3 ms·

...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

...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).

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).