ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gender discrimination

Reply
Old 15th June 2018, 04:05 PM   #281
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,719
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It is a good thing that de jure discrimination was ended.

But are you claiming de facto discrimination doesn't exist? Do you think the attitudes behind those practices we forbade haven't lingered on? Because if discrimination still does exist, and a lot of people still operate in a racist/sexist mindset, we have a serious problem.
Of course that's not what I'm claiming. Discrimination does exist and against all groups to varying degrees in public and private. I still hold that that is irrelevant to the point that elected officials share their policy positions, people vote based on those positions. Are you saying there are NO politicians who share your view on a topic? That may be the case. Almost certainly no politicians agree with all of your views, and there's always the problem of idealism vs pragmatism when it comes to enacting changes...

How does "more people in group x" solve this problem?
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 04:26 PM   #282
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,853
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Of course that's not what I'm claiming. Discrimination does exist and against all groups to varying degrees in public and private. I still hold that that is irrelevant to the point that elected officials share their policy positions, people vote based on those positions. Are you saying there are NO politicians who share your view on a topic? That may be the case. Almost certainly no politicians agree with all of your views, and there's always the problem of idealism vs pragmatism when it comes to enacting changes...

How does "more people in group x" solve this problem?
There are also plenty of mysoginistic women

So you would have to weed them out if of people are talking quotas
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 04:57 PM   #283
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,046
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
One other thing: If "superficial" characteristics like skin color and having a vagina or not was the difference between whether you can vote, or be owned by someone else, or drink at a certain fountain, or sit where you want on a bus, or go to a decent school, they're not so "superficial", are they?
It's exactly because those are superficial characteristics that those things you list are so unjust.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 06:04 PM   #284
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's exactly because those are superficial characteristics that those things you list are so unjust.
Yes, there is no debate that those characteristics should be superficial. They obviously should. The reality, unfortunately, is that to a lot of people, they're extremely significant.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 06:23 PM   #285
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,046
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Now you're adding qualifiers. But it still doesn't change the fact that stupid people have life experiences that smart people do not have and often do not understand.
Should we, for instance, institute quotas based on which university candidates attended? I suspect that ivy league graduates are over-represented in congress. The life experiences of people going to ivy league schools are different from those of people going to lower tier colleges. Aren't those life experiences valuable to democracy?

Personally I think that to the extent that that might be true, we should vote for those candidates whose life experience might add value to the political process, rather than supposing that we can figure out ahead of time what that balance should be. That also sounds a lot more democratic to me than some top down imposition of who we think really represents people.

When it comes to discrimination there is a real problem of wasted human capital. There are some reasons to believe that some part of the discrepancy between men and women in politics and business is due to biases in the system (both discrimination against women and environments that more negatively affect women than men). To what extent this problem affects outcomes I don't know, but there is evidence that is greater than zero. That's not good, and I very much support attempts to identify discrimination where it exists and remove it as much as possible.

But that's just it. We should attack the actual specific problems, not make some a priori judgement about the outcome (50/50 split for instance) and try to impose that from the top down. That will neither eliminate the specific instances of discrimination nor ensure that we maximize either justice or the efficient use of human capital.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 06:24 PM   #286
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,046
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yes, there is no debate that those characteristics should be superficial. They obviously should. The reality, unfortunately, is that to a lot of people, they're extremely significant.
And your ideas make them more significant, not less.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 06:50 PM   #287
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 421
How exactly would this quota thing work?

Take the senate, because it's simple. There are fifty districts (states) each represented by two senators. So each state has to elect one male and one female senator?

OK, but why just sex?

According to Wikipedia (cuz I'm lazy) the racial breakup of America includes:

White: 62%
African American 12.6% (I thought this was larger.)
Hispanic 17.3%
Asian 5.2%

So by the same logic, shouldn't the senatge be:

31 White males
31 white females
7 African males
7 African females
8 Hispanic males
8 hispanic females
3 Asian males
3 Asian females

So...in which districts (states) should white people be represented? in which should asians be represented? (And this still excludes Native Americans and other races.)

The house is even worse. Each district is assigned one representative. So if district A elects a male that means district B must elect a female?

Unless you are proposing to do away with districts all together and make every representative at large. Then we would need a quota for urban/rural as well so that all the representatives did not come from large urban centers like New York, Chicago or LA.

I don't see a way to do a workable quota system that is actually fair.

I would love to see more women and non-whites in office, but I want it to be because their ideas appeal to the people in their constituencies, not because of their demographics.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 07:00 PM   #288
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,528
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
How exactly would this quota thing work?

Take the senate, because it's simple. There are fifty districts (states) each represented by two senators. So each state has to elect one male and one female senator?

OK, but why just sex?
Because sexual equality is the lowest hanging fruit, obviously. Also 50/50 is easy math. Also the ERA was an actual thing.

Originally Posted by TomB View Post

I don't see a way to do a workable quota system that is actually fair.
No system is perfectly fair, some are less unfair than others.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th June 2018 at 07:02 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 07:23 PM   #289
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't care about the explanation, I care about what your answer is. You're having trouble providing one. Why is that?
I don't accept the premise of the question.

Quote:
You don't have insufficient data because I was talking about THIS country.
But that's not the case in this country, so it's not actually this country you're talking about. Your hypothetical might resemble this country, but it must be different in some unspecified ways to produce different results.

Quote:
That's the second time I've brought up sexual harassment on Capital Hill in this thread. And your sentiments are applauded, but here's my problem with men as a whole: why did we tolerate a publicly-funded sexual harassment account for Congressmen?
Who is this "we" you keep talking about? I never tolerated any such thing.

Quote:
There's a problem with men.
If you want to talk about groups, well, there's a problem with humans. I prefer to deal with individuals whenever possible.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
One other thing: If "superficial" characteristics like skin color and having a vagina or not was the difference between whether you can vote, or be owned by someone else, or drink at a certain fountain, or sit where you want on a bus, or go to a decent school, they're not so "superficial", are they?
"Superficial" doesn't have to mean insignificant. Its primary definition is being at the surface. And yes, no matter how consequential skin color is, it is absolutely superficial.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 07:40 AM   #290
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,350
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yes, there is no debate that those characteristics should be superficial. They obviously should. The reality, unfortunately, is that to a lot of people, they're extremely significant.
People like you. Itís telling that you have the same world view as racists and sexists.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 11:08 AM   #291
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
People like you. It’s telling that you have the same world view as racists and sexists.
I wish everyone could put petty differences aside. I, for example, do not care about interracial marriage. But seem people did, and it had to be made "significant", in the courts, so that it could fade into "insignificance" and now nobody much cares anymore. At least not enough to try and outlaw it anymore.

In other words, if racists and bigots and misogynists are going to make big deals about superficial differences, then I'm going to make a big deal about it to stop them. Get it?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 11:22 AM   #292
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I wish everyone could put petty differences aside. I, for example, do not care about interracial marriage. But seem people did, and it had to be made "significant", in the courts, so that it could fade into "insignificance" and now nobody much cares anymore. At least not enough to try and outlaw it anymore.

In other words, if racists and bigots and misogynists are going to make big deals about superficial differences, then I'm going to make a big deal about it to stop them. Get it?
But you arenít stopping it. You are perpetuating it.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 11:49 AM   #293
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,693
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
How exactly would this quota thing work?
The only way to make it work is the one I suggested (which everybody ignored); for the Democrats to make it a party rule that nobody can be nominated who is from an over-represented demographic (basically hetero white cis-males).

Making it an actual law would of course require a constitutional amendment, which is never going to happen. So the solution is for the Democrats to take it on themselves. It will give them an even more smug feeling about how progressive they are, as they lose most elections.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 11:51 AM   #294
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
But you aren’t stopping it. You are perpetuating it.
Not at all. Gay marriage is now a thing. It's also something people care less and less about. Eventually, it will be an insignificant thing. That took a lot of work by a lot of activists. The problems that we have now will be solved by a lot of people doing a lot of thankless work. Pretending there's no problem, as you seem to be suggesting, is not a good strategy for change.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 16th June 2018 at 11:52 AM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 12:26 PM   #295
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Not at all. Gay marriage is now a thing. It's also something people care less and less about. Eventually, it will be an insignificant thing. That took a lot of work by a lot of activists. The problems that we have now will be solved by a lot of people doing a lot of thankless work. Pretending there's no problem, as you seem to be suggesting, is not a good strategy for change.
Actually, gay marriage is not a good analogy for the thread topic. (As gay marriage just puts everyone in an equal position). An accurate analogy for this topic, using gay marriage, is if we said: straight couples have been getting married for ages, itís time for them to step back and not get married (or be able to order straight wedding cakes etc), to let gay couples have a turn in the spotlight.

Which is obviously ********. Both gay and straight couples should be able to get married, get cakes, venues etc. neither should be prioritized over the other going forwards.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 12:27 PM   #296
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Because sexual equality is the lowest hanging fruit, obviously.
And once that's achieve, it will be on to the next higher fruit, and the next higher one, and so on and so on.

You can't dismiss these other breakdowns out of inconvenience because the principles you're using don't distinguish. There is no limiting principle here, no point at which you can say, this division of people into groups is important, but that division isn't. The divisions can go on forever. And will, if the activists get their way.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 01:56 PM   #297
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,346
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Because sexual equality is the lowest hanging fruit, obviously. Also 50/50 is easy math. Also the ERA was an actual thing.
By "actual thing", I guess you mean an amendment which has never been passed?

How is the ERA relevant? If you think it should have passed or should pass now, surely you should be working for it. But it makes literally no sense to refer to a failed amendment in order to justify restrictions on who can be elected to Congress.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 05:19 PM   #298
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,719
What is the ERA?
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 05:42 PM   #299
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,681
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
What is the ERA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 11:03 PM   #300
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,853
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Just reading this ERA thing it's seems a bit silly

Do women seriously want to have to stop all their female safe spaces, gyms, business relationship groups, womens awards, and other organisations?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 01:07 PM   #301
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,528
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
How is the ERA relevant?
It demonstrates the size of the voting bloc in question. Rather few demographic groups have ever managed to get a special interest amendment even that far along.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 01:16 PM   #302
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It demonstrates the size of the voting bloc in question. Rather few demographic groups have ever managed to get a special interest amendment even that far along.
The ERA has zero provisions for quotas. Support for the ERA is not the same thing as support for quotas. So no, it doesn't demonstrate the size of the voting bloc which might be interested in quotas.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 03:55 AM   #303
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,470
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It is a good thing that de jure discrimination was ended.

But are you claiming de facto discrimination doesn't exist? Do you think the attitudes behind those practices we forbade haven't lingered on? Because if discrimination still does exist, and a lot of people still operate in a racist/sexist mindset, we have a serious problem.
Read the original article again.
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
If these principles were applied, discrimination would still exist, and so we would still have the problem. That is my point.

Last edited by Craig B; 18th June 2018 at 03:59 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 05:21 AM   #304
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
When else do you feel people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs?

I'm going to bet no incidences will include groups you keenly support.
You are asking me to defend a position I don't hold. I don't think "people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs". I think that is pretty clear from my earlier posts in this thread.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 06:50 AM   #305
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,528
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The ERA has zero provisions for quotas. Support for the ERA is not the same thing as support for quotas. So no, it doesn't demonstrate the size of the voting bloc which might be interested in quotas.
I'm just going to have to disagree here. Seems quite likely to me that those interested in equal rights are also interested in equal representation.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 09:24 AM   #306
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,346
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It demonstrates the size of the voting bloc in question. Rather few demographic groups have ever managed to get a special interest amendment even that far along.
I don't think of the ERA as a special interest, but in any case it failed.

Fifty plus percent of the population isn't a special interest.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 09:26 AM   #307
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,346
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm just going to have to disagree here. Seems quite likely to me that those interested in equal rights are also interested in equal representation.
I'm not. I think women should have more representation, but not by implementing a quota system.

Such an idea is remarkably undemocratic.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 09:43 AM   #308
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm not. I think women should have more representation, but not by implementing a quota system.

Such an idea is remarkably undemocratic.
Our system has features that are not very democratic.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:06 AM   #309
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,506
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Our system has features that are not very democratic.
Doesn't give anybody right to introduce more of undemocratic features!
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:16 AM   #310
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
What is toxic masculinity and what is healthy masculinity?
Per Wikipedia:

Quote:
The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology and gender studies to refer to certain norms of masculine behavior in North America and Europe that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Scholars argue that the socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.
Quote:
In psychology, toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural masculine norms in American and European society that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall; this concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance, self-reliance, and competition.[3][4] Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.[5] Some traditionally prescribed masculine behaviors can produce such harmful effects as violence (including sexual assault and domestic violence), "sexual excess" (promiscuity), excessively risky and/or socially irresponsible behaviors including substance abuse, and dysfunction in relationships.[1][6]
Other traits associated with masculinity, such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family are generally not considered toxic. Granted, those traits can also, in this day and age, apply to feminity as well, but due to physical and hormonal differences between men and women, the outcomes of those traits will in all probably turn out to be different according to the gender of the person exhibiting the trait, so one can still say they are "masculine" traits without diminishing the applications to the female sex as well.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:19 AM   #311
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,098
My idea of democracy is that anyone who wants to govern me should be allowed to make their case for my vote. And I should be allowed to vote for whomever I want, to govern me. That's democracy.

My idea of democracy is not to be governed by someone whose demographics overlap with mine in some arbitrary way, whether I voted for them or not. Nor is it to prohibit people from government because they do not match some arbitrary demographic model.

Set up free and fair elections, and establish freedom of the press, and you'll have democracy. Take those things away, and you won't have democracy no matter how fine-tuned the gender balance in your government representatives.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #312
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My idea of democracy is that anyone who wants to govern me should be allowed to make their case for my vote. And I should be allowed to vote for whomever I want, to govern me. That's democracy.

My idea of democracy is not to be governed by someone whose demographics overlap with mine in some arbitrary way, whether I voted for them or not. Nor is it to prohibit people from government because they do not match some arbitrary demographic model.

Set up free and fair elections, and establish freedom of the press, and you'll have democracy. Take those things away, and you won't have democracy no matter how fine-tuned the gender balance in your government representatives.
I would have to agree with this. I don't see a need for there to be an equal number of each gender in the Senate or the House; my concern is not the equipment my representative has, but rather the issues and beliefs they will fight for on my behalf. Their gender has little to do with it; as issixn said, there are any number of women who would not vote the way I would prefer on multiple issues, and any number of men who would not vote the way I would prefer on multiple issues, but also any number of both genders that would vote the way I prefer on the issues I consider important. If the person running for office matches my gender but doesn't match any of my beliefs in regards to the multitude of social issues in this country, then I'm going to vote for the person who does, regardless of their gender.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:29 AM   #313
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,346
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Our system has features that are not very democratic.
Yes, that's so, but not an argument for quotas in Congress.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:43 AM   #314
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes, that's so, but not an argument for quotas in Congress.
I wasn't making an argument for quotas, just pointing out that Americans are OK with undemocratic methods of governing and always have been. A quota system might be undemocratic, but so what?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:54 AM   #315
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,098
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I wasn't making an argument for quotas, just pointing out that Americans are OK with undemocratic methods of governing and always have been. A quota system might be undemocratic, but so what?
So why should we have it? Especially if, as you say, it's undemocratic?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 10:59 AM   #316
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,540
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So why should we have it? Especially if, as you say, it's undemocratic?
I'm not sure we should. Things seem to be moving in a positive direction. It's an option, though.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 11:16 AM   #317
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,719
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
Per Wikipedia:





Other traits associated with masculinity, such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family are generally not considered toxic. Granted, those traits can also, in this day and age, apply to feminity as well, but due to physical and hormonal differences between men and women, the outcomes of those traits will in all probably turn out to be different according to the gender of the person exhibiting the trait, so one can still say they are "masculine" traits without diminishing the applications to the female sex as well.

I think I'm fine with the idea of toxic masculinity (and toxic femininity) as labels applying to the extremes of each characteristic. I do think the "cause" of toxic masculinity is grossly misdiagnosed by gender activists, as well as the solution. That said, I think it's not a very useful label and especially since only the "toxic masculinity" label is ever (EVER) used by gender activists, it shows a misandric bias I think.
I also think that even in the cited wiki page they attribute some things to toxic masculinity that don't make any sense: domestic violence.

If men and women are pretty much equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, labeling such a thing an example of "toxic masculinity" seems to only make sense of half the picture, or more likely an ideological stance that almost all gender activists hold (female = victim, male = perpetrator), including the author of the article in the OP.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 11:33 AM   #318
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I think I'm fine with the idea of toxic masculinity (and toxic femininity) as labels applying to the extremes of each characteristic. I do think the "cause" of toxic masculinity is grossly misdiagnosed by gender activists, as well as the solution. That said, I think it's not a very useful label and especially since only the "toxic masculinity" label is ever (EVER) used by gender activists, it shows a misandric bias I think.
I also think that even in the cited wiki page they attribute some things to toxic masculinity that don't make any sense: domestic violence.

If men and women are pretty much equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, labeling such a thing an example of "toxic masculinity" seems to only make sense of half the picture, or more likely an ideological stance that almost all gender activists hold (female = victim, male = perpetrator), including the author of the article in the OP.
I highlighted the problem. Domestic violence is not limited to men as the perpetrators, that is true, but women are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men. So therefore, they cannot be equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. There's a lot of good facts here, but ultimately women are more at risk of being abused by their partner than men are, and if you go into the degrees of violence perpetrated against a partner, women are nearly twice as likely to be victims of severe domestic abuse than men are (1 in 4 women compared to 1 in 7 men). Women are also much more likely to be stalked, another form of domestic violence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance (i.e. that not all women are victims and not all men are perpetrators), but they are not equal. And I hold just as little respect for women who abuse their partners (sexually or otherwise) as I do men. I also disagree with the author in the OP, as I've said multiple times; I do NOT think that all men are to blame for the inequality between how men and women are treated, nor do I think men should just step aside and let women lead unchecked. I believe there needs to be a balance between the genders, and we have been slowly moving in that direction pretty much since the '60s. We're not there yet, but absent the vitriol being spewed by the author in the OP or the attitudes of male groups like the "incel" movement, we are moving in the right direction. It's just going to take time, and that I think is at least partially the problem the author in the OP has; that it isn't happening instantly. However, she fails to take into account that social change takes time; generations in some cases, to really take effect, and her frustration with that time is quite possibly (at least partially) to blame for her vitriol. I don't agree with her stance, but I can at least partially understand where she may be coming from, if I'm reading her at all correctly (and there's every possibility I'm not.)
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:01 PM   #319
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,050
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
You are asking me to defend a position I don't hold. I don't think "people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs". I think that is pretty clear from my earlier posts in this thread.
I agree you don't like the word atonement, but that is what you are promoting.

You are asking me to modify my actions based upon the actions of other people that bear a similarity to me. Because they ********** up for so long you feel I have to take actions to remedy this. This is your position , plain and simple. If for thousands of years men didn't treat women like property you wouldn't feel I need to take these actions.

I'm sorry but I'm not an ambassador from planet male, I will take zero blame for the actions of anyone but myself or those I give orders to. And I will interact with people based on the content of their character , my actions in regards to voting, media, personal decisions will be motivated by my own qualitative research, not trying to play catch up for thousands of years oppression I have nothing to do with.

Asking me to modify my actions had to come with a pretty specific and logical reason. "Because it makes you a good person" isn't good enough, as "good person" changes drastically with time, person and culture. To go any further you need to explain why this would make me a good person and the answer has to be "due to thousands of years of male oppression" for your position to make sense. And I simply will not modify my actions based on the actions of idiots I oppose now and would have opposed then.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 12:22 PM   #320
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,719
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
I highlighted the problem. Domestic violence is not limited to men as the perpetrators, that is true, but women are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men. So therefore, they cannot be equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. There's a lot of good facts here, but ultimately women are more at risk of being abused by their partner than men are, and if you go into the degrees of violence perpetrated against a partner, women are nearly twice as likely to be victims of severe domestic abuse than men are (1 in 4 women compared to 1 in 7 men). Women are also much more likely to be stalked, another form of domestic violence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance (i.e. that not all women are victims and not all men are perpetrators), but they are not equal. And I hold just as little respect for women who abuse their partners (sexually or otherwise) as I do men. I also disagree with the author in the OP, as I've said multiple times; I do NOT think that all men are to blame for the inequality between how men and women are treated, nor do I think men should just step aside and let women lead unchecked. I believe there needs to be a balance between the genders, and we have been slowly moving in that direction pretty much since the '60s. We're not there yet, but absent the vitriol being spewed by the author in the OP or the attitudes of male groups like the "incel" movement, we are moving in the right direction. It's just going to take time, and that I think is at least partially the problem the author in the OP has; that it isn't happening instantly. However, she fails to take into account that social change takes time; generations in some cases, to really take effect, and her frustration with that time is quite possibly (at least partially) to blame for her vitriol. I don't agree with her stance, but I can at least partially understand where she may be coming from, if I'm reading her at all correctly (and there's every possibility I'm not.)
I believe the below is the paper that is commonly referenced for the "70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence is female perpetrated", and roughly half of all domestic violence is reciprocal (partners hurting each other).

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

This means that in fact women are the majority of abusers, and men the majority of victims. Now, women are more likely to be severely injured, but I think it's completely wrong to state it as a though women are much more likely to be victims than men.

Now of course we could cite a bunch of things at each other (I'm no expert, and you likely aren't either) but the point to me is that the experts to my knowledge (not the activists or politicians, though) have found gender symmetry in IPV for years. Despite that, there are virtually no domestic violence shelters for men, men are more likely to be arrested by their abusers if they call the police (Duluth Model), and it is almost exclusively framed as I said earlier as "male perpetrator, female victim". Additionally, reciprocal violence is usually framed as "women defending themselves" but this is a dodge that is not well-supported by evidence afaik. It is also mentioned in the paper I linked.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.