|
On October 09 2018 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2018 23:55 Danglars wrote:The narrative currently is that conservatives are going too far in spiking the football after the Kavanaugh nomination. It's a little weak for a narrative, but whatever. The second big one is NYT and Guardian articles written about white women. White Women, Come Get Your People
They will defend their privilege to the death.
By Alexis Grenell
After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.
These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.
They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”
These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. NY TimesAnd while African Americans voters supported Barack Obama with near unanimity, the so-called “women’s vote” never materialized behind Hillary Clinton. Instead, Trump won white women with 53% of the vote.
Stephanie Gutmann, a conservative writer and veteran journalist, told the Guardian on Friday that she was annoyed by liberal insistence that Ford’s treatment would drive women to the polls.
“What is this women thing? Why do you think we’re so monolithic? We’re not so monolithic at all. In the media we’re portrayed as being very single-issue, just voting on reproductive rights. I think there may be a movement of women to the polls, but it’s going to be on both sides,” she said.
After watching coverage of the hearings, Gutmann felt compelled to pen an op-ed for USA Today on why conservative women like her won’t abandon Kavanaugh. Still, she said, she was moved by Ford’s testimony. “She seemed very fragile to me, I was struck by that,” she said. “I believe that something happened to her, but don’t believe necessarily that it involved Kavanaugh, and I don’t think the evidence is strong enough to go forward with any more investigation at this point.”
It isn’t just women she’s worried about, with regard to justice.
“We have husbands and sons and brothers and lovers and they’re part of our lives intertwined,” she said. “I think it’s fair to have the emphasis on sons now because the ball swings back and forth and right now the pendulum has swung way too far in the sort of believe-the-woman-at-any-cost direction.”
The emphasis fits nicely with a recent study of women’s voting patterns, which found that while single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, women married to men, and white women in particular, often vote on behalf of their husbands and families, research shows. Two very important points: First, nobody really destroys women's agency like feminists. You're supposed to vote as they tell you to vote, or else they're gender traitors or being forced to by their husbands (or subordinating their interests to their husbands). Well, women and white women get a little upset at being told the way they're supposed to vote in order to be truly voting their interests. This will definitely pay off in Republican's favor in November, and hopefully in a big enough way to retain the house or not give Dems too much of a seat advantage. Second, the far left's habit of doubling down on race and gender issues speaks heavily to the long term success of Republican messaging in 2020 and beyond. No issue really gets passed over to the next as a wash. It's like an allergy to losing a fight and moving out without demeaning the forces that triumphed over them in very base ways. It's not that enough Senators saw the witnesses as uncredible, it's that white women are betraying their sex. It's not that women have genuine interest in the success of their own families that include their husbands and sons, it's that they're actively hurting themselves because their primary interest should have been the left's perception of their best interest. There will be a lot more flare-up issues in the culture war from now until the 2020 election. The best thing helping Republicans is that the left won't let up their grip on topics such as gender ideology. It'll hurt their coalition, and continue to hurt their coalition. Left-leaning media cannot pay service to their radical fringe without it being seen by moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. These are people that could be swayed to the Democrat coalition with concerns over Trump, over health issues, over foreign policy ... but some of them saw an innocent man dragged through the dirt, and would like to just differ from their colleagues to unite on other issues. Articles that show necessary dogma on race-delineated sex-delineated issues put a stop to that. I'm not especially interested in this argument at the moment but rest assured it's not really new. Show nested quote +following the introduction of a proposal legalizing woman suffrage in the Massachusetts state legislature. In response, two hundred women countered this petition “with a ‘remonstrance’” in which they pleaded with their elected officials to reject forcing onto the female citizenry the ballot.4 Marshall states that in 1871, the first instance of women’s antisuffrage mobilization occurred when “nineteen women published a petition to the U.S. Congress remonstrating against votes for women in the editorial pages of the popular Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine.”5 It formal beginning could be traced to the 1880s where the movement started building its institutions.6 The movement initially began as general public disapproval of arguments made by suffragists through mediums such as the press or the pulpit. It gained momentum throughout the 1890s during the period of state amendment campaigns regarding women suffrage, culminating in the peak of its power and influence between 1895 and 1907.78 By 1911, the movement existed largely through diffuse state associations before merging together to form the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) in New York City which was active from 1912-1918. NAOWS continued to grow, coordinating the activities of twenty-five state associations by 1916. scholarship.claremont.eduThat's not to say there aren't some legitimate critiques in your post or from the people your taking issue with, just that white women literally petitioning against their own rights is a thing.
Didn't Ann Coulter say women shouldn't have the right to vote? Admittedly I'm never quite sure how seriously to take Ann as a lot of what she says strikes me as grandstanding.
And obviously there's plenty of women that would love to see abortion blanket banned, who don't seem to understand how critical abortion rights are to women's rights as a whole.
Feminism gets a bad rap these days, mostly because it's fractured and so its extremely easy to sift it out into whatever elements you find most objecionable. I find it very sad, personally, seeing such a force for positive change and improvement start eating itself like it has. But it was definitely going to happen once the LGBT movement switched to 'LGB+literally anyone who wants to join'. Lots of different groups is inevitably going to lead to clashes, and unsurprisingly there's a lot of feminists with issues about transgender folk.
Also, modern feminism is as tainted by racism as the old. Black feminists frequently give their white colleagues shit for not highlighting variances in the issues facing black women and trying to treat them as 'white, but different'; claiming right to their support, but not actually helping black women with their problems. Might not be aggressive racism, but... well, I think GH has made his opinions on passive racism pretty clear. It might not be aggressively nasty but it sure doesn't help.
A side note from the main discussion, I know. I'll be off again.
|
On October 09 2018 00:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2018 23:55 Danglars wrote:The narrative currently is that conservatives are going too far in spiking the football after the Kavanaugh nomination. It's a little weak for a narrative, but whatever. The second big one is NYT and Guardian articles written about white women. White Women, Come Get Your People
They will defend their privilege to the death.
By Alexis Grenell
After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.
These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.
They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”
These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. NY Timeshttps://twitter.com/lucia_graves/status/1048587370789031937And while African Americans voters supported Barack Obama with near unanimity, the so-called “women’s vote” never materialized behind Hillary Clinton. Instead, Trump won white women with 53% of the vote.
Stephanie Gutmann, a conservative writer and veteran journalist, told the Guardian on Friday that she was annoyed by liberal insistence that Ford’s treatment would drive women to the polls.
“What is this women thing? Why do you think we’re so monolithic? We’re not so monolithic at all. In the media we’re portrayed as being very single-issue, just voting on reproductive rights. I think there may be a movement of women to the polls, but it’s going to be on both sides,” she said.
After watching coverage of the hearings, Gutmann felt compelled to pen an op-ed for USA Today on why conservative women like her won’t abandon Kavanaugh. Still, she said, she was moved by Ford’s testimony. “She seemed very fragile to me, I was struck by that,” she said. “I believe that something happened to her, but don’t believe necessarily that it involved Kavanaugh, and I don’t think the evidence is strong enough to go forward with any more investigation at this point.”
It isn’t just women she’s worried about, with regard to justice.
“We have husbands and sons and brothers and lovers and they’re part of our lives intertwined,” she said. “I think it’s fair to have the emphasis on sons now because the ball swings back and forth and right now the pendulum has swung way too far in the sort of believe-the-woman-at-any-cost direction.”
The emphasis fits nicely with a recent study of women’s voting patterns, which found that while single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, women married to men, and white women in particular, often vote on behalf of their husbands and families, research shows. Two very important points: First, nobody really destroys women's agency like feminists. You're supposed to vote as they tell you to vote, or else they're gender traitors or being forced to by their husbands (or subordinating their interests to their husbands). Well, women and white women get a little upset at being told the way they're supposed to vote in order to be truly voting their interests. This will definitely pay off in Republican's favor in November, and hopefully in a big enough way to retain the house or not give Dems too much of a seat advantage. Second, the far left's habit of doubling down on race and gender issues speaks heavily to the long term success of Republican messaging in 2020 and beyond. No issue really gets passed over to the next as a wash. It's like an allergy to losing a fight and moving out without demeaning the forces that triumphed over them in very base ways. It's not that enough Senators saw the witnesses as uncredible, it's that white women are betraying their sex. It's not that women have genuine interest in the success of their own families that include their husbands and sons, it's that they're actively hurting themselves because their primary interest should have been the left's perception of their best interest. There will be a lot more flare-up issues in the culture war from now until the 2020 election. The best thing helping Republicans is that the left won't let up their grip on topics such as gender ideology. It'll hurt their coalition, and continue to hurt their coalition. Left-leaning media cannot pay service to their radical fringe without it being seen by moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. These are people that could be swayed to the Democrat coalition with concerns over Trump, over health issues, over foreign policy ... but some of them saw an innocent man dragged through the dirt, and would like to just differ from their colleagues to unite on other issues. Articles that show necessary dogma on race-delineated sex-delineated issues put a stop to that. I'm not especially interested in this argument at the moment but rest assured it's not really new. following the introduction of a proposal legalizing woman suffrage in the Massachusetts state legislature. In response, two hundred women countered this petition “with a ‘remonstrance’” in which they pleaded with their elected officials to reject forcing onto the female citizenry the ballot.4 Marshall states that in 1871, the first instance of women’s antisuffrage mobilization occurred when “nineteen women published a petition to the U.S. Congress remonstrating against votes for women in the editorial pages of the popular Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine.”5 It formal beginning could be traced to the 1880s where the movement started building its institutions.6 The movement initially began as general public disapproval of arguments made by suffragists through mediums such as the press or the pulpit. It gained momentum throughout the 1890s during the period of state amendment campaigns regarding women suffrage, culminating in the peak of its power and influence between 1895 and 1907.78 By 1911, the movement existed largely through diffuse state associations before merging together to form the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) in New York City which was active from 1912-1918. NAOWS continued to grow, coordinating the activities of twenty-five state associations by 1916. scholarship.claremont.eduThat's not to say there aren't some legitimate critiques in your post or from the people your taking issue with, just that white women literally petitioning against their own rights is a thing. Didn't Ann Coulter say women shouldn't have the right to vote? Admittedly I'm never quite sure how seriously to take Ann as a lot of what she says strikes me as grandstanding. And obviously there's plenty of women that would love to see abortion blanket banned, who don't seem to understand how critical abortion rights are to women's rights as a whole. Feminism gets a bad rap these days, mostly because it's fractured and so its extremely easy to sift it out into whatever elements you find most objectionable. I find it very sad, personally, seeing such a force for positive change and improvement start eating itself like it has. But it was definitely going to happen once the LGBT movement switched to 'LGB+literally anyone who wants to join'. Lots of different groups is inevitably going to lead to clashes, and unsurprisingly there's a lot of feminists with issues about transgender folk. Also, modern feminism is as tainted by racism as the old. Black feminists frequently give their white colleagues shit for not highlighting variances in the issues facing black women and trying to treat them as 'white, but different'; claiming right to their support, but not actually helping black women with their problems. Might not be aggressive racism, but... well, I think GH has made his opinions on passive racism pretty clear. It might not be aggressively nasty but it sure doesn't help. A side note from the main discussion, I know. I'll be off again.
Yeah, but you have to consider why feminism is so highly fractured. It's not just the expansion of the umbrella to encompass intersectionality and LGBTQ interests. Feminism won its major battles. The legal landscape was leveled. Women can be and do pretty much whatever they want. What's being pushed now are agenda born of radical deconstructions of society. Take the #metoo movement, as an example. To the post-modern, avant garde feminist, we not only need to listen and give serious credence to rape accusations, but we also have to presume that the guy did it. As I have discussed ad nauseum in this thread, this turns upside down many important and valued norms in society. Women are naturally going to tend to push back on this.
|
On October 09 2018 00:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2018 23:55 Danglars wrote:The narrative currently is that conservatives are going too far in spiking the football after the Kavanaugh nomination. It's a little weak for a narrative, but whatever. The second big one is NYT and Guardian articles written about white women. White Women, Come Get Your People
They will defend their privilege to the death.
By Alexis Grenell
After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.
These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.
They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”
These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. NY Timeshttps://twitter.com/lucia_graves/status/1048587370789031937And while African Americans voters supported Barack Obama with near unanimity, the so-called “women’s vote” never materialized behind Hillary Clinton. Instead, Trump won white women with 53% of the vote.
Stephanie Gutmann, a conservative writer and veteran journalist, told the Guardian on Friday that she was annoyed by liberal insistence that Ford’s treatment would drive women to the polls.
“What is this women thing? Why do you think we’re so monolithic? We’re not so monolithic at all. In the media we’re portrayed as being very single-issue, just voting on reproductive rights. I think there may be a movement of women to the polls, but it’s going to be on both sides,” she said.
After watching coverage of the hearings, Gutmann felt compelled to pen an op-ed for USA Today on why conservative women like her won’t abandon Kavanaugh. Still, she said, she was moved by Ford’s testimony. “She seemed very fragile to me, I was struck by that,” she said. “I believe that something happened to her, but don’t believe necessarily that it involved Kavanaugh, and I don’t think the evidence is strong enough to go forward with any more investigation at this point.”
It isn’t just women she’s worried about, with regard to justice.
“We have husbands and sons and brothers and lovers and they’re part of our lives intertwined,” she said. “I think it’s fair to have the emphasis on sons now because the ball swings back and forth and right now the pendulum has swung way too far in the sort of believe-the-woman-at-any-cost direction.”
The emphasis fits nicely with a recent study of women’s voting patterns, which found that while single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, women married to men, and white women in particular, often vote on behalf of their husbands and families, research shows. Two very important points: First, nobody really destroys women's agency like feminists. You're supposed to vote as they tell you to vote, or else they're gender traitors or being forced to by their husbands (or subordinating their interests to their husbands). Well, women and white women get a little upset at being told the way they're supposed to vote in order to be truly voting their interests. This will definitely pay off in Republican's favor in November, and hopefully in a big enough way to retain the house or not give Dems too much of a seat advantage. Second, the far left's habit of doubling down on race and gender issues speaks heavily to the long term success of Republican messaging in 2020 and beyond. No issue really gets passed over to the next as a wash. It's like an allergy to losing a fight and moving out without demeaning the forces that triumphed over them in very base ways. It's not that enough Senators saw the witnesses as uncredible, it's that white women are betraying their sex. It's not that women have genuine interest in the success of their own families that include their husbands and sons, it's that they're actively hurting themselves because their primary interest should have been the left's perception of their best interest. There will be a lot more flare-up issues in the culture war from now until the 2020 election. The best thing helping Republicans is that the left won't let up their grip on topics such as gender ideology. It'll hurt their coalition, and continue to hurt their coalition. Left-leaning media cannot pay service to their radical fringe without it being seen by moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. These are people that could be swayed to the Democrat coalition with concerns over Trump, over health issues, over foreign policy ... but some of them saw an innocent man dragged through the dirt, and would like to just differ from their colleagues to unite on other issues. Articles that show necessary dogma on race-delineated sex-delineated issues put a stop to that. I'm not especially interested in this argument at the moment but rest assured it's not really new. following the introduction of a proposal legalizing woman suffrage in the Massachusetts state legislature. In response, two hundred women countered this petition “with a ‘remonstrance’” in which they pleaded with their elected officials to reject forcing onto the female citizenry the ballot.4 Marshall states that in 1871, the first instance of women’s antisuffrage mobilization occurred when “nineteen women published a petition to the U.S. Congress remonstrating against votes for women in the editorial pages of the popular Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine.”5 It formal beginning could be traced to the 1880s where the movement started building its institutions.6 The movement initially began as general public disapproval of arguments made by suffragists through mediums such as the press or the pulpit. It gained momentum throughout the 1890s during the period of state amendment campaigns regarding women suffrage, culminating in the peak of its power and influence between 1895 and 1907.78 By 1911, the movement existed largely through diffuse state associations before merging together to form the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) in New York City which was active from 1912-1918. NAOWS continued to grow, coordinating the activities of twenty-five state associations by 1916. scholarship.claremont.eduThat's not to say there aren't some legitimate critiques in your post or from the people your taking issue with, just that white women literally petitioning against their own rights is a thing. Didn't Ann Coulter say women shouldn't have the right to vote? Admittedly I'm never quite sure how seriously to take Ann as a lot of what she says strikes me as grandstanding. And obviously there's plenty of women that would love to see abortion blanket banned, who don't seem to understand how critical abortion rights are to women's rights as a whole. Feminism gets a bad rap these days, mostly because it's fractured and so its extremely easy to sift it out into whatever elements you find most objecionable. I find it very sad, personally, seeing such a force for positive change and improvement start eating itself like it has. But it was definitely going to happen once the LGBT movement switched to 'LGB+literally anyone who wants to join'. Lots of different groups is inevitably going to lead to clashes, and unsurprisingly there's a lot of feminists with issues about transgender folk. Also, modern feminism is as tainted by racism as the old. Black feminists frequently give their white colleagues shit for not highlighting variances in the issues facing black women and trying to treat them as 'white, but different'; claiming right to their support, but not actually helping black women with their problems. Might not be aggressive racism, but... well, I think GH has made his opinions on passive racism pretty clear. It might not be aggressively nasty but it sure doesn't help. A side note from the main discussion, I know. I'll be off again.
There's a lot of men here that want to tell women what to think about abortion, and how important it should be to all women. That's the kind of misogyny that gets broad approval from one side, and portions of the other. I happen to afford women the right to make up their own damn minds on the topic, and some of them might decide the issue is critical in the other way, particularly to women who are months away from being born into this world. That's going to continue to be a sticking point for conservatives like me.
|
On October 09 2018 00:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 00:35 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2018 23:55 Danglars wrote:The narrative currently is that conservatives are going too far in spiking the football after the Kavanaugh nomination. It's a little weak for a narrative, but whatever. The second big one is NYT and Guardian articles written about white women. White Women, Come Get Your People
They will defend their privilege to the death.
By Alexis Grenell
After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.
These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.
They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”
These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. NY Timeshttps://twitter.com/lucia_graves/status/1048587370789031937And while African Americans voters supported Barack Obama with near unanimity, the so-called “women’s vote” never materialized behind Hillary Clinton. Instead, Trump won white women with 53% of the vote.
Stephanie Gutmann, a conservative writer and veteran journalist, told the Guardian on Friday that she was annoyed by liberal insistence that Ford’s treatment would drive women to the polls.
“What is this women thing? Why do you think we’re so monolithic? We’re not so monolithic at all. In the media we’re portrayed as being very single-issue, just voting on reproductive rights. I think there may be a movement of women to the polls, but it’s going to be on both sides,” she said.
After watching coverage of the hearings, Gutmann felt compelled to pen an op-ed for USA Today on why conservative women like her won’t abandon Kavanaugh. Still, she said, she was moved by Ford’s testimony. “She seemed very fragile to me, I was struck by that,” she said. “I believe that something happened to her, but don’t believe necessarily that it involved Kavanaugh, and I don’t think the evidence is strong enough to go forward with any more investigation at this point.”
It isn’t just women she’s worried about, with regard to justice.
“We have husbands and sons and brothers and lovers and they’re part of our lives intertwined,” she said. “I think it’s fair to have the emphasis on sons now because the ball swings back and forth and right now the pendulum has swung way too far in the sort of believe-the-woman-at-any-cost direction.”
The emphasis fits nicely with a recent study of women’s voting patterns, which found that while single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, women married to men, and white women in particular, often vote on behalf of their husbands and families, research shows. Two very important points: First, nobody really destroys women's agency like feminists. You're supposed to vote as they tell you to vote, or else they're gender traitors or being forced to by their husbands (or subordinating their interests to their husbands). Well, women and white women get a little upset at being told the way they're supposed to vote in order to be truly voting their interests. This will definitely pay off in Republican's favor in November, and hopefully in a big enough way to retain the house or not give Dems too much of a seat advantage. Second, the far left's habit of doubling down on race and gender issues speaks heavily to the long term success of Republican messaging in 2020 and beyond. No issue really gets passed over to the next as a wash. It's like an allergy to losing a fight and moving out without demeaning the forces that triumphed over them in very base ways. It's not that enough Senators saw the witnesses as uncredible, it's that white women are betraying their sex. It's not that women have genuine interest in the success of their own families that include their husbands and sons, it's that they're actively hurting themselves because their primary interest should have been the left's perception of their best interest. There will be a lot more flare-up issues in the culture war from now until the 2020 election. The best thing helping Republicans is that the left won't let up their grip on topics such as gender ideology. It'll hurt their coalition, and continue to hurt their coalition. Left-leaning media cannot pay service to their radical fringe without it being seen by moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. These are people that could be swayed to the Democrat coalition with concerns over Trump, over health issues, over foreign policy ... but some of them saw an innocent man dragged through the dirt, and would like to just differ from their colleagues to unite on other issues. Articles that show necessary dogma on race-delineated sex-delineated issues put a stop to that. I'm not especially interested in this argument at the moment but rest assured it's not really new. following the introduction of a proposal legalizing woman suffrage in the Massachusetts state legislature. In response, two hundred women countered this petition “with a ‘remonstrance’” in which they pleaded with their elected officials to reject forcing onto the female citizenry the ballot.4 Marshall states that in 1871, the first instance of women’s antisuffrage mobilization occurred when “nineteen women published a petition to the U.S. Congress remonstrating against votes for women in the editorial pages of the popular Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine.”5 It formal beginning could be traced to the 1880s where the movement started building its institutions.6 The movement initially began as general public disapproval of arguments made by suffragists through mediums such as the press or the pulpit. It gained momentum throughout the 1890s during the period of state amendment campaigns regarding women suffrage, culminating in the peak of its power and influence between 1895 and 1907.78 By 1911, the movement existed largely through diffuse state associations before merging together to form the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) in New York City which was active from 1912-1918. NAOWS continued to grow, coordinating the activities of twenty-five state associations by 1916. scholarship.claremont.eduThat's not to say there aren't some legitimate critiques in your post or from the people your taking issue with, just that white women literally petitioning against their own rights is a thing. Didn't Ann Coulter say women shouldn't have the right to vote? Admittedly I'm never quite sure how seriously to take Ann as a lot of what she says strikes me as grandstanding. And obviously there's plenty of women that would love to see abortion blanket banned, who don't seem to understand how critical abortion rights are to women's rights as a whole. Feminism gets a bad rap these days, mostly because it's fractured and so its extremely easy to sift it out into whatever elements you find most objectionable. I find it very sad, personally, seeing such a force for positive change and improvement start eating itself like it has. But it was definitely going to happen once the LGBT movement switched to 'LGB+literally anyone who wants to join'. Lots of different groups is inevitably going to lead to clashes, and unsurprisingly there's a lot of feminists with issues about transgender folk. Also, modern feminism is as tainted by racism as the old. Black feminists frequently give their white colleagues shit for not highlighting variances in the issues facing black women and trying to treat them as 'white, but different'; claiming right to their support, but not actually helping black women with their problems. Might not be aggressive racism, but... well, I think GH has made his opinions on passive racism pretty clear. It might not be aggressively nasty but it sure doesn't help. A side note from the main discussion, I know. I'll be off again. Yeah, but you have to consider why feminism is so highly fractured. It's not just the expansion of the umbrella to encompass intersectionality and LGBTQ interests. Feminism won its major battles. The legal landscape was leveled. Women can be and do pretty much whatever they want. What's being pushed now are agenda born of radical deconstructions of society. Take the #metoo movement, as an example. To the post-modern, avant garde feminist, we not only need to listen and give serious credence to rape accusations, but we also have to presume that the guy did it. As I have discussed ad nauseum in this thread, this turns upside down many important and valued norms in society. Women are naturally going to tend to push back on this.
I more or less agree, but I think you don't give enough weight to the strains caused by that expansion.
The basic problem was the inclusion of transgender people in particular. Now, I am a full supporter of transgender rights, so it's not the inclusion in and of itself that I see as a 'problem'.
The problem is that when they came under the banner, they've been treated as part of the in-crowd, and that includes the idea that society should simply accept them the way they do the LGB parts (to varying degrees admittedly, but by and large we can certainly agree that things are at this point at least 'okay' for gay people and people of other orientations than straight).
However, that doesn't work because transgender people raise very different issues, and are asking very different things from society. The journey for transgender rights is not the same journey that feminists and gay rights activists have gone on. I'd put a decent wager that many people still don't really know or understand what a transgender person even is, let alone why it suddenly seems like such a big deal.
And a microcosm of that is the fight between TERFs and other feminists, because one element of transgender rights is what it means for more traditional views of gender, which older school feminists are deeply invested in. You can't flick a switch and say 'okay you're accepted now', there needs to be a cultural process there. Otherwise there's just pushback.
To me I think adding the T to LGB has actually slowed down the cause significantly, because a lot of people on the left don't see a need to talk about them. Because they're LGBT, right? We solved that, sort of.
But yes, it doesn't help that feminism won its most important battles (in the West, at least). That doesn't make the movement directionless, but it means that there's less to get truly incendiary about, leading to a lot of feminists trumping things up a bit, to very little effect.
The #MeToo movement, on the other hand, is an entirely justified movement and one of the things that proves feminism is still very relevant and there are still fights to be had. Has it gone too far? Well, that's a different question and one I'm not really equipped to answer. A lot of people who were getting away with it stopped getting away with it as a consequence, and that's a good thing.
|
Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications?
We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”.
When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it.
|
On October 09 2018 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications? Show nested quote +We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”. When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it.
Then you're extremely easily persuaded and are looking for stuff that informs your pre-existing bias against it. Stupid shit gets published in journals all the time. I seem to recall a MASSIVE flap about this exact issue in science journals in the main politics thread (I think) a few months ago.
To quote from the reddit comments: "There is one problem that I see in this. Being able to publish bullshit papers isn't just a thing in intersectional feminism. People have gotten absolute bogus papers posted in science and nature. That's what I dislike about the experiment of these people. The only aim was to cast shade over intersectional feminists and their work, by lying alot (that's literally what they had to do). The aim was not to call out journals or publishers for not doing background checks or effective and thorough peer-reviewing processes. The aim was to delegitimize the valuable research that is being done by intersectional feminists. Let me ask you this: do you think they would have found a different result if they had taken, for instance, history or psychology as a field of research?"
I'd say almost 100% you could get the exact same results if you tried it on almost any field. So it's telling that you consider this damning evidence against feminism specifically instead of what it is, which is more of a damning point against the somewhat circle-jerky nature of academic journal writing.
I did notice the cheeky line they sneak in there: "We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively."
That isn't controversial. It's pretty obvious. If you disagree, since I think we're both white, by all means talk to GH about how white people can tell him about his experience of being black.
A counterpoint, for your consideration: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html
|
On October 09 2018 04:08 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications? We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”. When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it. Then you're extremely easily persuaded and are looking for stuff that informs your pre-existing bias against it. Stupid shit gets published in journals all the time. I seem to recall a MASSIVE flap about this exact issue in science journals in the main politics thread (I think) a few months ago. To quote from the reddit comments: "There is one problem that I see in this. Being able to publish bullshit papers isn't just a thing in intersectional feminism. People have gotten absolute bogus papers posted in science and nature. That's what I dislike about the experiment of these people. The only aim was to cast shade over intersectional feminists and their work, by lying alot (that's literally what they had to do). The aim was not to call out journals or publishers for not doing background checks or effective and thorough peer-reviewing processes. The aim was to delegitimize the valuable research that is being done by intersectional feminists. Let me ask you this: do you think they would have found a different result if they had taken, for instance, history or psychology as a field of research?"I'd say almost 100% you could get the exact same results if you tried it on almost any field. So it's telling that you consider this damning evidence against feminism specifically instead of what it is, which is more of a damning point against the somewhat circle-jerky nature of academic journal writing. A counterpoint, for your consideration: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html
Actually no, I don't think that the results would be different if you tried it in another field. Modern academia is overflowing with leftist nonsense. I am under no delusion that the problem is limited to feminism. However, I do find these particular hoax papers that were published to be particularly hilarious and egregious.
|
On October 09 2018 04:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:08 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications? We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”. When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it. Then you're extremely easily persuaded and are looking for stuff that informs your pre-existing bias against it. Stupid shit gets published in journals all the time. I seem to recall a MASSIVE flap about this exact issue in science journals in the main politics thread (I think) a few months ago. To quote from the reddit comments: "There is one problem that I see in this. Being able to publish bullshit papers isn't just a thing in intersectional feminism. People have gotten absolute bogus papers posted in science and nature. That's what I dislike about the experiment of these people. The only aim was to cast shade over intersectional feminists and their work, by lying alot (that's literally what they had to do). The aim was not to call out journals or publishers for not doing background checks or effective and thorough peer-reviewing processes. The aim was to delegitimize the valuable research that is being done by intersectional feminists. Let me ask you this: do you think they would have found a different result if they had taken, for instance, history or psychology as a field of research?"I'd say almost 100% you could get the exact same results if you tried it on almost any field. So it's telling that you consider this damning evidence against feminism specifically instead of what it is, which is more of a damning point against the somewhat circle-jerky nature of academic journal writing. A counterpoint, for your consideration: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html Actually no, I don't think that the results would be different if you tried it in another field. Modern academia is overflowing with leftist nonsense. I am under no delusion that the problem is limited to feminism. However, I do find these particular hoax papers that were published to be particularly hilarious and egregious.
Edit that to say 'nonsense' and we're fine.
Or do I need to resurrect the ghost of the Discovery Institute, and the entire field of Creationist study?
|
On October 09 2018 04:46 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 04:08 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications? We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”. When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it. Then you're extremely easily persuaded and are looking for stuff that informs your pre-existing bias against it. Stupid shit gets published in journals all the time. I seem to recall a MASSIVE flap about this exact issue in science journals in the main politics thread (I think) a few months ago. To quote from the reddit comments: "There is one problem that I see in this. Being able to publish bullshit papers isn't just a thing in intersectional feminism. People have gotten absolute bogus papers posted in science and nature. That's what I dislike about the experiment of these people. The only aim was to cast shade over intersectional feminists and their work, by lying alot (that's literally what they had to do). The aim was not to call out journals or publishers for not doing background checks or effective and thorough peer-reviewing processes. The aim was to delegitimize the valuable research that is being done by intersectional feminists. Let me ask you this: do you think they would have found a different result if they had taken, for instance, history or psychology as a field of research?"I'd say almost 100% you could get the exact same results if you tried it on almost any field. So it's telling that you consider this damning evidence against feminism specifically instead of what it is, which is more of a damning point against the somewhat circle-jerky nature of academic journal writing. A counterpoint, for your consideration: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html Actually no, I don't think that the results would be different if you tried it in another field. Modern academia is overflowing with leftist nonsense. I am under no delusion that the problem is limited to feminism. However, I do find these particular hoax papers that were published to be particularly hilarious and egregious. Edit that to say 'nonsense' and we're fine. Or do I need to resurrect the ghost of the Discovery Institute, and the entire field of Creationist study?
Yeah, yeah, I thought about editing out leftist, because there are certainly some non-political reasons for the problems in academia. But the facts remain that virtually all of academia is leftist (90%+ if I remember correctly?) and that there's a resulting strong pressure on pushing out leftist propaganda under the guise of academic research.
|
It’s intriguing that iamthedave is not fighting at “modern academia is overflowing with nonsense,” but rather that it isn’t associated with leftism among campus professors or caused by leftist attitudes. That’s a mark of progress if I’ve ever seen it. Bipartisan rejection of modern humanities departments would be a boon.
|
On October 09 2018 04:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:46 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 04:08 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications? We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”. When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it. Then you're extremely easily persuaded and are looking for stuff that informs your pre-existing bias against it. Stupid shit gets published in journals all the time. I seem to recall a MASSIVE flap about this exact issue in science journals in the main politics thread (I think) a few months ago. To quote from the reddit comments: "There is one problem that I see in this. Being able to publish bullshit papers isn't just a thing in intersectional feminism. People have gotten absolute bogus papers posted in science and nature. That's what I dislike about the experiment of these people. The only aim was to cast shade over intersectional feminists and their work, by lying alot (that's literally what they had to do). The aim was not to call out journals or publishers for not doing background checks or effective and thorough peer-reviewing processes. The aim was to delegitimize the valuable research that is being done by intersectional feminists. Let me ask you this: do you think they would have found a different result if they had taken, for instance, history or psychology as a field of research?"I'd say almost 100% you could get the exact same results if you tried it on almost any field. So it's telling that you consider this damning evidence against feminism specifically instead of what it is, which is more of a damning point against the somewhat circle-jerky nature of academic journal writing. A counterpoint, for your consideration: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html Actually no, I don't think that the results would be different if you tried it in another field. Modern academia is overflowing with leftist nonsense. I am under no delusion that the problem is limited to feminism. However, I do find these particular hoax papers that were published to be particularly hilarious and egregious. Edit that to say 'nonsense' and we're fine. Or do I need to resurrect the ghost of the Discovery Institute, and the entire field of Creationist study? Yeah, yeah, I thought about editing out leftist, because there are certainly some non-political reasons for the problems in academia. But the facts remain that virtually all of academia is leftist (90%+ if I remember correctly?) and that there's a resulting strong pressure on pushing out leftist propaganda under the guise of academic research.
The academia is mostly composed of socialists and liberals everywhere, it's not a US thing, and therefore not cultural marxism or whatever. I tend to believe it's caused by some lacking fundations behind a lot of the far right's intellectual position.
|
On October 09 2018 05:20 Danglars wrote:
It’s intriguing that iamthedave is not fighting at “modern academia is overflowing with nonsense,” but rather that it isn’t associated with leftism among campus professors or caused by leftist attitudes. That’s a mark of progress if I’ve ever seen it. Bipartisan rejection of modern humanities departments would be a boon.
I'd say I almost certainly don't mean what you think I mean.
|
So back to Igne's question about whether we can trust big tech to be up front with the public regarding security breaches:
Google exposed the private data of hundreds of thousands of users of the Google+ social network and then opted not to disclose the issue this past spring, in part because of fears that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause reputational damage, according to people briefed on the incident and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
As part of its response to the incident, the Alphabet Inc. GOOGL -1.02% unit on Monday announced a sweeping set of data privacy measures that include permanently shutting down all consumer functionality of Google+. The move effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of a product that was launched in 2011 to challenge Facebook Inc. FB -0.05% and is widely seen as one of Google’s biggest failures.
A software glitch in the social site gave outside developers potential access to private Google+ profile data between 2015 and March 2018, when internal investigators discovered and fixed the issue, according to the documents and people briefed on the incident. A memo reviewed by the Journal prepared by Google’s legal and policy staff and shared with senior executives warned that disclosing the incident would likely trigger “immediate regulatory interest” and invite comparisons to Facebook’s leak of user information to data firm Cambridge Analytica.
Chief Executive Sundar Pichai was briefed on the plan not to notify users after an internal committee had reached that decision, the people said.
The closure of Google+ is part of a broader review of privacy practices by Google that has determined the company needs tighter controls on several major products, the people said. In its announcement Monday, the company said it is curtailing the access it gives outside developers to user data on Android smartphones and Gmail.
Read the rest here.
When I talk with my more conservative friends about regulatory issues and they inevitably argue that the government shouldn't regulate business at all, stories like these are inevitably what come to my mind. While I get that the free market may eventually weed these bad actors out as people take their money/resources/time elsewhere, I'm not on board with letting a bunch of preventable harm occur first.
|
On October 09 2018 04:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:46 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 04:08 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Well, let me phrase it a different way. The expansion of the feminist umbrella is a symptom of a core intellectual rot that manifests itself in the serial deconstruction of existing institutions and values. Did you hear about the people who successfully submitted hoax articles to major feminist publications? We just spent a year writing and publishing calculatedly terrible papers in academic journals that look at aspects of identity – gender studies, fat studies, feminist geography, masculinity studies, sex and sexuality studies, feminist philosophy, feminist epistemology. This is not some obscure academic squabble. This is about something that affects us all. This is about culture.
Nearly all of us see symptoms of the problem. We see an increasing disregard for evidence and objectivity in favour of emotionally resonant narratives. We are becoming accustomed to the idea that people with different identities (eg female, homosexual, black) have different knowledges and experiences that only they can speak to authoritatively. We see an authoritarian focus on language as being dangerous and in need of careful regulation as something that inflicts harm and violence. We see the proliferation of terms like “toxic masculinity”, “white fragility”, and “microaggressions”, and we know we must avoid being tarred with those brushes.
Few people know the genesis of these ideas. They came from academic papers. They came from articles very much like ours.
Of 20 papers we submitted, seven were accepted, six we deemed unworkable and a further seven were in various stages of the submission process when the project was discovered.
Our papers claim that dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and that by observing the reactions of dog-owners to “unwanted humping” among dogs, we can determine that a human rape culture is deeply ingrained in men who could benefit from being trained like dogs. They investigate why heterosexual men enjoy the company of attractive and scantily-clad female servers in a restaurant and conclude it’s so they can live out fantasies of patriarchal domination. They ponder why heterosexual men rarely self-penetrate their anuses with sex-toys and advocate doing so in order to become less transphobic and more feminist.
Do you see a pattern? Although the papers we wrote scanned many subdisciplines of identity-based studies, by far the greatest uptake was of the ones which argued (on purely theoretical, subjective, and unfalsifiable grounds) that heterosexual masculinity is toxic, abusive, and thoroughly problematic. This perfectly comports with the rhetoric coming from feminist journals as aptly demonstrated by Suzanna Danuta Walters, editor-in-chief of the storied feminist journal Signs, when she asked the world in the Washington Post, why can’t we hate men?
In addition to the problematic nature of men’s attraction to women, we also published a rambling poetic exploration of feminist spirituality generated largely from a teenage angst generator which we hypothesised would be acceptable as an alternative, female “way of knowing”. That paper was purely silliness, and the journal a minor one. We took our experimentation with the idea that we could make anything at all fit some kind of popular “theory” to the limits when we successfully published a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. We denied objective knowledge about morbid obesity too: we argued this serious health problem represents a body just as legitimately built as a finely honed muscular one. We see the impact of this dangerous narrative in activism to prevent the provision of health advice around body-weight.
This is not scholarship. In simplest terms, this is the explicit replacement of rigorous evidence-based research and reasoned argument with appeals to lived experience and a neurotic focus on the power of language to create social reality. This originated with post-modernists like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, and was made explicitly political by a new generation of scholars who applied it in the fields we’ve called “grievance studies”. In our flagship paper (rather cheekily named “When The Joke Is On You”), we took this attitude as far as it would go and (ironically) applied it to ourselves and our own project. Our argument: all satire of “Social Justice” scholarship is illegitimate and merely an attempt to selfishly preserve privilege. The reviewers of Hypatia informed us that this constituted “an excellent addition to feminist philosophy”. When I look at something like this, the issue isn't whether the feminist movement is deranged. The issue how deranged is it. Then you're extremely easily persuaded and are looking for stuff that informs your pre-existing bias against it. Stupid shit gets published in journals all the time. I seem to recall a MASSIVE flap about this exact issue in science journals in the main politics thread (I think) a few months ago. To quote from the reddit comments: "There is one problem that I see in this. Being able to publish bullshit papers isn't just a thing in intersectional feminism. People have gotten absolute bogus papers posted in science and nature. That's what I dislike about the experiment of these people. The only aim was to cast shade over intersectional feminists and their work, by lying alot (that's literally what they had to do). The aim was not to call out journals or publishers for not doing background checks or effective and thorough peer-reviewing processes. The aim was to delegitimize the valuable research that is being done by intersectional feminists. Let me ask you this: do you think they would have found a different result if they had taken, for instance, history or psychology as a field of research?"I'd say almost 100% you could get the exact same results if you tried it on almost any field. So it's telling that you consider this damning evidence against feminism specifically instead of what it is, which is more of a damning point against the somewhat circle-jerky nature of academic journal writing. A counterpoint, for your consideration: https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html Actually no, I don't think that the results would be different if you tried it in another field. Modern academia is overflowing with leftist nonsense. I am under no delusion that the problem is limited to feminism. However, I do find these particular hoax papers that were published to be particularly hilarious and egregious. Edit that to say 'nonsense' and we're fine. Or do I need to resurrect the ghost of the Discovery Institute, and the entire field of Creationist study? Yeah, yeah, I thought about editing out leftist, because there are certainly some non-political reasons for the problems in academia. But the facts remain that virtually all of academia is leftist (90%+ if I remember correctly?) and that there's a resulting strong pressure on pushing out leftist propaganda under the guise of academic research.
I mean you've heard of phrenology right? It's not like it was better when the conservatives controlled academia?
While I get that the free market may eventually weed these bad actors out as people take their money/resources/time elsewhere, I'm not on board with letting a bunch of preventable harm occur first.
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt)
|
On October 09 2018 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt)
I am a civil litigator, so I am acutely familiar with the harm that people suffer when someone does something wrong. Though I am in general not in favor of regulation, I do believe that there can be good regulations -- namely those in which the cost of compliance is less than the expected cost of the harm that the regulation is designed to prevent.
|
On October 09 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt) I am a civil litigator, so I am acutely familiar with the harm that people suffer when someone does something wrong. Though I am in general not in favor of regulation, I do believe that there can be good regulations -- namely those in which the cost of compliance is less than the expected cost of the harm that the regulation is designed to prevent.
How do you calculate the "cost of the harm" in your mind? Are we talking strictly monetary/from the businesses POV (like Ford's Pinto calculation), or something else?
(For those unfamiliar)
Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change.
In this case you would have been against a regulation that forced Ford to put in the fuel system that significantly reduced how many people would be burned alive without warning due to the cost of getting people killed being less than the regulation for Ford.
Taken into account if society made it more expensive for Ford to let people die to make more money the calculation would be the opposite.
|
On October 09 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt) I am a civil litigator, so I am acutely familiar with the harm that people suffer when someone does something wrong. Though I am in general not in favor of regulation, I do believe that there can be good regulations -- namely those in which the cost of compliance is less than the expected cost of the harm that the regulation is designed to prevent. How do you calculate the "cost of the harm" in your mind? Are we talking strictly monetary/from the businesses POV (like Ford's Pinto calculation), or something else?
Yes, monetary, with the understanding that every kind of harm can be (and is, legally) reduced to dollars and cents.
|
On October 09 2018 07:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 09 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt) I am a civil litigator, so I am acutely familiar with the harm that people suffer when someone does something wrong. Though I am in general not in favor of regulation, I do believe that there can be good regulations -- namely those in which the cost of compliance is less than the expected cost of the harm that the regulation is designed to prevent. How do you calculate the "cost of the harm" in your mind? Are we talking strictly monetary/from the businesses POV (like Ford's Pinto calculation), or something else? Yes, monetary, with the understanding that every kind of harm can be (and is, legally) reduced to dollars and cents.
In this case you would have been against a regulation that forced Ford to put in the fuel system that significantly reduced how many people would be burned alive without warning due to the cost of getting people killed being less than the regulation for Ford.
If society made it more expensive for Ford to let people die to make more money the calculation would be the opposite, would you oppose that too?
|
On October 09 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 07:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 09 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt) I am a civil litigator, so I am acutely familiar with the harm that people suffer when someone does something wrong. Though I am in general not in favor of regulation, I do believe that there can be good regulations -- namely those in which the cost of compliance is less than the expected cost of the harm that the regulation is designed to prevent. How do you calculate the "cost of the harm" in your mind? Are we talking strictly monetary/from the businesses POV (like Ford's Pinto calculation), or something else? Yes, monetary, with the understanding that every kind of harm can be (and is, legally) reduced to dollars and cents. In this case you would have been against a regulation that forced Ford to put in the fuel system that significantly reduced how many people would be burned alive without warning due to the cost of getting people killed being less than the regulation for Ford. If society made it more expensive for Ford to let people die to make more money the calculation would be the opposite, would you oppose that too?
Yes, I would have put in a regulation in this case rather than strictly rely upon the tort system. I haven't looked specifically at Ford's analysis, but my presumption is that it undervalues the harm being done and fails to account for the east in passing off the cost onto consumers. There's not a particularly compelling reason to leave the defect in.
|
On October 09 2018 09:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 09 2018 07:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 09 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2018 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did you finally hear that argument enough to agree or is this part of your vendetta against tech and this idea begins and ends there for you? (xDaunt) I am a civil litigator, so I am acutely familiar with the harm that people suffer when someone does something wrong. Though I am in general not in favor of regulation, I do believe that there can be good regulations -- namely those in which the cost of compliance is less than the expected cost of the harm that the regulation is designed to prevent. How do you calculate the "cost of the harm" in your mind? Are we talking strictly monetary/from the businesses POV (like Ford's Pinto calculation), or something else? Yes, monetary, with the understanding that every kind of harm can be (and is, legally) reduced to dollars and cents. In this case you would have been against a regulation that forced Ford to put in the fuel system that significantly reduced how many people would be burned alive without warning due to the cost of getting people killed being less than the regulation for Ford. If society made it more expensive for Ford to let people die to make more money the calculation would be the opposite, would you oppose that too? Yes, I would have put in a regulation in this case rather than strictly rely upon the tort system. I haven't looked specifically at Ford's analysis, but my presumption is that it undervalues the harm being done and fails to account for the east in passing off the cost onto consumers. There's not a particularly compelling reason to leave the defect in.
Interesting...
it undervalues the harm being done and fails to account for the ease in passing off the cost onto consumers. There's not a particularly compelling reason to leave the defect in
I wonder if there's not more common ground that can be found with that premise in mind regarding regulation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
