Comments

  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    The comparison is between equity and fairness or justice. . Proportionality might stand for justice.Banno

    How about the comparison between proportionality and aesthetics? (e.g: equal proportions of dicks to vaginas might not lead to meaningful political change for non-politicians beyond the appearance of Parliament).

    And what about the comparison between aesthetics/proportionality and insipid pandering? (e.g: as you and yours kick up a fuss about vaginal scarcity in the Liberal party, they'll simply start acquiring female representatives. They don't need to actually implement coherent policies to change the plight of women, they just need to abide by your heart-felt appeal. If the Labor party happened to have a more unequal ratio of men to women in a given election cycle, would you instead vote for the Liberals?).

    Justice for politicians does not necessarily translate to justice for constituents.
  • On sex
    Isn't that a very difficult way to the top of the mountain?Wallows

    There are no short cuts. We're not born with the hooves, nor the lung capacity for getting to the top, and only grit and endurance can get us there in the end.

    But seeking to be stoic is just one method of cajoling emotions into order; there are as many approaches as there are degrees in a circle. Meditation, embracing certain theologies, therapy, or adventure seeking are also viable methods of positive self-cultivation. They all have their challenges, and their payoffs (and their weaknesses), but in general you can only ever get as much out of it as you put into it.

    Broadly this is philosophy as a solo sport: a game of self-reflection, where we must figure it out for ourselves, or not at all; we cannot be told.

    I think that avoiding depression and pursuing delight, contentment, and happiness are necessary for having a life worth living (worth it to you), so ultimately whatever effective (and ethical) strategy you can devise for cultivating your own happiness is by extension of high or ultimate importance. "Know thyself" is a powerful piece of advice because when we truly know ourselves, we much more coherently love ourselves (and if we don't like what we see, the knowing also enables the changing).

    Self improvement takes courage (sometimes finding courage is in an of itself an improvement),because we can only grow when we challenge ourselves. In my experience, it's almost always worth it in the end. There's some kind of irony in the fact that in order to progress and feel good about ourselves, we almost invariably have to suffer through some kind of ordeal to earn it....
    *Shakes fist angrily at Darwin*
  • On sex
    This is very difficult for me as a wishful Stoic. As a man, I almost feel as if it is wrong in some way.Wallows

    The stoic who feels nothing is just a myth. The real skill of being stoic is not showing emotion even while you're experiencing it deeply. Emotions themselves aren't necessarily a problem, it's how they can make us behave that really gets us into lasting trouble. By not showing any signs of emotion, stoics therefore control the effects that their emotions have upon their behavior (and therefore them), which is why it can work!
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    I'm sorry, but that reminds me of Scott Morrison's comment that he wanted women to rise to leadership, so long as it was not at the expense of anyone else...

    Yes, that's what he said
    Banno

    What's your point?

    Why do you want to live in a world where some people thrive at the expense of others?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Campaign finance reform is a viable and direct solution. It would level the playing field and revolutionize the electoral system.Merkwurdichliebe

    :up:

    They'll call it idealism, but we do need reform.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    I don’t think it does buy meaningful longterm power. If you think shifting money around will solve the issue then I don’t see how given any assumption that money is the overwhelming force of power. If that is not your position then you’ve defeated your own position by claiming that the power of money is the root issue.I like sushi

    I said it is a root issue. I'm characterizing money in politics, and it will take deeper reform than shifting money to ameliorate our electoral systems as a whole.

    As for economics resources are never distributed equally because if they were society would be massively inefficient - in this sense economic inequality is part and parcel of a fully functional society in which a variety of people’s with different personal and group affiliations live(be this difference by trade or merely aesthetic tastes).I like sushi

    I'm not arguing for the equal distribution of resources, I'm arguing for less relative unequal distribution of resources, and perhaps a rearrangement of the relationship between industrial-corporate profits and deferred costs.

    The true societal force lies in the ability of its citizens - which dictate the allocation of resources where they most “benefit” society (meaning “benefit” as in, don’t fall below the baseline efficiency).I like sushi

    Efficiency isn't everything though. I'm not objecting to capitalism per se, I'm objecting to broken markets, and a broken relationship between private wealth and political influence.
  • On sex
    How does it work?Wallows

    It can work on many levels. Sometimes it's familiarity, sometimes is pheromones. It can be learned, it can be innate, it can fade and it can be forgotten (or even invert). I'm no guru, so remember to take this with a grain of salt.

    How do you deal with someone who is emotionally immature and (fear) from opening up?Wallows

    It depends on what you mean by "deal". If was their supervisor I would try to be firm, but fair, and more importantly, consistent. As a confidant I would just listen, and as a friend I would try to keep them from waxing too immature.

    Yet, most of my reasoning skills are somewhat intact. It's just the emotions that I don't know how to deal with.Wallows

    I was very immature as a child, and with very high emotional sensitivity, so I might somewhat relate.

    One blow that I remember dealing with was when I finally realized just how irritating I could be to the people around me (I was the clown who ran out of material, and a close friend cold-heartedly stated as much). I had no choice but to start examining myself and checking my emotions. I was emotional, to be sure, and learning to overcome and control them in part took allowing myself to feel and express them. Feeling and expressing emotions gives us the benefit of experience, and in the future it helps us to recognize and check them when they become unproductive.

    Emotions are like subconscious signals that try to anticipate the world around us and keep us safe, but they can easily be misleading, and they can benefit from cultivation.

    Growing into our emotions takes a lifetime. My basic advice is to be kind, be reflective, and challenge yourself to expand.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Does the bias exist to any large degree in modern wester society or is it merely an assumption based on a bygone eraI like sushi

    Money does buy power, and that's a root issue (along with relative economic inequality). That most rich entities are white is mere circumstance.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Here's the deal: given preselection candidates of roughly equal competence, select the woman. Do this until the bias is removed, or it is apparent that it's not working. then stop.Banno

    I'm not actually opposed to this, but this isn't the same as a quota. Where differences in merit are indistinguishable, I could care less who gets the job, and if promoting more women in this way has long-term or indirect benefits, I'm all for it. I'm not in favor of passing over more meritorious candidates in pursuit of quota targets.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    People cannot express a preference for woman politicians unless there are women politicians for whom to vote.Banno

    I want the parity in outcomes to be a consequence of equal opportunities, and maybe getting there requires some messy generalizing, but I'm not that kind of radical (I think we're getting there without it, and more deeply rooted/widespread problems are my more immediate concerns).

    A "preference for female politicians" is a bit strange to me, as we're supposed to be voting based on policy. I get that we can help to program culture with quotas at the top, but I'm reluctant condone it for necessity. A bottom up or system wide approach (such as an ERA) achieves the same result without arbitrary top down correction (arguably interfering with "democratic freedom"). That said, reform is required, which should go a long way to solving our present issues regarding inequality of outcomes.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    The ERA would have set a strong global example, and would have given courts a kick in the direction of actually criminalizing sexist discrimination as unconstitutional. They would have had to explore where they could apply that law in practice, but in states where state-level ERA's have been adopted there is a trend for courts to actually find in favor of plaintiffs in discrimination suits.

    Societal values themselves need to keep progressing until we finally understand that we aren't and should not be defined by the circumstances of our birth or the contents of our limbic systems. Relatively extreme economic inequality is itself a present and major source of "privilege" that we can look at through a lens of racial averages, but that's just one potentially misleading fraction of the picture. Poor white families in Appalachia don't dominate or benefit from what happens in Washington. Many of the dominant forces in our society are ultimately white and male owned or operated, but they neither represent nor serve the mean, median or mode white male (or really anyone but their major stakeholders).

    Massive reform is required across many levels of government, not least campaign finance laws (which in theory hamstring female candidates by selling political influence to rich white men). If there were more rich women, or less sexist rich men, we would see more investment in female candidates, but I wouldn't expect a change of anything but the shape of the talking head. I don't have the answers, but I know turning knobs in the dark until we have desirable optics isn't a strategically coherent approach.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Why stop mid stream? Shy bladder? :grin:

    I think you're doing an obvious bait and switch by using the analogy of accessibility ramps in the context that you have done. By its very definition, people need to win the privilege of becoming a political representative, and as such, everyone's respective ramps should be at the same incline.

    That's one crux of our disagreement. You want to implement a reverse bias to counteract the existing bias which primarily serves rich white men, while I want to remove the bias which presently favors rich white men. Your way actually complicates things in theory, because then we need to counter every extant advantage with a respective proportional ramp for every conceivable demographic

    Everyone, regardless of ability or race or gender should have access to a guaranteed set of rights that everyone shares, and that includes having reasonable access to public buildings. It's a universal right that we extend to individuals. Becoming a political representative is not a universal right that we can guarantee to everyone, the best we can do is try to set the game up to be as fair as possible. Rigging the game such that you get parity in gender outcomes isn't same as having a game where people have the same amount of opportunity to use their capabilities to succeed in the first place.

    Evidence?Banno

    Let's assume the worst, and take it for granted that patriarchy is operant and causally dominant at every level of society. By treating it as a simple and purely top down problem (assuming parity at the top with trickle down to parity at all levels), it may amount to mere "tokenism". If a body politic isn't capable of voting for politicians who uphold egalitarian values, regardless of their gender or gender quotas, how much can we achieve beyond symbolic gesture? Won't women still wind up getting the short end in all the ways that they currently do?

    That is to say, if it's just rich cis white het power-having males making all the decisions merely permit some women to win political office, won't they still hold the power? Won't they just select women willing to maintain their desired status quo? Political beliefs wont need to change, only optics.

    I suspect we might disagree less if we wen't using political office as an example to explore, as it is something that relies on meritocracy, regardless of preconditions. A level playing field in our election processes has importance beyond civil rights.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Interpret what is written in the stupidest way possible. That'll work.Banno

    How do you move from accessibility ramps to gendered Parliamentary ramps?

    Make a stupid comparison, get a stupid interpretation.
  • On sex
    Try not to define yourself by something so arbitrary as virginity, and try to keep an open mind about our varied sexual natures as individuals. Some people find happiness in sex, often times in strange and peculiar ways, but really they're just looking for a good time. Sexual lust is one of our oldest and strongest drives, and how we deal with them is ultimately down to each individual.

    A wonderful song by the Eurthymics captures the essence of it. The lyrics are wonderfully simple:

    Sweet dreams are made of this
    Who am I to disagree?
    I travel the world
    And the seven seas,
    Everybody's looking for something.

    Some of them want to use you
    Some of them want to get used by you
    Some of them want to abuse you
    Some of them want to be abused.

    Hold your head up
    Keep your head up, movin' on

  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    For sure, but it's not about a specific cause, it's about a result. Are capable women contributing? If not, quotas address that problem (aside from specific instances in which women are almost entirely disinterested/don't have the skills to enter form outside), whether we are talking direct intervening to keep women out or some kind of instance in which capable women aren't interested.

    Again, people are being picked on merit here because we are discussing capable women. An organisation concerned with merit has nothing to fear because the people the quota insists they pick are capable. In terms of merit, there is no reason for an organisation to complain.
    TheWillowOfDarkness

    The causes which create male-female disparities in certain professions exist at different levels of the professional hierarchy in question. For example, lets assume fewer women are being accepted to courses/academic programs in STEM fields, and that women face more obstacles during their courses, causing fewer of them to graduate. The existing market of qualified graduates might be male heavy through no fault of any individual women (it would be the fault of the prior discrimination), and companies requiring technical STEM skills would have no choice but to hire mostly men as a result.

    Quotas at the top don't account for or solve imbalances that are stratified throughout a hierarchy. We have to start at the bottom, which is where my concern has long rested, and that's a broader discussion of economic issues that transcend gender and race.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    What if one of the main obstacles is a toxic masculine culture in parliaments and party rooms that discourages them from getting involved? Experience shows that a pretty reliable way to dissolve toxicly masculine cultures is to require them to have a significant proportion of women in their midst. that can be achieved by quotas. Once the quotas have done their job, the obstacle will be gone and the quotas will no longer be necessary.andrewk

    Congress/Parliament isn't just another man's club. We can fiddle with the rules of conduct/transparency of conduct for those who are put there by constituents, but we can't tell the constituents who to put there in the first place.

    In my opinion, people like AOC are actually already doing a good job of this. More women holding congressional seats would be even better, but because the job they're there to do is more important than anything else, we just cannot force it.

    In 1994 the Australian Labor Party introduced quotas for the proportion of women in winnable seats. It was met with strong internal resistance at the time, but some brave souls pushed it through. The result is that the party's culture has changed enormously, it has very strong female representation in parliament, most of its its most potent political operators are women, and its opponent - the strangely-named Liberal party - is now broadly perceived as being anti-women, which is an enormous electoral liability for them.andrewk

    Ultimately the voters will choose, and if intentionally fielding more women gets them more votes, that's the system as it stands. I would just hope that voters are still voting on the basis of the soundness of political ideas and personal consistency (merit) rather than voting based on emotional appeals. I realize that the law of averages allows campaigns to rise and fall through such approaches, but I resent them as political pandering and harmful to democratic health.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    It works at the individual level. SO for example one would focus on what a person with a disability is able to do, and remove barriers to the capability. Ramps instead of steps. A few extra boxes for the short guy.Banno

    We're all capable of being the president (Trump proves that). So should we work to ensure that Ivanka Trump becomes the next president? (She does have the potential after-all).

    The rights of accessibility, and the standards of decency we try our best to uphold for people with different physical capabilities are not comparable to political offices, nor to the reasons which hold back women at large from breaking into the areas traditionally dominated by men (I don't know about Australia, but elsewhere the times are a changin). It's laudable to help people reach their potential, but you've mostly been talking about helping a tiny fraction of economically and politically elite women attain a privilege that few people can ever experience.

    So I ask again, once the Liberal Party learns to pander and has 50% female representatives, what then? How have you otherwise said or achieved anything meaningful? How will I know which side to vote for?

    As an aside, what do you think the Labour party says to the female candidates who are pre-selected because they are women? "Congratulations! We would like to support you in a campaign for your district! There are a bunch of other people we would rather select, but since we need to pander to the masses by having a better ratio of men to women, you're our strategic choice!".

    Wouldn't that be a bit unsatisfying? Wouldn't you rather have not been unfairly subjected to extra obstacles in the first place?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Then you advocate accepting the existing bias.Banno

    Did you even read my post?

    Why are you taking this with or against us attitude? If I say that I'm against unjust discrimination, and I don't agree to what is in my view more unjust discrimination, I'm therefore in support of existing unjust discrimination?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    As such, merit objections to quotas contain the underlying assumption that women are not capable.. If women are capable, there is no objection to be made, on the grounds of capability, about them getting a positionTheWillowOfDarkness
    The same number of women and men don't always apply for the same job, and companies should have the right to choose based on merit even if it doesn't create perfect gender parity in staff numbers.

    The causes of the disequilibriums between men and women aren't wholly caused by the actions of sexist cis gender white males.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Ah, so we have grounds for agreement at least in that there is some bias.Banno

    There's always room for agreement, but where we differ is always more interesting. I've never said sexism and misogynistic bias doesn't exist, but I probably believe it is of lesser magnitude than you (finding out how much less, entails a very wide discussion of how we weight each causal factor which contributes to a disequilibrium of average outcomes between genders).

    Well, perhaps the opinions of the women so selected will assist in identifying the problems invovled.Banno

    They're supposed to be voted in, democratically, for that very reason. The people speak in large part through the concerns and promises of the candidates they elect, and it is by the words and actions of those candidates (rather than the virtues of their gender) that the most immediate and impactful change can be instituted

    The long and storied rises and falls of the Equal Rights Amendment in America is a didactic history on this point. Americans had the chance to put in constitutional writing that individuals could not be discriminated against on the basis of sex or gender. The champions of the opposition were often female, and their main argument was that women would lose their special treatment (not being drafted and gender based labor legislation favored by conservatives).

    Using what is ostensibly your present argument, that differences in capabilities between men and women warrant different treatment, the Equal Rights Amendment Act, which is the very legal entity which would make unconstitutional the unfair discrimination we both agree is a problem, was prevented from being passed into law.

    "I'm a woman, take it from me; we don't need no ERA".

    "Perhaps" just isn't good enough.

    a period of reverse bias leads to a new stability.

    The middles aged middle class white males who dominate political processes may not be the best folk to judge issues of feminism, gender, race, and ability.
    Banno

    (In America,) I don't believe the middle class dominates much of anything. Why hold the average man uniquely accountable? Crimes of thy father and all that?

    I don't condone reverse bias. Groups don't suffer, individuals do, reverse bias is just more bias.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    No more than you are saying that men are more capable than women.

    If men and women are both capable of acting as representatives in an elected body such as parliament, then we would expect to see equal numbers of men and women.

    But we do not.

    So either women are not capable representatives, or there is some other extrinsic factor biased towards men.

    Your response?
    Banno

    My response is for us to stop the biased favoritism of men and the biased dis-favoritism of women, not to compensate by shifting to overt favoritism for women at whichever stage of candidate pre-selection (because that achieves nothing but pander).

    I don't wish to discuss female-vs-male capabilities in the general sense (but we can if necessary), because whatever they may be, it is the merits of individual candidates that matter, not the merits of their gender.

    We should expect to see more female political representatives than we do, and the causes of that outcome are myriad. You want to treat the effect without addressing or understanding the problem(s) to begin with. If more women aren't making it to office because of a myriad of social obstacles placed before them, foisting a few more individual women into parliament solves nothing.

    The rest of woman kind will remain affected by those obstacles you have yet to name or address.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    But aren't you thereby suggesting that women lack the same capabilities as men (i.e: handicapped?)
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    What does, what Vagabond said, or what you said about Labour versus the Liberal party?Terrapin Station

    @Banno confuses the mere aesthetic of dicks in parliament with the overall status quo that feminism should seek to overturn. Because I refuse to to equivocate in this way or assent to the value of gender quotas, he likens me to the problem. He's wrong; identity politics itself remains poisonous. Recent history should be evidence enough (eg: the rise of the reactionary alt-right, the election of Trump, Brexit, nationalism in the EU, etc...):

    @Banno

    "One of my merits is that I'm a woman"...

    But is one of Bernie's merits that he is a man? If not, how does favoring Hillary the individual amount to fairness or equality, or address the "capabilities", of and for the female demographic? A privilege for one is not a privilege for all, and if all you care about is the aesthetic-moral appeal of finally electing someone without a penis, nothing whatsoever might be achieved for women at large through the office itself. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton doesn't actually give a shit about the middle class, female or otherwise, so I don't trust her as a politician. Should people sharing my views have voted for Hillary anyway because she has a vagina?.

    I mean, in hindsight, democrats should have chosen Bernie over Hillary on the basis of merit, right? (the merit of being able to defeat Trump, and having a consistent record of adhering to their espoused and desirable ideas). We tried to play the identity politics game, and a bunch of white (and otherwise) people rejected it because it controverted their individual beliefs (or outright insulted them). And look where it has got us (endless division)... "Nothing changes" might have been better than the step backward that was caused by the constant focus on aesthetic measures of fairness. If you want a society where people are elected because of skin color and geniticular happenstance, then welcome to America. Identity politics has successfully revived national socialism by teaching people that it's fair to treat people differently based on their race (and gender).

    Hope remains though. Trump is the perfect Falstaff to demonstrate the dangers of inherently dividing demographics into competing teams. He is our ipecac.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    I'm not saying it's the cause. I was just using hate crimes to illustrate a point. Nevertherless, they are a manifestation of that same system in which racism and sexism exist, a system that relegates every individual to a group.Merkwurdichliebe

    A good word to describe it might be "tribalism" (and when the going gets tough, we all tend to get downright tribal). Historically this is what served our ancestors (from an evolutionary perspective), and this makes us vulnerable to it, but it it's a poison in a globalized and multicultural society.

    Ever hear of "black lives matter", or "police lives matter"?Merkwurdichliebe

    Of course, but I don't see how this might undermine my claim. For example, a black individual can suffer emotional trauma as the result of hearing about a hate crime (hearing about the shooting of an unarmed black civilian by white policemen), but the actual victims are the deceased and the deceased's loved ones, and their immediate community. Through sympathy we can suffer along side individual victims, but not to the same degree as their actual suffering (else we're over-reacting?)...

    I wonder how many Russians were saying that during the Bolshevik revolution.Merkwurdichliebe

    In the early days that kind of thing never entered their mind. Once the new regime had a firm clamp on the levers of power (and demanded more for less) it was something they resorted to. In their minds it was wholly pragmatic and necessary...

    I agree. We are individual's, who, ideally, represent ourselves. Nevertheless, anyone who constitutionally identifies himself with a race, believes himself to be a representative of that racial demographic.

    I cannot help but think that one of the most inferior assumptions an individual can make, is that he is defined by one or another. Racial identity is an indication of a primitive mind - 9r should I say: stupidity.
    Merkwurdichliebe

    I fully agree. Sadly, defining and categorizing us all into demographic categories for the sake of appeal is almost necessary to be successful under our current incentive structures. And in so doing, we can't help but see "others" as the editorialized caricatures that our established mainlines feeds to us.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Labour, of course, introduced a preference for preselecting women, and as a result has an equal distribution of gender. Without "dismissing 24 percent of their elected representatives".Banno

    And? What has changed as a result? More support for Labor among progressives? Is more female butts in parliamentary seats the justice you set out to achieve? Does their increased equity in gender ratios mean they legislate more fairly or effectively?

    As bad as I feel for the women who are unfairly passed over for political candidacy (not being sarcastic), disparity among a relatively elite and already advantaged portion of the population is lower on my list of concerns than are the actual laws (and their upholding) which are designed to guarantee equality of opportunity, and the welfare of the masses who live under them. I would vote for an orangutan if I thought they had good ideas and the ability to follow through on them, but not because I feel sorry for orangutans.

    If the Labor party had exactly 50% women and 50% men, but you believed their policies did not actually address the obstacles that women face (while the Liberals did), who would you vote for?

    'Member when the mostly male U.S Senate called in a woman subsitute to question Dr. Ford? Once you've ensured that equal proportions of genitalia will be present when parliament is in session, and your political opponents have adapted to to the new rules, wont we still be left in the same political debate about which policies we should enact? I thought we started with the idea that we should listen to the experiences of people affected by systemically perpetuated injustice, but somehow we've ended with the idea that someone of a particular identity group can only be fairly represented in political office by a member of that same identity group.

    Do you really think that's true?

    Labour has women represented in leadership, while the Liberal party made an utter mess of not selecting the obvious candidate in their most recent leadership spill... of course, not because she was a woman, and despite her being the senior member of parliament and having far more experience than her competitors.Banno

    You're saying that based on merit, she should have been next in line. I don't know a lot about Australian politics, but I do take your word for it. But democracy ought to include meritocracy among our elected representatives.

    The unequal treatment that she received is what I think helps perpetuate inequality on a grander scale. Eliminate the unequal treatment, and we will eliminate the inequality. Like the early feminists, I do believe in meritocracy, and I want women to have the chance to succeed based on their individual merit. Showing specific favoritism to women in general is an insult to their quality; what they need is a fair chance, not special treatment.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    I agree that the racist individual is the most essential component. But a hate crime that is perpetrated on an individual is, as they say, not personal, its business. A hate crime is not directed at the individual, but at the group to which he belongs, the individual is incidental. Furthermore, the racist identifies herself with what she considers to be a superior race, so that her decisions are made on behalf of her race, and not on behalf of herself as individual.Merkwurdichliebe

    Hate crimes are a bit distant from the kind of systemic discrimination that feminism alleges perpetuates inequality. How can we compensate people for hate crimes? You're talking about a fundamentally different problem. Yes the hate-criminal is ostensibly addressing an entire demographic, but they do not represent one (we're not in fact representatives of our respective races).

    If we put an end to all future hate-crimes, unequal social outcomes would still persist (assuming hate crime isn't the only perpetuating factor of inequality).

    Anyone that constitutionally identifies themselves with the victim race would be vicariously affected to the same degree as the actual victim. And then the actual victim, the victimized individual, matters only anecdotally.Merkwurdichliebe

    I find the idea that someone who shares the race of a victim can be vicariously affected to the same degree as the actual victim to be utterly dubious. I recognize that people can be emotionally affected in all kinds of ways, but at some point other people cannot be held accountable for the state of our own emotions (sometimes our emotions are not reasonable). The marginalization of actual victims in exchange for the political monetization of identity is exactly what I'm afraid of.

    Indeed. I don't think that compensating an entire demographic to correct inequality can be effectively and equitably applied either. I predict it would end with something that looks like the Soviet g.u.l.a.g.Merkwurdichliebe

    I don't think we would get that deep into the fever dream, but you never know...
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    In fact, I might argue that racism and sexism (as concepts) are directed toward groups rather than individuals. Could that, in some way, indicate that collectivities are an essential component of racism or sexism?Merkwurdichliebe

    I can see myself taking up an opposing position: The overall impact of racism necessarily comes from the cumulative effects of individual acts of discrimination. A racist act towards one individual might symbolically be a racist act toward an entire race, but it does not actually impact all members of that race. I don't see how the notion of compensating an entire demographic to correct inequality can be effectively and equitably applied in practice. And if all we're doing is correcting the effects of discrimination after the fact (as opposed to arresting the unjust discrimination to begin with), aren't we chasing our own tails?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    The Australian Liberal Party has 74% men in the Australian Parliament.

    Their opposition, the Labour Party, has 53% men.

    The Liberal narrative is along the lines you are adopting. They claim that the disparity is due to merit.

    Should the Liberals do something to redress this imbalance?
    Banno

    Who gets the privilege to sit in parliament and represent constituents is something that by definition can only be shared by a very small portion of individuals (it's a privilege specific to individuals, not genders; "men" don't have some kind of necessary privilege-at-large because parliaments are sausage fests). To be frank I'm more concerned with with the state of our laws (whether or not they are fair, equitable, and functional) than the genders of their mere custodians. People should not be voting on the basis of gender (is the imbalance caused by unequal consideration given by voters? If so, wouldn't it be solved if people no longer used gender as a point of discrimination when casting votes?).

    It might seem like it, but reaching gender equality in parliament isn't necessarily a victory for equality and equity between the sexes. Unless people like AOC actually follow through on the substance of their rhetoric, the women and minorities of her constituency will continue to face the obstacles they currently do. It matters more that she has good ideas than an inspiring skin tone.

    Should the Australian liberal party address the gender imbalance by dismissing 24 percent of their elected representatives (they ARE elected, right?) and replace them with arbitrarily selected women? What changes as a result?

    We can encourage more women to run for seats in parliament, but we would be remiss to institute gender quotas. If a man cannot represent the political aspirations of women (and therefore we should institute quotas), then women cannot represent the political aspirations of men. Once we start down this road it just gets worse and worse until we do a 180.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Why does nothing change? I'm agreeing to treating people differently, just not through the dogmatic lens of immutable identity.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    I can understand treating individuals differently according to their individual needs, but I cannot comprehend treating entire races/genders differently according to some kind of generalized difference in needs. To do so would merely repeat historical mistakes.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Can you clarify?

    What differences are there between the capabilities of men and and women, or straights and gays, or whites and blacks?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    P.S, I'm not exactly advocating marxism, but laissez faire capitalism is definitely not my cup of tea. Universal basic income is something i support. Does that make me a Marx luver?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    We're talking about adult humans with equal capabilities though, aren't we?
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    A more appropriate approach would be to to look at the fulfilment of capabilities.Banno

    Each to their own? :wink:

    I think that the forces keeping poor people poor have more or less managed to spread out evenly across all racial and sexual divides, and at the end of the day this the ultimate problem I would seek to remedy. The system we live in demands us to continuously produce wealth, but most of the profits are now deftly scooped up by a tiny fraction of equity holders. I can see the logic behind compensatory treatment designed to eliminate economic disparities, but once we're all equally poor (and there are a few extra Oprahs), what then?

    Poor people will still be poor, we'll just be poor in equal proportions. Therefore, what you're proposing is not an actual solution, it's really just an aesthetic correction in pursuit of equity over equitable minimums. On the other hand, if the average (poor) citizen is given a greater chance at upward economic mobility (and all the other capacities that come along with that), not only will the poorest among us have a better standard of living, economic differences between various demographics caused by our discriminatory past will also fade.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequitiesBanno

    Isn't the argument: "the reason why we have persisting inequality is because people are not treated equally"?

    Fortunes are not completely static (they rise and fall); you seem to be suggesting that there's no economic mobility whatsoever.

    That assumption seems to hold more true when we look at extreme wealth disparity (the super-rich), but then we're inherently not talking about racial demographics.

    Under your apparent suggestion, we ought to create a few extra black billionaires, and add more black families to the lower-middle class as opposed to strictly lower-class. Problem is it might not be long before the bulk of the middle class joins the rest of everyone who live paycheck to paycheck.

    You seem to be promoting proportional symmetry (an aesthetic value), not equality or an equitable minimum for all.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    Isn't this a difference between negligence and an intentional crime? (negligence can still be criminal).

    EDIT: apparently obstruction charges require intent to actually be established.
  • "Free Market" Vs "Central Planning"; a Metaphorical Strategic Dilemma.
    Optimal for what purpose? Optimization requires a specific objective. So, the optimum strategy will depend on what the objective is. If you do not adequately specify the objective, then the term optimum is not applicable. Your example simply shows why optimization is tied to objective, there is no "optimum in a vacuum".

    It's like if I hand you a chair and I say "is this optimum? if not, optimize if for me", you cannot achieve any optimization without knowing (or then speculating) as to my objective with the chair.

    If the community is trying to ensure survival of the community as a whole, and so weights more favorably a plan that has a higher probability of "everyone surviving".
    boethius

    Agreed, but even when we establish an objective we can still have no way to discriminate between strategic options.

    Consider a roulette wheel. Your objective is to walk out of the casino with as much money as possible. Do you bet your only dollar on red/black, or do you bet it on a number? They have the same ratio of risk to return, and you only have enough money for one initial bet. Which option do you choose, and why?

    I agree. What is seen as optimum will be determined by what people's objectives are.

    For instance, if the sailors just want to maximize their own survival they may decide the optimum strategy is to build an optimum sized boat for themselves in secret (while pretending to do whatever society decided) and just cast off in the night. Obviously, if they wanted to maximize the survival of others they would never consider that plan (unless, they decide it's become the only plan that will potentially save anyone).
    boethius

    This is more or less why I hoped the analogy would be an effective metaphor for my point about strategic ambiguity. There are 1000 possible unknown factors that influence efficiency on a granular level such that we just don't know which option is best for each individual, or each set of individuals.

    You were pretty clear your purpose was to discuss the scenario as an analogy of a free market principle vs central planning principle.boethius

    Well yes, but aren't I allowed to have underlying intentions? :)

    The final sentences of my OP's paragraph frame the understanding I sought to impart:
    "Adherence to socialist or capitalist principles, like choosing a strategy for the survival of you or your tribe, is a gamble (a wager that following X principle will tend to lead to individual or overall success). The best we can do is suppose the statistical likelihood of risks and outcomes, which is always limited by our ability to detect and compute unknown variables, especially given potentially vast circumstantial differences between individual cases (which we seldom have the time or interest to investigate thoroughly).

    The bold is meant to actually apply to all possible strategic dilemmas. The very best chess player (or computer) on earth simultaneously makes the most well informed decision that anyone can possibly make, but they're still confronting and accepting some degree of risk given the inevitable unknowns.

    Free market proponents only loosely appeal to devolution and decentralization as supporting principlesboethius

    Their appeals might be loose, but they're damned frequent, especially in the neo-conservative from the camps (absolutely everything would be privatized if they had their way).

    My hope was that in understanding the limits and ambiguities of strategic decision making, I could inoculate people against dogmatic subscription to one particular strategic regime.

    The point of my third strategy is to point out you can have a free market in your scenario: everyone relying on their own wealth and trading and selling to achieve whatever strategy they personally think is best for themselves. If you agree it's absurd to rely on a free market economy to solve the problem in your scenario, to the point it won't even occur to most people, I agree.boethius

    I think with most things it's a mixture of bottom up and top decision making that produces the most robust results, but depending on the actual circumstances, we may be better off centralizing or decentralizing different aspects of our collective and individual decision-making.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    For victimhood to be successfull there has to be a common feeling of guilt and wrongdoing, the need for others to prove that they are supportive of the victim. Then the 'victim' is listened to and his/her/they(?) demands can be taken seriously....

    ....Yet to argue that males are victims is hilarious. Just who will feel guilty about men?
    ssu

    Plenty of folks feel sympathy for men's issues (grass-roots grievance politics is already a multi-million dollar industry). There may be no coherent agent-oppressor to throw blame at, but men can still be victims of circumstance, and this is why plenty of men's rights movements are already off to the races.

    The men's right's groups which focus on blaming people, rather than addressing or solving issues directly, are not surprisingly part of the alt-right movement (they blame women, minorities, progressive values, and pine for a return to traditionalism).

    There's only subtle difference in their ideological starting points, but there's an ocean of difference between their political conclusions objectives. When we tell young men that the problems they face are laughable and that they should stop being whiny problems, we're setting them up to feel ostracized, insignificant, and unintentionally pushing them toward identitarian movements that happen to favor and emotionally console them.

    This Frankenstein-esque obsession with race, gender, orientation, or identity, regardless of the cause in question, has created a monster. People rightly reject identity politics once it turns on them, but in the ensuing confusion they become the useful idiots of the diametrically opposed.

    in both cases the "White guilt" and perhaps "Male guilt" in the case of universal suffrage was a way to achieve those goals by using the victimhood card.ssu

    I think history begs to differ. "White guilt" or "male guilt" was never a cogent concept in the days of the suffragettes. The earliest leaders of pre-feminist movements didn't actually try to guilt men into granting them social equality, they argued and petitioned for equality on the basis of female merit. Men tended to believe women weren't capable of complex rational thought, that they were governed by their hystera (uterus), should be seen and not heard, were forbade from speaking openly in public, and should be gently-brutalized if they stray from virtue. They needed to be more than victims if they wanted to see progress.

    Rather than trying to establish male guilt (as a means of motivating men into fixing the problems), they actually did focus more on the problems themselves, and motivating everyone on the basis of what is right rather than on the basis of "who is guilty and wrong". Rather than blaming men as evil, they blamed, but more importantly, challenged, our cultural understandings and institutions themselves.

    Here's a kind of long but wonderfully representative speech delivered by Angelina Grimké (one of the earliest American feminist reformers) in 1838 on the subject of slavery and the power of men. It was delivered to a racially mixed crowd of abolitionists at Pennsylvania Hall, while just outside a mob of violent protestors did everything they could to shut it down (by the next day, the whole building had been burnt to the ground). She incorporates "outrage" into her rhetoric, but she does not use it to instigate hatred or resentment or inherent blame, she uses it as an appeal to action in the pursuit of justice. The precision and eloquence of her words, and the relevance and persuasive power of her arguments were her main tools. She helped to found a movement that sought to empower the dis-empowered, not a movement seeking to guilt the powerful into giving up (because obviously that never works).


    Reveal
    "Men, brethren and fathers -- mothers, daughters and sisters, what came ye out for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? Is it curiosity merely, or a deep sympathy with the perishing slave, that has brought this large audience together? [A yell from the mob without the building.] Those voices without ought to awaken and call out our warmest sympathies. Deluded beings! "they know not what they do." They know not that they are undermining their own rights and their own happiness, temporal and eternal. Do you ask, "what has the North to do with slavery?" Hear it -- hear it. Those voices without tell us that the spirit of slavery is here, and has been roused to wrath by our abolition speeches and conventions: for surely liberty would not foam and tear herself with rage, because her friends are multiplied daily, and meetings are held in quick succession to set forth her virtues and extend her peaceful kingdom. This opposition shows that slavery has done its deadliest work in the hearts of our citizens. Do you ask, then, "what has the North to do?" I answer, cast out first the spirit of slavery from your own hearts, and then lend your aid to convert the South. Each one present has a work to do, be his or her situation what it may, however limited their means, or insignificant their supposed influence. The great men of this country will not do this work; the church will never do it. A desire to please the world, to keep the favor of all parties and of all conditions, makes them dumb on this and every other unpopular subject. They have become worldly-wise, and therefore God, in his wisdom, employs them not to carry on his plans of reformation and salvation. He hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak to overcome the mighty.

    As a Southerner I feel tbrt it is my duty to stand up here to-night and bear testimony against slavery. I have seen it -- I have seen it. I know it has horrors that can never be described. I was brought up under its wing: I witnessed for many years its demoralizing influences, and its destructiveness to human happiness. It is admitted by some that the slave is not happy under the worst forms of slavery. But I have never seen a happy slave. I have seen him dance in his chains, it is true; but he was not happy. There is a wide difference between happiness and mirth. Man cannot enjoy the former while his manhood is destroyed, and that part of the being which is necessary to the making, and to the enjoyment of happiness, is completely blotted out. The slaves, however, may be, and sometimes are, mirthful. When hope is extinguished, they say, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." [Just then stones were thrown at the windows, -- a great noise without, and commotion within.] What is a mob? What would the breaking of every window be? What would the levelling of this Hall be? Any evidence that we are wrong, or that slavery is a good and wholesome institution ? What if the mob should now burst in upon us, break up our meeting and commit violence upon our persons -- would this be any thing compared with what the slaves endure? No, no: and we do not remember them "as bound with them," if we shrink in the time of peril, or feel unwilling to sacrifice ourselves, if need be, for their sake. [Great noise.] I thank the Lord that there is yet life left enough to feel the truth, even though it rages at it -- that conscience is not so completely seared as to be unmoved by the truth of the living God.

    Many persons go to the South for a season, and are hospitably entertained in the parlor and at the table of the slave-holder. They never enter the huts of the slaves; they know nothing of the dark side of the picture, and they return home with praises on their lips of the generous character of those with whom they had tarried. Or if they have witnessed the cruelties of slavery, by remaining silent spectators they have naturally become callous -- an insensibility has ensued which prepares them to apologize even for barbarity. Nothing but the corrupting influence of slavery on the hearts of the Northern people can induce them to apologize for it; and much will have been done for the destruction of Southern slavery when we have so reformed the North that no one here will be willing to risk his reputation by advocating or even excusing the holding of men as property. The South know it, and acknowledge that as fast as our principles prevail, the hold of the master must be relaxed. [Another outbreak of mobocratic spirit, and some confusion in the house.]

    How wonderfully constituted is the human mind! How it resists, as long as it can, all efforts made to reclaim from error! I feel that all this disturbance is but an evidence that our efforts are the best that could have been adopted, or else the friends of slavery would not care for what we say and do. The South know what we do. I am thankful that they are reached by our efforts. Many times have I wept in the land of my birth, over the system of slavery. I knew of none who sympathized in my feelings -- I was unaware that any efforts were made to deliver the oppressed -- no voice in the wilderness was heard calling on the people to repent and do works meet for repentance -- and my heart sickened within me. Oh, how should I have rejoiced to know that such efforts as these were being made. I only wonder that I had such feelings. I wonder when I reflect under what influence I was brought up that my heart is not harder than the nether millstone. But in the midst of temptation I was preserved, and my sympathy grew warmer, and my hatred of slavery more inveterate, until at last I have exiled myself from my native land because I could no longer endure to hear the wailing of the slave. I fled to the land of Penn; for here, thought I, sympathy for the slave will surely be found. But I found it not. The people were kind and hospitable, but the slave had no place in their thoughts. Whenever questions were put to me as to his condition, I felt that they were dictated by an idle curiosity, rather than by that deep feeling which would lead to effort for his rescue. I therefore shut up my grief in my own heart. I remembered that I was a Carolinian, from a state which framed this iniquity by law. I knew that throughout her territory was continual suffering, on the one part, and continual brutality and sin on the other. Every Southern breeze wafted to me the discordant tones of weeping and wailing, shrieks and groans, mingled with prayers and blasphemous curses. I thought there was no hope; that the wicked would go on in his wickedness, until he had destroyed both himself and his country. My heart sunk within me at the abominations in the midst of which I had been born and educated. What will it avail, cried I in bitterness of spirit, to expose to the gaze of strangers the horrors and pollutions of slavery, when there is no ear to hear nor heart to feel and pray for the slave. The language of my soul was, "Oh tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon." But how different do I feel now! Animated with hope, nay, with an assurance of the triumph of liberty and good will to man, I will lift up my voice like a trumpet, and show this people their transgression, their sins of omission towards the slave, and what they can do towards affecting Southern mind, and overthrowing Southern oppression.

    We may talk of occupying neutral ground, but on this subject, in its present attitude, there is no such thing as neutral ground. He that is not for us is against us, and he that gathereth not with us, scattereth abroad. If you are on what you suppose to be neutral ground, the South look upon you as on the side of the oppressor. And is there one who loves his country willing to give his influence, even indirectly, in favor of slavery -- that curse of nations ? God swept Egypt with the besom of destruction, and punished Judea also with a sore punishment, because of slavery. And have we any reason to believe that he is less just now? -- or that he will be more favorable to us than to his own "peculiar people?" [Shoutings, stones thrown against the windows, &c.]

    There is nothing to be feared from those who would stop our mouths, but they themselves should fear and tremble. The current is even now setting fast against them. If the arm of the North had not caused the Bastile of slavery to totter to its foundation, you would not hear those cries. A few years ago, and the South felt secure, and with a contemptuous sneer asked, "Who are the abolitionists? The abolitionists are nothing?" -- Ay, in one sense they were nothing, and they are nothing still. But in this we rejoice, that "God has chosen things that are not to bring to nought things that are." [Mob again disturbed the meeting.]

    We often hear the question asked , What shall we do?" Here is an opportunity for doing something now. Every man and every woman present may do soinething by showing that we fear not a mob, and, in the midst of threatenings and revilings, by opening our mouths for the dumb and pleading the cause of those who are ready to perish.

    To work as we should in this cause, we must know what Slavery is. Let me urge you then to buy the books which have been written on this subject and read them, and then lend them to your neighbors. Give your money no longer for things which pander to pride and lust, but aid in scattering "the living coals of truth" upon the naked heart of this nation, -- in circulating appeals to the sympathies of Christians in behalf of the outraged and suffering slave. But, it is said by some, our "books and papers do not speak the truth." Why, then, do they not contradict what we say? They cannot. Moreover the South has entreated, nay commanded us to be silent; and what greater evidence of the truth of our publications could be desired?

    Women of Philadelphia! allow me as a Southern woman, with much attachment to the land of my birth, to entreat you to come up to this work. Especially let me urge you to petition. Men may settle this and other questions at the ballot-box, but you have no such right; it is only through petitions that you can reach the Legislature. It is therefore peculiarly your duty to petition. Do you say, "It does no good?" The South already turns pale at the number sent. They have read the reports of the proceedings of Congress, and there have seen that among other petitions were very many from the women of the North on the subject of slavery. This fact has called the attention of the South to the subject. How could we expect to have done more as yet? Men who hold the rod over slaves, rule in the councils of the nation: and they deny our right to petition and to remonstrate against abuses of our sex and of our kind. We have these rights, however, from our God. Only let us exercise them: and though often turned away unanswered, let us remember the influence of importunity upon the unjust judge, and act accordingly. The fact that the South look with jealousy upon our measures shows that they are effectual. There is, therefore, no cause for doubting or despair, but rather for rejoicing.

    It was remarked in England that women did much to abolish Slavery in her colonies. Nor are they now idle. Numerous petitions from them have recently been presented to the Queen, to abolish the apprenticeship with its cruelties nearly equal to those of the system whose place it supplies. One petition two miles and a quarter long has been presented. And do you think these labors will be in vain ? Let the history of the past answer. When the women of these States send up to Congress such a petition, our legislators will arise as did those of England, and say, "When all the maids and matrons of the land are knocking at our doors we must legislate." Let the zeal and love, the faith and works of our English sisters quicken ours -- that while the slaves continue to suffer, and when they shout deliverance, we may feel the satisfaction of having done what we could."

    -Angelina Grimké



    Simply put it, identity politics is a dead end in this issue. But as I said, these problems that modern males have can be dealt in totally different ways.ssu

    In any democracy, identity politics always was and always will be a dead end. We can't find equitable middle grounds if we self-segregate into fundamentally competing identity groups whose main tool is guilt and hate (nor might individuals have much democratic freedom under such a paradigm). While the civil rights movements of old did champion causes affecting particular identity groups, they didn't centralize around blame, guilt, and resentment of entire other groups as a cause or a solution, they focused on equality, unity, and an end to injustice. When and where the issue of "guilt" has surfaced as a central issue, it caused schisms and divisions in civil rights movements.

    You can't remedy physical segregation with ideological segregation.
  • Should A Men's Rights Movement Exist?
    Because with arguing that men are victims you obviously have to have the oppressor.ssu

    This perfectly characterizes "grievance politics". That singular assumption (that there must be an agent oppressor) is basically the fundamental source of everything that's wrong with contemporary 4th wave "intersectional" (radical) feminism.

    The simple fact is that you should be far more exact on just what is the problem and what you want to be done. Let's say that too many men are taking their lives or using alcohol and drugs or ending up on their couch watching TV and playing video games. Well, fight then that by perhaps embracing manhood (or something). Start to change those views that make men difficult to seek help with programs and methods that don't carry a stigma, but would be contrary to that. How can you avoid burn out, PTSD or other mental problems before you have them in a high stress environment. How to help your friend. That would sound totally different. But don't assert that it's some human rights issue and men are the victims.ssu

    "Men's rights groups", or at least the ones I'm familiar with, are indeed seeking to address the problems you have mentioned (and like their counter parts, have become obsessed with the virtue of victim-hood). It's almost impossible for them to not frame men as a victim because that's the format that sells (because it induces rage).

    Sex sells, but rage sells in the new new world like sex never could. From an evolutionary perspective, it's inevitable that all of these movements will become dominated by the most outrageous denominators. Calm and collected perspectives get crowded out of the online marketplace by the more loud and the rationally obnoxious; and on top of that we're all being fed from (in)conveniently segregated digital troughs which are meant to reinforce our disparate biases (and all the while intentionally pissing us off as a means of attention-getting).

    In the era of identity politics, I don't blame the "men's rights activists" for making the same mistakes, but I do resent those mistakes. It's just that I don't see any group as currently capable of doing any better (not until we learn to digest new media more responsibly, (or maybe start holding new media corps accountable for their detrimental bull-shit, but it's not entirely their fault either)).

    Ultimately I think a sufficient grasp of the complex dynamics that lead to social disparities is currently above the level that our collective consciousness is capable of comprehending. More than half of us still seem to be stuck in and with old world norms and superstition. We can scarcely agree (as a group) about gender and sexuality (facts and norms alike), and the economics of it all is beyond our best economists. All this identify politics coming out the other end is a direct byproduct of bad science.
  • On intentionality and more
    Well, consider all the different realms of knowledge that are out there for humans to discover/create (innumerable fields within physics, ethics, civics, biology, psychology, medicine, ontology, epistemology, math, economics, technology, sociology, ecology, and on, and on, and on)...

    Do you think that there is one single method of inquiry that works best within all of these fields of study? "The scientific method" is actually just as poorly defined as "the philosophical method". Best we can give you are highly generalized principles like measurability, falsifiability, predictive power, explanatory power, etc... The same is true for science because we have had to to develop and refine different approaches for scientific success in disparate fields. Scientists in one field might not at all be familiar with the methods and principles that are popular in other fields.

    Perhaps a golden standard that scientists and philosophers both seek is a kind of interdisciplinary reinforcement. Scientific or philosophical conclusions that have application or predictive power within many fields of study tend to be the most reliable and useful (e.g: thermodynamics), so they receive the most praise and attention.

VagabondSpectre

Start FollowingSend a Message