gemmaem
10mo ago
Many Christians, including some of the more conservative ones, do not believe that every single word of the Bible is the literal word of God. On the contrary, the letters of Paul (for example) are the word of Paul — some of which Paul himself believes to have come from God, and some of which is explicitly given as “I didn’t get this from God but it seems like common sense.”
gemmaem
10mo ago
I nevertheless appreciated the quote from an activist saying they thought it was stupid, tried to shout over it, and don’t want it to represent the movement. That’s a much more sensible response.
gemmaem
10mo ago
My usual phrasing is ‘I am preferentially (as opposed to apathetically) cisgender.’ Which means, yeah, I’m cisgender and happy about it. Happy to say so anytime :)
gemmaem
11mo ago
I see that Team "My outgroup is cartoonishly stupid/evil and has no useful motivations or genuine concerns that I might need to take into account" continues to be very popular around here.
gemmaem
11mo ago
What prompts this entire rigamarole in the first place? Why can't you just go to jail for repeat shoplifting?
Does this not come under "better identify and track repeat offenders and facilitate stronger prosecutions"? It looks to me like you're complaining about what could be just a stronger both/and approach. Treating jail as part of the solution but not the whole solution makes perfect sense to me.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Hospitals compete to get the most births, and as a result the maternity ward in most hospitals is really nice.
Huh. Interesting. This made me wonder if Israel might have unusually high quality of maternity care as regards how birthing mothers are treated on a personal level. Looking it up, the country apparently has the lowest rate of C-sections per 1,000 live births. Impressive. This is a potentially under-rated way of increasing birth rates, in that people with less birth trauma are more likely to give birth again.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Hm, let me make a list of measures that I would either directly recommend or seriously consider. Not all of these will inconvenience or disadvantage women particularly, but a few of them should satisfy that also.
-
Repealing the "Dear Colleague" letter requiring "preponderance of evidence" standards for campus rape cases. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that this has led to unjust outcomes, and that in general allowing campuses to set their own standards based on the way they see things playing out in their local community makes more sense.
-
Opening up some/most domestic violence shelters to men. I know many radical feminists would prefer them to be all-female spaces, and of course J. K. Rowling famously made one that excludes trans women, just to make it feel extra safe to women who fear men particularly. Keeping a few single-sex spaces does make sense, in areas where the population density can support more than one. But men sometimes need a place to go when they have been abused, too, and when they're dealt with separately this can make it harder to build infrastructure.
-
Local community measures to give men places to meet and socialise with other men, such as the "Men's Shed" initiatives in Australia.
-
More physical activity in schools, to make the learning environment easier for high-energy children (who are often disproportionately boys).
-
Anti-suicide measures aimed at men.
-
Housing measures that pay particular care to the needs of homeless men.
There are probably more, but hopefully this provides a decent spectrum.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I have, indeed, been strictly informed that it is not that women ought to be stripped of the right to vote but that it should not have been given to them in the first place in the way that it was. Reluctant pragmatic acceptance of my rights is obviously not as reassuring as actual support for them would be, but that is where that conversation stands.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I can agree with some of the things you ask for, here and there. For example, I agree that the top-down command to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard when evaluating campus rape cases has been shown to be a mistake, leading to unjust outcomes in some cases, perhaps particularly for men with social disadvantages of race and/or class.
There are also some places where I don't agree with your proposed remedy, but might agree with alternate ways to help men. For example, I don't agree with abolishing all female-only scholarships, but nor do I object to male-only scholarships, particularly in fields where men are underrepresented such as nursing or teaching.
Most importantly, though, I think there are some important consequences to the idea that everyone, including men, is deserving of a baseline level of sympathy. One of these is that we need to retire the idea that women don't have to work hard to understand what men are going through, because "society forces less powerful people (like women) to consider the point of view of more powerful people (like men)." That sort of statement is far too confident. Sympathy with someone who is different to you is actually quite hard. Moreover, not all men have power.
So, while I might not always agree with you on all of the issues you raise, I do agree that it's important for me to listen to your perspective as sympathetically as I can.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Well, I certainly support sympathy for men and policy measures designed to help men in areas where they are disproportionately struggling, and I am open to the idea of trimming back the power of the state over some facets of our lives. So although I don't believe we actually live in a "gynocentric society," we might well be able to come to an agreement on some individual changes!
gemmaem
1yr ago
I probably am sea lioning a bit, it's true. But, on the other hand, it's not actually good for the Motte when it becomes a place for men to lash out in frustration at women with exaggerated claims. You joke that there are about 2 women here, but really, if you want viewpoint diversity, this can't become a space where people are perceived as having the right to complain about a particular subgroup without getting pushback.
For what it's worth, you have my agreement of some of your complaints. "Women are the greatest victims of war" is pretty indefensible. There have been instances in which the social movement against rape and sexual assault has led to deeply unfair outcomes for some of those accused. And, in this context, it is silly to blame men for not being in relationships. If women are "rational" for dating each other or choosing their careers instead, then men are just as "rational" for looking at the hell that is dating apps and deciding to watch porn instead.
The liberal position is that people can "demand" whatever they want out of a partner, provided that they are willing to accept not having a partner if they cannot actually convince such a person to date them. And I think that's a pretty important principle, actually -- that individuals can always opt out of the dating market, if they've decided that it sucks. That women fear coercion in this space is not actually a sign that we are manipulative; our fear is based on a not-too-distant history in which social norms used to make it harder for women to say no to relationships even when they wanted to. If you want to throw away liberalism in this context, because you think it simply isn't sustainable, then it's not illegitimate for people to respond by pointing out that this will create harms of its own.
If we're keeping liberalism, then I think the finger-pointing in both directions has to stop. I think sometimes people point the finger at men because they want to forestall any sort of conversation that might lead to social coercion of women, but I don't think this is actually helpful. Men are also within their rights to opt out if they want to.
Honestly, if you ask me, one reason this problem is hard is that child-rearing just doesn't fit easily into an atomised, market-based society. The strongest incentives are not economic nor directly related to happiness; they happen on the wishy-washy level of fulfillment and even sometimes self-sacrifice. The best ways to support it naturally take place not on the individual level nor the national level but rather on the intermediate, community level.
It's possible that some of the solutions to the problem of finding relationships need to happen on that local level, too. Dating apps suck particularly badly for men, but women don't really seem to love them all that much, either. Rather than berating people for not engaging with the system as it exists, it surely makes more sense to try to reform the system so that better ways of finding partners and starting families start to seem possible for people. That's easier said than done, but better than sitting around arguing about who is to blame.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am so grateful for your straightforward explanation.
In arguing against the idea that women’s ability to garner sympathy is dangerous in itself, I find that I am in a similar situation to the one that Yair Rosenberg outlines here:
Anti-Jewish bigotry is a self-sustaining circle. It’s a common misconception that anti-Semitism is simply a personal prejudice toward Jewish people. It’s not. It’s also a conspiracy theory about how the entire world works, blaming shadowy Jewish figures for countless societal problems. Kanye’s tweets aptly illustrate why this form of anti-Semitism is so difficult to uproot: It’s a self-affirming conspiracy theory. The anti-Semite claims that Jews control everything. Then, if they are penalized for their bigotry, they point to that as proof. Heads, they win; tails, Jews lose.
Similarly, if I point out the cruelty that might result from denying women a voice in the political process, someone who subscribes to the HBD-MRA viewpoint that you outline can simply respond that any traction I can get from such an argument is proof that people sympathise with women. Accordingly, women constitute a danger and need to be treated with less sympathy in order to neutralise this threat.
We need to prevent the possibility of a downward spiral in which any sign of sympathy for your opponents is proof of the danger that they pose. Basic human sympathy ought to apply to everyone. When the state has as much power as modern states almost always do, this means that the state needs to be able to have sympathy for everyone in it. This means that everyone needs to have some voice in the political process.
When women protest that they ought to have a voice in our debates over how society should be run, this is not in itself evidence that women are unreasonable and power-seeking. Nor does the fact that people sympathise with this argument constitute evidence of some kind of overwhelming persuasive power that women have. To claim either of these things is to participate, clearly, in a spiral of nonsympathy.
Thank you so much for your explanation. If your understanding of what I am trying to argue against illuminates any flaws in my response, then I welcome your insight. You can’t argue against what you don’t understand. I appreciate the opportunity you’ve given me.
gemmaem
1yr ago
As I understand it, the claim is that women are so powerful that they have turned into little dictators who go around making unreasonable demands. This requires substantiation. What kind of unreasonable demands? So far I've been given "shut down any political project they don't like." That's a strong claim. There are, in fact, many existing political projects that women are more against than in favour of that have not been shut down.
You've given me a second claim, that "criticizing women as a group is so verboten that any and all of it is taken with utmost offense." It is true that claims about women are policed more strongly than claims about men. However, women are not unique in this regard. Claims about black people are policed more strongly than claims about white people, for example. So it does not make sense to attribute this to women's overwhelming manipulative dictatorial power. It has more to do with the fact that there is a historical pattern of unfair mischaracterisation of women that was bad enough that it gave rise to a movement dedicated to correcting it.
None of what I have been given substantiates the claim that I was initially criticizing -- namely, that women are "queens by political fiat" in any real sense of social or political power. We are not. It is obvious that we are not.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Thank you for sharing your experience. I've never actually looked at /r/egg_irl, but everything I hear about it makes it sound pretty terrible. I agree that many people right now are too quick to act as though being trans is an immutable and easily recognisable category. There are edge cases who are sort of in between being trans and not; there are odd cases (meaning no judgment) of people whose sense of gender simply fluctuates. Treating gender nonconforming people well requires acknowledging this complexity.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Be honest, you know you being a woman has nothing to do with how he is engaging in this conversation
Dase has made his opinion of women very clear, on multiple occasions. He thinks we are liars. He thinks we are mean. He thinks we habitually act in bad faith.
The style of sneering at female commenters personally that he is employing in this thread is very obviously coloured by his broader opinions.
Do you seriously think "has women franchisement gone too far" is too spicy relative to the other things the motte discusses?
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be allowed. I decided not to let it -- and the sneering alongside it -- go unchallenged.
So why add in that little snide at all if not for shaming purposes?
I meant it, sincerely. Good faith works best as a two way street. That's just a fact of human interaction.
I've been on the Motte since it was the Culture War Thread. I'm one of the left-most people here. I've never flamed out. I've garnered two mod notes over six years; never a ban. I stay for the charity, when I can get it; I stay to be challenged and to see views I wouldn't otherwise see. Sometimes, I admit, I stay for the fight. But I always argue in good faith, even when it leaves me vulnerable. If you can't access that side of me, you're not trying very hard.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I do, in fact, generally respect exhaustion in my argumentative partners, you're not wrong about that. Unfortunately, in this case, you've made any number of statements that require answers. You accuse me of sneering, but you've been sneering at me this whole time, and suggesting taking away rights far more fundamental than a right to single-sex spaces. As for catty sniping, you're full of catty sniping! "I love the indignation here," you write. "And thanks for another illustration," you continue. It's true that I'm not spelling out my own object level ideas; I'm asking you to spell yours out because you keep leveling accusations at women that honestly seem far more true of you. Perhaps if you were better at engaging with women in good faith, you'd get more good faith in return.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Well, I would certainly be in favour of also having homeless programs that target men. I agree that there is a fair bit of momentum behind addressing inequities faced by women, and less momentum behind addressing inequities faced by men, and I am definitely open to arguments about which such inequities are particularly important (successful suicide attempts would be another obvious urgent one).
So I agree that there are issues that need addressing, here, but I don't think denying women the vote is likely to be an important step towards that. And although some feminists are threatened by the notion that men might also face inequities, I think the broader public, including women, is generally not inclined to view such things with outrage or bad faith argumentation, so much as an unwarranted level of neglect which we can work to overcome.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Male power fantasies in fiction are still very common, I think you'll find. There's an entire section of literary criticism in which the ur-narrative is The Hero's Journey. Being the Son of Heaven or some other kind of Chosen One comes standard.
Reality is, ultimately, its own check on these things, I think. Most women know they aren't actually queen of very much. Time comes for us all, and most of us grow. Some of us still like to imagine being Batman now and then while we're at it, and that's okay.
I think it might actually be harder to mock women for not being powerful just because, unlike men, we're not failing in our gender role by lacking power. Which isn't fair to men, that they should be mocked for not aligning with a gender role, but I think some of the difference that you are seeing actually comes from there.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I think there are many, many people in the world who think they deserve more than they have, certainly. It's fair to say that those people's self-evaluation is frequently questionable. I don't think this tendency is confined to women, though, nor do I think it is more out of control in women than in men. There are some areas where it is more tolerated in men (especially if those men are already high status), and others where it is more tolerated in women (especially if those women are already high status).
gemmaem
1yr ago
Power of women specifically is the power to tank any political project they don't like (say, one increasing men's rights) and shut down a discussion they don't favor (say, one casting women in unflattering light) with a gratuitous refusal to compromise or engage in good faith;
Still a bit light on the details. Are you too afraid of my mean-girl power to explain which men's rights women are taking away, or would you be willing to elaborate?
As for "casting women in an unflattering light," well, your premise that women are too mean and irrational to be allowed to participate in politics certainly does that! And I suppose you will claim that any counterargument that I make is merely an appeal to "women are wonderful." But I think my conduct speaks for itself, to any reasonable observer. Your accusation of habitual bad-faith argumentation on my part is unfounded.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Gosh, people are writing pop songs that are power fantasies! Sometimes they even write them about women. What is the world coming to?
Come on, there's no substance here.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Well, since you can't even explain what power it is that women have that you're complaining about, I suppose there is no substance here for me to argue with. You've made one vague gesture towards @2rafa's list of admirably gender-neutral constraints while simultaneously declaring it, understandably, "too hardcore."
You can't even really articulate the premise on which your misogyny rests, let alone substantiate it.
gemmaem
1yr ago
And in a world where all women are queens by political fiat, all women are born into power, thus – all will be absolutely corrupted and not amenable to persuasion.
Queens of what? Ourselves? The question of whether we are going to gestate an entire baby with all the physical and mental changes that implies?
Well, if you think that you should have control over that, then I think it's pretty clear which of us is the one with unreasonable dictatorial aspirations.
Probably! I still appreciated the question, though. Even with religion, sometimes you can have an interesting conversation with someone who is willing to take these questions seriously.
More options
Context Copy link