Why not just replace coal plants with nat gas? Its cheaper and cleaner (though not perfectly clean ofc).
If my SimCity experience has taught me anything, natural gas burning is a much lower energy output process. Otherwise, storage and transportation is a lot more hazardous and costly.
Natural gas is great for home heating systems (furnaces, boilers). Outside of that, it's not great.
Disagree:
The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years. The turnaround has been welcomed by many, and Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, ascribes much of the credit to a shift away from dirty coal towards cleaner gas, according to an article in the Financial Times.
The importance of coal in America's energy mix has indeed tumbled since 1997, from almost half of electricity generation to just 36.7% in February, according to America's Energy Information Administration (see chart). This has come about mostly because of an increase in the use of natural gas (from 21.6% to 29.4% over the same period) rather than renewable energy (from 8.3% to 12.1%).
As long as there's no fracking in my neighborhood and flammable tap water, nat gas is pretty decent. You can definately tell the difference just looking at how much cleaner the busses are that use nat gas when our public transportation system switched over.
The flaming water in Gasland was propaganda. In the film's signature moment Mike Markham, a landowner, ignites his tap water. The film leaves the viewer with the false impression that the flaming tap water is a result of natural gas drilling. However, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham's water in 2008, there were "no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." Instead the investigation found that the methane was "biogenic" in nature, meaning it was naturally occurring and that his water well was drilled into a natural gas pocket.
This is one of several examples where the film veers from the facts. A second depiction of a flaming faucet in the home of Renee McClure also misleads viewers about the connection between natural gas development and methane in water wells. McClure's well was sampled by the state of Colorado and it, too, showed only naturally occurring methane.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
Sunprince has no need or reason to argue that this is wrong. His point was that there was not a wage gap to be addressed. Breaking down social conditioning is another issue altogether.
now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
btw, if you think this
On September 07 2012 14:21 sunprince wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
You were the one who provided interpretations of feminist viewpoints. Sunprince just pointed out that there is strong evidence against the statement that you attributed to feminism.
uh no the wage gap does exist but is explained away as a matter of 'choice' if you render it as choice. feminists would obviously not take this move and will use the familiar route taken as i have stated..
econometrics isn't all there is here. causal factors can become results and all it takes is a wider causal scope.
On September 07 2012 15:03 dvorakftw wrote: sevencck If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans.
Context. I was responding to someone who was essentially making the claim that some republicans are ignorant and stupid, I didn't actually pull that one out of the ether completely on my own (though I don't deny often thinking that).
And by the way Obama did not insult us. I have that issue of Maclean's magazine you're talking about. Macleans can be a bit of a right-wing rag sometimes. Harper wants to push through his stupid pipeline amidst protest because all he values is the bottom line, and Obama decided to respect the protests that were going on in America. How is that an insult to Canada? I wish Harper was more like Obama.
On September 07 2012 14:47 Zaqwert wrote: People really shouldn't give so much thought to social issues. Things like abortion, gay marriage, they are just wedge issues used to inflame passions and pit groups against each other.
Those things pale in comparison of importance and impact to monetary policy IMO.
If we fall into another great depression do you think the 25% of people unemployed would give a rat's ass about any of that?
Until the right wing drops the social conservative bullshit, I will never ever consider voting for them(barring the other option actually standing for some crazy policy that I believe would ruin our country). Once everyone's on equal playing grounds, the LGBTQ community, women, and other minorities and the second option has legitimate monetary policies instead of "tax cuts for the rich, no taxes whatsoever, ever, even if taxes are extremely low right now," I will consider voting for another party.
Just watch Bill Clinton's speech he's an actual politician and can explain things better than I can. + Show Spoiler +
Things like animal rights that are extremely important to me are not fought for enough in the Democratic party imo, but at least they support some regulation(not nearly enough) in those areas compared to Republican's complete deregulation.
Just scan the threads and pages of this "liberal" site. This site has a mostly liberal base, and yet sly remarks against Women being inferior to Men are tolerated and laughed at, and there is still discrimination against LGBTQ members, what's up with the transgender comment on this very page.(imagine if there were more social conservatives on this site how it would look).. Our society handles gender/sex in a very weird way, and while I don't blame the government for the way we treat boys and girls from birth to death, some of the policies in our country reflect our collective negative view. I mean, I have my fingernails and toenails painted right now(I'm a cismale), and I'm sure many on this site would consider that feminine or gay, but I really doubt they could give me a reasonable explanation for why it's that way.
My girlfriend was walking down the street with her friend the other day holding hands. We live in Portland, Oregon, a pretty damn liberal city, and home to many LGBTQ people. Yet, they were still cat called and stuff just walking down the street. When they kissed outside the car, some kids skated by and stopped too jeer at them, and say thanks for the show? Can you tell me how that's respectful? Why can me and her walk down the street without any of that bullshit, but when she is walking with a girl she is discriminated against.
Is this the government's fault? No, but the government can help with tolerance.
Basically, once everyone is equal, and is treated equally, we can talk. Don't say that their rights should be put on the side, cause then how long will they wait to be able to enjoy the same luxuries in life me and you do?
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
So according to you, feminists believe that women are children who are incapable of making decisions like adult human beings. Who are the misogynists now? "Feminists" are wrong in taking this view because women are rational adults who possess agency and free will. I suggest you watch the following video and re-examine why you treat women as objects:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments.
so far you have not assured me at all. your quotes are from news articles and not journals.
and of course, a youtube video. i am not a fanatic about this stuff. feminism is very fractured with many silly strands etc etc. all is well, but the simple matter at hand is that this argument turns on the singular interpretation of women's actions, whether they be choices, or these choices are products of social conditions etc etc.. the issue is different frames of view and the least you could say is that you have not fairly addressed the feminist view point or represented it. it is a wider scope and has more information, and that alone means it has to be looked at.
i am not a 'hardline' feminist and it's not my issue at all. my issue is the different frames operating in agency theory vs other types of social theory.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
So according to you, feminists believe that women are children who are incapable of making decisions like adult human beings. Who are the misogynists now? "Feminists" are wrong in taking this view because women are rational adults who possess agency and free will. I suggest you watch the following video and re-examine why you treat women as objects:
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
In other words, you're a fanatic and no amount of evidence can persuade you.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:21 sunprince wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments.
so far you have not assured me at all. your quotes are from news articles and not journals.
If you actually read them, you'd find the relevant primary sources, and you would have noticed that my links also include some studies, a thorough academic book on the topic, and a Department of Labor study.
On September 07 2012 15:18 oneofthem wrote: and of course, a youtube video.
Yep. Clearly, you can't be bothered to actually read any of the dozens of links I've posted, so I gave you something a little less intellectually and chronologically demanding. Try watching her video, you might learn something.
On September 07 2012 15:18 oneofthem wrote: i am not a fanatic about this stuff. feminism is very fractured with many silly strands etc etc. all is well, but the simple matter at hand is that this argument turns on the singular interpretation of women's actions, whether they be choices, or these choices are products of social conditions etc etc.. the issue is different frames of view and the least you could say is that you have not fairly addressed the feminist view point or represented it. it is a wider scope and has more information, and that alone means it has to be looked at.
i am not a 'hardline' feminist and it's not my issue at all. my issue is the different frames operating in agency theory vs other types of social theory.
Basically, your argument boils down to the idea that women lack free will and are not responsible for their actions. I strongly disagree with this, because I respect women as adult human beings with agency.
Your argument that women are brainwashed into their choice of education and career is incredibly sexist and demeaning to women, and I utterly reject it. If you don't agree that women have free will, then we're not even discussing issues on the same plane of reality.
On September 07 2012 12:43 Doodsmack wrote: What's funny is how everyone thinks presidents (or even the government for that matter) control and dictate the economy. News flash - no president can control the econony, it's just the unintelligence of the American voting public that keeps the whole debate alive. ... To think human beings buy into that misinformation just makes the mind boggle at how unintelligent the majority of humans are.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
So according to you, feminists believe that women are children who are incapable of making decisions like adult human beings. Who are the misogynists now? "Feminists" are wrong in taking this view because women are rational adults who possess agency and free will. I suggest you watch the following video and re-examine why you treat women as objects:
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
In other words, you're a fanatic and no amount of evidence can persuade you.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:21 sunprince wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments.
so far you have not assured me at all. your quotes are from news articles and not journals.
That's not really being fair. He's thoroughly backed up his claims, have you? News articles also routinely reference primary research, otherwise they wouldn't really be news.
i have not made that argument at all. the issue is not whether they are genuinely agency choices, but whether those choices are the products of social factors.
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
So according to you, feminists believe that women are children who are incapable of making decisions like adult human beings. Who are the misogynists now? "Feminists" are wrong in taking this view because women are rational adults who possess agency and free will. I suggest you watch the following video and re-examine why you treat women as objects:
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
In other words, you're a fanatic and no amount of evidence can persuade you.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:21 sunprince wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments.
so far you have not assured me at all. your quotes are from news articles and not journals.
That's not really being fair. He's thoroughly backed up his claims, have you? News articles also routinely reference primary research, otherwise they wouldn't really be news.
you may consider that as backup but i don't think they amount to much. the reasons for the other side is not being fairly explored.
you don't seem to understand the issue though so it's okay.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external.
If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
Until the right wing drops the social conservative bullshit, I will never ever consider voting for them(barring the other option actually standing for some crazy policy that I believe would ruin our country). Once everyone's on equal playing grounds, the LGBTQ community, women, and other minorities and the second option has legitimate monetary policies instead of "tax cuts for the rich, no taxes whatsoever, ever, even if taxes are extremely low right now," I will consider voting for another party.
Just watch Bill Clinton's speech he's an actual politician and can explain things better than I can.
Things like animal rights that are extremely important to me are not fought for enough in the Democratic party imo, but at least they support some regulation(not nearly enough) in those areas compared to Republican's complete deregulation.
Just scan the threads and pages of this "liberal" site. This site has a mostly liberal base, and yet sly remarks against Women being inferior to Men are tolerated and laughed at, and there is still discrimination against LGBTQ members, what's up with the transgender comment on this very page.(imagine if there were more social conservatives on this site how it would look).. Our society handles gender/sex in a very weird way, and while I don't blame the government for the way we treat boys and girls from birth to death, some of the policies in our country reflect our collective negative view. I mean, I have my fingernails and toenails painted right now(I'm a cismale), and I'm sure many on this site would consider that feminine or gay, but I really doubt they could give me a reasonable explanation for why it's that way.
My girlfriend was walking down the street with her friend the other day holding hands. We live in Portland, Oregon, a pretty damn liberal city, and home to many LGBTQ people. Yet, they were still cat called and stuff just walking down the street. When they kissed outside the car, some kids skated by and stopped too jeer at them, and say thanks for the show? Can you tell me how that's respectful? Why can me and her walk down the street without any of that bullshit, but when she is walking with a girl she is discriminated against.
Is this the government's fault? No, but the government can help with tolerance.
Basically, once everyone is equal, and is treated equally, we can talk. Don't say that their rights should be put on the side, cause then how long will they wait to be able to enjoy the same luxuries in life me and you do?
I don't want this to sound mean, but the world does not owe you or anyone else tolerance or acceptance.
The government cannot and should not stop some kid from making snide remarks about your lifestyle.
The government should by in large leave people alone, you should be free to live your life how you choose and that means being gay so be it.
But it's not the government's place to say being gay is fine and force everyone at the point of a gun to accept it, just like it's not their place to say it's wrong and force everyone at the point of a gun to denounce it.
Most people claim they want the government not to mandate morality, but that's not really true, they just want them to mandate the morality THEY want (animal rights, gay rights, etc.)
It's not the government's job to mandate ANY sort of morality imo.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason.
a good feminist will never find a causal chain too long to turn your conclusion moot. the data is there, but the interpretation is the issue.
as an example, you may say wage diff is explained by choice of working time. since it is a choice, it is not a structurla problem. feminists will say the choice is actually the result of the system.
if you want to dig into this agency vs mechanism issue a bit more you shoudl read some philosophy of mind maybe. but wait a few years for my papers on the topic lol.
If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
now you have some real talk. this is the crux of the issue is it not?
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external.
If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
Sunprince I think your ignoring the fact that some grow up in a community/house where they simply don't know they have other options/choices other than to be a traditional female. Maybe they make that choice because for their entire lives their father and teachers told them they could not do things simply because of their gender. This is not to say that all house wives are house wives cause they don't realize they can't make a career for themselves, if that's what someone wants to do, so be it.
Maybe they didn't realize they wanted to make those educational and career choices for themselves until it was too late.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason.
a good feminist will never find a causal chain too long to turn your conclusion moot. the data is there, but the interpretation is the issue.
as an example, you may say wage diff is explained by choice of working time. since it is a choice, it is not a structurla problem. feminists will say the choice is actually the result of the system.
if you want to dig into this agency vs mechanism issue a bit more you shoudl read some philosophy of mind maybe. but wait a few years for my papers on the topic lol.
If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
now you have some real talk. this is the crux of the issue is it not?
You're basically taking the definition of "choice" and turning it on its head.
Let me put it this way, if a man rapes a woman and then claims that rape culture and social conditioning made him do it (don't forget, feminists argue that this is the main cause of rape!), do you think feminists would support letting him go free? Since the answer is no, we'd hold him responsible, then why don't you think women should be held responsible for their own decisions too? Isn't it because you believe that women are children who don't really know what they're doing?
Until the right wing drops the social conservative bullshit, I will never ever consider voting for them(barring the other option actually standing for some crazy policy that I believe would ruin our country). Once everyone's on equal playing grounds, the LGBTQ community, women, and other minorities and the second option has legitimate monetary policies instead of "tax cuts for the rich, no taxes whatsoever, ever, even if taxes are extremely low right now," I will consider voting for another party.
Just watch Bill Clinton's speech he's an actual politician and can explain things better than I can.
Things like animal rights that are extremely important to me are not fought for enough in the Democratic party imo, but at least they support some regulation(not nearly enough) in those areas compared to Republican's complete deregulation.
Just scan the threads and pages of this "liberal" site. This site has a mostly liberal base, and yet sly remarks against Women being inferior to Men are tolerated and laughed at, and there is still discrimination against LGBTQ members, what's up with the transgender comment on this very page.(imagine if there were more social conservatives on this site how it would look).. Our society handles gender/sex in a very weird way, and while I don't blame the government for the way we treat boys and girls from birth to death, some of the policies in our country reflect our collective negative view. I mean, I have my fingernails and toenails painted right now(I'm a cismale), and I'm sure many on this site would consider that feminine or gay, but I really doubt they could give me a reasonable explanation for why it's that way.
My girlfriend was walking down the street with her friend the other day holding hands. We live in Portland, Oregon, a pretty damn liberal city, and home to many LGBTQ people. Yet, they were still cat called and stuff just walking down the street. When they kissed outside the car, some kids skated by and stopped too jeer at them, and say thanks for the show? Can you tell me how that's respectful? Why can me and her walk down the street without any of that bullshit, but when she is walking with a girl she is discriminated against.
Is this the government's fault? No, but the government can help with tolerance.
Basically, once everyone is equal, and is treated equally, we can talk. Don't say that their rights should be put on the side, cause then how long will they wait to be able to enjoy the same luxuries in life me and you do?
I don't want this to sound mean, but the world does not owe you or anyone else tolerance or acceptance.
The government cannot and should not stop some kid from making snide remarks about your lifestyle.
The government should by in large leave people alone, you should be free to live your life how you choose and that means being gay so be it.
But it's not the government's place to say being gay is fine and force everyone at the point of a gun to accept it, just like it's not their place to say it's wrong and force everyone at the point of a gun to denounce it.
Most people claim they want the government not to mandate morality, but that's not really true, they just want them to mandate the morality THEY want (animal rights, gay rights, etc.)
It's not the government's job to mandate ANY sort of morality imo.
what is the difference between saying the bolded, and saying
'i do not owe you or anyone else tolerance or acceptance."
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason.
a good feminist will never find a causal chain too long to turn your conclusion moot. the data is there, but the interpretation is the issue.
as an example, you may say wage diff is explained by choice of working time. since it is a choice, it is not a structurla problem. feminists will say the choice is actually the result of the system.
if you want to dig into this agency vs mechanism issue a bit more you shoudl read some philosophy of mind maybe. but wait a few years for my papers on the topic lol.
If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
now you have some real talk. this is the crux of the issue is it not?
Let me put it this way, if a man rapes a woman and then claims that rape culture and social conditioning made him do it (don't forget, feminists argue that this is the main cause of rape!), do you think feminists would support letting him go free? Since the answer is no, we'd hold him responsible, then why don't you think women should be held responsible for their own decisions too? Isn't it because you believe that women are children who don't really know what they're doing?
well yes, as i have said, there's a turning of the coin involved. on one side, there's agency and the grand structure of human drama. on the other, theories upon theories of mechanism. if the rape issue has two sides, why not the working hour choice one.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external.
If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
Sunprince I think your ignoring the fact that some grow up in a community/house where they simply don't know they have other options/choices other than to be a traditional female. Maybe they make that choice because for their entire lives their father and teachers told them they could not do things simply because of their gender. This is not to say that all house wives are house wives cause they don't realize they can't make a career for themselves, if that's what someone wants to do, so be it.
Maybe they didn't realize they wanted to make those educational and career choices for themselves until it was too late.
If this were actually true (as it is in certain third-world nations), you'd think there would be some sort of empirical evidence for it. Most people familiar with American culture can tell you that this is bullshit. If feminists want the govenrment to inteverene in order to counter some sort of social discrimination, then the burden of proof is on them bring the facts and numbers to back it up.
In reality, I've already provided links which show that women's choices are genuine.
On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote: i have not made that argument at all. the issue is not whether they are genuinely agency choices, but whether those choices are the products of social factors.
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external.
You don't expect.. you realize what you're discussing is rudimentary second year critical theory, and intuitive to anyone at a Green level of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics). Am I correct in assuming you're in the English department? Everyone faces social conditioning. This thread as it pertains to Democrats vs. Republicans could be viewed as deconstructing social conditioning. Here's an idea. It's sexist to assume: 1) Social conditioning negatively impacts women but not men, and 2) Women are more susceptible to social conditioning.. let me know if you wanna spend some time with #2, I'm game.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
So according to you, feminists believe that women are children who are incapable of making decisions like adult human beings. Who are the misogynists now? "Feminists" are wrong in taking this view because women are rational adults who possess agency and free will. I suggest you watch the following video and re-examine why you treat women as objects:
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
In other words, you're a fanatic and no amount of evidence can persuade you.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:21 sunprince wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments.
so far you have not assured me at all. your quotes are from news articles and not journals.
That's not really being fair. He's thoroughly backed up his claims, have you? News articles also routinely reference primary research, otherwise they wouldn't really be news.
you don't seem to understand the issue though so it's okay.
Until the right wing drops the social conservative bullshit, I will never ever consider voting for them(barring the other option actually standing for some crazy policy that I believe would ruin our country). Once everyone's on equal playing grounds, the LGBTQ community, women, and other minorities and the second option has legitimate monetary policies instead of "tax cuts for the rich, no taxes whatsoever, ever, even if taxes are extremely low right now," I will consider voting for another party.
Just watch Bill Clinton's speech he's an actual politician and can explain things better than I can.
Things like animal rights that are extremely important to me are not fought for enough in the Democratic party imo, but at least they support some regulation(not nearly enough) in those areas compared to Republican's complete deregulation.
Just scan the threads and pages of this "liberal" site. This site has a mostly liberal base, and yet sly remarks against Women being inferior to Men are tolerated and laughed at, and there is still discrimination against LGBTQ members, what's up with the transgender comment on this very page.(imagine if there were more social conservatives on this site how it would look).. Our society handles gender/sex in a very weird way, and while I don't blame the government for the way we treat boys and girls from birth to death, some of the policies in our country reflect our collective negative view. I mean, I have my fingernails and toenails painted right now(I'm a cismale), and I'm sure many on this site would consider that feminine or gay, but I really doubt they could give me a reasonable explanation for why it's that way.
My girlfriend was walking down the street with her friend the other day holding hands. We live in Portland, Oregon, a pretty damn liberal city, and home to many LGBTQ people. Yet, they were still cat called and stuff just walking down the street. When they kissed outside the car, some kids skated by and stopped too jeer at them, and say thanks for the show? Can you tell me how that's respectful? Why can me and her walk down the street without any of that bullshit, but when she is walking with a girl she is discriminated against.
Is this the government's fault? No, but the government can help with tolerance.
Basically, once everyone is equal, and is treated equally, we can talk. Don't say that their rights should be put on the side, cause then how long will they wait to be able to enjoy the same luxuries in life me and you do?
I don't want this to sound mean, but the world does not owe you or anyone else tolerance or acceptance.
The government cannot and should not stop some kid from making snide remarks about your lifestyle.
The government should by in large leave people alone, you should be free to live your life how you choose and that means being gay so be it.
But it's not the government's place to say being gay is fine and force everyone at the point of a gun to accept it, just like it's not their place to say it's wrong and force everyone at the point of a gun to denounce it.
Most people claim they want the government not to mandate morality, but that's not really true, they just want them to mandate the morality THEY want (animal rights, gay rights, etc.)
It's not the government's job to mandate ANY sort of morality imo.
I'm not saying the government should stop a kid from making remarks. I'm saying the government's policies should not reflect our intolerance and should not encourage intolerance. I think as a society, together, we need to grow the fuck up and start tolerating one another.
It's the governments place to make sure all of it's citizens are on an equal playing field and have equal opportunity in the laws and policies our country enact and currently they don't.
EPT
