Feminism discussion

[VantagePoint]

I'm not going to dignify this (and the rest of your post) with a response until you read backwards (ALL THE WAY BACKWARDS) and apologize for misrepresenting me. While I believe that a debate should show respect on both sides, it's clear that you don't respect the opinions of those who you talk to, and that's unacceptable.

...What?

I've done so, MULTIPLE TIMES. You asked me my opinion on feminism, I just said I don't believe it's an equality movement and that's about it. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with me "not respecting other people's opinions." My opinion on feminism is independant from anyone's stance here, you can be any kind of feminist and my post would stand on it's own as an argument against feminism being an equality movement. You seem to think I'm stereotyping all feminists when I've stated, time and time again, that I KNOW the radicals aren't the only ones that exist, but feminism in the end, mainly represents woman's rights, thus me saying feminism as a whole is not an equality movement.

I guess, you'll just have to leave it at that, because I'm not apologizing for something I don't even know I'm being accused of. You just started saying "look back and apologize to me", and I have no idea WHAT I'm looking back on.

(Typing this on a Wii U, going to link to sources sometimes refreshes the page I was on, so I posted twice to avoid that happening a third time)

Edited September 19, 2016 by VantagePoint

[eclipse]

...What?

I've done so, MULTIPLE TIMES. You asked me my opinion on feminism, I just said I don't believe it's an equality movement and that's about it. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with me "not respecting other people's opinions." My opinion on feminism is independant from anyone's stance here, you can be any kind of feminist and my post would stand on it's own as an argument against feminism being an equality movement. You seem to think I'm stereotyping all feminists when I've stated, time and time again, that I KNOW the radicals aren't the only ones that exist, but feminism in the end, mainly represents woman's rights, thus me saying feminism as a whole is not an equality movement.

I guess, you'll just have to leave it at that, because I'm not apologizing for something I don't even know I'm being accused of. You just started saying "look back and apologize to me", and I have no idea WHAT I'm looking back on.

(Typing this on a Wii U, going to link to sources sometimes refreshes the page I was on, so I posted twice to avoid that happening a third time)

First off, my condolences for the Wii U posting.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: READ BACKWARDS. I've stated my issue on feminism in this topic, BUT you have to start from the very first post, and read everything after that. If you'd take the time to read it and understand why I'm getting as frustrated as I am.

Now, if you legit can't find it, let me know. But I want some acknowledgement that you're at least trying to understand others, not just espouse your own views.

[Life]

In addition, I also have no idea of what you are accusing him of. Unless it is that he has a very fair defensible position. Which I've already mentioned goes against the idea of open conversation.

Look, eclipse. If you don't like his argument, fine. If you want to warn him for trolling, fine. But do not expect me not to lodge a ticket about why I think you are mis-using your moderation powers if you take action.

[UNLEASH IT]

wew lad what happened here. Everything was pretty civil yesterday.

Edited September 19, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[VantagePoint]

I see it, but Tryhard already pointed it out and I already admitted my fault at #87, and none of my points are contingent on you being an egalitarianist or a feminist, while it was a hasty label, it's not a point I was using to attack you or prove a point.

I don't understand why you're so upset though.

Edited September 19, 2016 by VantagePoint

[Rezzy]

Well, to put some levity back. I happen to be barefoot and pregnant right now.

I'm sorry to hear about your father, Crysta.

I completely agree with never blaming the victim, but I still think it's a good idea to teach my children to be cautious. Things like don't get black-out drunk when you're at a public place or around people you don't trust intimately. I won't blame people for getting mugged, but it's along the same lines of how we tell people not to "look like a tourist" in places that are known to look for easy targets.

[Moira]

I completely agree with never blaming the victim, but I still think it's a good idea to teach my children to be cautious. Things like don't get black-out drunk when you're at a public place or around people you don't trust intimately. I won't blame people for getting mugged, but it's along the same lines of how we tell people not to "look like a tourist" in places that are known to look for easy targets.

I totally agree with you, but I feel like a lot of times it's not an appropriate thing to bring up when someone is raped. One of the last things someone wants to hear after they get raped is probably how they could've avoided it, because it almost carries an undertone of "why didn't you do this?" (Not that you're actually doing this; It's just what I've seen happen a lot)

[eclipse]

In addition, I also have no idea of what you are accusing him of. Unless it is that he has a very fair defensible position. Which I've already mentioned goes against the idea of open conversation.

Look, eclipse. If you don't like his argument, fine. If you want to warn him for trolling, fine. But do not expect me not to lodge a ticket about why I think you are mis-using your moderation powers if you take action.

Dude, did you take the time to read that wall post I made? I thought I outlined it pretty clearly. You're free to disagree with the approach. Also, no warnings have been issued so far, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Also, can you answer the questions I posed earlier? If you don't want to post it here, feel free to send a PM.

I see it, but Tryhard already pointed it out and I already admitted my fault at #87, and none of my points are contingent on you being an egalitarianist or a feminist, while it was a hasty label, it's not a point I was using to attack you or prove a point.

I don't understand why you're so upset though.

Okay, we got the "read backwards" thing out of the way. So if what you're arguing has nothing to do with my own views, then what exactly are you arguing against? If you just want the world to know how you feel with no regards to the other person's PoV, use a blog, not a message board. If you're trying to challenge a point, then try to understand what the hell is going through the other person's head before posting, because chances are if I'm . If you're trying to change someone's mind. . .that's trickier, and requires finesse on top of the previous sentence.

Like, the last few pages shouldn't have even happened, because my views boil down to "the radical side ruined everything".

[Rezzy]

I totally agree with you, but I feel like a lot of times it's not an appropriate thing to bring up when someone is raped. One of the last things someone wants to hear after they get raped is probably how they could've avoided it, because it almost carries an undertone of "why didn't you do this?" (Not that you're actually doing this; It's just what I've seen happen a lot)

Oh, yes, after the event, I think being supportive is the way to go. I meant more in terms of educating kids, so it doesn't happen in the first place.

[VantagePoint]

Okay, we got the "read backwards" thing out of the way. So if what you're arguing has nothing to do with my own views, then what exactly are you arguing against? If you just want the world to know how you feel with no regards to the other person's PoV, use a blog, not a message board. If you're trying to challenge a point, then try to understand what the hell is going through the other person's head before posting, because chances are if I'm . If you're trying to change someone's mind. . .that's trickier, and requires finesse on top of the previous sentence.

... Except, you asked me for my thoughts on feminism.

I answered, and, for some reason, you took special offense because I labeled you a feminist, even though I only did so in one of my followup posts, and it wasn't even done in a negative way. The" you's" in that post is not refering to you. They're nonspecific, it's phrased like that because I wanted to defend my viewpoint, of which you asked my opinion on.

[eclipse]

... Except, you asked me for my thoughts on feminism.

I answered, and, for some reason, you took special offense because I labeled you a feminist, even though I only did so in one of my followup posts, and it wasn't even done in a negative way. The" you's" in that post is not refering to you. They're nonspecific, it's phrased like that because I wanted to defend my viewpoint, of which you asked my opinion on.

As much as this pains me to say this, I suggest rereading that giant wall I posted earlier. I also asked you, several times, to read backwards. It wasn't an attempt to be sarcastic, it was so that you'd know your audience before posting what you did. Part of making a good point is being able to make it so whoever's listening won't dismiss you outright. The purpose of that wall was to show you WHY I got on your case - I do what I do for a reason, even if it's not one that's easily understood.

So again, who is your audience?

[Tryhard]

When you have a presidential Candidate championing ideas of the "easy radical targets" like "1/5 college woman will be raped", or "woman make 77 cents compared to a man's dollar and campaigning to enact social reform based on it, that those radicals go far beyond the scope of just being some insignifigant statistic.

lol to be honest that's more because Hillary is not a good candidate to begin with and she probably didn't look past the veil or was simply misled (to be honest I haven't really seen her saying the former but then again I haven't been paying that much attention). I still don't see how this proves anything, because she's an easy target too.

Well, the majority of feminists anyway.

For example, there's this piece from the daily mail about how being a 50/50 custody mother is bad for mothers and how fathers winning equal access to children is a bad thing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573927/Agony-50-50-mum-Women-held-upper-hand-custody-battles-fathers-winning-EQUAL-access-mothers-struggling-cope.html

Also this:

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

There's also a lot of pressure on men's only spaces to be more open, but women's spaces are allowed to remain exclusive.

I think my favourite I know of was an article by Jessica Valenti

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

"told a reporter that the best way for newsroom leaders with a limited budget to fix salary inequalities is to “bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls”."

I mean she pretty much came out and said we should cut one side to advantage the other. I found that pretty hilarious.

That's the sort of stuff that's pretty easily deconstructed.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rezzy]

I think my favourite I know of was an article by Jessica Valenti

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

"told a reporter that the best way for newsroom leaders with a limited budget to fix salary inequalities is to “bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls”."

I mean she pretty much came out and said we should cut one side to advantage the other. I found that pretty hilarious.

That's the sort of stuff that's pretty easily deconstructed.

I think I heard that or something similar and think it would be a terrible idea, and I'm surprised it was even forward as a serious proposal.

Honestly, I'm glad I live in the time and place I do, since I think the modern Western world has the best equality, gender or otherwise, in all of history.

[Life]

I think I heard that or something similar and think it would be a terrible idea, and I'm surprised it was even forward as a serious proposal.

Honestly, I'm glad I live in the time and place I do, since I think the modern Western world has the best equality, gender or otherwise, in all of history.

This is why I argue for equality, not equity.

[Phoenix Wright]

what do you even mean by that

[UNLEASH IT]

what do you even mean by that

He's of the opinion that equality means equal opportunities while equity means equal outcomes, and that to achieve said equal outcomes, you would have to give certain groups preferential treatment, which therefore goes against the idea of equality.

[Phoenix Wright]

i'm not certain that's what equity means, but sure.

with the case of affirmative action, which is really what life is trying to get at, it's already been explained that aa serves the purpose of giving opportunities to those that don't have them. aa and things like it are meant to give equal opportunity in the hopes of achieving a good outcome.

[Life]

i'm not certain that's what equity means, but sure.

with the case of affirmative action, which is really what life is trying to get at, it's already been explained that aa serves the purpose of giving opportunities to those that don't have them. aa and things like it are meant to give equal opportunity in the hopes of achieving a good outcome.

This is what I mean. But rather than use height, use merit.

My issue with AA is that it blocks people who achieve the requisite marks in favour for those who have a disadvantage. A noble idea but it subverts the idea of merit by setting two different standards for two different groups of people. Add in the fact that it makes the distinction solely on ethnicity and I have a serious problem with it.

Same idea with current feminism. Two different standards are imposed creating a no-win scenario for men.

[Phoenix Wright]

This is what I mean. But rather than use height, use merit.

My issue with AA is that it blocks people who achieve the requisite marks in favour for those who have a disadvantage. A noble idea but it subverts the idea of merit by setting two different standards for two different groups of people. Add in the fact that it makes the distinction solely on ethnicity and I have a serious problem with it.

Same idea with current feminism. Two different standards are imposed creating a no-win scenario for men.

so are you saying women and minorities simply don't have merit or something? how does this graphic translate?

like what scenarios are playing out in your head where whites are affected so poorly by this. i also have an issue that the distinction is solely ethnic, but still. blacks and other minorities are disproportionately poor, etc. etc. etc., though, so it's not like it's completely illogical. your rhetoric makes it seem like women and minorities are at some sort of advantage because of affirmative action. it is exactly the opposite!

[Rezzy]

so are you saying women and minorities simply don't have merit or something? how does this graphic translate?

like what scenarios are playing out in your head where whites are affected so poorly by this. i also have an issue that the distinction is solely ethnic, but still. blacks and other minorities are disproportionately poor, etc. etc. etc., though, so it's not like it's completely illogical. your rhetoric makes it seem like women and minorities are at some sort of advantage because of affirmative action. it is exactly the opposite!

A way I look at it is with affirmative action, it's like saying that just because I'm a woman, I need special treatment in order to compete with men. I'd prefer the just look at my credentials, without checking between my legs or my skin color, first.

With affirmative action, you'll always have people thinking I just got into Med School due to my gender, not my 3.94 GPA or graduating Summa Cum Laude and being inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.

And not all white people are automatically rich. I grew up being called a NEWT, which stands for North End White Trash. I grew up across the road from a cow farm, and didn't live in a trailer, but my neighbors did. I moved out after high school, working a full time, and at one point, two jobs to put myself through college. I got zero assistance for my higher education.

[Lord Raven]

He did say that he had an issue with it being solely ethnic...

[Phoenix Wright]

your understanding of the philosophy of affirmative action is wrong. the problems is, all things equal, a white man is more likely to be selected for a job, even in stem. a man is more likely to be selected for hire, paid more, offered more help, and seen as more competent. (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474) that is partly what you are up against.

what you have accomplished is fantastic, and i hope you'll make a great doctor. let people think what they will, they're wrong anyway.

[Rezzy]

He did say that he had an issue with it being solely ethnic...

The only AA category I could agree with would be economic. Looking at people who come from poor neighborhoods and still succeed and take that into account. That way, it has nothing to do with race. There'd still be ethnic people from poor neighborhoods, but also poor white people from rural areas and not giving the rich kids who happen to have rich parents a leg up for no other reason than having more melanin than the majority.

I don't think gender should be considered at all for admission, we already have an equal number of female admissions in college, if not more.

your understanding of the philosophy of affirmative action is wrong. the problems is, all things equal, a white man is more likely to be selected for a job, even in stem. a man is more likely to be selected for hire, paid more, offered more help, and seen as more competent. (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474) that is partly what you are up against.

what you have accomplished is fantastic, and i hope you'll make a great doctor. let people think what they will, they're wrong anyway.

Unfortunately, there will always be cultural and societal differences that make 100% equality impossible with everybody. I don't think codifying an advantage of one gender over the other is a good solution to a complex problem like this. Sometimes, I'm treated unfairly, yes, but so are men. Here's a study showing that teachers are often more generous with their grading with females than with male students. http://people.terry.uga.edu/cornwl/research/cmvp.genderdiffs.pdf

I think striving for equal treatment of everybody is a very laudable goal, I just don't think AA as it exists now is the correct way of going about it.

Oh, and PS: I am a doctor currently, I graduated med school years ago.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Rezzy

[Phoenix Wright]

pure economic status is not as good an idea as it seems. race-based aa and socio-economic based aa should be how it is until things are actually good for people.

you express fault in the current solution but offer nothing in its place? i don't care for the argument "what's going on isn't good but i haven't got anything better." i understand you have libertarian ideals, but pulling oneself up from the bootstraps is not what should be expected of everyone in existence.

[Rezzy]

pure economic status is not as good an idea as it seems. race-based aa and socio-economic based aa should be how it is until things are actually good for people.

you express fault in the current solution but offer nothing in its place? i don't care for the argument "what's going on isn't good but i haven't got anything better." i understand you have libertarian ideals, but pulling oneself up from the bootstraps is not what should be expected of everyone in existence.

My suggestion was to take race out of the equation and go purely by the economic status that the applicant grew up in, if using AA.