7 ms·

> Isn't viewing the opposite gender as "enemy combatants" a really terrible thing to do? Except that's not what's happening. The war is between the ideology th

> Isn't viewing the opposite gender as "enemy combatants" a really terrible thing to do? Except that's not what's happening. The war is between the ideology that genders are equal and the ideology that genders are not equal. Framing it the way you have is a standard tactic employed by people who are entirely aware they are at war and have set up feminists as enemy combatants already.

nl 12y ago
The war is between the ideology that genders are equal and the ideology that genders are not equal. I think a better summary would be this: The war is between the ideology that genders should have equal opportunities and the ideology that genders should not.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  I don't think anyone outside certain religions[1] asserts that genders should not have equal opportunities. Could you link to such a person? A better statement: The war is between the ideology that individual humans should have equal opportunities, and the ideology that certain groups should be statistically equally represented in all fields. (Or sometimes it's all fields that result in "power", a poorly defined term.) [1] Interestingly, those religions usually have more women than computing. I've never been to a church where women didn't outnumber men.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    Since you're obfuscating, I want to clarify that your "better statement" is not a restatement of what I said. It's a disagreement.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Yes, I'm disagreeing. I guess my phrasing was unclear, my apologies. Again, if you can link to people of any significance who openly state opposition to equal opportunity for individuals, it would be fairly convincing.
      - geofft 12y ago
        What does "equal opportunity" mean? https://inclusiveactioneverydaylives.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/40824_176008489215668_1643818166_n1-e1367896308468.jpg https://inclusiveactioneverydaylives.files.wordpress.com/201... Is it equal opportunity to see the baseball game, or equal opportunity to pick up a crate? There are certainly people who state opposition to each of these forms, although they each tend to say they support "equal opportunity," meaning the other.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        To translate my statement to the language used in your cartoon, "equality of individual opportunity" is "SAMENESS" and statistical equality is "EQUITY". One major obfuscation made by various activists in this discussion is that lack of EQUITY can only be caused by a lack of SAMENESS. As illustrated nicely by the cartoon, some folks are short. If shortness is distributed unevenly, then SAMENESS will result in some groups being underrepresented.
        geofft 12y ago
        Yes, but (to stretch this analogy quite thin) the goal here isn't shortness or tallness. The goal is being able to watch the baseball game. It just so happens that there's a big wooden fence there, which may or may not have some reason to exist, but its purpose is definitely not to block short people from watching the game. If it has a purpose, it's something else. Blocking short people is a side effect. So, if shortness is distributed unequally, and there's a big wooden fence in front of the game, you could respond by saying that tall people are naturally more suited for game-watching, and argue based on tall people having historically been more successful at it. But that claim isn't likely to stand up to a deep examination of causality and reality. There are two significantly more defensible responses: give short people enough crates to see over the fence, or tear down the fence (preferably by figuring out what purpose it serves, and building something else to serve its purpose without the side effects, like a Plexiglas fence). Then your ability to watch the game will be determined only by your natural talent at game-watching, not by your natural talent at being tall.
  - nl 12y ago
    I don't think anyone outside certain religions[1] asserts that genders should not have equal opportunities. Could you link to such a person? Some (fairly major) golf clubs don't let women play on their courses[1]. Plenty of people think women should not be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces[2]. I could continue... [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10186258/Golfs-governing-body-to-reconsider-issue-of-men-only-clubs-and-Open-Championship.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10186258/Go... [2] http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-women-be-allowed-to-fight-in-combat/putting-women-in-combat-is-a-disastrous-decision http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-women-be-allowed-to...
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      > Some (fairly major) golf clubs don't let women play on their courses[1]. Actually those clubs don't let women become members of the club, but they do let them play on the course. (Specifically, Muirfield does.) Or in some cases (I'm not sure if it's a nonzero number now that the R&A golf club has had its vote) they don't own the course.
      - nl 12y ago
        So that is confirmation that women don't have the right to join the club?
    - malandrew 12y ago
      Will men be allowed to participate in Glassbreakers? It would be pretty easy to cite circumstances when women are excluded and men are excluded. For example, there are men's only colleges and women's only colleges, and the number of women's only institutions of higher education greatly outnumber the number of men's only institutions (The only one I can think of is Hampden Sydney in Virginia). Personally, I'm very anti-gender binary, so my purpose of commenting here is that it is intellectually dishonest to cite examples where women are excluded and conveniently omit examples where men are excluded.
      - _tlf7 12y ago
- saraid216 12y ago
  Eh. I prefer mine. We're really just changing where we put the origin point for our coordinate systems, but I like mine better. :P I would also swap out "opportunities" for "autonomies", but that's being pedantic and obscure.
MrDom 12y ago
Define equal. Then tell me what legal rights women have that men don't have. Because I can name about five legal rights that women have that men don't.
- geofft 12y ago
  Legal rights are irrelevant if they cannot be exercised. In 1860, a runaway slave in the North had the right to life, liberty, and property; why did the Underground Railroad reach to Canada?
  - MrDom 12y ago
    You didn't answer my question. What legal right don't they have? Or, as you say, what legal right can't they exercise?
    - dang 12y ago
      Your repetition of ideological talking points is both inflaming this thread and making it altogether predictable. We don't need yet another flamewar. Please stop.

nl 12y ago

The war is between the ideology that genders are equal and the ideology that genders are not equal. I think a better summary would be this: The war is between the ideology that genders should have equal opportunities and the ideology that genders should not.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
I don't think anyone outside certain religions[1] asserts that genders should not have equal opportunities. Could you link to such a person? A better statement: The war is between the ideology that individual humans should have equal opportunities, and the ideology that certain groups should be statistically equally represented in all fields. (Or sometimes it's all fields that result in "power", a poorly defined term.) [1] Interestingly, those religions usually have more women than computing. I've never been to a church where women didn't outnumber men.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Since you're obfuscating, I want to clarify that your "better statement" is not a restatement of what I said. It's a disagreement.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Yes, I'm disagreeing. I guess my phrasing was unclear, my apologies. Again, if you can link to people of any significance who openly state opposition to equal opportunity for individuals, it would be fairly convincing.
    - geofft 12y ago
      What does "equal opportunity" mean? https://inclusiveactioneverydaylives.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/40824_176008489215668_1643818166_n1-e1367896308468.jpg https://inclusiveactioneverydaylives.files.wordpress.com/201... Is it equal opportunity to see the baseball game, or equal opportunity to pick up a crate? There are certainly people who state opposition to each of these forms, although they each tend to say they support "equal opportunity," meaning the other.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        To translate my statement to the language used in your cartoon, "equality of individual opportunity" is "SAMENESS" and statistical equality is "EQUITY". One major obfuscation made by various activists in this discussion is that lack of EQUITY can only be caused by a lack of SAMENESS. As illustrated nicely by the cartoon, some folks are short. If shortness is distributed unevenly, then SAMENESS will result in some groups being underrepresented.
        geofft 12y ago
        Yes, but (to stretch this analogy quite thin) the goal here isn't shortness or tallness. The goal is being able to watch the baseball game. It just so happens that there's a big wooden fence there, which may or may not have some reason to exist, but its purpose is definitely not to block short people from watching the game. If it has a purpose, it's something else. Blocking short people is a side effect. So, if shortness is distributed unequally, and there's a big wooden fence in front of the game, you could respond by saying that tall people are naturally more suited for game-watching, and argue based on tall people having historically been more successful at it. But that claim isn't likely to stand up to a deep examination of causality and reality. There are two significantly more defensible responses: give short people enough crates to see over the fence, or tear down the fence (preferably by figuring out what purpose it serves, and building something else to serve its purpose without the side effects, like a Plexiglas fence). Then your ability to watch the game will be determined only by your natural talent at game-watching, not by your natural talent at being tall.
- nl 12y ago
  I don't think anyone outside certain religions[1] asserts that genders should not have equal opportunities. Could you link to such a person? Some (fairly major) golf clubs don't let women play on their courses[1]. Plenty of people think women should not be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces[2]. I could continue... [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10186258/Golfs-governing-body-to-reconsider-issue-of-men-only-clubs-and-Open-Championship.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10186258/Go... [2] http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-women-be-allowed-to-fight-in-combat/putting-women-in-combat-is-a-disastrous-decision http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-women-be-allowed-to...
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    > Some (fairly major) golf clubs don't let women play on their courses[1]. Actually those clubs don't let women become members of the club, but they do let them play on the course. (Specifically, Muirfield does.) Or in some cases (I'm not sure if it's a nonzero number now that the R&A golf club has had its vote) they don't own the course.
    - nl 12y ago
      So that is confirmation that women don't have the right to join the club?
  - malandrew 12y ago
    Will men be allowed to participate in Glassbreakers? It would be pretty easy to cite circumstances when women are excluded and men are excluded. For example, there are men's only colleges and women's only colleges, and the number of women's only institutions of higher education greatly outnumber the number of men's only institutions (The only one I can think of is Hampden Sydney in Virginia). Personally, I'm very anti-gender binary, so my purpose of commenting here is that it is intellectually dishonest to cite examples where women are excluded and conveniently omit examples where men are excluded.
    - _tlf7 12y ago
saraid216 12y ago
Eh. I prefer mine. We're really just changing where we put the origin point for our coordinate systems, but I like mine better. :P I would also swap out "opportunities" for "autonomies", but that's being pedantic and obscure.

MrDom 12y ago

Define equal. Then tell me what legal rights women have that men don't have. Because I can name about five legal rights that women have that men don't.

geofft 12y ago
Legal rights are irrelevant if they cannot be exercised. In 1860, a runaway slave in the North had the right to life, liberty, and property; why did the Underground Railroad reach to Canada?
- MrDom 12y ago
  You didn't answer my question. What legal right don't they have? Or, as you say, what legal right can't they exercise?
  - dang 12y ago
    Your repetition of ideological talking points is both inflaming this thread and making it altogether predictable. We don't need yet another flamewar. Please stop.