4 ms·

They're sides of the same coin; both examples of people[0] not taking women seriously, not treating them as equals. The fact that there are cases where women ca

by mcv 3y ago

They're sides of the same coin; both examples of people[0] not taking women seriously, not treating them as equals. The fact that there are cases where women can benefit from this inequality doesn't change the root issue: that a lot of people[0] still don't take women seriously in various ways. But especially having your professionality and expertise questioned constantly in the work you do every day must be extremely tiring and potentially harmful to your career. Does getting out of the occasional traffic ticket really make up for that? Edit: [0] I used to have "men" instead of "people" here, but it's also possible for women to take women less seriously than men in a professional setting. It is in fact also possible to take men less seriously than women in some situations, though that seems to happen more in cases involving raising children. In most professional settings, the common prejudice tends to favour men.

verisimi 3y ago
You're missing the point of what I'm saying I think. The idea of 'equal' is a false one because things aren't equal, can never be equal. It sounds good to say 'equal' but its just not the way humans are. Neither men nor women are perfect. No individual is perfect. Now you can force and harass people to do this or that.. but what you are doing is making everyone unhappy - people will be unable to act naturally and will never never be themselves. I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural and a/ allow making of mistakes and b/ allowing for the opportunity of learning from those mistakes. The idea that there is some known perfect state 'equal' is a nonsense - no one knows what this is - we are not gods in fact. Forcing others to adopt such an idea is certainly wrong though - we can say that much. Manipulating others, indoctrinating them will surely make people unhappy - men and women - for who can say what is right for others?
- mcv 3y ago
  Obviously everybody is different. No two people are the same. No two men are the same either. But that doesn't mean that in normal social interaction, and especially professional interaction, people do deserve the same level of upfront respect and trust. At least until those are squandered by their own actual actions. But instead, it's, even now, still too common that some people get denied that respect based on prejudice about gender or race, rather than their own actions. > Now you can force and harass people to do this or that. You can set certain professional standards within a company, community, field or industry, but the issue in this example is that the difference in performance was caused by the prejudice from the customers, and that's not something you can control. > I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural and a/ allow making of mistakes and b/ allowing for the opportunity of learning from those mistakes. But how can you do that when people are being held back from being their natural selves by unfair prejudice? And educating customers is hard to do when it might be a completely different customer every time. > The idea that there is some known perfect state 'equal' is a nonsense Which is why nobody is talking about that. I'm talking about obstacles that are needlessly holding people back, and about what can be done to remove those obstacles. Using fake names is an ugly fix; one that appears dishonest and doesn't really address the underlying prejudice, but it does mitigate the immediate symptoms of that prejudice. I totally agree that forcing and indoctrinating is wrong, but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both?
  - darkwater 3y ago
    > but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both? You smashed the nail on the head with this! And it's basically another way of defining what the feminist movement defines as patriarchate.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I can't really reply fully here, as my comment is flagged, and I'm accused of starting a flame war by even replying to this already charged story. It doesn't matter that the academic that who did the initial research is clearly an active and political academic figure - as I showed. That is fine apparently, but it is suggested that my comment here is wrong and I should simply not comment. It feels like only one side (not mine) is acceptable for a public airing. > I totally agree that forcing and indoctrinating is wrong, but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both? Just on this point - can the right answer to dealing with indoctrinated people be even more indoctrination? Surely the answer to stop telling people what to do, live by example rather than endlessly judging and trying to change others for their own good, despite themselves.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      > Just on this point - can the right answer to dealing with indoctrinated people be even more indoctrination? What is doctrine? Wikipedia says, > Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. Can people be educated without being indoctrinated? I say no, indoctrination is synonymous with education. Much like the word "agenda," this is a word that is being used to instill fear and distrust in the reader. I keep hearing politicians saying they don't want kids to get "indoctrinated" but if you read between the lines, what they actually want is for kids to receive a different doctrine.
- komali2 3y ago
  > I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural I challenge you to consider what you're assuming to be "natural." It seems you're implying not taking women seriously to be "natural," but that's simply an indoctrination you've had since childhood, apparently so effectively you're not even aware of it? This is not natural in many cultures now and throughout history.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    > It seems you're implying not taking women seriously to be "natural" le guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
    - komali2 3y ago
      Ok: how would you have interpreted the comment? Rereading the thread, it seems they're implying that pushing back on gender stereotypes is to force people to not "be natural."
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Here's how I interpret it (but note that I am not the author; I am guessing): Let's say that I am a university-attending female, but even though I am attending university, what I really want to be is a wife and mother. (Such people do in fact exist.) Universities can "push back on gender stereotypes" so strongly that I feel like it's not OK for me to be who I want to be. That is, you can push back on gender stereotypes so hard that those who fit the stereotypes feel like they "shouldn't" be who they are. Opposing stereotypes is fine; going that far to do so is less fine.
        ambichook 3y ago
        i'm missing how this is relevant like, at all? what with the context of the entire rest of the conversation, i struggle to see how you reached that interpretation
pompino 3y ago
It is not a serious argument when you malign the character of half the worlds population by extrapolating one anecdote.
felsokning 3y ago
I'm confused: Did your anecdote transition from `customers` to `men` somewhere within itself?
- mcv 3y ago
  Unintentionally. I should probably have said "people" instead of "men" in that comment, because it's definitely possible also for women to take men more seriously than women in such situations. I've also read about research that shows that when hiring, the people doing the hiring tend to be biased towards people who look like the people already doing the job. When they're white men, people tend to hire more white men, even when the person doing the hiring is not a white man and even when they're aware of this bias and of the need to hire with more diversity. And no, it wasn't because men were naturally better at that job, it was merely that the current demographic working that job create the bias, the prejudice, that they'd be better at that job. So clearly more diverse hiring is necessary merely to ensure that candidates can be judged in an unbiased way. Which is a bit contradictory, but that's the minefield that needs to be navigated to ensure everybody gets a fair chance.

by mcv 3y ago

verisimi 3y ago

You're missing the point of what I'm saying I think. The idea of 'equal' is a false one because things aren't equal, can never be equal. It sounds good to say 'equal' but its just not the way humans are. Neither men nor women are perfect. No individual is perfect. Now you can force and harass people to do this or that.. but what you are doing is making everyone unhappy - people will be unable to act naturally and will never never be themselves. I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural and a/ allow making of mistakes and b/ allowing for the opportunity of learning from those mistakes. The idea that there is some known perfect state 'equal' is a nonsense - no one knows what this is - we are not gods in fact. Forcing others to adopt such an idea is certainly wrong though - we can say that much. Manipulating others, indoctrinating them will surely make people unhappy - men and women - for who can say what is right for others?

mcv 3y ago
Obviously everybody is different. No two people are the same. No two men are the same either. But that doesn't mean that in normal social interaction, and especially professional interaction, people do deserve the same level of upfront respect and trust. At least until those are squandered by their own actual actions. But instead, it's, even now, still too common that some people get denied that respect based on prejudice about gender or race, rather than their own actions. > Now you can force and harass people to do this or that. You can set certain professional standards within a company, community, field or industry, but the issue in this example is that the difference in performance was caused by the prejudice from the customers, and that's not something you can control. > I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural and a/ allow making of mistakes and b/ allowing for the opportunity of learning from those mistakes. But how can you do that when people are being held back from being their natural selves by unfair prejudice? And educating customers is hard to do when it might be a completely different customer every time. > The idea that there is some known perfect state 'equal' is a nonsense Which is why nobody is talking about that. I'm talking about obstacles that are needlessly holding people back, and about what can be done to remove those obstacles. Using fake names is an ugly fix; one that appears dishonest and doesn't really address the underlying prejudice, but it does mitigate the immediate symptoms of that prejudice. I totally agree that forcing and indoctrinating is wrong, but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both?
- darkwater 3y ago
  > but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both? You smashed the nail on the head with this! And it's basically another way of defining what the feminist movement defines as patriarchate.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I can't really reply fully here, as my comment is flagged, and I'm accused of starting a flame war by even replying to this already charged story. It doesn't matter that the academic that who did the initial research is clearly an active and political academic figure - as I showed. That is fine apparently, but it is suggested that my comment here is wrong and I should simply not comment. It feels like only one side (not mine) is acceptable for a public airing. > I totally agree that forcing and indoctrinating is wrong, but what do you do if people have already been indoctrinated, and as a result are forcing other people in a way that restricts them both? Just on this point - can the right answer to dealing with indoctrinated people be even more indoctrination? Surely the answer to stop telling people what to do, live by example rather than endlessly judging and trying to change others for their own good, despite themselves.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    > Just on this point - can the right answer to dealing with indoctrinated people be even more indoctrination? What is doctrine? Wikipedia says, > Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. Can people be educated without being indoctrinated? I say no, indoctrination is synonymous with education. Much like the word "agenda," this is a word that is being used to instill fear and distrust in the reader. I keep hearing politicians saying they don't want kids to get "indoctrinated" but if you read between the lines, what they actually want is for kids to receive a different doctrine.
komali2 3y ago
> I personally think it is better to to let individuals be natural I challenge you to consider what you're assuming to be "natural." It seems you're implying not taking women seriously to be "natural," but that's simply an indoctrination you've had since childhood, apparently so effectively you're not even aware of it? This is not natural in many cultures now and throughout history.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > It seems you're implying not taking women seriously to be "natural" le guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - komali2 3y ago
    Ok: how would you have interpreted the comment? Rereading the thread, it seems they're implying that pushing back on gender stereotypes is to force people to not "be natural."
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      Here's how I interpret it (but note that I am not the author; I am guessing): Let's say that I am a university-attending female, but even though I am attending university, what I really want to be is a wife and mother. (Such people do in fact exist.) Universities can "push back on gender stereotypes" so strongly that I feel like it's not OK for me to be who I want to be. That is, you can push back on gender stereotypes so hard that those who fit the stereotypes feel like they "shouldn't" be who they are. Opposing stereotypes is fine; going that far to do so is less fine.
      - ambichook 3y ago
        i'm missing how this is relevant like, at all? what with the context of the entire rest of the conversation, i struggle to see how you reached that interpretation

pompino 3y ago

It is not a serious argument when you malign the character of half the worlds population by extrapolating one anecdote.

felsokning 3y ago

I'm confused: Did your anecdote transition from `customers` to `men` somewhere within itself?

mcv 3y ago
Unintentionally. I should probably have said "people" instead of "men" in that comment, because it's definitely possible also for women to take men more seriously than women in such situations. I've also read about research that shows that when hiring, the people doing the hiring tend to be biased towards people who look like the people already doing the job. When they're white men, people tend to hire more white men, even when the person doing the hiring is not a white man and even when they're aware of this bias and of the need to hire with more diversity. And no, it wasn't because men were naturally better at that job, it was merely that the current demographic working that job create the bias, the prejudice, that they'd be better at that job. So clearly more diverse hiring is necessary merely to ensure that candidates can be judged in an unbiased way. Which is a bit contradictory, but that's the minefield that needs to be navigated to ensure everybody gets a fair chance.