Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Whose Definition of Feminism Is It Anyway? (With New Improved and Expanded Conversations!)
Posts
Do you object to having norms for a dinner party, and being ostracized for breaking them?
Do you disagree that without gender norms, there will be times when a member of one gender is ostracized by other members of their gender for acting different from them? If so, why is it better to leave it to guess work than to say "just choose to put on a blue shirt and drink a beer (even if you like purple shirts and rose wines) and you can probably avoid being ostracized by other men at the bar?". No matter what people will be ostracized. Why is it worse to give people tools to avoid being ostracized if they so choose?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Please answer my questions, above. Saying an argument by analogy is wrong because the subject of the analogy and the subject of the argument are different does not address the argument or give a basis for the conversation to move forward.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Because victim blaming is wrong.
But the analogy is wrong because the difference is in their magnitude. You're not asking people to wear a certain style of clothes to a dinner party they were invited to, you're asking people to change their appearance and behaviour that they think is fundamental to their character because some people are intolerant.
But it's not illegal, so it's not wrong!!!
"Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
Not to mention that just because bad behavior will never go away is no excuse to condone it
--LeVar Burton
It is to him.
Honestly, you people are trying to argue with some"one" who's completely unfeeling, alienated, and perverse. The status quo sucks. SKFM is the status quo. He's the living proof that http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/is spot on. He who still believes in Horatio Alger stories (just read http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/153692/testing-character-through-hard-times-my-newfound-sense-of-patriotism - where he says he's proud of the USA's "social mobility", never mind that many countries have a *much* higher level of social mobility). I fail to see the point of trying to discuss with him. You're just running into a brick wall.
"Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
1) We cannot stop people from ostracizing people for acting different.
2) People generally don't like being ostracized.
3) Giving people standards to follow allows them to avoid being ostracized if they choose to follow the rules, instead of making the set of behaviors which will result in being ostracized opaque and highly variable depending on who makes up the group at any given moment.
I understand that someone can value the freedom to act more than predictability in responses to your actions. What I don't understand is how disagreeing with that position is monstrous. Please explain if the problem is with the argument or my value judgement w/r/t how I am valuing predictability and the ability to control reactions and avoid sanctions over freedom to act in a less predictable world.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
You're being dishonest in not acknowledging that rules are not set in stone. I love rules as much as the next geek, but you're acting like you must throw overboard the entire rule-set if anyone dare suggest a few changes. Which is just not the case.
Like, imagine we got a few basic rules for dinner etiquette;
1.) Do not start eating until everyone has been served.
2.) Any garments like hats and gloves that are for outside-wear must be taken off during the dinner.
3.) Don't talk too loud, it is not proper to disturb other parties.
4.) Don't be black. Seriously, don't.
You can still get rid of rule number 4 without having to chuck the entire rule-set in the garbage. Getting rid of a few rules does not mean we get rid of them all, or even the structure.
Don't be black! Or act like it, either!
"Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
Since people are always going ostracize others, this is a good rule. You still have the freedom to be black, but you gotta accept the consequences.
You can also act black - say, eating before everyone's been served, using hats during the dinner party and talk loudly - but accept the consequences and holy shit a dinner party ISN'T SOCIETY.
I can only imagine Hobbes writing the Leviathan. "Imagine you were in a dinner party, where NO ONE followed ANY RULES." Man is the wolf of loudly-speaking man!
"Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
It's three. Number three is a huge, massive, ridiculous problem. Because it condones the ostracization, making it both much more prevalent, and to a much harsher degree. Not to mention that it's an unrealistic goal anyway, since even in extremely more well-defined times you still always had to be aware of whatever group you are a part of at any given moment. After all, 1950's Irish guys might not take kindly to you ordering a chardonnay, but the Italian guys down the road wouldn't have blinked an eye. Not to mention that it isn't just gender anyway. There are such a myriad of different social rules based on class, and gender, and region, and immigration, and religion that putting gender roles in a straight-jacket is not realistically helpful anyway, and yet at the same time quite hurtful.
And remember, this is coming from someone that's actually quite a fan of some more well-defined rules for polite behavior.
--LeVar Burton
I generally agree with this post, but the idea of breaking down gender norms is not getting rid of rule 4. It is getting rid of the entire system, as it applies to gender. The result is to remove predictability w/r/t what behaviors will get you ostracized from a gendered group, not to eliminate people being ostracized from such groups.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is just being silly. There is no choice here, so it isn't analogous at all.
How is this "acting black?" This makes no sense.
Why is "one" in quotes? Are you implying I am a group?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
You aren't really objecting to the steps of the argument then. You are arguing based on the relative value of certainty vs freedom, in part because you think a position of greater certainty will yield more people being ostracized, and in part because you don't believe certainty is really achievable. That is fine, but I respectfully disagree. I actually think your Irish vs Italian example supports my position. In a world where these groupings exist, you can go in with at least some idea of what might be appropriate. In a post-nationality world, you would have no idea how to act in either bar.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Huh?
Yeah it gets rid of those things as it applies to gender. That is the point. We're advocating a world where your gender doesn't carry much expectation as to how you live your life. I seriously don't understand what exactly is your problem with it.
Yes.
Disclaimer: I find discussing the context of swears and insults to be a little odd, and I still do not see how on earth it has anything to do with anything that's relevant to the thread.
Among me and mine, bitch is used interchangeably with stuff like dick, asshole, etc. When I get told, "You're being a bitch," the very last possible meaning in my mind is, "You are my property to be tamed!" When my girlfriend tells me, "You're being bitchy," that does not translate to, "You are raped-in-prisony." Unless that's just a secret joke she's sniggering at behind my back.
Now, I understand that there are multiple contexts and meanings, some of them quite nasty. But it's an insult. That's kind of the point. Like I said earlier, I am not denying that there are negative associations to the feminine gender. At the same time, there are negative associations to the male gender as well. Typically, the male insult is about going too far while the female insult is about not going far enough.
It's not as if we decided to associate all negative things with women, and anything regarding men is awesome. There's a whole set of insults designed around insulting men based on their gender that somehow does not even show up on your radar.
In short: equality is when I call you a cunt and you have the wherewithal to come right back with dickhead. I'm not sure why that even needed to be said, but somehow it did.
Yeah, no. "Do it because I say so" stops working when you leave home and become an adult. You don't get to dictate things simply by saying so. How would you feel if I tried to tell you to do something you felt was unreasonable on that logic?
I get that you feel there's this whole "silencing system" in place. I guess... I'm sorry you feel that way? But it's registering with me about as much as an Alex Jones' documentary. When your evidence of this silencing system involves insults with typical gender stereotypes that you (understandably) find insulting, you're on shaky ground.
"We just want to make a fundamental shift in human society, a complete 180 from the way anything has ever been done. What's your problem, yo?"
I hope you understand you're suggesting something massive. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I hope you can understand why there's many people don't agree with you when you bounce happily into their yard with your declaration that you're going to change their whole world to match your view of how it should be.
He's part of the in-power group and he doesn't want to give up any power. He's said so explicitly.
Please go back and read my posts, since this is exactly the question they are answering. My entire point is that in a world with no gender norms but which still groups people by gender, people will be left without guideposts to avoid being ostracized from a group they cannot help but be a member of.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Where did I say that? I don't remember.
What is your response to my substantive posts?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
They'd be guide posts, the difference is it wouldn't be as strict like it is currently. Which I don't see as a bad thing. Society won't break down into chaos with lessened gender norms, space.
I've tried to write a post responding to your syllogism on this page three times now and every time it ends up really long and spammy. That's an indication of how many bizarre presumptions and implications I find. This is the argument I'm talking about:
1) We might not be able to stop people from ostracizing others, but we can reduce it in both severity and frequency.
2) It isn't necessarily true that current standards in any given in-group are transparent.
2a) There are many situations when a majority group explicitly describes 'standards' that are a smokescreen for some other, implicit standards. Jim Crow laws are a fairly incontrovertible example.
2b) Ironically, concern trolling is another common example, though more controversial.
3) It isn't necessarily true that new standards would be opaque.
3a) Especially given that new gender roles only tend to come about after open discussion and criticism of the old ones by progressive parties. It's far more likely that the new roles are more transparent than the old roles, given that the origins of the old roles are rooted in historical tradition while the new roles would have been discussed in detail.
4) A plurality of standards might be beneficial as, in some cases, they might give people a plurality of choices. Your circle of friends can be monogamous; mine can be poly nudists; and we're both happy. Except...
4a) When those standards are tied to something that really shouldn't be relevant to those standards. For instance, getting a job, which leads me to...
5) Opaqueness and transparency aren't the only relevant criteria by which we can judge gender roles. Some roles are really destructive to people's mental health or well-being - a role demanding female genital cutting, for instance. Even if you make that explicit, it's still barbaric.
6) Opaqueness and transparency are likely to be determined by the in-power group anyway. You find roles to be transparent that you have grown up with because they're familiar to you. You might find new roles to be 'opaque' simply because of lack of exposure. And that's stating it nicely.
6a) Stating it not-so-nicely, you might find new roles to be 'opaque' because you don't want to bother to learn about them.
6b) Stating it even less nicely, you might declare new roles to be 'opaque' no matter how plainly they're explained to you, because 'opaqueness' is a smokescreen.
7) Some traditional gender roles aren't even a matter of choice. A relatively uncontroversial example: there are gender roles applied to both genders that they should be sexually available for their (monogamous heterosexual) partners but there are obvious biological reasons why this may not be true (vaginismus, erectile dysfunction) and it often causes emotional distress when somebody's sexy plumbing refuses to cooperate with their (and/or their partner's) expectations.
8) This isn't exactly a counterargument, but more of an observation. Much of the time, criticism against traditional gender roles is from people suffering emotional distress from their failure to live up to the old ones. It would pretty dickish to reject that experience from a concern that some hypothetical future youngster might be confused because they don't have strong gender roles to live up to.
9) I'm not sure, because I can't find it in the history of the conversation, where the idea came up that we're moving to a future where there are no gender roles at all rather than a loosening of existing gender roles. I don't know if that's something that somebody seriously put forward, or if it's a slippery slope.
10) What the fuck, man?
If we have no gender norms, then a man who cares about fitting in might have to observe how the people in the group they're currently in act. I can most fucking assuredly assure you, we all already do this. Came to a new school? You look to see how students act. Got a new job? You pay close attention to how your colleagues act. The idea that he has to observe, specifically, how men behave - rather than the members of the group - is still beginning by asserting that he has to observe how men behave.
And, also again, you continue to lay out an argument that, if it were actually logically consistent, would endorse racism. Eye colour is a biological difference, it is readily apparent. Skin colour. Height. Do you consider it a problem that I do not particularly care to observe the aryan dinner party? That I don't believe the tall people dinner party is worth attending? That I don't attend the black people dinner party?
There is no difference between "You don't shave your legs, so you don't fit in with the social group of women, but your biological differences should make you want to fit in with this group because" and "You don't talk like a black person would, so you don't fit in with the social group of black people, but your biological difference should make you want to fit in with this group because". It is a comically bad argument, and the fact that you repeat it is not making it better.
If we accept your formulation then the formulation is not a question of gender norms but a question of human psychology and sociology.
But we are not asking "how things are" or "what is the system we operate in". We are asking:
"what should the rules and standards to follow be"
Wherein we might list these rules like "don't ostracize people because they're different in certain ways" and then, as long as everyone follows the rules they won't get ostracized.
The last sentence should highlight the absurdity of your point. The rules themselves can be judged and there isn't a reason that the rules should include gender conformity. That the rules currently do is problematic, because its leading people to be ostracized for behavior which is not bad.
How can persons be grouped by gender if there are no gender norms?
Gender norms are the defininitive qualitites by which persons are discerned to be in a particular gender category.
If there are no such norms...there would be no such categories.
The point is that we did not decide this. It evolved as a byproduct of how society works.
I already said that yes, there are insults based on disparaging the male gender, the thing to notice is they are not insulting in the flavour as female gendered ones. With the bolded part you claim that you acknowlege this, and thats great, but its worthwhile to think about what that entails and why it may have turned out this way, rather than just shrug go "it is what it is" or whatever.
I mean if you're not willing to do the most basic examination on what male/female stereotypes even are, then a discussion on feminism becomes really difficult.
To get back to the original reason this whole argument sprung up: someone compared being called a mysgynist to being called a feminine slur, but they aren't really comparable in terms of what the insult is "about" (You are an man who mistreats women, vs you are a woman, shut the fuck up). One has a lot more power than the other. Like, being called a racist can definitely be hurtful, but its not the same thing as being called a racial slur.
I really have no idea what you're arguing here. did you take "you just have to go with the flow" as an order? I meant "Participating in mysogyny takes no active effort, because the systems to do so are already set up, it just requires you to go with the flow and not stop to examine what it is you're going along with"
A dinner party is an extremely bad analogy for society in general. Comparing a voluntarily attended private eating ritual which generally takes place on private property to engagement with society as a whole is like saying that since it's OK to shit in a toilet in a bathroom with the door closed, it's OK to shit anywhere.
1. When people spend more money, people are insentivized to make more goods to meet demand. When you give a company money, with out strong contractural obligations, there is no such mechanism. Even with it, companies that work off contract with the government fuck up all the time. The government also sets it self up for picking winners and losers among companies, which is not only unfair, but sets the government up for corruption, see Haliburton. If the government effectively incentivizes people to make food, the food produced will not be brought about by incentivization that has anything to do with the demand for food. When you do stuff like that, you get incredibly arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with what people want.
If you give consumers the money, that means they'll spend it on things they want. Which generates utility for them. This is good. It's only a problem if you're paranoid that the poor will use the money on drugs, which by the way, druggies will totally buy/ steal expensive food and sell it for drugs. I know this not from hearing evil Republican horror stories, but because I've seen it happen. You just got to take the good with the bad, unless you're willing to really fuck up people's freedom, or remove food stamps entirely. Which are both totally things, and they both can be totally valid depending on your value system, just know you're advocating an extreme point of view.
2. The freedom to organize of unions is just an extension of at will employment, which is justified as unambiguously good because of the freedom it allows employees to have. All it does is combine this with freedom of association. Of course, this whole thing fails if unions are compulsory, if employers can get away with not respecting freedom of association, if the union is otherwise poorly incentivized (such as by being compulsory, and having no meaningful competitors) and of course, all these things are true to some degree, and, of course, unions cause huge amounts of harm in proportion to the degree to which these are true.
Now, if unions were better incentivized a lot of the problems with unions would go away. I suspect the solution involves both a relaxation on the laws regulating unions and a dismantling of some of the laws supporting unions which lead to noncompetitive unions. This is unlikely to happen in the current environment of rent seeking. If such a thing were to happen I could see myself supporting relaxation of labor laws as they were replaced by agreements made between competitive unions and competitive businesses with the law only being necessary to stop coercion and some forms of anti competitive behavior. As it is, there are good reasons to be suspicious of unions and they look a lot like the good reasons to be suspicious of corporations.
I hate to be like, "every one who disagrees me is WRONG!" But I have a hard time imagining a counterpoint to either of these that doesn't come down to just a shitty comprehension of how incentive mechanisms work.
I'm implying that when I use the term "man" to describe you, I'm using a very loose definition of person.
"Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
We do not, however, think the fact that there is a choice excuses the simple-mindedness and tyrannical, inconsiderate and under-evolved nature of the ostracizing individuals.
We don't know where the hell you are going with the "choice" angle here, SKFM. It would be uncharitable to assume you are excusing bigotry, but at the same time we think the "as long as they don't mind being ostracized" quip is a bit flippant because it ignores the fact that the ostracizing is in this case is caused by base and low-minded sentiments that society should want to see less off.
I'm not sure its a great idea to make this thread about every opinion skfm has ever had.
Apparently I really am the most important issue in feminism
Lots of replies, and I'm on my phone so I'll try to reply to all the substantive points once in a single post. Apologies in advance if I miss anything (please let me know if I do).
First, I want to clarify that I am not arguing in favor of the current gender norms or of having the ones that exist be onerous or central in defining your life. I was driving with my wife to the mall before and it started to rain. She asked me if I would mind dropping her off, since she was not prepared for the rain, and I said (tongue in cheek) "of course I will drop you off because you are a member of the fairer sex and so you are not prepared for the physical challenges of the world." I am NOT arguing for that kind I thinking. As I said earlier, I think the best world would be one in which a girl can wear any color she likes, but knows that she can choose pink as a way of outwardly saying "see, I'm a woman who likes the things you other women like."
I don't think that there is a contradiction in saying that women would be identified as women even in a "post-gender" world, because even if we strip away every single social construct around gender, men and women still play different roles in reproduction. The result is that straight men and women will divide the world into potential mates/routes to procreation along biological gender roles. This is a key difference from any other physical differentiation like skin or eye color, where we could conceivably place no significance on variation. So even in a group of engineers or lawyers or mechanics or dancers, there will always be the subgroups of "people I can mate with" and "people I cannot mate with". Once we accept that this level of othering will always occur, the question is if we are ok with the members of the groups that are created being forced to take their chances and start from scratch with each group (so you need to learn how to fit in with the engineers and the female engineers to have some idea of what will and will not cause you to be ostracized).
This is where the questions on the desirability and plausibility of creating greater predictability in behavioral guideposts come in. I agree with everyone who has said the goal should be a world in which noone is ostracized, but I simply don't think that is realistic or even possible. Accepting that people will be ostracized by the majority for engaging in noncomforming behavior, we have to decide how to manage this tendency. My position is that clear rules (and I grant that our current rules may not always be clear) are always preferable, even if the result is more people being ostracized or sanctioned, vs having sanctions be unavoidable or havig then be passed down based on behavior you did not and could not have known was proscribed (this is a basic requirement of fairness for any set of rules). Given a choice between a world in which people who drive drunk frequently die (and noone else is hurt) and a world where they usually get home safely, but sometimes cause their own death or the death of an innocent, I will always choose the former (even if it results in more deaths) because it is a world where the innocent are not subject to random sanction or injury which they are powerless to avoid. This is important to me because it allows people to enter into a rational decision making process which involves balancing costs and benefits.
One thing that is important to keep in mind is the nature and severity of the sanctions (the cost side of the equation). Focusing on costs is important, because those costs are fundamentally what determines whether a given rule or system of rules must always be followed, or a rule which is observed mostly in the breach. Unlike legal sanctions or even really severe social sanctions like shunning, all that nonconformity with gender roles means is that you may not fit in with certain groups. If you value fitting in with those groups more than you do engaging in he noncomforming behavior, then it is rational to conform, and the inverse is also true. I am not assuming that it is desirable to be part of the "male" dinner party, for example. I am just pointing out that, as mentioned above, you can't help but be invited to that party, and it is good for you to understand what participating entails so that you can make a rational decision as to whether you want to participate, and so that you can be confident that if you choose to participate, you can at least understand what is expected of you and know certain behavioral touchstones you can use to avoid bein kicked out of the party while you observe the group behavior.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Gender and Sex are not the same thing.
If we strip away every single social construct of gender then there would be no such thing as gender, since gender is a social construct.
But persons would still have wangs and vaginers.
Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with gender, at all.