"Why can't we hate men?"

[Ziggurat]

I already did, upthread.

No, you did not. Yes, people bring their experiences. But why do you need parity for that? Your own example of McCain demonstrates that a single voice on an issue can be quite influential. So why do we need 50% women?

Any group that comprises more than half of the voters should be well-represented (IMO) if you want to lay claim to the idea of representative democracy.

Should half of our Senators have an IQ at or below 100? Should we make sure that we have enough high school dropouts in Congress? I don't think you actually believe your own claim.

Unfair barriers to representation should be removed. But this idea that elected representatives must statistically reflect the population is stupid.

 

[Ziggurat]

True. The risk of falling pregnant applies to one gender and one gender only.

Not anymore.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/22/story-one-mans-pregnancy-trans-jason-barker

 

[d4m10n]

Should half of our Senators have an IQ at or below 100?

No. Unlike gender, IQ is positively correlated with job performance in work environments which require exceptional verbal skills. I'm willing to put parity aside when the characteristic being measured is highly salient to doing the job.

Should we make sure that we have enough high school dropouts in Congress?

No, they are a small fraction of society, and probably lower IQ.

But this idea that elected representatives must statistically reflect the population is stupid.

Good thing no one claimed that.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, you did not. Yes, people bring their experiences. But why do you need parity for that? Your own example of McCain demonstrates that a single voice on an issue can be quite influential. So why do we need 50% women?



Should half of our Senators have an IQ at or below 100? Should we make sure that we have enough high school dropouts in Congress? I don't think you actually believe your own claim.

Unfair barriers to representation should be removed. But this idea that elected representatives must statistically reflect the population is stupid.

Just take it to the logical extreme: would a government comprised solely of rich white men be considered "representative" of this country? I don't think so. If you do, I don't know what to say. So if you start from the premise that no, a government comprised solely of rich white men would NOT be representative of a country like ours, what kind of government WOULD be representative of a country like ours? Obviously, certain gender and ethnic groups would have seats at the table.

And seriously, are you comparing some cobbled together statistical group (e.g., people with large feet) with groups of people who have a history of being oppressed and frozen out of the political process (e.g., women, POC)? Women not being represented in government is not the same as people over seven feet tall not being represented. You realize that, right?

 

[pharphis]

Absolutely not. As I said in an earlier post, I prefer to work WITH the men who despise toxic masculinity and who teach their children that they should treat everyone with equal respect. Two of my best male friends are that way with their children, and none of my other male friends have ever treated me or the women in our circle with anything less than respect and acknowledgement of our equality. It's a slow process, but with men like my two friends teaching their children what is, in my opinion, the correct way to treat others, there is some progress.

What is toxic masculinity and what is healthy masculinity?

 

[pharphis]

Well I'm glad most people (all?) seem to be unsupportive of this feminist, even if they might accept some of her arguments.

Now, for someone with this position (professor) should they be allowed to keep their job related to teaching gender studies, if she is willing to write such drivel? How did such a person get her job in the first place, and does she provide a valuable service? I'm not sure how her university pays but it is very sad if she gets tax money to teach such nonsense.

I understand that what she wrote was in an opinions section (of a MAJOR paper), but I think it's quite clearly indicative of her feelings and probably her behavior toward male students and men in general. Is she on hiring committees related to her department? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[pharphis]

Oh another related question: Does her article qualify as "hate speech"?

 

[Pterodactyl]

Oh another related question: Does her article qualify as "hate speech"?

Only if you substitute basically any other group for "men" with the same surrounding text.

 

[d4m10n]

What is toxic masculinity and what is healthy masculinity?

Taking large personal risks in the service of pro-social goals, e.g. firefighter, combat medic, roughneck, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh another related question: Does her article qualify as "hate speech"?

If you mean "hate speech" as a legal term of art, it is worth noting that hate speech is legally protected in the U.S.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. Unlike gender, IQ is positively correlated with job performance in work environments which require exceptional verbal skills.

Now you're adding qualifiers. But it still doesn't change the fact that stupid people have life experiences that smart people do not have and often do not understand.

Good thing no one claimed that.

The author referenced in the OP explicitly did, and your own argument implies that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just take it to the logical extreme: would a government comprised solely of rich white men be considered "representative" of this country?

Why is that important? I want my government representatives to represent my interests. I don't care if their superficial characteristics match mine. I also want there to not be unfair barriers to political participation, but a demographic mismatch between politicians and voters is not proof of the existence of such barriers.

If there's a barrier you want knocked down, then that's what you should work on.

And seriously, are you comparing some cobbled together statistical group (e.g., people with large feet) with groups of people who have a history of being oppressed and frozen out of the political process (e.g., women, POC)?

But it's the oppression and the barriers to participation which matter. That's the point. And you aren't actually talking about that. Curious.

 

[Craig B]

If you mean "hate speech" as a legal term of art, it is worth noting that hate speech is legally protected in the U.S.

that may well be, but it doesn't mean we should agree with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is toxic masculinity and what is healthy masculinity?

And for that matter, what is toxic femininity? Because surely it can exist too.

 

[Fudbucker]

Why is that important? I want my government representatives to represent my interests. I don't care if their superficial characteristics match mine. I also want there to not be unfair barriers to political participation, but a demographic mismatch between politicians and voters is not proof of the existence of such barriers.

If there's a barrier you want knocked down, then that's what you should work on.

Can you answer the question? Would a government run exclusively by rich white men be representative of a country like this? Could such a government legitimitately call itself a "representative democracy"? They're not hard questions: the answers are "no" and "no".

But it's the oppression and the barriers to participation which matter. That's the point. And you aren't actually talking about that. Curious.

Because they've already been talked about it. You ignore it. How many men have resigned from Congress over sexual abuse of women? How long ago was there a tax-payer funded slush fund to pay out victims of abuse? What kind of process was in place for women who were abused?

Is that a welcoming environment for women?

This is what Kellyanne Conway said awhile back. It didn't get much attention, but it certainly was revealing:

"I would talk to some of the members of Congress out there," Conway said during an Oct. 9 appearance. "When I was younger and prettier, them rubbing up against girls, sticking their tongues down women's throats, uninvited, who didn't like it."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/05/kellyanne-conway-me-too-sexual-harassment-281050

But the problem is just that there aren't enough women that want to go into politics! Right?

 

[ThatGuy11200]

And for that matter, what is toxic femininity? Because surely it can exist too.

Have you ever seen Mean Girls?

 

[phiwum]

I'm registered independent, but that said, why should it matter whether gender parity affects partisan goals? Isn't parity good in and of itself?

Surely, not without some argument.

There are many ways in which persons are underrepresented. For instance, there are probably no high school dropouts in Congress. Now, you and I can see that there's good reason for that and there's less good reason for underrepresentation of women in Congress, but there could well be some self-selection here which would not warrant concern.

I don't know that's the case and I tend to think better gender parity would be good in Congress, but I wouldn't say that parity is good in and of itself. Might as well complain that introverts don't get elected enough.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you answer the question? Would a government run exclusively by rich white men be representative of a country like this?

It's the wrong question, as I already explained.

Could such a government legitimitately call itself a "representative democracy"?

Insufficient data. It seems unlikely that such a result would occur in the absence of unjustified discrimination, but that is the problem in such an event, not the specific gender and racial makeup that resulted. That's the wrong focus.

Because they've already been talked about it.

Mostly in nebulous terms which do little good. Only occassionally with specifics like this:

How many men have resigned from Congress over sexual abuse of women? How long ago was there a tax-payer funded slush fund to pay out victims of abuse? What kind of process was in place for women who were abused?

Is that a welcoming environment for women?

Not in the least. And I'm all for changing that. Make settlements public, and paid for by the culprits. Oust abusers. Support victims. I can get behind all of that.

But that's distinct from quotas and trying to force the numbers up just to have the numbers up.

 

[Butter!]

When discrimination of minorities became intolerable, we passed legislation that forced businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race.

So there's precedent for forcing change down peoples' throats.

That didn't restructure the entire way we choose our elected representatives.

 

[phiwum]

That didn't restructure the entire way we choose our elected representatives.

Right.

There's no doubt that more diversity would help in our lawmakers, but we can't do it by requiring quotas. Probably the better solution has to do with restricting money in campaigns and getting rid of gerrymandering.

In the end, people ought to be free to choose their representatives, even if it results in unfortunate outcomes.