|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution.
[quote]
Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way?
Just because I think something sucks doesn't mean that I think it's acceptable to force others to behave as I like. I think traditional marriages with male breadwinners and female homemakers to be lame, but I don't want to ban others from doing that if they want.
If a group of people enjoy a community where trash talking is prevalent, they have a right to that free association. Feminists may not like it, but it's unacceptable for them to demand that gamers whitewash their own community to make feminists feel better.
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense.
If you really want everyone to be involved in the same manner, then you should be okay with gamers trash talking everyone. Because that's the way they treat men, and that's the way they treat women. This treatment is equal.
What you actually want is for men to change their behavior to suit women. This is special treatment. It's demanding men to talk like women. Would you be okay with men demanding that women trash talk like men?
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example.
Likewise, men are not keeping women out of video games. It's women that are keeping women out of gaming. If women want to be part of gaming, then they should change femininity and embrace competition and trash talking.
How can you not see your blatant double standards? If men don't like fashion, then they should change to fit in. But if women don't like video games, then men should change to accomodate women. Can you not see that you are completely brainwashed by the traditional gender expectation of female hypoagency? You're treating women as powerless objects.
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked".
If a majority of gamers did not like it, then gaming culture would be different. That fact that gaming culture is what it is requires the participation of gamers. It's not something that gamers participate in involuntarily.
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change?
Communities change organically over time. If you want to encourage certain mindsets, then feel free to do so. However, it's not the place of governments (except totalitarian ones) to regulate how people enjoy their hobbies.
|
On November 28 2012 21:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:[quote] I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate[quote] And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way? How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense. Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example. By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked". Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change? I think you are the hypocrite. He is not saying that being stuck in a gender identity suck only for men, he is saying it sucks for everyone hence the idea that society is biased toward men is wrong, and he at least gave statistical evidence. Black people call themselves nigger all the time, it's called reverse stigma. For a long time, being black was something you were ashamed of, today it's something a lot of people are proud of. Words doesn't have the same meaning in every social context. A teacher saying idiot to his student doesn't have the same meaning today or a century ago. If everybody agrees that saying "suck a dick" is just a joke, then it is a joke and not an offense. I'm also shocked that you talk about "feminism" without knowing what it is. There are thousands of different way of being a feminist today, feminist doesn't all wants to help men free themselves from their "gender", and some feminist also consider women should be above men and that some feminine qualities are biologically determined.
The overwhelming majority of the people in the western world are arguing that both men and women are locked in gender norms, but that women's norms disempower them more than men are disempowered.
I am arguing that calling people each other "nigger" and "faggots" over video games is bad. How you can call that "reverse stigma" in this context is beyond me.
I know what feminism is. I have a minor in gender science and a bachelor in sociolinguistics specializing in gender and language. I apologise for writing "real feminism" when I meant "my feminism that I believe in".
|
On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it.
Meritocracy doesn't require a level playing field, it is one. Meritocracy reflects a lack of bias. That's what it is. Your statement basically says we can't strive for meritocracy because we need to have meritocracy first. It doesn't make sense.
|
On November 28 2012 21:50 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination.
If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers.
Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women".
[quote]
The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining.
When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England.
When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way? How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense. Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example. By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked". Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change? I think you are the hypocrite. He is not saying that being stuck in a gender identity suck only for men, he is saying it sucks for everyone hence the idea that society is biased toward men is wrong, and he at least gave statistical evidence. Black people call themselves nigger all the time, it's called reverse stigma. For a long time, being black was something you were ashamed of, today it's something a lot of people are proud of. Words doesn't have the same meaning in every social context. A teacher saying idiot to his student doesn't have the same meaning today or a century ago. If everybody agrees that saying "suck a dick" is just a joke, then it is a joke and not an offense. I'm also shocked that you talk about "feminism" without knowing what it is. There are thousands of different way of being a feminist today, feminist doesn't all wants to help men free themselves from their "gender", and some feminist also consider women should be above men and that some feminine qualities are biologically determined. The overwhelming majority of the people in the western world are arguing that both men and women are locked in gender norms, but that women's norms disempower them more than men are disempowered.I am arguing that calling people each other "nigger" and "faggots" over video games is bad. How you can call that "reverse stigma" in this context is beyond me. I know what feminism is. I have a minor in gender science and a bachelor in sociolinguistics specializing in gender and language. I apologise for writing "real feminism" when I meant "my feminism that I believe in".
I have a master degree in sociology and another in economy, and am a teacher in social and economical science (not at the university, but in the "lycée" which is from 10th to 12th grade in the US). If you know a little about statistics in sociology, you would know that it's very hard for sociologue to actually know how the domination express itself in work because you need the whole professionnal life of a generation to actually make safe assumptions. Which is why talks on downgrading has been stagnant until late 90s, because, even if most people thought downgrading was actually happening a lot in our societies, it was impossible for sociologue to know as they didn't had the necessary numbers to prove it.
The situation of today is the same regarding inequalities between men and women in the professionnal life. What we are seeing is a high % of women getting degrees, and some out of context number showing that there is something going on in the professionnal life of our generations, but it doesn't mean anything as of yet. What will happen when our generation will be at the end of its professionnal life ? Will we still see the disparities between men and women we are seeing now. It's not sure at all.
The overwhelming majority of people in the western world thinks that women are disempower more than men, in the private life. It is obvious that in the private life, the domination of men hasn't change in the past 30 years : women still do the dishes, women are getting beaten by their husband much more than the opposite, women are getting raped, even in mariage, etc. One could also argue that in some specific area of power, such as political mandate, women are still highly dominated.
But in the overall public life, the question is entirely different, and I could argue that most numbers you would throw at me are wrong or short sighted. The real inequalities are between poor and rich. One exemple of that : the % of inactivity of women in France is wayyy higher than man, but the life expectancy of those same inactiv women is like 10 years higher than the life expectancy of the inactiv men. What does it mean ? It means the group of inactiv women and the group of inactiv men aren't socially alike at all, you are looking at two completly different group, with most likely unvolontary inactivity on men's part, with desaffiliation and anomie, while women are for a big part are inactiv by wish and most likely sustained by their husband.
|
On November 28 2012 22:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:50 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
[quote]
The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way? How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense. Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example. By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked". Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change? I think you are the hypocrite. He is not saying that being stuck in a gender identity suck only for men, he is saying it sucks for everyone hence the idea that society is biased toward men is wrong, and he at least gave statistical evidence. Black people call themselves nigger all the time, it's called reverse stigma. For a long time, being black was something you were ashamed of, today it's something a lot of people are proud of. Words doesn't have the same meaning in every social context. A teacher saying idiot to his student doesn't have the same meaning today or a century ago. If everybody agrees that saying "suck a dick" is just a joke, then it is a joke and not an offense. I'm also shocked that you talk about "feminism" without knowing what it is. There are thousands of different way of being a feminist today, feminist doesn't all wants to help men free themselves from their "gender", and some feminist also consider women should be above men and that some feminine qualities are biologically determined. The overwhelming majority of the people in the western world are arguing that both men and women are locked in gender norms, but that women's norms disempower them more than men are disempowered.I am arguing that calling people each other "nigger" and "faggots" over video games is bad. How you can call that "reverse stigma" in this context is beyond me. I know what feminism is. I have a minor in gender science and a bachelor in sociolinguistics specializing in gender and language. I apologise for writing "real feminism" when I meant "my feminism that I believe in". I have a master degree in sociology and another in economy, and am a teacher in social and economical science (not at the university, but in the "lycée" which is from 10th to 12th grade in the US). If you know a little about statistics in sociology, you would know that it's very hard for sociologue to actually know how the domination express itself in work because you need the whole professionnal life of a generation to actually make safe assumptions. Which is why talks on downgrading has been stagnant until late 2000, because, even if most people thought downgrading was actually happening a lot in our societies, it was impossible for sociologue to know as they didn't had the necessary numbers to prove it. The situation of today is the same regarding inequalities between men and women in the professionnal life. What we are seeing is a high % of women getting degrees, and some out of context number showing that there is something going on in the professionnal life of our generations, but it doesn't mean anything as of yet. What will happen when our generation will be at the end of its professionnal life ? Will we still see the disparities between men and women we are seeing now. It's not sure at all. The overwhelming majority of people in the western world thinks that women are disempower more than men, in the private life. It is obvious that in the private life, the domination of men hasn't change in the past 30 years : women still do the dishes, women are getting beaten by their husband much more than the opposite, women are getting raped, even in mariage, etc. One could also argue that in some specific area of power, such as political mandate, women are still highly dominated. But in the overall life, the question is entirely different, and I could argue that most numbers you would throw at me are wrong. The real inequalities are between poor and rich. One exemple of that : the % of inactivity of women in France is wayyy higher than man, but the life expectancy of those same inactiv women is like 10 years higher than the life expectancy of the inactiv men. What does it mean ? It means the group of inactiv women and the group of inactiv men aren't socially alike at all, you are looking at two completly different group, with most likely unvolontary inactivity on men's part, with desaffiliation and anomie, while women are for a big part are inactiv by wish and most likely sustained by their husband.
I agree that class is a really important variable. However, if you look at any given society and sex and class, you will see that in each respective level of class, women are more disempowered than the men of that class. At every age in every society and in every public level of that society, men have been more positively regarded than men.
I agree that masculinity forces men to be breadwinners and that's bad. However, it leaves women in a more vulnerable position and gives men power over women because the wife then becomes dependant of her husband to sustain her. So while the husband is badly off by being forced into sustaining his wife (which women also are; into dependency), the husband is ultimately better off because he gets power. Women are socialised into being submissive, which in our competitive (masculine/patriarchal society) leaves them without the tools to fend for themselves.
Simply put, both men and women are forced into gender norms. However, women's norms leave them more disempowered than men's norms.
This is why in a society that is patriarchal, we cannot have meritocracy without first leveling the playing field between men and women which is achieved by changing the structures of gender norms.
|
On November 28 2012 22:32 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 22:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 28 2012 21:50 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming.
Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men?
News flash: gender roles suck for everyone.
[quote]
On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior?
[quote]
Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't.
Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join?
I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her.
If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way? How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense. Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example. By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked". Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change? I think you are the hypocrite. He is not saying that being stuck in a gender identity suck only for men, he is saying it sucks for everyone hence the idea that society is biased toward men is wrong, and he at least gave statistical evidence. Black people call themselves nigger all the time, it's called reverse stigma. For a long time, being black was something you were ashamed of, today it's something a lot of people are proud of. Words doesn't have the same meaning in every social context. A teacher saying idiot to his student doesn't have the same meaning today or a century ago. If everybody agrees that saying "suck a dick" is just a joke, then it is a joke and not an offense. I'm also shocked that you talk about "feminism" without knowing what it is. There are thousands of different way of being a feminist today, feminist doesn't all wants to help men free themselves from their "gender", and some feminist also consider women should be above men and that some feminine qualities are biologically determined. The overwhelming majority of the people in the western world are arguing that both men and women are locked in gender norms, but that women's norms disempower them more than men are disempowered.I am arguing that calling people each other "nigger" and "faggots" over video games is bad. How you can call that "reverse stigma" in this context is beyond me. I know what feminism is. I have a minor in gender science and a bachelor in sociolinguistics specializing in gender and language. I apologise for writing "real feminism" when I meant "my feminism that I believe in". I have a master degree in sociology and another in economy, and am a teacher in social and economical science (not at the university, but in the "lycée" which is from 10th to 12th grade in the US). If you know a little about statistics in sociology, you would know that it's very hard for sociologue to actually know how the domination express itself in work because you need the whole professionnal life of a generation to actually make safe assumptions. Which is why talks on downgrading has been stagnant until late 2000, because, even if most people thought downgrading was actually happening a lot in our societies, it was impossible for sociologue to know as they didn't had the necessary numbers to prove it. The situation of today is the same regarding inequalities between men and women in the professionnal life. What we are seeing is a high % of women getting degrees, and some out of context number showing that there is something going on in the professionnal life of our generations, but it doesn't mean anything as of yet. What will happen when our generation will be at the end of its professionnal life ? Will we still see the disparities between men and women we are seeing now. It's not sure at all. The overwhelming majority of people in the western world thinks that women are disempower more than men, in the private life. It is obvious that in the private life, the domination of men hasn't change in the past 30 years : women still do the dishes, women are getting beaten by their husband much more than the opposite, women are getting raped, even in mariage, etc. One could also argue that in some specific area of power, such as political mandate, women are still highly dominated. But in the overall life, the question is entirely different, and I could argue that most numbers you would throw at me are wrong. The real inequalities are between poor and rich. One exemple of that : the % of inactivity of women in France is wayyy higher than man, but the life expectancy of those same inactiv women is like 10 years higher than the life expectancy of the inactiv men. What does it mean ? It means the group of inactiv women and the group of inactiv men aren't socially alike at all, you are looking at two completly different group, with most likely unvolontary inactivity on men's part, with desaffiliation and anomie, while women are for a big part are inactiv by wish and most likely sustained by their husband. I agree that class is a really important variable. However, if you look at any given society and sex and class, you will see that in each respective level of class, women are more disempowered than the men of that class. At every age in every society and in every public level of that society, men have been more positively regarded than men. I agree that masculinity forces men to be breadwinners and that's bad. However, it leaves women in a more vulnerable position and gives men power over women because the wife then becomes dependant of her husband to sustain her. So while the husband is badly off by being forced into sustaining his wife (which women also are; into dependency), the husband is ultimately better off because he gets power. Women are socialised into being submissive, which in our competitive (masculine/patriarchal society) leaves them without the tools to fend for themselves. Simply put, both men and women are forced into gender norms. However, women's norms leave them more disempowered than men's norms. This is why in a society that is patriarchal, we cannot have meritocracy without first leveling the playing field between men and women which is achieved by changing the structures of gender norms.
You are thinking too broad. I agree with everything you says, but you didn't respond to my differenciation between professionnal / public life and private life.
|
mfw girl gamers are a big issue in US politics.
|
On November 28 2012 22:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 22:32 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 22:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 28 2012 21:50 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
[quote]
I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
About [quote]
I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way? How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense. Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example. By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked". Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change? I think you are the hypocrite. He is not saying that being stuck in a gender identity suck only for men, he is saying it sucks for everyone hence the idea that society is biased toward men is wrong, and he at least gave statistical evidence. Black people call themselves nigger all the time, it's called reverse stigma. For a long time, being black was something you were ashamed of, today it's something a lot of people are proud of. Words doesn't have the same meaning in every social context. A teacher saying idiot to his student doesn't have the same meaning today or a century ago. If everybody agrees that saying "suck a dick" is just a joke, then it is a joke and not an offense. I'm also shocked that you talk about "feminism" without knowing what it is. There are thousands of different way of being a feminist today, feminist doesn't all wants to help men free themselves from their "gender", and some feminist also consider women should be above men and that some feminine qualities are biologically determined. The overwhelming majority of the people in the western world are arguing that both men and women are locked in gender norms, but that women's norms disempower them more than men are disempowered.I am arguing that calling people each other "nigger" and "faggots" over video games is bad. How you can call that "reverse stigma" in this context is beyond me. I know what feminism is. I have a minor in gender science and a bachelor in sociolinguistics specializing in gender and language. I apologise for writing "real feminism" when I meant "my feminism that I believe in". I have a master degree in sociology and another in economy, and am a teacher in social and economical science (not at the university, but in the "lycée" which is from 10th to 12th grade in the US). If you know a little about statistics in sociology, you would know that it's very hard for sociologue to actually know how the domination express itself in work because you need the whole professionnal life of a generation to actually make safe assumptions. Which is why talks on downgrading has been stagnant until late 2000, because, even if most people thought downgrading was actually happening a lot in our societies, it was impossible for sociologue to know as they didn't had the necessary numbers to prove it. The situation of today is the same regarding inequalities between men and women in the professionnal life. What we are seeing is a high % of women getting degrees, and some out of context number showing that there is something going on in the professionnal life of our generations, but it doesn't mean anything as of yet. What will happen when our generation will be at the end of its professionnal life ? Will we still see the disparities between men and women we are seeing now. It's not sure at all. The overwhelming majority of people in the western world thinks that women are disempower more than men, in the private life. It is obvious that in the private life, the domination of men hasn't change in the past 30 years : women still do the dishes, women are getting beaten by their husband much more than the opposite, women are getting raped, even in mariage, etc. One could also argue that in some specific area of power, such as political mandate, women are still highly dominated. But in the overall life, the question is entirely different, and I could argue that most numbers you would throw at me are wrong. The real inequalities are between poor and rich. One exemple of that : the % of inactivity of women in France is wayyy higher than man, but the life expectancy of those same inactiv women is like 10 years higher than the life expectancy of the inactiv men. What does it mean ? It means the group of inactiv women and the group of inactiv men aren't socially alike at all, you are looking at two completly different group, with most likely unvolontary inactivity on men's part, with desaffiliation and anomie, while women are for a big part are inactiv by wish and most likely sustained by their husband. I agree that class is a really important variable. However, if you look at any given society and sex and class, you will see that in each respective level of class, women are more disempowered than the men of that class. At every age in every society and in every public level of that society, men have been more positively regarded than men. I agree that masculinity forces men to be breadwinners and that's bad. However, it leaves women in a more vulnerable position and gives men power over women because the wife then becomes dependant of her husband to sustain her. So while the husband is badly off by being forced into sustaining his wife (which women also are; into dependency), the husband is ultimately better off because he gets power. Women are socialised into being submissive, which in our competitive (masculine/patriarchal society) leaves them without the tools to fend for themselves. Simply put, both men and women are forced into gender norms. However, women's norms leave them more disempowered than men's norms. This is why in a society that is patriarchal, we cannot have meritocracy without first leveling the playing field between men and women which is achieved by changing the structures of gender norms. You are thinking too broad. I agree with everything you says, but you didn't respond to my differenciation between professionnal / public life and private life.
I don't know what to give as a response to what you wrote, but I guess I can write about it generally.
Women are often regarded as having more "private life competence" than men. For example, they are viewed as better parents than men. However, this often disempowers them in the public sector of life. For example, women are expected to stay at home with their kids and therefore face hardships at work because no one wants to hire someone who will have to stay at home after s/he has kids.
So while femininity has positive attributes, they serve to disempower women by making her dependant on men because of women's disadvantages in the private sector.
|
On November 28 2012 22:49 DisneylandSC wrote:
mfw girl gamers are a big issue in US politics.
Internet gangsta life be hard dawg.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
crusaders for male equality have it pretty tough!
|
On November 28 2012 20:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. Gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege. Most of the statistics you cite are issues that have nothing to do with policies and little to do with outside societal pressures. Most of them are results of biological differences between man and women. Wrong.
Strong argument.
Out of all the links in that post one was relevant and valid as a source. The first one. They conclude that there is cca 5% difference that might be explained by some other factors or it might be actual "wage gap". That number is pretty similar to numbers that I saw from other sources. The rest is a case of cherry-picking sources and bad ones at that, or irrelevant. If you want to cite sources do not cite newspapers, but if they include link to actual research, link that instead.
I do not want to spend too much time on this, as if you noticed I did not actually argued for his position. I argued against your argument. My main issue was that you claim your post debunked something, whereas it did nothing of the sort.
On November 28 2012 20:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:
Being criminal or homeless is a choice of the individual in question. Typical gender role bullshit: men are agents (everything that happens to them is their fault) and women are objects (everything that happens to them is beyond their control). In reality, men are far more likely to be convicted of a crime than a woman, and there is a huge sentencing gap between the two. This gap far outweighs the gap between white men and black men. Would you argue that the reason more blacks are criminals is a choice of the inviduals in question? The reason why most homeless are men is because there are far fewer resources available to men than there are to women. Government spending disproportionately favors women by significant amounts, especially in areas such as providing women's shelters. Similar to the above, would you argue the reason more blacks are homeless is a choice of the individuals in question?
First stop misrepresenting my post. I did not say homeless women or women criminals did not do it by choice also. Never did I use any gender roles bs that you claim. There are men that are discriminated against in wages, the same applies to them that does to women. My claim was nothing about roles or some nonsense. I was arguing that the statistics you see are result of biology (possibly enhanced by cultural influences that use existing biological predispositions).
Can you give me some reliable source for the conviction rates ? On this I could actually believe you, but I would like to read some actual research. So if it is actually true I concede this point. US justice system is shitty and I think in this area other countries are maybe not much better thus showing actual societal influence you claim. But if anyone else knows something more optimistic, post it also.
As for homelessness, in any other first world country I would easily say that it is a choice. And even if not quite so clear I think it is still a choice (as far as any possibility of choice exists) in US. Also for blacks. That does not mean that there are no environmental influences. But this does not change the fact that noone has to be homeless. So even if there are more resources targeted at women (which I agree should be rectified) I doubt this has significant influence on the ratio. Here most homeless are also men, yet everyone is guaranteed enough money to be able not to be homeless. I would expect to see similar statistics all over Europe. So the reasons are probably beyond resources provided by the state. Does not mean it is not caused also by societal pressure. But the fact remains that homelessness and "wage gap" are qualitatively different beasts and using one to balance each other is bad logic.
|
On November 28 2012 22:07 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Meritocracy doesn't require a level playing field, it is one. Meritocracy reflects a lack of bias. That's what it is. Your statement basically says we can't strive for meritocracy because we need to have meritocracy first. It doesn't make sense.
Meritocracy should reflect something else : that someone who would be best at something assuming even starting point actually succeeds and becomes the best and is rewarded for it. So no there is no logical cycle that you claim, for meritocracy to actually exist you need as even as possible starting conditions for the participants. On societal level it basically means that no children should suffer lack of nutrients, education should be independent of parent's wealth, same goes for healthcare. And that is basically it. Of course perfectly equal starting positions are nonsense, but that does not mean we cannot get close to it. And funnily countries closer to this situation actually have better social mobility which is pretty good indicator of meritocracy.
|
This has to be one of the most interesting things I've read in a while. Its an article about a report recently issued from the CBO titled "Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers" where 'tax rates' include government benefits. Basically the gist is that the current system of social spending creates many income cliffs where a person is better off staying at a job that pays less than moving up into a better paying job.
From the article:
The ill effects of taxation -- the "distortions" -- depend on the total, marginal rate including transfers. If I earn an extra dollar, how much more stuff do I get, or how much more of someone else's services can I receive? That calculation has to including all taxes, federal, payroll, state, local, sales, excise, etc. and phaseouts.
And, if you receive a benefit from the government that phases out with income, so every dollar of income above (say) $30,000 reduces your benefit by 50 cents, then you face a 50 percent marginal tax rate even if you pay no "taxes" at all. Taxes and benefits -- both in level and on the margin -- need to be considered together.
There's a few charts in the CBO report and the article, but I thought this one made the point most clearly:
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_-6Fsycanmw/ULO_5kk3fxI/AAAAAAAAAU4/y1PbUElDS34/s640/marginal-tax_6.PNG)
To me this looks like an area where major reforms could do a lot of good. The individual who is supposed to be helped by the social programs is often trapped by them. A small raise or promotion will often not cut it (won't fully offset the loss of the benefit), and big pay raises or promotions are hard to come by. The system is also a drain on government resources - encouraging people to remain at lower paying jobs reduces tax revenues and increases program costs. For the economy as a whole its also bad for people to stay at a lower paying job when a higher paying job is available.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's a major thing in labor market economics, how various benefits decrease marginal income and thus incentive to find jobs. but the salience tends to be on whether and how much this kind of thing decrease employment (labor supply) itself (or lengthen job search by increasing reservation wage).
the most productive way to understand the effect of benefits that do not decrease very sharply as income climbs is as a disincentive to invest in worker skill/education. i think there is something here, not that you should not help low income workers with subsidies, but do it in a way that doesn't discourage self improvement.
a government jobs program would do the trick, a vocational education program that pays and produces.
|
On November 27 2012 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 08:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause. the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent. Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up). John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption.
except we did know, for sure, that it was premeditated, and we did know, for sure, that there was no demonstration. we did know, for sure, that it was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. and we did know, for sure, that it wasn't about the stupid video.
bottom line: she either didn't review the information or she didn't care.
|
On November 29 2012 07:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 27 2012 08:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause. the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent. Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up). John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption. except we did know, for sure, that it was premeditated, and we did know, for sure, that there was no demonstration. we did know, for sure, that it was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. and we did know, for sure, that it wasn't about the stupid video. bottom line: she either didn't review the information or she didn't care.
Do you understand that what she said was what the intelligence community gave her to say? Yes or no?
|
On November 29 2012 07:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 07:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 27 2012 08:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause. the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent. Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up). John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption. except we did know, for sure, that it was premeditated, and we did know, for sure, that there was no demonstration. we did know, for sure, that it was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. and we did know, for sure, that it wasn't about the stupid video. bottom line: she either didn't review the information or she didn't care. Do you understand that what she said was what the intelligence community gave her to say? Yes or no?
do you understand that there was a classified report, which she had access too, which contradicted every one of the assertions made by her on her Sunday circuit? yes or no?
no one is saying that the Obama administration didn't push the intelligence community to help cover it up, we're just saying that Susan Rice either didn't review the information/read her security briefings, or she knew that she was telling an untruth and told it anyway. the first is incompetent, the second is dishonest.
|
On November 27 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands. WTF? Obama is holding the country hostage every 10 months? Did you forget about the debt ceiling debacle? In case you didn't know, Obama didn't create the fiscal cliff, Congress did when the supercommittee failed to agree on deficit reduction. To claim that Obama is pointing the gun is to claim that Obama can put down the gun. But he can do no such thing, because the fiscal cliff is current law. He can give up and agree to everything the other side offers. But then, so can Republicans. So your statement about Obama holding the economy hostage is complete bullshit.
yes, Obama is holding the country hostage. he refuses to cut anything, and refuses to budge on taxing the rich. he's obviously not interested in compromise or he would start talking about cutting programs and spending and would be fine with expanding the tax base and lowering rates. that would be a compromise, and one that doesn't favor Republicans all that much. telling us to give him 50% and we get nothing in return is not compromising, and he is clearly trying to push this more and more toward the fiscal cliff to try to force Republicans to give in. that is the definition of holding the economy hostage.
he has all the power because 1) the Senate will follow his lead and 2) he can veto any bill. he's the one who won the election, so now he has to actually lead. but leading doesn't mean forcing the other side to give up everything and giving up nothing himself.
|
On November 29 2012 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This has to be one of the most interesting things I've read in a while. Its an article about a report recently issued from the CBO titled "Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers" where 'tax rates' include government benefits. Basically the gist is that the current system of social spending creates many income cliffs where a person is better off staying at a job that pays less than moving up into a better paying job. From the article: Show nested quote +The ill effects of taxation -- the "distortions" -- depend on the total, marginal rate including transfers. If I earn an extra dollar, how much more stuff do I get, or how much more of someone else's services can I receive? That calculation has to including all taxes, federal, payroll, state, local, sales, excise, etc. and phaseouts.
And, if you receive a benefit from the government that phases out with income, so every dollar of income above (say) $30,000 reduces your benefit by 50 cents, then you face a 50 percent marginal tax rate even if you pay no "taxes" at all. Taxes and benefits -- both in level and on the margin -- need to be considered together. There's a few charts in the CBO report and the article, but I thought this one made the point most clearly: To me this looks like an area where major reforms could do a lot of good. The individual who is supposed to be helped by the social programs is often trapped by them. A small raise or promotion will often not cut it (won't fully offset the loss of the benefit), and big pay raises or promotions are hard to come by. The system is also a drain on government resources - encouraging people to remain at lower paying jobs reduces tax revenues and increases program costs. For the economy as a whole its also bad for people to stay at a lower paying job when a higher paying job is available.
Is that nationally, or just with PA? Also, a great deal of that cliff comes from housing help dropping off, and a little from food. The other programs seem to be quite gradual in their cutoff.
|
On November 29 2012 08:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 07:43 kwizach wrote:On November 29 2012 07:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 27 2012 08:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause. the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent. Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up). John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption. except we did know, for sure, that it was premeditated, and we did know, for sure, that there was no demonstration. we did know, for sure, that it was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. and we did know, for sure, that it wasn't about the stupid video. bottom line: she either didn't review the information or she didn't care. Do you understand that what she said was what the intelligence community gave her to say? Yes or no? do you understand that there was a classified report, which she had access too, which contradicted every one of the assertions made by her on her Sunday circuit? yes or no? no one is saying that the Obama administration didn't push the intelligence community to help cover it up, we're just saying that Susan Rice either didn't review the information/read her security briefings, or she knew that she was telling an untruth and told it anyway. the first is incompetent, the second is dishonest.
You didn't answer the question. Her role was to deliver a message to the public based on what the intelligence community felt could be said at that point about the attacks. What she said was exactly what the intelligence community told her could be said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
