5 ms·

> Surely you see the problem here? If still not, then replace "Women" with an ethnicity or race in that statement. This doesn't make any sense. The comment is

> Surely you see the problem here? If still not, then replace "Women" with an ethnicity or race in that statement. This doesn't make any sense. The comment is talking about how society treats women (and implicitly, men), not about some quality inherent to women. The analogous racial statement would be "white people get treated preferentially in a number of ways by society". This statement obviously isn't problematic under the leftist mores of "polite society", and probably isn't even that controversial all the way to the center-right. The "halo effect" that women enjoy is well-established, in fact much, much more strongly than the racial bias in my analogue statement. (That isn't to say that there aren't flipsides to gender roles that benefit men, obviously. The best way I've heard it put is that society entitles men to respect and women to compassion.)

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>The comment is talking about society treats women (and implicitly, men), not about some quality inherent to women. The analogous racial statement would be "white people get treated preferentially in a number of ways by society" Of course it's not merely talking about how society treats women. The comment was: "Women get away with too much in society" The obvious assertion here is that women actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior and are able to get away with it. It's framed in a way that directly attributes willfulness to women and casts them as holding some power that they're abusing in society writ large. Hence, a directly analogous racial statement would be "Black (etc) people get away with too much in society". Now, we all understand subjects and verbs. We know who's doing the action here, thus who's behavior needs to be curbed. So, we know how charged that statement would be, and that it's very different from saying "White people get treated preferentially by society...", wherein society is doing the action and needs to change. It's a complete reassignment of responsibility. Worse, the statement itself aligns with an overt political framing that's simply untrue at any reasonable scale. To whatever degree there are pockets of "protection" women enjoy, it pales in comparison to the sum of those areas in which they've had to struggle for equality. So, it's a pernicious generalization that seeks to rewrite history. And, if the ethos allows for the idea that women are getting away with too much, well we can then justify "checks on their power" and, at a minimum, denial of the equal rights they seek. You may think it's pedantic, but these things are extraordinarily impactful to people who've been on the receiving end of unequal treatment. So, words matter. If the commenter wanted to keep the focus narrowly on the topic at hand, then we could all agree that society does see sexual abuse in ways that are probably more favorable to women. But, what is the point of broadening it out to this ridiculous and untrue assertion that "Women get away with too much in society", as if that's been the historical struggle of our society versus the precise opposite: women fighting for the right to be treated equally?
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > Of course it's not merely talking about how society treats women. The comment was: > "Women get away with too much in society" > The obvious assertion here is that women actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior and are able to get away with it. It's framed in a way that directly attributes willfulness to women and casts them as holding some power that they're abusing in society writ large. _Every_ identity group has people who "actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior". Being a shitty person is an equal-opportunity personality trait. Given this premise, "getting away with it" refers primarily to society's handling of these transgressions. > To whatever degree there are pockets of "protection" women enjoy, it pales in comparison to the sum of those areas in which they've had to struggle for equality. I suppose this is a matter of disagreement. I'm not making any claim as to who wins the "net suffering" race (not should there be such a race), but it's extremely trivial to think of historical and current examples of gender roles cutting against men, and not in trivial ways: violence, torture, conscription, murder, physical and dangerous labor, unjust incarceration, etc etc etc. For a specific, concrete example: the evidence of gender discrimination in the legal and carceral system is infinitely stronger than it is for racial discrimination. The framing your comment takes is that we can't even talk about things like male rape being underplayed due to women's halo effect because it "distracts" from the fight for women's rights. I'm soundly rejecting this framing; in fact, I find it utterly revolting and dehumanizing. It pits identity groups against each other, at the expense of victims and others who need help. Any model of the world rooted in basic human empathy should understand each gender-based injustice as its own tragedy, and acknowledging a male rape victim's suffering under gender roles doesn't detract from understanding a woman suffering under different gender roles.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >_Every_ identity group has people who "actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior >Given this premise, "getting away with it" refers primarily to society's handling of these transgressions Well, that's just unserious. Sure, it's easy to manufacture and retrofit a premise to declare that any statement means just about anything. Beyond that, you're now attempting to narrow the original comment to refer only to "society's handling of these transgressions". The very point, which I explicitly stated, is that had the commenter kept the focus on the sex abuse issue under discussion, then it would have been valid. Instead, the commenter generalized it out to the hostile idea that "Women get away with too much in society". So, I'll take your latent effort to narrow the point here as an acknowledgment that the more general original comment to which I took exception (and you initially defended) is indefensible, even as you continue on and try to support that general comment under the cover of the specific case that no one disputes. And, it's clear that you know you've ceded the point, because the rest of your comment features you beating on a straw man. But that last paragraph is a doozy. Full of disingenuous gas-lighting and arguing against that straw man's imaginary statements, which you plainly know I never made. Now you're feigning indignation with that straw man in an effort to convey to yourself some moral high-ground, even while you advocate against people seeking equality. That's the worst of it. It's pretty low, and disappointing. I initially believed you to be interested in serious discussion, but I see now that it's just cynical trolling. Carry on.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>The comment is talking about society treats women (and implicitly, men), not about some quality inherent to women. The analogous racial statement would be "white people get treated preferentially in a number of ways by society" Of course it's not merely talking about how society treats women. The comment was: "Women get away with too much in society" The obvious assertion here is that women actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior and are able to get away with it. It's framed in a way that directly attributes willfulness to women and casts them as holding some power that they're abusing in society writ large. Hence, a directly analogous racial statement would be "Black (etc) people get away with too much in society". Now, we all understand subjects and verbs. We know who's doing the action here, thus who's behavior needs to be curbed. So, we know how charged that statement would be, and that it's very different from saying "White people get treated preferentially by society...", wherein society is doing the action and needs to change. It's a complete reassignment of responsibility. Worse, the statement itself aligns with an overt political framing that's simply untrue at any reasonable scale. To whatever degree there are pockets of "protection" women enjoy, it pales in comparison to the sum of those areas in which they've had to struggle for equality. So, it's a pernicious generalization that seeks to rewrite history. And, if the ethos allows for the idea that women are getting away with too much, well we can then justify "checks on their power" and, at a minimum, denial of the equal rights they seek. You may think it's pedantic, but these things are extraordinarily impactful to people who've been on the receiving end of unequal treatment. So, words matter. If the commenter wanted to keep the focus narrowly on the topic at hand, then we could all agree that society does see sexual abuse in ways that are probably more favorable to women. But, what is the point of broadening it out to this ridiculous and untrue assertion that "Women get away with too much in society", as if that's been the historical struggle of our society versus the precise opposite: women fighting for the right to be treated equally?

wutbrodo 5y ago
> Of course it's not merely talking about how society treats women. The comment was: > "Women get away with too much in society" > The obvious assertion here is that women actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior and are able to get away with it. It's framed in a way that directly attributes willfulness to women and casts them as holding some power that they're abusing in society writ large. _Every_ identity group has people who "actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior". Being a shitty person is an equal-opportunity personality trait. Given this premise, "getting away with it" refers primarily to society's handling of these transgressions. > To whatever degree there are pockets of "protection" women enjoy, it pales in comparison to the sum of those areas in which they've had to struggle for equality. I suppose this is a matter of disagreement. I'm not making any claim as to who wins the "net suffering" race (not should there be such a race), but it's extremely trivial to think of historical and current examples of gender roles cutting against men, and not in trivial ways: violence, torture, conscription, murder, physical and dangerous labor, unjust incarceration, etc etc etc. For a specific, concrete example: the evidence of gender discrimination in the legal and carceral system is infinitely stronger than it is for racial discrimination. The framing your comment takes is that we can't even talk about things like male rape being underplayed due to women's halo effect because it "distracts" from the fight for women's rights. I'm soundly rejecting this framing; in fact, I find it utterly revolting and dehumanizing. It pits identity groups against each other, at the expense of victims and others who need help. Any model of the world rooted in basic human empathy should understand each gender-based injustice as its own tragedy, and acknowledging a male rape victim's suffering under gender roles doesn't detract from understanding a woman suffering under different gender roles.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >_Every_ identity group has people who "actively and routinely engage in problematic behavior >Given this premise, "getting away with it" refers primarily to society's handling of these transgressions Well, that's just unserious. Sure, it's easy to manufacture and retrofit a premise to declare that any statement means just about anything. Beyond that, you're now attempting to narrow the original comment to refer only to "society's handling of these transgressions". The very point, which I explicitly stated, is that had the commenter kept the focus on the sex abuse issue under discussion, then it would have been valid. Instead, the commenter generalized it out to the hostile idea that "Women get away with too much in society". So, I'll take your latent effort to narrow the point here as an acknowledgment that the more general original comment to which I took exception (and you initially defended) is indefensible, even as you continue on and try to support that general comment under the cover of the specific case that no one disputes. And, it's clear that you know you've ceded the point, because the rest of your comment features you beating on a straw man. But that last paragraph is a doozy. Full of disingenuous gas-lighting and arguing against that straw man's imaginary statements, which you plainly know I never made. Now you're feigning indignation with that straw man in an effort to convey to yourself some moral high-ground, even while you advocate against people seeking equality. That's the worst of it. It's pretty low, and disappointing. I initially believed you to be interested in serious discussion, but I see now that it's just cynical trolling. Carry on.