Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-31-2018, 03:21 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,999
Is there really a movement for "equality = equal perception?"

"Equality" is one of those Rorschach Blot terms that means a dozen different things to different audiences, but ISTM that many people on the gender-equality spectrum both want and do not want men and women to be **perceived** equally - or at least feel that it is not possible.


Examples:

1. Many recent threads about women being required to register for Selective Service: many people are adamant that daughters being drafted to go die in a war is very different than sons being sent off to die.

2. Many feminists have complained that an authoritative woman leader in the workplace is considered "bossy" whereas an authoritative male leader is "boss" - entirely different perception.

3. A man slapping a woman in the face will always be perceived differently by society than vice versa. Difference in size, strength, historical factors, etc.....but even if the man is of equal or lesser size or strength than the woman, it is still perceived as "wronger" than vice versa.

4. Many feminists complain that women are judged more much than men on the basis of looks.

5. If an adult female teacher has sex with an underage male high school student, society regards the male victim very differently than if an adult male teacher has sex with an underage female student.



Etc.etc.


ISTM this is often a force running into an immovable object. At a certain point, you cannot expect society to perceive two different genders the same way any more than you can demand people to see the color red and green as the same. Is there really a movement afoot for equal gender perception?
  #2  
Old 12-31-2018, 03:26 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,905
A lot of it comes down to the simple fact that eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap. Across the animal kingdom, whatever gender invests more heavily in procreation gets different treatment than the animal that invests less heavily. Generally the female invests more heavily but I some species it is the male. The behaviors are different based on which genders reproduction is the bottleneck of procreation.

This fact is always going to cause some pushback against gender equality,especially with things like point 1, 4 and 5.

Having said that, we aren't blind robots following our genetics. If women want to enter battle then have at it.

I think most people favor gender equality while still being aware we are still just animals.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #3  
Old 12-31-2018, 03:51 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
1. Many recent threads about women being required to register for Selective Service: many people are adamant that daughters being drafted to go die in a war is very different than sons being sent off to die.
This is part of a larger and more complex discussion regarding the role of women in the military.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
2. Many feminists have complained that an authoritative woman leader in the workplace is considered "bossy" whereas an authoritative male leader is "boss" - entirely different perception.
Historically, women have tended to get paid less than their male counterparts and often hit a "glass ceiling" where they are not promoted any higher. I disagree somewhat with the "bossy" complaint, as there is a difference between being authoritative and acting like a bitch.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
3. A man slapping a woman in the face will always be perceived differently by society than vice versa. Difference in size, strength, historical factors, etc.....but even if the man is of equal or lesser size or strength than the woman, it is still perceived as "wronger" than vice versa.
Mostly because of the greater size and strength. Fat pudgy Turtle from Entourage fighting MMA champion Ronda Rousey for a date is funny. Mike Tyson fighting a woman is not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
4. Many feminists complain that women are judged more much than men on the basis of looks.
Not just "feminists". As long as I can remember, many women have complained than men are viewed as "attractive" at a much older age than women. Men "upgrading" to a younger, more attractive wife has historically been a thing. Women in Hollywood typically have a much shorter shelf life than their male counterparts and are often cast in much older roles than their actual age would imply (i.e. Sally Field playing Tom Hank's mother in Forest Gump when she is only 10 years older than he is. Or Angelina Jolie playing Colin Farrell's mom in Alexander when she is actually a year younger than him).




Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
5. If an adult female teacher has sex with an underage male high school student, society regards the male victim very differently than if an adult male teacher has sex with an underage female student.
Pretty sure both cases are "frowned upon".




I'm sure if you look hard enough in the world, there is some level of movement for just about anything. But I think when most people think "equality", they think in terms of being given an equal opportunity to compete for the same jobs or roles in society and not be immediately discounted because of their gender, age, sex, race, religion or socioeconomic background.

Where it gets complex is with things like gender where men and women have different physical and biological traits. Less important in an office environment, but perhaps more of an issue for certain physical jobs.

Similarly, "equality" becomes an issue where one's upbringing or personal network can play a role in career success. Certainly being smart and good at your job is a requirement for lawyers, investment bankers and strategy consultants. But it also doesn't hurt to have a network of successful peers from your prep school lacrosse team.
  #4  
Old 12-31-2018, 04:52 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I disagree somewhat with the "bossy" complaint, as there is a difference between being authoritative and acting like a bitch
Except the concern is that it's the same type of behaviour that gets judged differently, depending on the boss's gender, not their actions.

I've seen this in the workplace myself. Behaviour that in male bosses is considered normal is sometimes seen as "bitchy" when it's a female boss.

Quote:
... are often cast in much older roles than their actual age would imply (i.e. Sally Field playing Tom Hank's mother in Forest Gump when she is only 10 years older than he is.


Not disagreeing with this point in general, but I think this isn't the best example.

Sally Fields' main scenes were as mother to young Forrest, when she was fighting the school system to get him fair treatment. Her age as Young Forrest's mom was appropriate (especially conserving her ... unorthodox ... persuasion for the superintendent). I don't even remember her scenes with Hanks.
  #5  
Old 12-31-2018, 05:58 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
2. Many feminists have complained that an authoritative woman leader in the workplace is considered "bossy" whereas an authoritative male leader is "boss" - entirely different perception.
This is a complaint that is wrong and irritates me when I hear it. I have had male bosses who were authoritative, some good and some bad. The same with female bosses.

My complaint is that this is trotted out and used as a crutch whenever a female boss decides to be an insufferable bitch and makes the whole workplace miserable. Instead of looking at her own actions, she handwaives it away by saying that her subordinates just cannot handle a female boss.

So now the higher ups start walking on eggshells because she has pulled out the gender card and do not want to fire her or give into the complaints of the underlings for fear of a Title IX lawsuit. So then the underlings continue to work in a miserable environment, coloring their view of female bosses for the future.
  #6  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:07 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
But to your larger point, I certainly agree. I have a daughter that will be an adult the next time I blink. I believe, and I have stressed this to her, that she does and should have the full ability to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, soldier, business owner, or housewife. Whatever she wants to do is no longer, nor should it be constrained by things that my grandfather's generation thought were the proper role of women. Anyone that makes her feel differently will face my wrath.

However, there are two genders (let's not get into that) with differences, physical and biological, which consciously or subconsciously play a part in society and some are biological imperatives. If she gets married and her and her husband want to have a child, she cannot ask why she has to be pregnant for nine months and how it is unfair that he doesn't have to do that.

When she goes to work in the morning, is it "fair" that she should have to spend in excess of an hour getting ready while her male co-worker wakes up, splashes water on his face, and is out the door in ten minutes?

I could go on with many more examples, but I do not believe that it is possible nor desirable to remove all references, differences, thoughts, or perceptions about men and women from society. We should quit trying. The goal, I thought, was the equality of opportunity, not a complete eradication of gender. Sometimes I worry, though, that this is indeed the goal.
  #7  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:27 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537
Pretty sure both cases are "frowned upon."
Not at all to the same extent. I have seen comment threads on news stories in which a female teacher screws an underage male teenager and there were dozens of winking comments to the effect of "oooh, lucky guy" or "you know he was enjoying it" or "wish that were me; where do I find a teacher like that?"

I can't recall ever reading a comment to the same effect about the underage victim when it's a male teacher having sex with an underage female student.
  #8  
Old 12-31-2018, 07:45 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This is a complaint that is wrong and irritates me when I hear it. I have had male bosses who were authoritative, some good and some bad. The same with female bosses.

My complaint is that this is trotted out and used as a crutch whenever a female boss decides to be an insufferable bitch and makes the whole workplace miserable. Instead of looking at her own actions, she handwaives it away by saying that her subordinates just cannot handle a female boss.
Yeah, I have to agree. At my old job, we had one female principal (consulting...not school) who was demanding, but I wouldn't call her a "bitch". Another was a just bitch. She also sucked at her job.

Granted, there are some men who simply don't want to have a woman boss.

Northern Piper - I believe you are correct. IIRC, the scenes with Forest Gump, Sally Field was aged with makeup and Tom Hanks was supposed to be college-aged.

Jolie as Alexander the Great's Mom was just weird though.
  #9  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:06 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,389
I'm fascinated to hear more of what old white men have to say about feminism and how women are perceived in the workplace.
  #10  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:25 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post


ISTM this is often a force running into an immovable object.
This is you observing a continuously changing system at a particular point in time and declaring it an eternal truth.

Human society has been in a state of change since it began. Even looking back though a historically tiny period of decades we can identify significant changes in societies all over the world.

These things aren’t “immovable.” You’re just observing one particular collision. There is a lot more to come.
  #11  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:01 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I'm fascinated to hear more of what old white men have to say about feminism and how women are perceived in the workplace.
You should be. As old white men are as much of a part of society as any other group, you don't get to exclude their opinions from the public discourse.
  #12  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:29 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You should be. As old white men are as much of a part of society as any other group, you don't get to exclude their opinions from the public discourse.
Very true. Old white men opinions are shamefully unheard.
  #13  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:17 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Very true. Old white men opinions are shamefully unheard.
They would be if you had your way. That is no better than ignoring the opinions of any other group.
  #14  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:45 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
They would be if you had your way. That is no better than ignoring the opinions of any other group.
While we’re at it, let’s ask the fox for opinions about our chicken coop.
  #15  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:51 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
While we’re at it, let’s ask the fox for opinions about our chicken coop.
The assumption in that analogy is that all old white males want to slap women on the ass in the workplace and send them off to fetch coffee. The majority of old white males do not share that view.

I think it is frightening to say that we should not listen to a viewpoint because it comes from an age group and a racial category. Has the left really come full circle and advocating for a silencing of views based upon race and age?
  #16  
Old 01-02-2019, 11:35 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
They would be if you had your way. That is no better than ignoring the opinions of any other group.
This is both incorrect and baseless.

But do tell me more about my intentions, perceptions, and feelings.

ETA:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think it is frightening to say that we should not listen to a viewpoint because it comes from an age group and a racial category.
Whew! Thank goodness I haven't done so!
.

Last edited by andros; 01-02-2019 at 11:36 AM.
  #17  
Old 01-02-2019, 12:17 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Whew! Thank goodness I haven't done so!
.

You said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I'm fascinated to hear more of what old white men have to say about feminism and how women are perceived in the workplace.
Unless my sarcasm meter is broken and you really are "fascinated" to hear about the opinions of old white men, then I believe that a fair summary of that statement is that you don't care about the opinions of old white men and will ignore them in the context of this debate.

Further, I think that it is implicit in that statement that old white men should not be part of the body politic whose opinions should be considered when forming policy regarding feminism or the perception of women in the workplace.
  #18  
Old 01-02-2019, 12:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You said:




Unless my sarcasm meter is broken and you really are "fascinated" to hear about the opinions of old white men, then I believe that a fair summary of that statement is that you don't care about the opinions of old white men and will ignore them in the context of this debate.

Further, I think that it is implicit in that statement that old white men should not be part of the body politic whose opinions should be considered when forming policy regarding feminism or the perception of women in the workplace.
Apparently you are unable to see the difference between "maybe old white men have relatively far more voice and influence in our society than is warranted and fair based on the numbers" and "old white men should have zero voice and influence in our society". There is indeed a very large difference, and I'm pretty sure that his statement was much closer to the former than the latter.
  #19  
Old 01-02-2019, 05:56 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...then I believe that a fair summary...
It isn't.

Quote:
Further, I think that it is implicit in that statement...
It isn't.
  #20  
Old 01-02-2019, 06:48 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The assumption in that analogy is that all old white males want to slap women on the ass in the workplace and send them off to fetch coffee. The majority of old white males do not share that view.

I think it is frightening to say that we should not listen to a viewpoint because it comes from an age group and a racial category. Has the left really come full circle and advocating for a silencing of views based upon race and age?
I'm continually aghast at the casual anti-white racism gaining popularity these days. I'm trying to be more comfortable with it, but it's a struggle.

"They're white, so their opinions on feminism are like the fox giving opinions about guarding the chicken coop" is quintessentially racist. That because they're white (and old), they have devious intentions for women. I could think of a dozen analogies off hand to compare this to, but they would be so wildly offensive even in an analogy that I'm not going to bother.

Last edited by Dacien; 01-02-2019 at 06:51 PM.
  #21  
Old 01-02-2019, 06:53 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 227
I don't think I'll ever be able to come to terms with positions not based on consistent principles. The idea that something is grotesque and awful as long as a certain group is doing it, but it's perfectly acceptable if another group is doing it. This fluidity of ethics is utterly baffling.

Last edited by Dacien; 01-02-2019 at 06:55 PM.
  #22  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:25 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,389
I'm honestly sorry you feel that way. I wish I could make it easier for you. But I think you're looking through a lens that is fundamentally causing you active distress.

For my part, at least, my principles are as biased, skewed, and inconsistent as anyone's. But I strive to recognize that I don't get to determine how someone else feels, or ought to feel, and I try very hard to remain consistent about that. My arguing that older white men have dominated and continue to dominate the cultural zeitgeist--and are not the most helpful narrators of the experiences of those not like them--is not IME racist, ageist, or sexist. Your mileage may vary.
.

Last edited by andros; 01-02-2019 at 07:26 PM.
  #23  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:52 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I'm honestly sorry you feel that way. I wish I could make it easier for you. But I think you're looking through a lens that is fundamentally causing you active distress.

For my part, at least, my principles are as biased, skewed, and inconsistent as anyone's. But I strive to recognize that I don't get to determine how someone else feels, or ought to feel, and I try very hard to remain consistent about that. My arguing that older white men have dominated and continue to dominate the cultural zeitgeist--and are not the most helpful narrators of the experiences of those not like them--is not IME racist, ageist, or sexist. Your mileage may vary.
.
Nobody is experienced at understanding those who are not like them. For every hurt feeling there are several possibilities which can be boiled down to: 1) the person was wronged, 2) the person is acting irrationally by feeling hurt, 3) a mixture of both.

Your position would only exclude old white males from arguing from a position where he does not have complete knowledge and always assumes that #1 is the only reason someone could be hurt.

My feelings have been hurt many times in my life. Was it always the other person's fault especially if the person who offended me is from a different racial group? Do you all even listen to yourself?
  #24  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:56 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Apparently you are unable to see the difference between "maybe old white men have relatively far more voice and influence in our society than is warranted and fair based on the numbers" and "old white men should have zero voice and influence in our society". There is indeed a very large difference, and I'm pretty sure that his statement was much closer to the former than the latter.
That's one hell of job of parsing from a statement where someone says sarcastically that he or she would be fascinated to hear from old white males.

If I said, "Oh great! Now we get to hear from the lesbians in the room" wouldn't you think that I was dismissing the opinion of someone because she was a lesbian or would you interpret that to mean that lesbians should only have a fair (how much is that?) portion of opinions in the conversation?
  #25  
Old 01-02-2019, 08:01 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody is experienced at understanding those who are not like them.
I agree. All the more reason to cultivate awareness of one's own biases and step back when discussing things that we have no understanding of.

Quote:
For every hurt feeling there are several possibilities which can be boiled down to: 1) the person was wronged, 2) the person is acting irrationally by feeling hurt, 3) a mixture of both.
Fine. But I don't get to determine whether or not someone was "really" wronged, or rather someone's feelings are irrational. Especially when I don't have a real understanding of their life.

Quote:
My feelings have been hurt many times in my life.
I'm sorry. That sucks, and it's never a good feeling.

Quote:
Was it always the other person's fault especially if the person who offended me is from a different racial group?
What, what? I'm not blaming anyone for hurting your feelings. Nor am I blaming you for feeling hurt. I'm acknowledging your very real, very legitimate pain, and I'm not calling you irrational for feeling it.

Quote:
Do you all even listen to yourself?
Very often. Not as often as I might like. But I'm trying, Ringo.




eta: It occurs to me that I may have hurt your feelings with my previous sarcasm. You have my sincere apologies; it was out of line and unnecessary, and I totally understand your feeling hurt.
.

Last edited by andros; 01-02-2019 at 08:03 PM.
  #26  
Old 01-02-2019, 08:59 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's one hell of job of parsing from a statement where someone says sarcastically that he or she would be fascinated to hear from old white males.

If I said, "Oh great! Now we get to hear from the lesbians in the room" wouldn't you think that I was dismissing the opinion of someone because she was a lesbian or would you interpret that to mean that lesbians should only have a fair (how much is that?) portion of opinions in the conversation?
This makes such insanely good sense, I can't understand how some people have abandoned the concept.

From what I can tell though, it's simply a matter of grievance against whites manifesting itself in permissibility in mistreatment. Because whites, the idea goes, have been in power for a very long time and have engaged in terrible acts (slavery, for one), normal ethical mores do not apply when dealing with them. Racism, for example. This is my best understanding.

Last edited by Dacien; 01-02-2019 at 09:00 PM.
  #27  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:06 PM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You said:




Unless my sarcasm meter is broken and you really are "fascinated" to hear about the opinions of old white men, then I believe that a fair summary of that statement is that you don't care about the opinions of old white men and will ignore them in the context of this debate.

Further, I think that it is implicit in that statement that old white men should not be part of the body politic whose opinions should be considered when forming policy regarding feminism or the perception of women in the workplace.
Gosh, I read that so differently! I read it as pointing out that old white guys pontificating about women and their "equality issues" and how it is either a. impossible or b. has already happened so why are they still whining, has a certain familiar ring to it. Being as they have always had no problem speaking for our experience, our interests, our opinions, our needs.

But I am sure you're right and I'm wrong, because I'm just one of the people being talked about.
  #28  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:36 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I agree. All the more reason to cultivate awareness of one's own biases and step back when discussing things that we have no understanding of.



Fine. But I don't get to determine whether or not someone was "really" wronged, or rather someone's feelings are irrational. Especially when I don't have a real understanding of their life.



I'm sorry. That sucks, and it's never a good feeling.



What, what? I'm not blaming anyone for hurting your feelings. Nor am I blaming you for feeling hurt. I'm acknowledging your very real, very legitimate pain, and I'm not calling you irrational for feeling it.



Very often. Not as often as I might like. But I'm trying, Ringo.




eta: It occurs to me that I may have hurt your feelings with my previous sarcasm. You have my sincere apologies; it was out of line and unnecessary, and I totally understand your feeling hurt.
.
Let's step back. I was responding to one of the examples in the OP. Imagine I am a white guy who works at a place and I have a female boss. In my estimation, she is abusive, unfair, and makes the workplace one that I do not look forward to coming to because of her.

I go to her supervisor to complain. She tells him that my complaints are unfounded and makes the startling accusation that I simply cannot take directives from a female.

Now, she has made a personal accusation against me which, if true, should probably cost me my job. It is further unsupported unless she has some sort of evidence, which in these situations, they typically do not have such evidence.

As a white guy, and in a position lower in power than the female I am complaining of, should I not have the right to be heard? Should I just "shut up" and understand her feelings? I don't come from wealth or privilege. My great-grandfather was a coal miner and his son was a factory worker.

I feel that under this situation, 1) the accusation should not be made unless it is supported by some evidence, and 2) the default position should not be to side with the female simply and solely because of past treatment of women in the workplace.

Equality of opportunity comes with equality of consequence. If women can now be supervisors (which they absolutely should) then they also need to grow thicker skin and take criticism just like a male supervisor should.
  #29  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:46 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody is experienced at understanding those who are not like them.
But that is not equally true for everybody. In particular, members of minority/disadvantaged groups have a lot more experience understanding the majority/privileged groups, whose members are constantly presented as the "default human beings" representing "universal" feelings and experiences, than vice versa.

For instance, gay people are surrounded with "classic" heterosexual love stories that are assumed to be a shared cultural touchstone for everybody in that culture, while straight people regard homosexual love stories as a specialized "queer lit" niche phenomenon. Female viewers and readers are socialized to identify with male protagonists but not the other way around. Black speakers learn how to use and interpret "white voice" in a nuanced way; for white speakers, using a "black voice" mostly connotes crude minstrelsy or even more blatantly racist mockery.

Sure, nobody understands exactly what it's like to be somebody different. But members of the culturally dominant group(s), who in their role of "default human beings" are far more likely to encounter only people like them among the protagonists and heroes and representatives and writers and speakers and announcers and leaders and authorities who make up their society's collective cultural voice, tend to be much more clueless about that understanding than other people.

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-02-2019 at 09:47 PM.
  #30  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:08 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra Vires
I feel that under this situation, 1) the accusation should not be made unless it is supported by some evidence, and 2) the default position should not be to side with the female simply and solely because of past treatment of women in the workplace.
I definitely agree that the accusation should not be automatically accepted as true unless it is supported by some evidence. I'm not sure how much and what sort of evidence you feel ought to be required merely to make the accusation in the first place.

Pro-tip, though: if you want to reduce the amount of potential evidence that could be adduced to support such an accusation, you should probably stop using the word "female" as a noun to signify "female person" or "woman". Unless that usage happens to be standard and gender-egalitarian at your workplace---that is, unless you would routinely refer to a male boss or colleague as "the male" in the same way that you're describing a particular or hypothetical woman as "the female"---then it comes across as somewhat sexist and demeaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra Vires
I don't come from wealth or privilege. My great-grandfather was a coal miner and his son was a factory worker.
We have had lots of previous threads explaining that there are many different kinds of societal privilege, and that most people are simultaneously privileged in some ways and disprivileged in other ways.

For example, since white people and men (and heterosexuals) have traditionally been privileged and dominant groups in our society, you inevitably possess white privilege and male privilege and straight privilege, no matter how working-class your ancestors were. But at the same time, you lack the other forms of societal privilege that, say, a woman or non-white person or gay person from a wealthy elite family inevitably possesses.

People can have looks privilege, intelligence privilege, ability privilege, height privilege, whatever. Basically, anything that a culture traditionally regards as a positive or "normal" attribute confers some privilege on people who possess that attribute, relative to the people who don't.

But there isn't really any such thing as "net total" societal privilege, where, say, X amount of family poverty cancels out Y amoung of whiteness or maleness. Being comparatively disprivileged relative to wealthier or more aristocratic or more intellectual people doesn't mean that you aren't still benefiting from your own traditional privilege relative to non-white and non-male people.
  #31  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:21 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But that is not equally true for everybody. In particular, members of minority/disadvantaged groups have a lot more experience understanding the majority/privileged groups, whose members are constantly presented as the "default human beings" representing "universal" feelings and experiences, than vice versa.

For instance, gay people are surrounded with "classic" heterosexual love stories that are assumed to be a shared cultural touchstone for everybody in that culture, while straight people regard homosexual love stories as a specialized "queer lit" niche phenomenon. Female viewers and readers are socialized to identify with male protagonists but not the other way around. Black speakers learn how to use and interpret "white voice" in a nuanced way; for white speakers, using a "black voice" mostly connotes crude minstrelsy or even more blatantly racist mockery.

Sure, nobody understands exactly what it's like to be somebody different. But members of the culturally dominant group(s), who in their role of "default human beings" are far more likely to encounter only people like them among the protagonists and heroes and representatives and writers and speakers and announcers and leaders and authorities who make up their society's collective cultural voice, tend to be much more clueless about that understanding than other people.
I disagree. Heterosexual romance stories do not accurately portray heterosexual relationships. They meet, fall in love, have problems, work them out, get married and live happily ever after. The stories don't cover areas like your spouse having the flu and puking all over you in bed.

I'm not sure that these stories do anything to help anyone understand life, not even heterosexuals.
  #32  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:31 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Heterosexual romance stories do not accurately portray heterosexual relationships. They meet, fall in love, have problems, work them out, get married and live happily ever after. The stories don't cover areas like your spouse having the flu and puking all over you in bed.

I'm not sure that these stories do anything to help anyone understand life, not even heterosexuals.
It's not about "level of grittily realistic detail in romantic relationship". It's about "normalization of the whole concept of romantic relationship as intrinsically and naturally heterosexual".

That is, gay people, like everybody else, grow up steeped in awareness of cultural icons of "romantic relationship" such as Romeo and Juliet, Scarlett and Rhett, Bonnie and Clyde, Adam and Eve, Antony and Cleopatra, Frankie and Johnny, and innumerable others. They are far more heavily exposed to the culturally normalized expectations and conventions of heterosexual romance than straight people are to the concept of homosexual romance.
  #33  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:32 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
I don't think I'll ever be able to come to terms with positions not based on consistent principles. The idea that something is grotesque and awful as long as a certain group is doing it, but it's perfectly acceptable if another group is doing it. This fluidity of ethics is utterly baffling.
What you have failed to do is actually establish a lack of consistent principles. You have just asserted it about your ideological opponents.

Consistent principles can still lead to one group being wrong to do something but not another. The totality of the circumstances can be different. One example in liberal thought is the consistent principle that it acceptable to punch up, but not down. Such a principle will inherently affect different groups differently.

If I make fun of a rich, famous person, said person can just easily ignore me. But if a rich, famous person makes fun of me, that can seriously harm my life. Since they are famous, their message will be more widely heard, and it will harm my reputation. But since I am not, I will find it much harder to harm theirs.

Conservatives don't get away from it, either. One conservative principle is being hard on crime. That inherently means you wind up allowing one group, non-criminals, to do things that would be wrong for the other group, criminals.

In everyday life, you can have stuff like the kid who gets a bigger punishment due to their past actions. It may seem unfair on the surface, but extenuating circumstances can change things.

To prove that one's moral principles are inconsistent, you need more than just showing a difference in what is allowed in different groups. You need to show that the difference is not based on a consistent principle.

Though, I will note that, as andros says, no human is perfectly consistent. There is a tendency in conservatives to believe they have their morality figured out and are perfectly consistent, while liberals are more likely to accept that their morality will continue to change as we learn more.

In that sense, I will admit we have a fluid morality. But it doesn't mean it is inconsistent. It means we are open to change.

Last edited by BigT; 01-02-2019 at 10:33 PM.
  #34  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:59 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
What you have failed to do is actually establish a lack of consistent principles. You have just asserted it about your ideological opponents.

Consistent principles can still lead to one group being wrong to do something but not another. The totality of the circumstances can be different. One example in liberal thought is the consistent principle that it acceptable to punch up, but not down. Such a principle will inherently affect different groups differently.

If I make fun of a rich, famous person, said person can just easily ignore me. But if a rich, famous person makes fun of me, that can seriously harm my life. Since they are famous, their message will be more widely heard, and it will harm my reputation. But since I am not, I will find it much harder to harm theirs.

Conservatives don't get away from it, either. One conservative principle is being hard on crime. That inherently means you wind up allowing one group, non-criminals, to do things that would be wrong for the other group, criminals.

In everyday life, you can have stuff like the kid who gets a bigger punishment due to their past actions. It may seem unfair on the surface, but extenuating circumstances can change things.

To prove that one's moral principles are inconsistent, you need more than just showing a difference in what is allowed in different groups. You need to show that the difference is not based on a consistent principle.

Though, I will note that, as andros says, no human is perfectly consistent. There is a tendency in conservatives to believe they have their morality figured out and are perfectly consistent, while liberals are more likely to accept that their morality will continue to change as we learn more.

In that sense, I will admit we have a fluid morality. But it doesn't mean it is inconsistent. It means we are open to change.
1) How about just not "making fun" of anyone? I know that your rule is an attempt to reconcile your side's general position about not making fun of appearance while making it okay to talk about Trump being fat or having a spray tan, but it makes no sense, and in decent society, we shouldn't make sport of anyone. Disagree with them and criticize, sure, but not just make fun.

2) Your definition of "groups" destroys the word. The prior poster uses the term as we all understand it, not just a collection of people, but a collection of people that shares a common characteristic where it could be argued that they are a "protected class" such as race, religion, gender, etc. "Criminals" and "non-criminals" are not groups in any meaningful sense of the word.
  #35  
Old 01-03-2019, 08:03 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's one hell of job of parsing from a statement where someone says sarcastically that he or she would be fascinated to hear from old white males.

If I said, "Oh great! Now we get to hear from the lesbians in the room" wouldn't you think that I was dismissing the opinion of someone because she was a lesbian or would you interpret that to mean that lesbians should only have a fair (how much is that?) portion of opinions in the conversation?
I'd interpret that to mean you think lesbians have relatively too much influence and voice, which on virtually any issue is a ludicrous notion. Unlike the idea that old white men have (relatively) too much influence and voice, which on most issues is a pretty reasonable notion.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-03-2019 at 08:03 AM.
  #36  
Old 01-03-2019, 11:44 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The assumption in that analogy is that all old white males want to slap women on the ass in the workplace and send them off to fetch coffee. The majority of old white males do not share that view.

I think it is frightening to say that we should not listen to a viewpoint because it comes from an age group and a racial category. Has the left really come full circle and advocating for a silencing of views based upon race and age?
The opinions of old white men have been the dominant - and often EXCLUSIVE - ideology for essentially all of human history, with often catastrophic results for the subject populations. If we are discussing a group’s right to self-determination, I should expect that people who are outside that group should have their voices count for very little.

If I am asking women, “How would you like to be treated?’ the opinions of men on the subject are less than worthless. Likewise, if I ask black people, “How would you like to be treated?” I am not going to give even half a shit what a white person thinks.

Maybe you should realize that the world does not revolve around you, and the advancement of these people does not come at your expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra Vires
I don't come from wealth or privilege. My great-grandfather was a coal miner and his son was a factory worker.
Holy shit. You still don’t get it.

Last edited by JB99; 01-03-2019 at 11:46 AM.
  #37  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:21 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
What you have failed to do is actually establish a lack of consistent principles. You have just asserted it about your ideological opponents.

Consistent principles can still lead to one group being wrong to do something but not another. The totality of the circumstances can be different. One example in liberal thought is the consistent principle that it acceptable to punch up, but not down. Such a principle will inherently affect different groups differently.
There are some things (rape, stealing, bullying, racism) that are either wrong or they're not wrong. There are no "acceptable" groups for these things. At best you can argue mitigating factors, such as a poor starving man stealing bread. We'll likely treat him with much sympathy, but stealing from someone would still be considered a bad act that he engaged in.

The problem I see with racism against whites is that it isn't mitigation at all; racism is simply a socially accepted practice depending on who's on the receiving end.

Last edited by Dacien; 01-03-2019 at 01:23 PM.
  #38  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
There are some things (rape, stealing, bullying, racism) that are either wrong or they're not wrong. There are no "acceptable" groups for these things. At best you can argue mitigating factors, such as a poor starving man stealing bread. We'll likely treat him with much sympathy, but stealing from someone would still be considered a bad act that he engaged in.

The problem I see with racism against whites is that it isn't mitigation at all; racism is simply a socially accepted practice depending on who's on the receiving end.
There is no significant "racism against whites" in the US. Black supremacists exist, but have almost zero power, zero influence, and zero history of committing atrocities against white people in America. White supremacists, on the other hand, have lots of power and influence (to the point of being praised by the President), and a very long history of atrocities against non-white people in America. White supremacism is the ideology that has done, by far, the most harm to Americans through our history. It's been the biggest threat to Americans and it still is. Racism against black people is still significant in many of our societal and cultural institutions and practices; racism against white people is not.

If any kind of racism is socially acceptable, it's the kind that's been practiced in varying degrees for centuries.
  #39  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:34 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'd interpret that to mean you think lesbians have relatively too much influence and voice, which on virtually any issue is a ludicrous notion. Unlike the idea that old white men have (relatively) too much influence and voice, which on most issues is a pretty reasonable notion.
It's not reasonable - ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Maybe you don't think so. In that case, as a white man, your voice is over-represented, and you are making the problem worse.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It's not reasonable - ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
No idea what this has to do with anything I've said. I made no ad hominem attack on any individual or group in the post you responded to, unless you believe broad criticism of society in general counts as an "ad hominem".
  #41  
Old 01-03-2019, 03:46 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,144
You think it is reasonable to believe that white men speak too much and have too much influence. You are a white man. Connect the dots.

Or perhaps you recognize that ignoring what people say based on the color of their skin or their gender or their age is a silly notion. Good - so do I. So don't suggest it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #42  
Old 01-03-2019, 04:03 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You think it is reasonable to believe that white men speak too much and have too much influence. You are a white man. Connect the dots.
That's not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is when you argue against somebody else's position based on a characteristic of theirs that's irrelevant to the subject of argument.

An example of ad hominem would be saying something like "Shodan's argument can be dismissed because white folks with Japanese usernames are just preening idiots". Your use of a Japanese name, irrespective of whether it actually involves any preening idiocy, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

But it is not ad hominem to say something like "Person X should do a little more listening in this conversation about racial equality because Person X is a white man, and white men overall speak too much and have too much influence".

Nor is it necessarily illogical or fallacious in any other way for a white man to say that he agrees that white men speak too much and have too much influence.
  #43  
Old 01-03-2019, 05:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You think it is reasonable to believe that white men speak too much
False. "Too much voice" is very, very different than "speak too much".

Quote:
and have too much influence. You are a white man. Connect the dots.
No idea what you're trying to say here (other than the "too much influence", which is true when compared to the influence of other groups). Like many of your other posts, I suspect the rest of this is about some fictional/fantasy version of me rather than my actual words.

Quote:
Or perhaps you recognize that ignoring what people say based on the color of their skin or their gender or their age is a silly notion. Good - so do I. So don't suggest it.
More fantasy stuff. I'll be here when you want to respond to my actual words and not this imaginary stuff.
  #44  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:23 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
The opinions of old white men have been the dominant - and often EXCLUSIVE - ideology for essentially all of human history, with often catastrophic results for the subject populations. If we are discussing a group’s right to self-determination, I should expect that people who are outside that group should have their voices count for very little.

If I am asking women, “How would you like to be treated?’ the opinions of men on the subject are less than worthless. Likewise, if I ask black people, “How would you like to be treated?” I am not going to give even half a shit what a white person thinks.

Maybe you should realize that the world does not revolve around you, and the advancement of these people does not come at your expense.
I'm not sure what a group's "right to self-determination" even means. It sounds like left wing buzz words. But if all we are talking about is a group's right to do or think certain things, then I don't know who would criticize that.

But your second paragraph is just demonstrably false. When you ask women how they would like to be treated, it is not just women who are at issue now. Because the response to that question will involve what you are now being asked to do in order to accommodate their preferred way of being treated. Your voice in that discussion is ever bit as important as the woman's voice because the result: your treatment of her and whether she likes or accepts that treatment involves both of you, not just her.

No matter the person or the group, there are both reasonable and unreasonable answers as to how they would like to be treated. If women demand that if they are in supervisory positions they should be subject to no criticism at all, would you just simply agree with that? And if you don't, remember you are white so your voice doesn't count.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017