Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the Vagina Monologues?
What about them?
They are very anti-male. (I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it, and if you read the wikipedia page or watch the play, you'll see what I mean).
Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
241–250 of 357 posts
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I have seen ideas/suggestions blown off for equally vapid reasons. Sometimes they just don't like me, and don't like that I suggested it, for whatever reason that is. Why should a reason of "female" be special?
> Why should a reason of "female" be special? It just is. It doesn't mean that vapid reasons are not vapid, but this isn't vapid, it's toxic.
That's the closest I've seen to someone admitting that feminism is a religious belief system.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they just read, say, Dworkin, on how all heterosexual sex is rape? Pretending people who disagree with political movements just need to understand those movements more is presumptuous.
Michael Moorcock: Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying? Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.… My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a readi…
>Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman.
So she is saying that all cases, within marriage, are? Slightly different in the 'within marriage' aspect, but not by much.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing that happens between twelfth grade and death decreases the percent of women interested in computer science one whit. Statistics [1]: 56% of women in technology leave their employer mid-career, and 24% of these women take a non-technical job with a different employer. "This is double the turnover rate of men." It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decr…
It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decreases women's interest in CS. It is not due to women leaving their career for family either, since many of this 56% decide to continue working, but in a non-technical role. I would posit, that this "something," if it exists, is also experienced by older programmers and by programmers who, for whatever reason, have a har…
Don't forget ugly people, short people, and fat people.
That "something" is bias and is going to be impossible to overcome so long as we let human emotions be involved in decision making processes. The best you can do is recognize them and try to overcome them (when appropriate), but they are still there (and you are then just being biased with your anti-bias, since you are more likely to catch your known biases).
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. Except that's not what history shows us. Economics didn't free the slaves. Guns did. Economics didn't end segregation in housing and education. Bitter, expensive litigation did.[1] Economics didn't make gay marriage legal. Waging a cultural war on homophobes until it became social suicide in most circles to be one did th…
Economics did end segregation of Asians, Irish, Italians and Jews. Again, the fact that some groups have been violently unbent does not mean that groups can't unbend themselves. Just because you can cite other examples doesn't mean that the ones I cited don't exist. Incidentally, you are aware that Jim Crow laws were mainly about economic protectionism, right? Raising wages for (white) workers by using guns against t…
These positive claims, whether they are accurate or not, regarding economics, segregation, and oppressed minorities are all fine and dandy in an abstract world. What are your takeaways from such arguments? Is it something along the lines of: "Since all of these other groups managed to unbend themselves when the economic factors were right, we (society as a whole/at large) should wait for other oppressed groups do the same?"
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tilting at those windmills is important, and might be a cause worthy of devoting your life to it, but it's not everyone's calling. "Tilting at windmills" means attacking imaginary enemies, you really can't have it both ways of calling work on eradicating racism, sexism, and other bigotries "Tilting at windmills" and then say it's important. Further, eradicating racism, sexism, etc.. IS EVERYONE'S CALLING. If you do…
Your comment is fascinating because it is a glaring example of what another commenter described "you are either with or against us" attitude that the extrimist parts of any movement show. I understood the person you responded to to see your cause as a good one and thus be on your side. If you attack anyone who doesn't want to go on a crusade you will never achieve what you set out to and will in fact drive people off…
I don't think it's an attack, just the observation that indifference and inaction supports the status quo. It's not "against us" in an active sense, but it is in a passive sense; it's not pure neutrality, as many posters here seem to think. It's sort of like walking past an elderly person who has fallen because you don't want to interrupt your game.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When one side has a clear advantage, it is not. I suspect this is the big difference driving a lot of this debate. You see a clear advantage, I see a lot of small advantages in specific situations, along with personal preferences. To a lot of us, it's not a clear advantage. I definitely make more money, but I'm much more likely to commit suicide or become homeless. I'm a lot more likely to be injured on the job.
Right, and I mean, /sure/ the slaves don't have freedom, but they also don't have to pay bills and stuff. It pretty much washes out.
Using sarcasm to gloss over everything about a position and rebut a gross oversimplification of it doesn't exactly bolster your position, in my view.
I think the point the GP was trying to make was that while women face clear disadvantages in some contexts, they also have clear advantages in others. In many societies (but of course not all), women are a protected class of people. This comes with an assorted set of advantages (less strenuous work, better expected health outcomes, etc.) The argument is not that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or even that they necessarily even them out, but that to ignore them entirely in advancing an argument, and then to immediately attempt to draw (tenuous, at best) parallels to slavery is a disservice to serious discussion.
Also, apparently the Godwin's law corollary with regard to discrimination is slavery. :/
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and I mean, /sure/ the slaves don't have freedom, but they also don't have to pay bills and stuff. It pretty much washes out.
Not sure I understand what point you're trying to get at here. I understand that you think there's a very obvious advantage, but I don't really understand why. Said advantage isn't obvious to me.
Unfortunately, I think people are interpreting this in the context of the reply (slavery), not your original point (advantages vs disadvantages of genders).
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I have seen ideas/suggestions blown off for equally vapid reasons. Sometimes they just don't like me, and don't like that I suggested it, for whatever reason that is. Why should a reason of "female" be special?
> Why should a reason of "female" be special? It just is. It doesn't mean that vapid reasons are not vapid, but this isn't vapid, it's toxic.
"It just is"? Seriously? You can't explain anything with "it just is", let alone a controversial subject.
I don't know what other kinds of vapid reasons the parent was referring to, but many are just as bad as "female". There's the obvious ones: racist, homophobic and transphobic justification for example, but also less common, also harmful vapid justifications. Dismissing someone's idea because theyre an ex-convict is a good example. Or on the basis of their age.
These are all quite bad, even if not completely equally so. I'd humor an argument that "female" is the worst of these simply because there are a lot more women than ex-convicts and members of a gender or sexuality minority, and therefore more people who could potentially be hurt.
But not "it just is".
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think "other careers don't require knowledge and ability like mine does" is the perfect example of illusory superiority. Actually that's plenty fine. Just do a quick thought experiment: a career like garbageman or janitor. Some careers require more knowledge work than others. There's nothing wrong with that. When did this attitude of "everything's equal all the time and nothing's different" become so pervasive an…
If someone disagrees with the statement "programming is a fundamentally different career from everything else in terms of ability and knowledge required" it does not follow that they believe "all careers including garbageman and janitor are equal in ability and knowledge to programming and none of them are different."
If someone disagrees with the statement "programming is a fundamentally different career from everything else in terms of ability and knowledge required" then they almost certainly don't know how to write good software.