Agree with this. — T Clark

Cool. One example I can think of on this site was making the short story competition less a competition and more an activity. My go to when organizing it first was to think of it as a competition but it worked better when this aspect was purposeIy downplayed. Part of this is just conceptualising success less in terms of results and more in terms of process. This is important because when processes disappear in favor of results, so does the present in favor of the future, and the self in favour of the image. Similarly in debate, when the process is denigrated in an effort to win, we lose a sense of what we're doing and why. But trying to ''win'' all the time is a very hard habit to shake.

Ok, well that ended better than I thought it would. :sweat: *runs away*

Ubik” is heavy on plot, as chaotic as it is, but weak on characterization. I didn’t really like any of the characters and didn’t much care what happened to them. That’s a real weakness for me — T Clark

Exactly this. I had committed to giving a review but I didn't finish the book and this was the reason along with what I perceived as a cliche form of discourse. I wanted to like the book as I like the idea and others I respect here liked it but I didn't. I am coming out of the closet now because I am not alone. Thanks.

Anyhow, you do have a good side apparent on other threads, so it's not intended as a sweeping denunciation or anything.

Ok.

No offence intended, I could of course be wrong, but it's more plausible to me that you're being dishonest and partisan and cynically using the moral issue of corruption to attack your side's opponent. The media does this all the time. It's known as propaganda and it's generally glaringly obvious.

He’s not pretending. He really believes it’s C. — Mikie

Honestly, I don't think he does, and the game he's playing with himself must eventually get boring.

What corruption? — NOS4A2

The charade doesn't work @NO4A2. You've been doing this for years and neither we (edit: Ok, maybe some of us do) nor you believe you would fail that quiz.

In Baden’s silly quiz — NOS4A2

Yes, the quiz is silly, but so is pretending to be against corruption when the only thing you are actually against is the Bidens as evidenced by the fact that the corruption of Trump and his family has never, not once, been a point of criticism for you here. So given you are not against corruption but merely against the Bidens, why the charade? Given we know you know the correct answer to the silly quiz is D, why continue to pretend you don't know that? Do you think anyone reading this would get the answer wrong or?

Political Knowledge Level 1 Quiz

a) Bidens, clean / Trumps, clean X
b) Bidens, clean / Trumps, dirty X
c) Bidens, dirty / Trumps, clean X
d) Bidens, dirty / Trumps, dirty :100:

If you failed to answer correctly, your political knowledge is rated 0.

:pray:

Calling our society a patriarchy as that term is normally used includes an unstated assumption that it is a bad thing. It seems to me that would be true only if men's lives are somehow better than women's. — T Clark

Regardless of whose lives are relatively better, we're all worse off. Men are not better off by being marketed a masculine ideology from a young age. The whole society is sick and we all suffer from it.

The realities of class overrun our educated chatter about sex, gender, men (masculinity), and women (femininity). Educated, professional workers are just not in the same boat as blue-collar / gray collar workers. I've been both. The latter is definitely more pleasant than the latter.

Battling "Patriarchy" is a war against the distorted shadows on the wall of the academic cave. Success or failure will have no consequences. — BC

You are mistaken if you think that even recognizing the reality of patriarchy means taking the side of academic feminists against the working man or some such. Patriarchy is bound up with capitalism and class oppression, not a distraction from it.

'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender' — 180 Proof

:up:

On that we fully agree. :grin:

Putin is weakened but what he needed most was time. Now he's got that, I presume he'll try to shore things up and pretend whatever deal he signed never happened.

Au contraire, his best bet now might be to jump out one.

I take your point. In practice, everything comes into play somehow. Ideologically, however, the focus in modern consumer societies is on the accrual of material wealth and status*. This is how success is defined and the primary means of achieving it is and must be aggressive competition, overt or otherwise, because it is not for everyone (and increasingly for fever and fewer as inequality increases).

*Not to satisfy real needs but to foster and flaunt excess.

I've outlined a view against your definition and use, by explaining that there's nothing inherently immoral with a society that creates unequal gender representation in positions of power. — Judaka

Ok, let's not argue about the definition for now and just examine this. Suppose a form of social organization results in 100% male representation in power. You would neither consider that immoral nor patriarchal, correct? How about at least undesirable?

broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

=What I said.

So it isn't obvious to me how the dictionary definition helps all that much in understanding your view. — wonderer1

You can just read the wiki article if you like. This is not esoteric knowledge.

I'd remark on the fact that patriarchy is a very negative term to describe a society, and that is true regardless of the definition. I'm not saying that's how it should be, just that's how it is. If we use a definition that allows us to label the West as a patriarchy, then it will be our moral obligation to rectify this so that the West is no longer a patriarchy. — Judaka

Recognising reality can be inconvenient, but that doesn't constitute an argument against doing so.

To be frank, and I hope you don't think my view on this is silly, but objective definitions for these sorts of things are not possible. I won't accept any definition of patriarchy that omits the intentional design of a society aimed at accomplishing male dominance over women. Entirely because I am not interested in condemning disparities in gender-based outcomes, I'm only interested in condemning sexism. — Judaka

Appreciate your honesty but you can't both invent or reject definitions to suit your agenda and also expect to have a meaningful debate. What you're telling me is, you don't care what the word means because, again, it might be inconvenient to do so. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

It must be genetics for this to work else the system would not have resulted in this clear distinction because our XXs would be just as likely to have these paternalistic behaviors to this day. This acknowledgement seems to defeat the argument that we should not assign gender distinctions on the basis of sex. From this, the conclusion we'd draw is that the common correlation we typically see between gender and sex is likely actually causative in most people. — Hanover

I don't really know what your point is here. Gender distinctions clearly relate to biological sex but aren't absolutely bound by them because social reality is a compromise between biology and psychology. E. g. Genders are assigned on the basis of biology but it's (now) socially acceptable for them to be changed (reassigned) on the basis of psychology.

I have no difficulty acknowledging we live in a patriarchal society as you've described it. If our society allows men certain advantages and you insist these advantages arise from manly traits, then we're forced to that conclusion — Hanover

:up:

this is a pretty black and white binary system you've described, with women in need of help by men due to their inability or lack of desire to compete — Hanover

l never said that.

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, and let's all stand behind the idea that you can't subjugate anyone, especially if it means putting your boot on a woman's neck because she'll outperform you if you don't. — Hanover

I haven't taken a position on nature / nurture here. (I think) all I've said is that (broadly speaking) we live in patriarchies, that that's not a result of a conspiracy, and that it's related to our societies being capitalist, which mode of organization aligns well with "masculine" values. I also haven't commented on what should be done about it except that cutting off men's bits is not part of my agenda. So maybe we agree on that much and can therefore get on to putting our imaginations to work on what a more balanced society might look like and how it might be achieved.

Why is that? Is it a global conspiracy against women? — Judaka

Again... Sorry, but can you or someone else reference the definition of patriarchy you're using that requires it to be a "global conspiracy against women". I have no idea where you are getting that definition from and we're talking at cross purposes. I'm happy to use the WIKI definition I've quoted.

The relevance is that there are reasons to think that our species evolved with differences in physical attributes between the sexes, including instincts, which result in societies naturally tending towards 'patriarchy — wonderer1

Yes, there are reasons to think that, but this has nothing to do with what we should choose as the best form of society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

what you mean by "patriarchy" — wonderer1

I mean what it's defined as in dictionaries, reference books etc.

E.g. ''Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are primarily held by men.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Is patriarchy something that would require genetic engineering and eugenics to eliminate, or a conspiracy by people in power that might be eliminated by social engineering, or...? — wonderer1

I think we can work towards a more balanced society without getting the clippers out. But one thing Judaka noted is true, patriarchy is bound up with capitalism, so isolated talk of "eliminating" it is to misunderstand it as is your ''conspiracy by people in power' notion. But I'm not trying to offer solutions, I just found it odd that some could think it "moronic" to characterise our societies as patriarchies when even by their own descriptions they fit the bill.

Don't know what the relevance of this is. But you can make your point more directly if you like. I'm simply trying to figure out from those who don't believe our societies are patriarchal why they believe that. I suspect it might be because they don't like feminists and feminists say that, therefore they feel they have to disagree.

Success in competition might be part of masculinity itsel — Judaka

women who want to succeed in competitive environments will probably need to abandon or redefine their femininity to some extent — Judaka

So, a social system based on competition for status and material resources where men, according to your own analysis, are naturally advantaged and where woman are naturally disadvantaged in their ability to participate in power structures is not a patriarchy? What definition of patriarchy are you using that you think doesn't match up with the situation as you've just outlined it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_different

Not worth posting the vid here but the ambience seems similar to me. And again, not a criticism, but your piece struck me as a kind of ''advertisement'' for manhood. Which is appropriate as a 'real man' seems a thing of marketing--maybe that's the essence of it.

Definitely makes one wonder who was out of line or otherwise in an unclear mindset first. — Outlander

We usually invite people on the basis of an email which can't be considered entirely predictive of suitability.

(And the emails get run by the whole team anyway).

(Not intended as a criticism but) for some reason that reminds me of the old Apple ad that had Einstein and Edison in it.

However, I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy. — Judaka

Why is it moronic though?

''Patriarchy is a system of relationships, beliefs, and values embedded in political, social, and economic systems that structure gender inequality between men and women. Attributes seen as “feminine” or pertaining to women are undervalued, while attributes regarded as “masculine” or pertaining to men are privileged. '

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/patriarchy#:~:text=Patriarchy%20is%20a%20system%20of,pertaining%20to%20men%20are%20privileged.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc?

:starstruck:

*Adds "radge" to Scrabble armoury*

@introbert, I don't disagree with the decision but I do wish you well. I think you were sincere in your efforts.

Those are frightening statistics.

The reason I wasn't interested in a detailed debate on all those topics was because I only have some rough ideas on them, which I'm working through. On bathrooms, y 'all just need to get in line.

why not let's dispense with the taboo on nudity altogether? — unenlightened

Right now? Well, ok then, pass the Zoom link. :fire:

Is it really a huge deal for a trans woman to use the men's room? Why? — frank

Apart from the fact that they are women so they shouldn't have to no matter what size deal it is, there's also e. g. higher risk of abuse, assault etc.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/

I didn't sign up to this OP to talk about that stuff but...

On locker rooms, I don't know. Hadn't honestly thought about it until it came up in this thread. It is tough because any basic rule you apply seems like it could put someone in a position of being in the wrong exposed-genitalia-environment. Therefore, as @Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. I'm no expert on that. Maybe e. g. @frank knows more (at least I think he's in the health industry).

I have compassion for those women who don't want a pre-op transsexual (and post-op as well probably) in the gym locker with them and I have compassion for those women who can't compete in sports against transsexuals. I also have compassion for children who might be being subjected to questionable medical treatment. This is not fear mongering, but areas of legitimate concern. — Hanover

I haven't made any arguments about any of those things. I've only done what you directed us to do in the OP.

Let's talk about women's bathrooms: — Hanover

I've nothing against making all bathrooms unisex btw. I said that already. But we need to deal with reality as it is now. Sometimes the choice for a trans women really just is binary.

When we're both 100, still pissing around in the Shoutbox, we'll be able to look back and one of us will be able to tell the other "I told you so." — Hanover

:100:

should not be an issue in any reasonable society. — Baden

Of course I don't think you should have a national or local referendum on every issue of social policy, large and small, as sometimes moral leadership is necessary. E. g. The Southern states would have overwhelmingly voted against the civil rights act, presumably out of ignorance, fear, and simple racism. In any case, my claim is that a society that would vote to exclude trans women from using women's bathrooms would be an unreasonable and transphobic one.

The reason I claim this is there is no evidence-based justification for taking such a position, the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, @unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, whereas the truth is that trans women are the ones under threat from stigmatization and verbal and physical abuse, not just in bathrooms, but everywhere.

To sum this up, yes, lies, ignorance, and irrational fears should not lead social policy, regardless of their popularity. Compassion, intelligence, and understanding should. There's a simple dichotomy here, scaremongering and ignorance wins or we take an opportunity to show a very vulnerable group that society cares about them, starting with trans kids at school who have enough problems as it is.

Anyhow, I don't hold animus to those of you who disagree. I think you will come round as will society as a whole. My position on this has developed a lot in recent years, particularly after some conversations with my wonderful sister (who is currently writing a TV series about a group of women fighting the patriarchy. ... hey, un ).

forcing acceptance of transgender people's demands down the throats of the other 99.5% of us is not an effective way of keeping trans people safe. — T Clark

I'm not in your 99.5% and neither are a huge number of others who find the idea that a simple thing like a trans woman using the woman's lavatory should not be an issue in any reasonable society. That's all I've got to say about it. Peace.

Approaching the problem what way? What is rigid about it? Asking for evidence of a threat? Defining transphobia the way I have? You're putting forward a list of criticisms without specifying what you're talking about or engaging substantively. I am able to defend my position, so if you could please quote where my reasoning is faulty in your view, I'll respond.

What I said is compatible with helping them become valued member of our communities. But what I've been suggesting has been mostly restricted to the bathroom thing so yes that's not enough. I think what happens in Thailand is trans people are accepted and people don't at all seem to have the disgust and fear reaction. However, anecdotally, I feel they tend to get pigeonholed as human novelties and taken less seriously as a result.

Oh, cool...

@Frank

(I would also be against aggressively targeting people as transphobic for having traditional views on gender and I agree it is sensible to maintain a distinction between biological sex and gender. But maybe you can point me to a reference for the specific view you're criticizing here. )

Why is it transphobic? — NOS4A2

Because it's a stereotypical and superficial generalization of this group that ignores trans identity and experience. It suggests to me you ought to make some trans friends or read up more on the issue. What would you say for example to the trans student who doesn't eat or drink in school because they are afraid they'll have to go to the bathroom? What is the humane approach to that? Telling them they're really just a man who likes to wear dresses is not it.