious influence from the past" - or something like that? > Just as racism is better, but not solved again, tell me what you mean by "solved". > Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split yet the soundbite is repeated, again and again, by respected feminists without any nuance. other feminists do not call out this behavior. It took a lot of effort, by many risking reputation and ridicule, to establish that it was more complicated. Maybe we see different sides of the feminist sphere? > A nonsense example Maybe I misinterpreted the following: > We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading. -- When I have the time, I think I might break some of this down. The linear nature of HN isn't ideal for long threads...