EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 730
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 22 2013 09:55 sam!zdat wrote: why is "equal representation in nearly every field" even a goal in the first place? is it just because it sounds nice and fair? what if men and women have different preferences for what they want to do? how much time should we spend worrying that more men study astrophysics, and more women study english literature? also, why do we define people by their occupations? Because we're losing a hell of a lot of potential. I'm in math and it's just sad to see how reluctant girls are to major in math or physics. Computer science is even worse. Every year during the orientation days it's just so obvious how present the old stereotypes still are. 90% of the girls coming up are asking "can i really do that?" "I don't really know any other girl that wants to study math" yada yada yada. why do we define people by their occupations? Well because that's what people spent most of their time on. If that's to capitalist for you we can start defining people by their sock colour | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Think about it Sam, i'm sure it would be better... | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
On December 22 2013 10:16 Nyxisto wrote: Because we're losing a hell of a lot of potential. I'm in math and it's just sad to see how reluctant girls are to major in math or physics. Computer science is even worse. Every year during the orientation days it's just so obvious how present the old stereotypes still are. 90% of the girls coming up are asking "can i really do that?" "I don't really know any other girl that wants to study math" yada yada yada. I don't think Sam is against encouraging women to seize upon their potential, rather that "full inclusion", the presumable goal of these movements, doesn't look at all like equal representation among careers of divergent interest. This is about where to draw the line at which we can stand back and say, " things are as they should be", and it should be abundantly clear that doing so is a contentious process, as it requires one to either adhere to some sort of 50/50 idealism or instead look for where the lines along unencumbered group preferences fall (i.e. women are teachers, men are soldiers, asians are good at math, black men are athletic etc.). Clearly there's implied grey area there, but there is a good debate to be had over gender essentialism and whether or not there exists an "untainted" tendency (one free from harmful social influence) among those who belong to different groups. A lot of what Sam is railing against is the sort of academia that has decided that that debate is over and that the rules are set with goals in sight. | ||
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 22 2013 09:55 sam!zdat wrote: why is "equal representation in nearly every field" even a goal in the first place? is it just because it sounds nice and fair? what if men and women have different preferences for what they want to do? how much time should we spend worrying that more men study astrophysics, and more women study english literature? also, why do we define people by their occupations? Equal representation isn't necessarily a goal for me but the very unequal representation at the moment is symptomatic of a problem. If women were choosing not to I wouldn't give a shit but women aren't given the same opportunities or encouragement as men in some fields. There is still more work to be done. This is a decent article about it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 22 2013 10:39 KwarK wrote: Equal representation isn't necessarily a goal for me but the very unequal representation at the moment is symptomatic of a problem. If women were choosing not to I wouldn't give a shit but women aren't given the same opportunities or encouragement as men in some fields. There is still more work to be done. This is a decent article about it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html are you surprised that I agree completely? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 22 2013 10:35 sam!zdat wrote: actually, male feminists are far more useless than female feminists. I have far more interesting and productive conversations about gender politics with women than I ever do with men. and what about male masculinists? I'd argue it's the exact same field so are they better or worse than women? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 22 2013 10:58 sam!zdat wrote: I don't know, if I ever meet anyone like that, I'll let you know hi? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 22 2013 08:41 Shiragaku wrote: Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on. Here is a good Norman Finkelstein quote on politics Personally, I am against marriage as a whole. I wish that the queer liberation movement was more about abolishing the institutions of marriage which is connected to the state, but most Americans want marriage and we should naturally respect that and work towards it and not to restrict the liberty of others for my own personal political gains. I m pretty sure sam is closer to people than most of us. America is not liberal - like all occidental countries (altho less important than europe) it is having a deep representative and institutional crisis but it has no effect on politics for various reasons. People don t believe in politics ability to face socio economic problem. Secondly, most of the XXth century thought on politics are outdated. The environmental crisis is forcing us to think radically. But I guess we can be satisfied with soft consensus for the ten years to come. On December 22 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote: are you surprised that I agree completely? And I disagree completly. What's the point in replacing a male bourgeois by a female bourgeois ? I'm joking a bit here  | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 22 2013 11:13 sam!zdat wrote: you deal with shit concerning male inequality? what does that mean? It means that I don't think gender inequality in society is purely a female concern. I think courts systematically favouring mothers with kids is fucked up, the burden on men to conform to the male image is damaging, the way prison rape is ignored or seen as some kind of messed up justice is sickening and so forth. That while the feminist concerns are valid there are no shortage of inequalities faced by men which are revealed by the exact same analysis of what gender means in society. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Boo hoo, get over it, most Americans are liberal, and probably will remain liberal when they actually become more informed to what is going on. americans are for what they consider "fair," fairness is more important than anything when an american thinks about politics which most do rarely. this creates the i don't like big government because big government isn't fair but don't cut my entitlements because i pay my taxes and it'd be unfair to get less for them. rand paul isn't going to run america any time soon but elizabeth warren isn't either you can believe otherwise of course... saying the masses are stupid and in need of instruction is the oldest line in the book. saying that once they're instructed they'll back you is a more modern improvement. i'll just say that it is a paradox that we live in a society, that if it is based on anything, is based on a great deal trust in human nature, and there are people who look at the results and still insist that to a great degree the people need significant instruction in what to believe politically. i think people should learn stuff all their lives but i'm too smart for my own good so what do i know. when people get more informed what is going on the historical trend is more cynicism and distrust of government so hey i'm all for that. It means that I don't think gender inequality in society is purely a female concern. I think courts systematically favouring mothers with kids is fucked up, the burden on men to conform to the male image is damaging, the way prison rape is ignored or seen as some kind of messed up justice is sickening and so forth. That while the feminist concerns are valid there are no shortage of inequalities faced by men which are revealed by the exact same analysis of what gender means in society. well, i hope women can look past all the things you've said about how there is an unbridgeable gap between men and women that may make harmony unattainable. also how women shouldn't be that grateful to men who've changed and made society more open to women, the same way blacks shouldn't be overly grateful to whites for fighting a war that freed them slavery, but we won't go there i hope. taking those positions would seem to be more about establishing dominance and authority in an Allies-curbstomp-Germany kind of way, or at least would have such an effect. as they have in academia -which people seem to find fascinating, those elitist scum with their radical opinions and plutocrat lifestyle so many of em. they have their cake and they're ravishing it :p and they seem unlikely to make the other side - if you can divide society like this anymore and be even broadly accurate - want to take lumps for what others did mostly before they were born before they can be granted the privilege of tolerance. this is what sam is getting at. this kerfuffle here is a microcosm of power struggles and structures and all that fun jargon that poison and, it seems, must inevitably accompany discussion on the issue of gender, or race, many more. the lack of steam in the feminist movement can definitely be tied to conditions truly improving for women in the countries where feminism was capable of being strong, and the movement losing ideological focus and motivation from that. victory does take the edge off. as does internecine warfare, endless legitimacy tests, and manufacturing all that self-righteous indignation for years on end. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On December 22 2013 09:55 sam!zdat wrote: why is "equal representation in nearly every field" even a goal in the first place? is it just because it sounds nice and fair? what if men and women have different preferences for what they want to do? how much time should we spend worrying that more men study astrophysics, and more women study english literature? also, why do we define people by their occupations? Well, that's the point I was trying to make when Nyx started debating headscarfs... "equal representation in nearly every field" may sound nice but it isn't indicative of anything. There once was a very simple-minded person who thought: Let's forget about the difference between equality of opportunities and equality of results, and let's just say that equality simply means a 50/50-ratio. Then, there were a lot of like-minded persons who thought, hey, that involves numbers so it looks like math so it must be scientific - let's believe him even though what he's saying is stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving every woman the chance to study physics or whatever else she wants to study... but if we give people an actual choice, we should maybe also accept it if they choose not to behave like natural numbers, so equal opportunities and results would be an extremely unlikely coincidence. Also, the reasons why we define people by their occupations is twofold, on the one hand it's good old capital fetishism, on the other their occupation is usually indicative of at least one of their main areas of interest. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On December 22 2013 09:08 sam!zdat wrote: bah what do you want from me stop being such a hipster pls <3 | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On December 22 2013 14:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: i'm too smart for my own good so what do i know. haaa | ||
| ||
