This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You appear to use "structural bias" as a negative term here, and "actually want" as a neutral term, as if peoples preferences are just the way the world is. (What if preferences are malleable to social engineering?)
Firstly, there are many feminists and they claim different things, so we need to be specific. Secondly, as other comments have alluded to, the structural bias here causes female preferences.
It is common for a feminist to make the above empirical claim about gender disparity, and use "structural bias" in the same way you do. When evidence to the contrary is presented, the feminist interlocutor either ends the conversation, changes the topic, or falls back on a subtly different meaning of "structural bias." I suppose charitably he used this other meaning of "structural bias" the entire time, but I will explain the complications of assuming that charity.
The fallback meaning of "structural bias" require us to read the feminist claim as being tautological, not empirical. "Structural bias" is simply anything socially-constructed which makes men and women different. "Bias" should be read here like statistical bias not "human bias." Since women have a tendency to not be leaders, this is tautological evidence for some systemic bias. I will also explain the complications of the term "socially-constructed."
I originally had a monologue on preferences and meta-preferences, but to keep it shorter: feminism's true preferences are not merely "women are happy" or "women face no discrimination." Feminism's true preference appears to be: "women are not different from men." Since the first two are an easier sell to the public, those are what we hear the most about, but I think those are only stated reasons, not the true reasons. The problem with assuming that feminists always use "structural bias" in the tautological sense is that the layman thinks it means discrimination anyways (Standard motte-and-bailey)
The problem with socially-constructed things is that it is just a synonym for "things." My inflammatory claim that feminism aims to erase all distinction between man and woman seems like it would fly in the face of biology, but we mutate biology all the time. To demonstrate, I will make an even more inflammatory prediction: if artificial wombs become feasible, I would expect feminists to agitate for one or both of these:
men to receive artificial wombs to equally bear the cost of bearing children
an end to all traditional conception
In both of these cases, I would expect feminism to use social engineering to align peoples preferences with this outcome. According to this model, feminism is in the business of world-outcomes, not making people happy. There is another model I alluded to in my original reply that describes feminism as harm-reduction, but that model wasn't as relevant to the quoted text.
More options
Context Copy link