3 ms·

I have two reactions to this, and I think most people who care about sexism in our society would agree with both: 1. From the sound of it, this is a horribly s

by Steuard 14y ago

I have two reactions to this, and I think most people who care about sexism in our society would agree with both: 1. From the sound of it, this is a horribly sexist product that dehumanizes men and reinforces traditional gender roles. I hope to one day see a world where an app like this couldn't exist because there would be no demand (and because everyone would be disgusted by the basic concept). 2. Actively opposing this product is a lower priority than many other issues in our society. While this app does harm the men it targets, that harm occurs against a social backdrop that does not in general emphasize treating men this way. (That is, such attitudes exist, but they are rarely the primary lens through which men are viewed.) In contrast, a similar app targeting women would reinforce negative social norms that are often the primary way in which women are viewed. (Consider how often articles about women in politics comment on their appearance and clothing choices, as compared to how often articles about men do so.) In short, every feminist that I know would be unhappy about this system, but there's no hypocrisy in those same people being less upset about it than about similar treatment of women. Yes, both men and women suffer unfair treatment because of how our society deals with gender. But women have much farther to go.

obviouslygreen 14y ago
...but there's no hypocrisy in those same people being less upset about it than about similar treatment of women. You clearly believe this, but that's what it is, your belief. I disagree; women may have "much farther to go," but that doesn't mean this is somehow intrinsically less important to people who really do support equality. There is nothing wrong with establishing your own priorities. Calling this a lower one with the justification that you are more concerned about women's issues, instead of issues of sexual equality as a whole, would have been more honest. Less benevolent, but then nobody's perfect: Better to be clearly flawed, like the rest of us, than to fabricate some sort of intrinsic dominance where a true egalitarian would find none.
- Steuard 14y ago
  I may be misunderstanding you here, so I'd appreciate a bit of clarification. The way I'm reading your argument, it sounds to me like your claim is something like, "Context doesn't matter: similar forms of harm necessarily carry similar moral weight." Thus, this app is intrinsically just as serious of an issue as a similar app rating women would be. But that reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how you couldn't apply the same argument to say "Regardless of context, it's always equally bad to violently shove someone," ignoring the difference between shoving someone standing on flat ground and shoving someone standing at the edge of a cliff. Of course I would be more upset about shoving in some contexts than in others. So my claim is that the same reasoning applies here. This app absolutely does harm men, but the position of men in society is such that the resulting harm is fairly contained: this service is notable precisely because it's unusual. On the other hand, a similar app for rating women would be yet another contribution to a vast complex of social attitudes and institutions that combine to have a powerful oppressive effect. My sense is that network effects would reinforce and magnify the harm that such an app would do to women. So yes, when evaluating my desire for sexual equality as a whole, I find myself more pressingly concerned about women's issues. But from my perspective, that's not an arbitrary preference but a rational choice.
  - obviouslygreen 14y ago
    The problem I have with your reasoning is that we are not talking about an act that would have dramatically worse results were it directed toward women. In fact, because there is a much more vehement reaction to anything oppressive to women, a similar "shove" would actually result in more pro-feminine reaction than this one will pro-masculine, so in my opinion, you're ignoring the realities of activism, which will turn that shove on its head. Like I said... I don't find your view "wrong" in any absolute sense. I find it mildly objectionable that it's arbitrary (which is fine) while hiding behind claimed rationality (not as fine).
tomjen3 14y ago
Yeah, lets blame the males, those horrible, horrible people who oppress women by being in prison, homeless or committing suicide (or, in the past, dying on the battlefields on Europe by the millions). Try to read a little more about how genders really work before you claim that men are the only oppressors: the top of society is mostly men, but so is the bottom. The survival rate of third-class female passengers on the Titanic were higher than the survival rate of first-class male passengers: does that sound like oppression for you?
- Steuard 14y ago
  I did not say "Men are oppressors" or "Blame men". I said, in a nutshell, "Blame our social structures that tend to favor men." There's a very real difference there in terms of the moral claims being made. And yes, feminism is also concerned about the ways in which this social structure hurts men, very much so. It's just that the consensus is that it hurts women more, so today there are larger and more immediate gains to be made by spending more energy fixing those harms to women.
  - camelite 14y ago
    You're wrong about the consensus thing, from the perspective of people who use words like 'patriarchy' in a off-hand no-explanation-required fashion. An appeal to consensus - never mind being logical, consistent or mindful of context - would be an improvement over where these debates with patriarcy-theory indoctrinated feminists always end up, which is 'you're wrong by definition'. That is, sexism can only hurt women because that's what the word has been defined to mean. It's utterly ludicrous and intellectually bankrupt approach to dialogue of course.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    And I just showed you that they don't tend to favor men -- how was men favored by WWI? 16 million men died -- I doubt a thousand women did.

by Steuard 14y ago

obviouslygreen 14y ago

...but there's no hypocrisy in those same people being less upset about it than about similar treatment of women. You clearly believe this, but that's what it is, your belief. I disagree; women may have "much farther to go," but that doesn't mean this is somehow intrinsically less important to people who really do support equality. There is nothing wrong with establishing your own priorities. Calling this a lower one with the justification that you are more concerned about women's issues, instead of issues of sexual equality as a whole, would have been more honest. Less benevolent, but then nobody's perfect: Better to be clearly flawed, like the rest of us, than to fabricate some sort of intrinsic dominance where a true egalitarian would find none.

Steuard 14y ago
I may be misunderstanding you here, so I'd appreciate a bit of clarification. The way I'm reading your argument, it sounds to me like your claim is something like, "Context doesn't matter: similar forms of harm necessarily carry similar moral weight." Thus, this app is intrinsically just as serious of an issue as a similar app rating women would be. But that reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how you couldn't apply the same argument to say "Regardless of context, it's always equally bad to violently shove someone," ignoring the difference between shoving someone standing on flat ground and shoving someone standing at the edge of a cliff. Of course I would be more upset about shoving in some contexts than in others. So my claim is that the same reasoning applies here. This app absolutely does harm men, but the position of men in society is such that the resulting harm is fairly contained: this service is notable precisely because it's unusual. On the other hand, a similar app for rating women would be yet another contribution to a vast complex of social attitudes and institutions that combine to have a powerful oppressive effect. My sense is that network effects would reinforce and magnify the harm that such an app would do to women. So yes, when evaluating my desire for sexual equality as a whole, I find myself more pressingly concerned about women's issues. But from my perspective, that's not an arbitrary preference but a rational choice.
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  The problem I have with your reasoning is that we are not talking about an act that would have dramatically worse results were it directed toward women. In fact, because there is a much more vehement reaction to anything oppressive to women, a similar "shove" would actually result in more pro-feminine reaction than this one will pro-masculine, so in my opinion, you're ignoring the realities of activism, which will turn that shove on its head. Like I said... I don't find your view "wrong" in any absolute sense. I find it mildly objectionable that it's arbitrary (which is fine) while hiding behind claimed rationality (not as fine).

tomjen3 14y ago

Yeah, lets blame the males, those horrible, horrible people who oppress women by being in prison, homeless or committing suicide (or, in the past, dying on the battlefields on Europe by the millions). Try to read a little more about how genders really work before you claim that men are the only oppressors: the top of society is mostly men, but so is the bottom. The survival rate of third-class female passengers on the Titanic were higher than the survival rate of first-class male passengers: does that sound like oppression for you?

Steuard 14y ago
I did not say "Men are oppressors" or "Blame men". I said, in a nutshell, "Blame our social structures that tend to favor men." There's a very real difference there in terms of the moral claims being made. And yes, feminism is also concerned about the ways in which this social structure hurts men, very much so. It's just that the consensus is that it hurts women more, so today there are larger and more immediate gains to be made by spending more energy fixing those harms to women.
- camelite 14y ago
  You're wrong about the consensus thing, from the perspective of people who use words like 'patriarchy' in a off-hand no-explanation-required fashion. An appeal to consensus - never mind being logical, consistent or mindful of context - would be an improvement over where these debates with patriarcy-theory indoctrinated feminists always end up, which is 'you're wrong by definition'. That is, sexism can only hurt women because that's what the word has been defined to mean. It's utterly ludicrous and intellectually bankrupt approach to dialogue of course.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  And I just showed you that they don't tend to favor men -- how was men favored by WWI? 16 million men died -- I doubt a thousand women did.