A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Psychosplodge]

(we do not need a mandated percentage of blind snipers).

[URL="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Incompetence-GOLLANCZ-S-F-Rob-Grant/dp/0575074493"]link[/URL]

[Denzark]

Umm, thank you Splodge.

[Gotthammer]

Into this,

So there you have it. Feminism is not a man-hating ideology based around putting women ahead of men**, but simply the ideal that we should not be discriminated against because of our gender. Of course feminist theory is far more complicated than this, with as many viewpoints as feminists, but you won't find many who disagree with these as the basic tenets.

**There is an extremist feminist element that do believe in such things, and they are the single most damaging thing to women's rights there is. Equality can not be replaced as a goal by revenge.

In fact the point can probably be well illustrated using this

So if you are advertising for a new employee and the final choice is between a man and a woman, your decision should be based on their skills, not their gender.

And remembering that post was made by the same poster who later advocated the legislating mandatory choice of hiring women when a man and a woman of equal skills applied for a job.

Exhibit B will be the way people make erroneous, fatuous assertions and ridiculous hyperbolic arguments which are rebuffed with several thousand word responses (which oft cite research papers, statistical studies, first hand accounts) and then in no way acknowledge them but instead each time narrow down their argument to some mythical claim of "hypocrisy" without addressing the multiple times multiple people have explained in detail why it isn't.


...

Also refer to Daborder's near constant putting of words in my mouth (which I did address at length but he never responded to) and further use of outlandish strawmen, fallacy fallacies, ad hominems and the composition/division fallacy.

edit: and to re-iterate the point, I dont judge people by their gender, but I do judge them if they judge others by their gender

But I don't think simply deciding one day to go "well we're just going to have to stop judging people by gender" is a good thing. Or rather that it would be good if people actually did that, but they haven't and they won't. And judging (in a neutral sense - appraising, evaluating) people by their race, gender, sexuality, income level is important. Very important in fact. For example you as a white cis man (as far as I know about you!) have many advantages I do not in that regard. But if I were to ignore our relative income levels I wouldn't get the full picture. I know you're not mega rich, or at least haven't always been, as you've brought up something to do with your experiences with finding government housing before.

Now, were I to take that situation and apply the "we're all equal!" paint to it I'd be well within my rights to say "why do you need government housing? I don't! EldarGal lives in a castle so you should be too!" But the fact is we're not all equal and trying to cover that only hurts those who have less:

In a colorblind society, White people, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010). Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.

...

Many Americans view colorblindness as helpful to people of color by asserting that race does not matter (Tarca, 2005). But in America, most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more. When race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context. Instead of resulting from an enlightened (albeit well-meaning) position, colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness (Tarca, 2005). White people can guiltlessly subscribe to colorblindness because they are usually unaware of how race affects people of color and American society as a whole.

The above example ([URL="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism"]full article here[/URL]) is about race obviously but it applies to all things. I mean simply transpose the argument to being about "everyone's equal in terms of money" and it quickly shows to be ludicrous.


So, to bring this back to a writer writing women - if he's male that means he's been raised in a society that devalues women, objectifies and sexualises them, but also shames them for not being pure. It is only natural that he, being a worker in an industry that perpetuates this mindset oft to the extreme, should come under scrutiny for his beliefs and attitude (as should we all - being a feminist isn't just saying women are equal, it's actually trying to bring that equality about as it sure doesn't exist now).

Everyone is equal, but due to the way society works we're not treated that way, so simply wishing it to be true won't make it happen.

You're welcome to have a discussion any time, we've [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=464609&viewfull=1#post464609"]all[/URL] [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=464611&viewfull=1#post464611"]been [/URL][URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=464613&viewfull=1#post464613"]saying [/URL][URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=464616&viewfull=1#post464616"]things [/URL][URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=464636&viewfull=1#post464636"]to [/URL][URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist)&p=464670&viewfull=1#post464670"]you [/URL]but you've been ignoring them.

[Morgrim]

There is a couple of issues here for me - I can only talk in terms of British military.

Firstly, men and women together in high stress situations develop relationships. Those relationships can disrupt the team (jealousy - your mate is getting some, you're not etc etc). Also you require the troops to continue closing with the enemy and killing them. However indications are that males feel uber-protective of female team-mates and the effect of female casualties is far worse on a small squad with mostly men.

I'm having some trouble finding the sources, so please take this with a pinch of salt: errors are entirely possible. (Sidenote, why are papers so hard to find online?)

I've seen similar studies done on fire fighters, both city based and the larger bush firefighters. And they found that mixed units didn't have an impact on unit cohesion after two months, and that most of that initial period was both sides worried they're supposed to be acting a certain way and then getting over it. Which, sure, you could argue having to have a training period is a bad thing, but we're talking about unlearning some pretty hefty cultural biases so it is understandable.

Comparisons are often made between infantry and bush firefighters here, because they're both high risk, physically demanding jobs that require strong teamwork and have a protective roll, and very nasty consequences for failure. So if one country is reporting that mixed gender units are fine, and another is reporting that mixing gender has bad results, it does make me wonder just how much of that is cultural bias. Which in itself brings up more arguments, because "we should discriminate in our military because our culture is more discriminatory in general" is kind of a weird argument. Possibly valid if you're being invaded and need the strongest possible response NOW, but less defensible in peace time when you have oodles of time to train people until those issues are dealt with, should that be the goal.

[Psychosplodge]

Umm, thank you Splodge.

read it its hilarious

[Denzark]

Morgrim

Regrettably I have the inbuilt British Military bias against fire fighters - because when they go on strike we get called in. The comparison for me is very very loose. High risk, dire consequences for both.

But the fact that Betty might get burnt to death if a fire fighter does their drills wrong, and the fact that somebody might stick a bayonet on Betty before letting off a magazine as the best way to get her off the end of his rifle, are 2 different situations entirely.

I think if you took casualty figures of of both groupings it will confirm or deny the risk - afterall risk (in British risk assessments) is likelihood versus outcome. And therefore risk in combat units is far far greater than for Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew.

[Path Walker]

heres a mirror, might be helpful


edit: honestly at this point, you cant actually have a discussion here anymore. Because a discussion is a dialogue between equals, but this thread is so full of people claiming that mens opinions and thoughts are inherently inferior, and then patting themselves on the back for coming to that conclusion....sad

I think people just think your thoughts are inherently inferior, because of you know, the fact that they are.

[Morgrim]

I'm confused about your argument, Denzark. Of course if Betty is a bystander she's at most risk in a war than in a bushfire, if there is a fire and you aren't prepared to stay and defend (and actually know what you're doing) you get out. Whereas women in warzones are likely to be attacked by both sides. And if Betty is on YOUR side and you're stabbing her with a bayonet and shooting at her then I never, EVER want to be near the British army because what the hell?

We're talking about people as part of a squad, after all. And I'd put the risk fairly equal between the two. Then again, I am used to Australian bushfires which are huge natural disasters, and something that admittedly Britain lacks, so I can see why it would be seen as considerably less risky there.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Y'know doaboarder, you came across as a troll on 3++, but you occasionally seemed to be intelligently trying to advocate something. Now you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "lalalalala, hypocrites, hypocrites, lalalalala!!"

As far as women in combat, the physical demands are a fair, scientifically-supported fact. However, it's not impossible for a woman to become at least sufficient for the levels set down for men. Not every soldier is an Adonis, after all. Opening up this avenue of recruitment adds a whole extra pool of recruitment to tap into in dire need. It would make sense to have a system able to use women on the battlefield, because we've seen that when the crap hits the fan, women end up killed by invaders anyway. May as well build a system where those who want a chance to defend their country can do so on the same terms as a guy can.

Hell, we're seeing this attitude with the actually pretty amusing Kurdish women fighting ISIS, and apparently putting the shivers up them by not only killing them, but taking their right to paradise away.

The protectiveness thing, the unit cohesion and morale? These are all responses to seeing women as a thing to protect, not another person. Arguably, soldiers are bred into it a little more than the average guy, as they often advertise to fight for the girl you've got back home, so you can return as a hero and know all the bad things done were to keep her and your kids safe.

But why can't a woman do the same thing? We have to consider how much of what we consider to be absolute truth, are just gender role 'laws' no more concrete than religious laws telling us how to live our life. People have fought against these 'absolute truths' for centuries, and if that isn't proof they're a load of crap, I don't know what is.

There was a really good quote from Cracked about how we should stop treating each other as conquests and prizes in relationships, and consider them more of a two-way deal between two people. Can't find it at the moment, though.

[eldargal]

I think Canada does mixed male-female units and with the gender ratio in the armed forces being what they are the women are quite outnumbered but they aren't having the kind of issues everyone predicts. Also worth remembering that the arguments against women in the armed forces are the same as the arguments against having people of colour in the armed forces in America decades ago and LGBT+ people in the armed forces more recently. In every case the predictions of damage to unit cohesion have not happened.