= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on LW Women Submissions: On Misogyny - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (472)
An older woman is abusing her position of authority to violently take out her frustrations on a young male she has authority over - and that's patriarchy? Really? Reverse the situation, and that might be "patriarchy." Or it could just be a messed up person. The position the author takes in that post trivializes women; they can't help it, they're not responsible for their actions, because Patriarchy. Well, "misogyny" is right. It just applies to the person writing that post.
And the porn comment, as well. Men need to be fixed, because their sexuality isn't desirable or acceptable.
And I'm sure I'm "mansplaining," a sexist term which boils down to trivializing male perspective. Regardless of whatever bad things it has been used to describe, I've seen it far more often used to attack reasonable discourse. When you're discussing things rationally you can say exactly what is wrong with a statement; you don't need terms like "mansplaining."
Also, a minor comment in regards to Author A - please don't trivialize women who do prefer the contributing, doting role. They aren't doing it wrong, they're doing it different, and they experience no small amount of hostility from other women who have replaced one kind of misogyny with another. Your comments about doting women are extremely similar to PUA comments about "beta" males, not a little because both are fulfilling similar roles in relationships, and because your comments, like theirs, essentially add up to the suggestion that any relationship entered into in a supportive role is necessarily doomed because nobody will ever respect them. Indeed, swap the genders and it wouldn't be out of place in a PUA blog.
Or, to put it another way - read this post with the genders reversed and few would hesitate to call the result misogynistic. This is my personal yardstick for discussing gender issues; swap the genders and see how it reads. I doubt the LW Women series of posts would be anywhere near as well-received if the genders involved were editorially swapped.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (The Red Lily; Anatole France)
Which is to say, insisting on treating two people identically when they are embedded in a system of inequality sometimes leads us to absurd conclusions.
You don't get a pass on your own biases merely because you oppose somebody else's. You especially don't get a pass on your own biases when you're using them as the basis to assert somebody else's.
Sure, I agree with all of that.
To be absolutely clear here - you're saying actual, overt sexism is acceptable, as long as it's women doing it to men?
Well, that's pretty damn sexist, so I guess you're consistent, at least. Or ... maybe not, because your username implies you're male, and Wilde was accusing the OP of misogyny as well as misandry.
I'm not sure if I'm saying that, since I'm never quite sure what people mean by "sexism", let alone "actual, overt sexism".
But I am saying that in a system that differentially benefits group X over group Y, I consider it much more acceptable for an individual to treat X and Y differently in a way that differentially benefits Y than in a way that further differentially benefits X. If that's actual, overt sexism in case where (X,Y)=(men, women), then yes, I'm saying actual, overt sexism is sometimes acceptable as long as it's being done to men. (The gender of the person doing it is irrelevant.)
If that's itself pretty damn sexist, I'm OK with that. My purpose here is not to avoid nasty sounding labels, but to reduce the (net) differential in distribution of social benefits (among other purposes). So if I have a choice between "being sexist" while reducing that differential and "not being sexist" while increasing it (all else being equal), I choose to reduce that differential. Labels don't matter as much as the properties of the system itself.
All that said, I do agree that treating women who abuse their family members as though they lack agency and merely express the patriarchy, while treating men who abuse their family members as though they do possess agency, is unjustified.
My objection was not to that, nor to the other statements in the OP that I didn't quote, but rather to the sentences I quoted and the "personal yardstick" they suggested using, which I don't endorse.
Well alright, as long as you're consistent ;)
Personally, I would say most "sexism" is less taking from Y and giving to X and more just harming Y, which benefits X only through weaker competition. I suppose if you view the battle of the sexes to be a zero-sum game, that yardstick doesn't make much sense. However, if you thing misogyny and misandry hurt everyone, it does. Looks like there was an inarticulated assumption in OrphanWilde's post, I guess.
I don't necessarily think the distribution of social benefits is a zero sum game; in fact, I find that unlikely.
However, it's also irrelevant to my point. I can value equalizing the net playing field for X and Y whether that playing field is on average rising, on average lowering, or on average staying the same. My point is simply that if I value equalizing the net playing field between X and Y, I should endorse reducing the (net) differential in distribution of social benefits between X and Y.
One of the many benefits a society can provide its members is protection from harm. So differentially harming Y is one of many ways that a (net) differential in distribution of social benefits to X and Y can manifest.
And, again, if we want to label reducing the (net) differential in distribution of social benefits between men and women, with the goal of ultimately altering our society so that it provides women and men with the same level of benefits, "sexism", I won't argue with that labeling, but I also won't care very much about avoiding things labeled that way.
Unless I've misunderstood the term, what you describe is, in fact, a zero-sum game.
If I had persuaded you by changing the label, I'd be pretty ashamed of myself for using Dark Arts in a LW discussion.
One of us is misunderstanding the term, then.
It might be me.
We might do best to not use the term, given that.
Taboo time!
"A situation where harming one side is equivalent to helping the other - perhaps because the first to pull ahead by a certain number of points wins, or because they both derive utility from the disutility of the other side."
Thank you for clarifying.
OK, soo you're claiming that when I say that one of the many benefits a society can provide its members is protection from harm, so differentially harming Y is one of many ways that a (net) differential in distribution of social benefits to X and Y can manifest, I'm implicitly asserting that harming Y is equivalent to helping X?
If I understood that, then no, I think this is simply false.
For example, suppose there are dangerous insects about and I have a supply of insect-repellent, which I choose to give only to group X. This is a differential distribution of social benefits (specifically, insect repellent) to X and Y, and sure enough, Y is differentially harmed by the insects as a manifestation of that differential distribution of insect repellent. But it doesn't follow that harming group Y is equivalent to helping group X... it might well be that if I gave everyone insect repellent, both X and Y would be better off.
What if that system of inequality is biology? Is is still absurd to treat them equal?
Biology doesn't dictate your values. Avoid the naturalistic fallacy.
For instance, even if the descriptive claims that PUAs make about women's desires were true, this would not make it right to demean women.
It is surely the case that women and men have morally significant biological differences. Perhaps the biggest of these is pregnancy and childbirth — the vastly greater cost that women bear in childbearing. However, it would be the naturalistic fallacy to claim that women should bear this cost (e.g. that the creation of artificial wombs would not be a moral improvement); and it would be rationalization of misogyny to claim that women should be treated as baby-makers.
(Tim Wise makes a related argument about why it's silly for progressives to worry too much about race-IQ research: we don't believe that smart people have more political rights than average people, so even if it were shown that one racial group were on average smarter than another, this wouldn't change anyone's commitments to political equality.)
I'm not sure what you mean by demean women. Do you mean that to even make truthful observations that could make a woman feel bad is wrong?
I'm not sure what treated as baby makers means. I think it entirely reasonable, in this universe without well functioning artificial wombs, to take as a default that women will bear children, even to have incentives towards such. I like humans existing.
I don't know what your footnote references.
No.
Some descriptive claims associated with the PUA memeplex seem to come with an addendum that could be crudely rendered as "... and therefore, women are your inferiors." Women are manipulable; therefore, you have the right to manipulate them. Women desire approval, therefore, you should manipulate their desire for approval to get sex out of them that they may otherwise not want to have. And so on.
(To make a geek analogy: "Their server has a security vulnerability; therefore, they are morons and you should hack them and take all their stuff.")
Perhaps I should have said "treated merely as baby-makers"; as opposed to thinkers, dreamers, desirers, planners, possessors of values and goals, colleagues, rivals, partners — you know, people.
Blaaah ... that's because I removed the sentence it was a footnote to, and didn't remove the footnote. Edited.
Sometimes, sure. For example, if there's some task to be performed, and because of their biology X is capable of performing it and Y is not, it's frequently absurd to behave as though X and Y were equally capable of performing it. Having a long "conversation" with a deaf person who is not looking at me can be absurd, for example, as can giving a pregnancy test to a man.