4 ms·

> Otherwise the statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. It's only provably false because you're making a seman

> Otherwise the statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. It's only provably false because you're making a semantic argument against it, sticking on the strict definition of "every" rather than interpreting it as heard by others. > First off, very few men have access to those positions of power. Right. That's a problem, too. It's just not a feminist problem. > Second, much of feminism ignores the question of why one-to-one gender representation is desirable in the first place for each and every position of power. > Well, the man is still the most objectively skilled person for the job maybe you should figure out how to build control mechanisms that prevent male ideologies from perpetuating insidious effects throughout the system, rather than just scream about how men should be barred from the position. And step one to figuring out how to build said control mechanisms is explaining to people that they should help out. To which there is always the response that there isn't anything wrong in the first place and look, women are underrepresented because they aren't supposed to be in positions of power anyways so why change anything? These conversations are necessarily circular because you can't talk with everyone about everything all the time. You're always going to rehash conversations periodically, and one-to-one representation is a fairly concrete fact-based grounding point for such conversations. You're going to have to explain the benefits of functional programming to every fresh-faced only-learned-Java college graduate over and over again until you change the underlying system to explain functional programming to them before you have to. > Third, there is the question of whether or not these inequalities are systemic because of male oppression or female behavior. It is likely a mix of the two, but feminists completely discount the latter. Surely not EVERY feminist! That statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. > There are innumerable other issues I could list but what's common to all of them, in my view, is that they focus so intently on the end goal of elevating women's power status that they bulldoze over all other considerations indiscriminately. Yes, that's true. This is why I, for instance, have stopped arguing with atheists or privacy advocates. They're so focused on the end goal that they bulldoze over all other considerations indiscriminately. That's one of those costs you pay for people being human and actually caring about the issues they fight for. Another cost is that, here in reality, if you don't take a polarizing stance, it's incredibly hard to provide compromises when it comes down to actually deciding policy. And if you take a polarizing stance long enough, you start fully committing to it rather than holding it for the sake of making change. If you take a realistic stance, then when you compromise, you start losing the things that are necessary, too. Both strategies are bad. You have to get insanely lucky for everything to work out well and crystallize over the course of generations. There is no right answer. Thinking you have the right answer virtually guarantees that you're bulldozing over someone else's considerations. Failing to think you have the right answer pretty much means no one will listen to you. Fucked either way, so you fuck it up until it's less bad.

obstacle1 13y ago
>It's only provably false because you're making a semantic argument against it, sticking on the strict definition of "every" rather than interpreting it as heard by others. Yes, forgive me for making a 'semantic' argument. That is, an argument that is concerned with the meanings of words people use. How petty of me. Unfortunately many people who say things like "every other group is a men's group" believe and mean exactly that. That is how they justify seriously arguing that men forming men's interests groups is inherently oppressive. >Right. That's a problem, too. It's just not a feminist problem. Right. Which is exactly what I'm saying. It's not a feminist problem, so why don't certain strands of feminists want men's groups to worry about those problems? What are these men supposed to do? Tough it out and hope for the best? Why don't they deserve advocacy just as underprivileged females do? >Surely not EVERY feminist! That statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. Nice catch :) >if you don't take a polarizing stance, it's incredibly hard to provide compromises when it comes down to actually deciding policy I don't disagree with much that you've said. I don't have a problem with feminists or any other interest group taking a polarizing stance. I have a problem with those who do so but then completely deny the other pole on the dialectic legitimacy. If you're going to polarize the issue, admit that there are two sides, and allow both to exist. Fight it out on the merit of the arguments. "Every other group is a men's group" so men's groups should be prohibited from existing? Nah. If you want to take the binary stance, fight for your issues and let The Other Side fight for theirs. Otherwise admit that you just want totalitarian control, and tell The Other Side sorry, you're screwed, enjoy fighting us every step of the way. The MPAA pretends it is fighting for consumer's rights, and we all get pissed off because that's obviously a lie and the MPAA's only interest is furthering industry goals. Yet when this strand of male-exclusionary feminists that I'm speaking of pretends to fight for men's rights as well as women's, while obviously not doing so, we're all like "yeah, that's cool". It's bizarre.
- saraid216 13y ago
  (Preface: I ended up scrapping my reply and approaching it differently due to "the sense" I'll talk about down below. The coherence of the comment will probably suffer as a result.) I'm getting the sense that you were introduced to specific schools of thought in college and mistook them to be a lot more pervasive than they actually are. Maybe I can ask you a question in different terms: of your professors, how many of them would you say were male-exclusionary feminists? I'm looking for a ballpark percentage and expecting it to be high. Because here's the thing: I've never heard of these male-exclusionary feminists. I don't claim to be a feminist (though other people would probably apply the label to me fairly; I don't care), nor am I particularly well-studied in the area (because at the end of the day, I don't actually care about women's rights). So maybe it's just my scholarship that's lacking. But you're talking about this group as if they were a major and extremely significant subset of feminists. I would like to believe that I'm not so completely ignorant as to have missed these people over the last few years of absorbing feminism, but it's entirely possible. I wouldn't be surprised if they existed, and I would be even less surprised to discover they've found a home in a "feminist-oriented humanities department" because that's exactly the kind of thing that universities do: provide homes for extreme views that don't cross the line into actual crazy. So basically, can you show me, at all, that the argument you're arguing against isn't made of straw? I'd be willing to more directly respond to your post, too, but this seems more important.

obstacle1 13y ago

>It's only provably false because you're making a semantic argument against it, sticking on the strict definition of "every" rather than interpreting it as heard by others. Yes, forgive me for making a 'semantic' argument. That is, an argument that is concerned with the meanings of words people use. How petty of me. Unfortunately many people who say things like "every other group is a men's group" believe and mean exactly that. That is how they justify seriously arguing that men forming men's interests groups is inherently oppressive. >Right. That's a problem, too. It's just not a feminist problem. Right. Which is exactly what I'm saying. It's not a feminist problem, so why don't certain strands of feminists want men's groups to worry about those problems? What are these men supposed to do? Tough it out and hope for the best? Why don't they deserve advocacy just as underprivileged females do? >Surely not EVERY feminist! That statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. Nice catch :) >if you don't take a polarizing stance, it's incredibly hard to provide compromises when it comes down to actually deciding policy I don't disagree with much that you've said. I don't have a problem with feminists or any other interest group taking a polarizing stance. I have a problem with those who do so but then completely deny the other pole on the dialectic legitimacy. If you're going to polarize the issue, admit that there are two sides, and allow both to exist. Fight it out on the merit of the arguments. "Every other group is a men's group" so men's groups should be prohibited from existing? Nah. If you want to take the binary stance, fight for your issues and let The Other Side fight for theirs. Otherwise admit that you just want totalitarian control, and tell The Other Side sorry, you're screwed, enjoy fighting us every step of the way. The MPAA pretends it is fighting for consumer's rights, and we all get pissed off because that's obviously a lie and the MPAA's only interest is furthering industry goals. Yet when this strand of male-exclusionary feminists that I'm speaking of pretends to fight for men's rights as well as women's, while obviously not doing so, we're all like "yeah, that's cool". It's bizarre.

saraid216 13y ago
(Preface: I ended up scrapping my reply and approaching it differently due to "the sense" I'll talk about down below. The coherence of the comment will probably suffer as a result.) I'm getting the sense that you were introduced to specific schools of thought in college and mistook them to be a lot more pervasive than they actually are. Maybe I can ask you a question in different terms: of your professors, how many of them would you say were male-exclusionary feminists? I'm looking for a ballpark percentage and expecting it to be high. Because here's the thing: I've never heard of these male-exclusionary feminists. I don't claim to be a feminist (though other people would probably apply the label to me fairly; I don't care), nor am I particularly well-studied in the area (because at the end of the day, I don't actually care about women's rights). So maybe it's just my scholarship that's lacking. But you're talking about this group as if they were a major and extremely significant subset of feminists. I would like to believe that I'm not so completely ignorant as to have missed these people over the last few years of absorbing feminism, but it's entirely possible. I wouldn't be surprised if they existed, and I would be even less surprised to discover they've found a home in a "feminist-oriented humanities department" because that's exactly the kind of thing that universities do: provide homes for extreme views that don't cross the line into actual crazy. So basically, can you show me, at all, that the argument you're arguing against isn't made of straw? I'd be willing to more directly respond to your post, too, but this seems more important.