5 ms·

Because it's one-sided and unscientific. The kind of feminist-infected soft fields that make up those terms and agendas (HR, "Communication Studies",...) only

Because it's one-sided and unscientific. The kind of feminist-infected soft fields that make up those terms and agendas (HR, "Communication Studies",...) only really care about women, and by 'caring' about women I really mean they care very much about how easy it's for women to be corporate drones while thinking it's "Empowering". Have you ever heard about "Unconscious Bias Against Men"? Of course not, nobody gives a shit about men. It's unscientific because the conclusion is already formed before the data is gathered. Women get more questions about family than men? That must mean that the interviewers think women are baby factories unfit for work, SEXISM. Women get less questions about family than men? That must mean that the interviewers think career-driven women are barren and childless and without prospect for having a family of their own, SEXISM. No matter what happens, they have already made up their mind, women are oppressed. The "experiments" and the "data" is just a dress up game to make it look as if they're doing serious science.

boppo1 4y ago
I think you're close but missing some important info. An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. We can fairly call that oppression I think. The promoters of the disputed language, in light of the priors, mis-apply* probable reasoning such that for any case of a negative outcome for a woman, it must be oppression. *in some cases intentionally, in some cases unintentionally
- Banana699 4y ago
  >An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. You can replace 'women' in this statment by any number of other group tags and still preserve the truth of the statment : -------- An enormous amount of men have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being men, like - forced military service, - genital mutilation (amusing fact : searching this term in google only turns up results about female genital mutilation in all pages), - and child labor. I leave it as an exercise to you how you can correctly apply the template to a random group label of your choosing. -------- So 'Women Most Affected' sentiments like yours serve only to illustrate the curious asymmetry with which injustice against men and injustice against women are treated. An asymmetry that, while not created by feminism and allied ideologies, is certainly much exploited and streamlined and stroked by them. >The promoters of the disputed language Oh, but it isn't a problem of language. The inherent delusion of feminism is that women are especially oppressed, in ways that fundamentally differ quantitatively and qualitatively from men. Expressing this delusion in any language will output biased and dumb nonsense, lobbyism dressed up as 'fighting for justice'. In other words, you can't say 'Women Most Affected' in more intelligent or naunced language. Every way of expressing a delusion will turn out to be ridicoulous and unfair and easily-detected.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    >'Women Most Affected' This is not my position. My position is "Some Women Affected". Some covers a very large group. I'm not making any quantitative or qualitative comparison to other groups; I think it's probably impossible. >You can replace 'women' in this statment by any number of other group tags and still preserve the truth of the statment I agree. >genital mutilation We seem to share the same position on this. I happen to be a victim. > inherent delusion of feminism I don't think assertions about what is or isn't inherent to feminism are possible. It's a term that identifies different sets of (often contradictory or opposite) beliefs depending on who you talk to. Most frequently, it's just moral cover for a person's own beliefs about what constitutes fairness, dignity, and respect. I also observe that most people I meet who identify as feminist (or progressive) use the term equality to mean "fairness, dignity, and respect" which is confusing to people who engage rhetorically with them.
    - Banana699 4y ago
      >This is not my position. My position is "Some Women Affected". Ok. I think you're honest, but the people you're defending are not. If 'some' women are affected, then women deserve only 'some' of the collective attention of society. Therefore 'Unconcious Bias Against Men' should be a recurring headline in media as the other headline for women is. Therefore 'Male Genital Mutilation' should be an important and widespread topic of discussion and not an obscure piece of arcane trivia that google doesn't bother to index in the first 10 pages. Etc, etc, etc. >I don't think assertions about what is or isn't inherent to feminism are possible. Oh I think they are. Feminism is at its core a cluster of interlocking beliefs that women are fundamentally and deeply oppressed by men, that women are locked in an eternal conflict with men, and that this war can only be fought on the gender-wide level, with no room for compromise or exceptions unless those made by men. Show me a piece of feminist media\publication (time limit : 20 min), and I will show you those implicit claims in its (sub)text. It's very easy to see if you know what to look for. >It's a term that identifies different sets of (often contradictory or opposite) beliefs depending on who you talk to. Which is exactly why it should be derided and avoided by all honest people, it's a vacuous identity. Vacuous identites are a tool for the dishonest to use the stupid. >it's just moral cover for a person's own beliefs I like this framing, specifically the term 'Moral Cover'. It encapsulates the cowardice inherent in Feminism: instead of coming right out and stating their values in reasonable (but debatable) definitions, moral cowards prefer to cover their beliefs inside vague rituals, cloudy language, and metaphysical confabulations about "Patriarchy", the invisible force that men supposedly have the power to deploy to harm and persecute women anywhere anytime. >fairness, dignity, and respect But wouldn't this be trivial ? Do you need an ideology to tell people you want to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect ? Do you need anything else besides the Golden Rule ? Do you need think tanks and Affirmative Action and UN committees ? This is called a motte-and-bailey maneuver[1]. I'm not accusing you of engaging in it, just that you have fell for it. Feminists have plenty of other claims and demands besides "fairness, dignity and respect", namely the cluster of beliefs that I summarized above. This is the "Bailey", a pleasant but indefensible territory\claim. As long as feminists are not pressed or forced to argue their case, they can occupy the Bailey. When under attack, however, feminists can retreat to the much more trivially trite "fairness, dignity and respect", this is the "Motte", a very well-defended fort but a useless place to live. They can hide behind those trivially defensible claims till the attack subsides, then they can return to their Bailey again. It's a useful pattern to be aware of. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

boppo1 4y ago

I think you're close but missing some important info. An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. We can fairly call that oppression I think. The promoters of the disputed language, in light of the priors, mis-apply* probable reasoning such that for any case of a negative outcome for a woman, it must be oppression. *in some cases intentionally, in some cases unintentionally

Banana699 4y ago
>An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. You can replace 'women' in this statment by any number of other group tags and still preserve the truth of the statment : -------- An enormous amount of men have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being men, like - forced military service, - genital mutilation (amusing fact : searching this term in google only turns up results about female genital mutilation in all pages), - and child labor. I leave it as an exercise to you how you can correctly apply the template to a random group label of your choosing. -------- So 'Women Most Affected' sentiments like yours serve only to illustrate the curious asymmetry with which injustice against men and injustice against women are treated. An asymmetry that, while not created by feminism and allied ideologies, is certainly much exploited and streamlined and stroked by them. >The promoters of the disputed language Oh, but it isn't a problem of language. The inherent delusion of feminism is that women are especially oppressed, in ways that fundamentally differ quantitatively and qualitatively from men. Expressing this delusion in any language will output biased and dumb nonsense, lobbyism dressed up as 'fighting for justice'. In other words, you can't say 'Women Most Affected' in more intelligent or naunced language. Every way of expressing a delusion will turn out to be ridicoulous and unfair and easily-detected.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >'Women Most Affected' This is not my position. My position is "Some Women Affected". Some covers a very large group. I'm not making any quantitative or qualitative comparison to other groups; I think it's probably impossible. >You can replace 'women' in this statment by any number of other group tags and still preserve the truth of the statment I agree. >genital mutilation We seem to share the same position on this. I happen to be a victim. > inherent delusion of feminism I don't think assertions about what is or isn't inherent to feminism are possible. It's a term that identifies different sets of (often contradictory or opposite) beliefs depending on who you talk to. Most frequently, it's just moral cover for a person's own beliefs about what constitutes fairness, dignity, and respect. I also observe that most people I meet who identify as feminist (or progressive) use the term equality to mean "fairness, dignity, and respect" which is confusing to people who engage rhetorically with them.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    >This is not my position. My position is "Some Women Affected". Ok. I think you're honest, but the people you're defending are not. If 'some' women are affected, then women deserve only 'some' of the collective attention of society. Therefore 'Unconcious Bias Against Men' should be a recurring headline in media as the other headline for women is. Therefore 'Male Genital Mutilation' should be an important and widespread topic of discussion and not an obscure piece of arcane trivia that google doesn't bother to index in the first 10 pages. Etc, etc, etc. >I don't think assertions about what is or isn't inherent to feminism are possible. Oh I think they are. Feminism is at its core a cluster of interlocking beliefs that women are fundamentally and deeply oppressed by men, that women are locked in an eternal conflict with men, and that this war can only be fought on the gender-wide level, with no room for compromise or exceptions unless those made by men. Show me a piece of feminist media\publication (time limit : 20 min), and I will show you those implicit claims in its (sub)text. It's very easy to see if you know what to look for. >It's a term that identifies different sets of (often contradictory or opposite) beliefs depending on who you talk to. Which is exactly why it should be derided and avoided by all honest people, it's a vacuous identity. Vacuous identites are a tool for the dishonest to use the stupid. >it's just moral cover for a person's own beliefs I like this framing, specifically the term 'Moral Cover'. It encapsulates the cowardice inherent in Feminism: instead of coming right out and stating their values in reasonable (but debatable) definitions, moral cowards prefer to cover their beliefs inside vague rituals, cloudy language, and metaphysical confabulations about "Patriarchy", the invisible force that men supposedly have the power to deploy to harm and persecute women anywhere anytime. >fairness, dignity, and respect But wouldn't this be trivial ? Do you need an ideology to tell people you want to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect ? Do you need anything else besides the Golden Rule ? Do you need think tanks and Affirmative Action and UN committees ? This is called a motte-and-bailey maneuver[1]. I'm not accusing you of engaging in it, just that you have fell for it. Feminists have plenty of other claims and demands besides "fairness, dignity and respect", namely the cluster of beliefs that I summarized above. This is the "Bailey", a pleasant but indefensible territory\claim. As long as feminists are not pressed or forced to argue their case, they can occupy the Bailey. When under attack, however, feminists can retreat to the much more trivially trite "fairness, dignity and respect", this is the "Motte", a very well-defended fort but a useless place to live. They can hide behind those trivially defensible claims till the attack subsides, then they can return to their Bailey again. It's a useful pattern to be aware of. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy