America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

Post by concordDance » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 8:56 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #212

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

>But after a lifetime in service of the feminist cause, she took on the case of a friend whose son she came to believe had been wrongly convicted of rape and won his acquittal on appeal. This is one of the big ways in which sexism is a much more tractable problem than racism and less potentially explosive. Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with dau…

True in the sense that it creates a "floor" for the depths to which people might sink. But this process can still sink pretty low. Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks. And a more modern example that was on display for all to see: the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. There were not a lot of facts available -- no date, no place, no witness that could remember. Y…

Post by intarga » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:06 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #215

jeffdavis wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True in the sense that it creates a "floor" for the depths to which people might sink. But this process can still sink pretty low. Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks. And a more modern example that was on display for all to see: the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. There were not a lot of facts available -- no date, no place, no witness that could remember. Y…

> Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks. Not letting women vote is arguably not necessarily a marker of sexism. It is more a marker of the relationship between a country's military leadership and institutions. Originally originally (~400BC) voting was basically for the army to decide when and where it would fight; hence male-only because men are the physically big ones w…

Post by Hitton » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

awb wrote: post #159

blotter_paper wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most families include the elderly and the overweight, so the idea that familiarity breeds acceptance would predict that those biases should be going away quicker than biases against gays. What I'm about to say is not meant to provide a justification for discriminatory behavior, it's just an armchair-anthropologist's attempt at explaining this discrepancy. We might have a very deep bias against old people; if a group…

The bias against overweight people is probably less about them hoarding and more about them being unhealthy. We probably have a bias against unhealthy people because they'd drain the time and resources of a tribe. And they'd be less likely to help with physical activities like hunting, gathering and war. Obesity is a very new phenomenon but not wanting to include or associate with people who seem sick or unhealthy is…

Post by nullc » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:33 AM UTC

gedy wrote: post #63

mieseratte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand “why,” in that they are required to. What I don’t understand is why this is a thing to begin with. Government end-runs around standard systems of due process is odd.

From the article: "This ideology is a successor to liberalism. It brandishes terms that superficially resemble normative liberalism—terms like diversity and inclusion—but in fact seeks to supplant it. This new regime, in which administrative power has been fashioned into a blunt instrument of deterrence, marks off a crucial distinction—between the liberal rule of law, and the punitive system of surveillance rooted in…

Post by Hitton » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:45 AM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #190

tzs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would bias toward gay people fit in with that? A lot of people don't know (or at least aren't aware that they know) anyone gay, but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades. There was a recent episode of "Hidden Brain" on NPR that talked about this [1]. This part is particularly interesting: > In a thought experiment, Mahzarin and her colleagues have extended the trend lines…

"it's about 60 more years for anti-black biases to be eliminated, 140 years for skin tone biases against darker skin to go away" Why the distinction? Will black people still be facing skin tone biases in 61 years? What even is a skin tone bias? I'm pretty sure this isn't a bias against people who come back from holiday with a tan, which suggests it's not about skin tone, so racism?