3 ms·

> If you somehow wish to portray the desire to make some people suffer less as an ideology that's somehow controversial, so be it. I see it as an ideology. Fu

by Dewie3 11y ago

> If you somehow wish to portray the desire to make some people suffer less as an ideology that's somehow controversial, so be it. I see it as an ideology. Full stop. Any ideology is fallible and can be misguided, even if it is well-intentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if most ideologies have been bourne out of well-intentioned ideals. But intentions don't really help if the ideology is fundamentally unsound/misguided (we have some examples of that up through history). > That's just rubbish, and you sound just like evolution deniers Of course, the go-to shaming tactic of intellectuals. Bravo. > You don't want to learn even the gist of what's in it -- that's fine, but it's you who are being motivated by dogmatism, You don't know fuck-all about my knowledge of this. But yes, I could stand to investigate and learn more about it. I could stand to try to find out if some of my beliefs on this field or whatever is misguided. But I have seen "enough" from a long and admittedly cursory glance at the field that I've found that it is not something that I am likely to find worthwhile in the end, and it would be too draining. What I really should do is to stop whining about things like this on forums like this and just lay the issue to rest. That's my bad. > you want to keep things as they are? Of course that's your default guess. It's either "our way, or the old way", as some kind of liberal/conservative dichotomy. I'm not happy with the old way or "the new way", and I think it's preposterous that people can try to reduce it to such either-or-thinking. No, the current mainstream thoughts on sexism aren't the be-all-end-all that all reasonable human beings can and should agree on. On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism. Any more explanation beyond that and we get into fragmented territory with regards to what opinions are acceptable on this topic, as far as the mainstream thought goes.

pron 11y ago
> I see it as an ideology. Some parts of it -- sure -- but an ideology firmly based on evidence. Just like deciding that spending public funds on the design of the first computers or the internet -- or any technology -- is an ideology based on evidence. I'm not asking you to accept the ideology, though. You don't want to build computers -- fine! But sexism is as real as electrons. I am sure some CS professors have strong opinions on whether we should build self-driving cars. Their ideology doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, I'd expect CS professors to be very much "pro-tech" because they know better than the average person what's possible. Similarly, it's only to be expected that researchers studying sexism or racism will be very much opposed to them, because they know better than the average person how harmful they are. Their ideology doesn't disqualify their research, either. > It's either "our way, or the old way" What way? I just look at the research. You have a different explanation for how species evolve or why women make less money than men, put it out there so it can be studied. We can't "teach the controversy" because there is no controversy to teach. There's the vast majority of researchers on one hand, and a small yet vocal group of deniers on the other. > the current mainstream thoughts on sexism I don't know what you mean by that; I do know what the studies tell us about how sexism spreads, what it looks like, and what its consequences are. You may have a very different understanding of what sexism is from how the academic studies define it, but to me what you said sounds just like "the current mainstream thoughts on evolution". You just arbitrarily chose to disqualify a vast body of research because it doesn't jive with your gut feelings on the subject. > On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism I don't think you understand. Whether or not you like sexism is irrelevant. What matters first of all -- before we get to ideology -- is to study how certain power structures perpetuate themselves in society. Once you know that -- and only then -- you can decide what to do about it if anything. I don't like that people can't fly. But I know that the reason we can't is that we don't have wings, and the reason for that is evolutionary, and the mechanism is genetic. So, to make people fly we can either change their genes -- which may be hard or easy, safe or dangerous, ethically problematic or not -- or decide on some other way of dealing with it (building airplanes, for example). Luckily, thanks to decades of research, we already know quite a bit about sexism -- just as we know quite a bit about the limits to human flight -- so there's no need to start from first principles and/or total ignorance every time we discuss it. When we discuss human flights we can talk about genes and aerodynamics -- we don't need to treat the subject so mysteriously and suspiciously. Same goes for sexism.
- zyx321 11y ago
  >What way? >It's not OK not to learn about sexism and try to fight it now that we have a much better sense of how it works. You are the one who opened this conversation with a judgment of morality. It is quite obvious what you are suggesting - every man has a moral obligation to educate himself about sexism on his own time and on his own dime (you're certainly not going to help with that, repeatedly asserting the existence of a "vast" number of studies without naming a single one). Very few people here will dispute that sexism exists, or that the world would be a better place if it didn't. But you come off as so ideologically blinded that you are literally incapable of understanding why anybody would ever disagree with you. And you're doing yourself and your cause a disservice. You appear so insufferably, patronizingly smug that it is hard to take your argument at all seriously.
  - pron 11y ago
    > every man has a moral obligation to educate himself about sexism on his own time and on his own dime No, only those curious about the world and wishing to learn how things work (and why only men?). But if you choose not to educate yourself, it's ridiculous to enter into an argument without at least some familiarity with the research. > repeatedly asserting the existence of a "vast" number of studies without naming a single one Are you kidding me? I feel like I'm in crazy land. I didn't know the existence of an entire field research done by world-famous researchers on government and private grants at the world's most prestigious institutions and published in the best of peer reviewed journals is either "asserted" or requires "evidence". It's ridiculous. If you're that ignorant, type "women roles" or "women power" into Google Scholar. Because you'll get literally millions of hits -- from various disciplines like history, sociology, psychology and anthropology -- you can narrow it down, for example "women roles victorian", or "women roles middle ages" etc. The field is not exactly obscure. There's a lot more to learn, but we already know quite a bit. > so ideologically blinded What are you even talking about? All I did was say that people who are otherwise curious don't wish to learn the subject. What ideology have I expressed? > incapable of understanding why anybody would ever disagree with you. Disagree about what? That we know a good deal today about how sexism work and how power perpetuates itself in society? That's a fact! > You appear so insufferably, patronizingly smug that it is hard to take your argument at all seriously. At the risk of sounding smug, I think I will repeat my "argument" (i.e. incontrovertible fact) once again: for the past few decades we have learned a great deal about sexism through research. Any argument about the topic must at least start with the basics of what we already know. I am really sorry for sounding condescending, but I feel like a scientist at a dinner party mentioning Newtonian dynamics and all of a sudden getting bombarded with insults and strange opinions because it turns out that the other people's backgrounds range from Etruscan religion to Aristotelian "physics". There's a lot to debate and discuss, but you just can't have a serious discussion when most of the participants willingly ignore the full body of research on the subject. There are people talking about sexism or feminism without even knowing what those terms even mean; without even having looked up either on Wikipedia. How would you feel if somebody started disagreeing with your "opinions" on programming without having ever programmed anything, or even having read a single relevant Wikipedia article? I'm sure you'd sound pretty condescending to them, too.
pron 11y ago
> I've found that it is not something that I am likely to find worthwhile in the end, and it would be too draining. BTW, that's precisely my feeling about chemistry (which, incidentally, I also view as an ideology, full stop). OTOH, you won't find me participating in chemistry discussions, let alone arguing about it.

by Dewie3 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> I see it as an ideology. Some parts of it -- sure -- but an ideology firmly based on evidence. Just like deciding that spending public funds on the design of the first computers or the internet -- or any technology -- is an ideology based on evidence. I'm not asking you to accept the ideology, though. You don't want to build computers -- fine! But sexism is as real as electrons. I am sure some CS professors have strong opinions on whether we should build self-driving cars. Their ideology doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, I'd expect CS professors to be very much "pro-tech" because they know better than the average person what's possible. Similarly, it's only to be expected that researchers studying sexism or racism will be very much opposed to them, because they know better than the average person how harmful they are. Their ideology doesn't disqualify their research, either. > It's either "our way, or the old way" What way? I just look at the research. You have a different explanation for how species evolve or why women make less money than men, put it out there so it can be studied. We can't "teach the controversy" because there is no controversy to teach. There's the vast majority of researchers on one hand, and a small yet vocal group of deniers on the other. > the current mainstream thoughts on sexism I don't know what you mean by that; I do know what the studies tell us about how sexism spreads, what it looks like, and what its consequences are. You may have a very different understanding of what sexism is from how the academic studies define it, but to me what you said sounds just like "the current mainstream thoughts on evolution". You just arbitrarily chose to disqualify a vast body of research because it doesn't jive with your gut feelings on the subject. > On my beliefs, suffice it to say: I don't like sexism I don't think you understand. Whether or not you like sexism is irrelevant. What matters first of all -- before we get to ideology -- is to study how certain power structures perpetuate themselves in society. Once you know that -- and only then -- you can decide what to do about it if anything. I don't like that people can't fly. But I know that the reason we can't is that we don't have wings, and the reason for that is evolutionary, and the mechanism is genetic. So, to make people fly we can either change their genes -- which may be hard or easy, safe or dangerous, ethically problematic or not -- or decide on some other way of dealing with it (building airplanes, for example). Luckily, thanks to decades of research, we already know quite a bit about sexism -- just as we know quite a bit about the limits to human flight -- so there's no need to start from first principles and/or total ignorance every time we discuss it. When we discuss human flights we can talk about genes and aerodynamics -- we don't need to treat the subject so mysteriously and suspiciously. Same goes for sexism.

zyx321 11y ago
>What way? >It's not OK not to learn about sexism and try to fight it now that we have a much better sense of how it works. You are the one who opened this conversation with a judgment of morality. It is quite obvious what you are suggesting - every man has a moral obligation to educate himself about sexism on his own time and on his own dime (you're certainly not going to help with that, repeatedly asserting the existence of a "vast" number of studies without naming a single one). Very few people here will dispute that sexism exists, or that the world would be a better place if it didn't. But you come off as so ideologically blinded that you are literally incapable of understanding why anybody would ever disagree with you. And you're doing yourself and your cause a disservice. You appear so insufferably, patronizingly smug that it is hard to take your argument at all seriously.
- pron 11y ago
  > every man has a moral obligation to educate himself about sexism on his own time and on his own dime No, only those curious about the world and wishing to learn how things work (and why only men?). But if you choose not to educate yourself, it's ridiculous to enter into an argument without at least some familiarity with the research. > repeatedly asserting the existence of a "vast" number of studies without naming a single one Are you kidding me? I feel like I'm in crazy land. I didn't know the existence of an entire field research done by world-famous researchers on government and private grants at the world's most prestigious institutions and published in the best of peer reviewed journals is either "asserted" or requires "evidence". It's ridiculous. If you're that ignorant, type "women roles" or "women power" into Google Scholar. Because you'll get literally millions of hits -- from various disciplines like history, sociology, psychology and anthropology -- you can narrow it down, for example "women roles victorian", or "women roles middle ages" etc. The field is not exactly obscure. There's a lot more to learn, but we already know quite a bit. > so ideologically blinded What are you even talking about? All I did was say that people who are otherwise curious don't wish to learn the subject. What ideology have I expressed? > incapable of understanding why anybody would ever disagree with you. Disagree about what? That we know a good deal today about how sexism work and how power perpetuates itself in society? That's a fact! > You appear so insufferably, patronizingly smug that it is hard to take your argument at all seriously. At the risk of sounding smug, I think I will repeat my "argument" (i.e. incontrovertible fact) once again: for the past few decades we have learned a great deal about sexism through research. Any argument about the topic must at least start with the basics of what we already know. I am really sorry for sounding condescending, but I feel like a scientist at a dinner party mentioning Newtonian dynamics and all of a sudden getting bombarded with insults and strange opinions because it turns out that the other people's backgrounds range from Etruscan religion to Aristotelian "physics". There's a lot to debate and discuss, but you just can't have a serious discussion when most of the participants willingly ignore the full body of research on the subject. There are people talking about sexism or feminism without even knowing what those terms even mean; without even having looked up either on Wikipedia. How would you feel if somebody started disagreeing with your "opinions" on programming without having ever programmed anything, or even having read a single relevant Wikipedia article? I'm sure you'd sound pretty condescending to them, too.

pron 11y ago

> I've found that it is not something that I am likely to find worthwhile in the end, and it would be too draining. BTW, that's precisely my feeling about chemistry (which, incidentally, I also view as an ideology, full stop). OTOH, you won't find me participating in chemistry discussions, let alone arguing about it.