Why so much hatred for feminism?

[cyborg]

Not enough information

And enough information would look like:

...

If you like. I won't be joining you being a moral scold isn't very helpful.

If you say so - but that's not what I'm seeing here.

Premise 1 - All things being equal, atheism is not a relevant characteristic when choosing a president.

I dispute your first premise on the grounds that the relevant characteristics of a president are not defined.

 

[KingMerv00]

Sure.

Cool. How? Have you applied it to sexism in American society? What are the results?

Do you believe it is possible for the same opinion to be both prejudiced in some and postjudiced in others?

Sure. Best to be avoided though.

 

[cyborg]

Cool. How? Have you applied it to sexism in American society? What are the results?

You asked me if it was possible; you didn't ask me if I had the definitive method for measuring social inequity.

Sure. Best to be avoided though.

Best what to be avoided?

 

[KingMerv00]

I dispute your first premise on the grounds that the relevant characteristics of a president are not defined.

I'm thinking about answering you but I'm not sure it would help. You don't the lack of atheist presidents indicates the existence of predjudice against atheists? How do you explain the lack of atheist presidents?

 

[KingMerv00]

You asked me if it was possible; you didn't ask me if I had the definitive method for measuring social inequity.

Was Alabama racially equitable in 1950?

Best what to be avoided?

Best to avoid opinions that are the result of predjudice.

Best to avoid opinions that result in postjudice.

When possible.

 

[cyborg]

You don't the lack of atheist presidents indicates the existence of predjudice against atheists?

I didn't say that. I'm sure Americans are prejudiced against them.

However your premise assumes that being an atheist is not relevant to the presidency which you have not demonstrated and really depends on what one thinks the function of the president should be.

How do you explain the lack of atheist presidents?

Religion plays well politically in the US the historical reasons for which aren't really relevant. Although again I would question the relevance of whether or not there being a certain proportion of atheists as presidents as being either a "good" or a "bad" thing and the tacit notion that some level of it would indicate so.

 

[cyborg]

Was Alabama racially equitable in 1950?

Nope - there is explicit indication to the contrary.

Best to avoid opinions that are the result of predjudice.

Best to avoid opinions that avoid postjudice.

Well possible.

You think formulating opinions after being informed of the facts should be avoided?

 

[KingMerv00]

I didn't say that. I'm sure Americans are prejudiced against them.

Why are you sure?

 

[KingMerv00]

Nope - there is explicit indication to the contrary.

Such as?

You think formulating opinions after being informed of the facts should be avoided?

I think we misunderstand each other somehow. Probably on the definition of postjudice.

 

[cyborg]

Why are you sure?

I have no reason to doubt the correlation between a straightforward question in a poll and its response.

Median wage and systemic sexism isn't quite as cut and dry.

 

[KingMerv00]

Religion plays well politically in the US the historical reasons for which aren't really relevant. Although again I would question the relevance of whether or not there being a certain proportion of atheists as presidents as being either a "good" or a "bad" thing and the tacit notion that some level of it would indicate so.

I think this is where we are having trouble.

The number of atheist presidents in an of itself isn't "good" or "bad". The number, however, can be used as one indicator among many to detect the presence or absence of social predjudice.

If the stock market is in the toilet, inflation skyrockets, and employment plunges, we know the economy is "bad". There is no specific objective point when the economy becomes "bad" but we do have a general idea when it needs fixing.

 

[cyborg]

Such as?

"Coloureds only" proscriptions. Again - a simple correlate to establish which does not apply to the arguments you have been making for sexism; the equivalent of which would be the fact of women not being able to vote as I have already mentioned. These are not contentious precisely because the causal link is not difficult to unearth.

The problem is that you are pretending that other measures are of equal clarity and not accepting arguments to the contrary as having any merit.

I think we misunderstand each other somehow. Probably on the definition of postjudice.

To have the opposite meaning of prejudice - i.e. to judge after you have the facts rather than before. It is not exactly a word in common usage.

 

[cyborg]

I think this is where we are having trouble.

Not for me it isn't.

The number of atheist presidents in an of itself isn't "good" or "bad". The number, however, can be used as one indicator among many to detect the presence or absence of social predjudice.

Yes indeed - is this not what I've been saying?

The problem is that you seem to be choosing the questions that have the answer you want built into them - or at least this is the argument others have put to you. I do not see this as an unreasonable objection. You however seem to dislike the implication that your inferences may need refining.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see no answer to my question; is the UK objectively less sexist than the US? You've had no women premiers. None < not none.

Or are you saying we're objectively more racist because you've had one non-white premier and we've had none?

Both of these are contrived straw men. The almost all white male leadership of both countries where women are relatively more liberated than in the countries with the worst conditions for women is evidence women have not achieved sufficient equality even in countries where conditions have improved. It is not evidence of the side track you are off on.

...
You really think the experience of what amounts to a rather remarkably fractional portion of society should be used in a serious discussion as to the general state of equality in the majority of society?...

This doesn't even deserve a response. Yes the leadership of the country and the dominant white male composition of all positions of power in a country do indeed reflect on the social conditions in a country.

That you don't think so reflects a bizarre way to interpret the world around you.

 

[KingMerv00]

The problem is that you are pretending that other measures are of equal clarity and not accepting arguments to the contrary as having any merit.

I've never doubted that overt sexism is nearly gone. I'm simply having trouble getting you to agree other measures aren't as unclear as you think.

To have the opposite meaning of prejudice - i.e. to judge after you have the facts rather than before. It is not exactly a word in common usage.

Then I'm fine with postjudice as long as "judge" isn't used in an excessively condescending and self-righteous way.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes indeed - is this not what I've been saying?

It would have come across more clearly if you didn't get sidetracked by sarcasm.

The problem is that you seem to be choosing the questions that have the answer you want built into them - or at least this is the argument others have put to you. I do not see this as an unreasonable objection. You however seem to dislike the implication that your inferences may need refining.

I don't have a problem with the implication. I welcome it. That's how we learn.

Why are my questions inappropriate? Which ones are better?

 

[Complexity]

I've never doubted that overt sexism is nearly gone.

What do you mean, "nearly gone"?

It has been reduced somewhat in certain cultures. It is rampant in others.

 

[KingMerv00]

What do you mean, "nearly gone"?

It has been reduced somewhat in certain cultures. It is rampant in others.

Fair point.

I try not to talk too much about other countries because I have a feeling people will just tell me to "go fix real problems".

Even in America "nearly gone" is probably a bit self-congratulatory.

 

[cyborg]

Both of these are contrived straw men.

Are you or are you not saying I should infer something about social equality based on the make up of premiers?

Should I or should I not infer something different when that make-up is different?

Everything you have said so far has said to me "yes," so don't get upset when I have the audacity to do so and make your insistence of this measure look stupid in the process.

This doesn't even deserve a response. Yes the leadership of the country and the dominant white male composition of all positions of power in a country do indeed reflect on the social conditions in a country.

So the current Prime Minister being a white male is an indication that the reflected society of Britain today is the same as it was 100 years ago - when the Prime Minister of that time also lacked melanin and ovaries?

That you don't think so reflects a bizarre way to interpret the world around you.

No - and I've explained why not. You just don't like it.

 

[TheJim]

Much of this has already been covered by others but I have many reasons I have a neagative view on feminism despite agreeing with the broad based generic equal reconginition under the law and called myself a feminist 10 years ago.

I can't stand the lying for jesus. Its the rare stat from feminist groups that hold up to scrutiny. They still use the gross wage gap when if there is a wage gap it is much much smaller then that. The stats on rape are beyond a joke. Rape is awful no question there but you can't actually design effective policy without good data. Domestic violence numbers. Sex slavery numbers. The second shift myth that actual time surveys disagree with. Stats that have to do with education. To name just a few.


The lie they care about all issues of gender. Its fine that feminist groups want to look out for women or look out for women first. Just don't claim you are looking out for everyone than at the same time not just ignore but pretend men don't face problems and work against men. The boy crisis is huge here with the AAUW being a counter productive force going on 30 years here. First they pretended that being punished meant boys where favored in the classroom. Now boys are doing just fine as long as you pick just asian and middle and upper class white males no need at all to worry about poor whites and black and hispainic males they don't count they are not real people or something. Not giving a care about family court.

Patriarchy and post moderism. The continued framing of issue though these lenses. Ignoring that women in court have always held more power then the man working in the field. I know this has been discussed for pages here but men as a class do not care for men as a class they care about what is best for those closest to them. And the pure disdain in many corners of professional feminism of the scienfitic method and logic.

Not calling out the extremist. Its not just they don't call them out they still celebrate them and use their books as text in women studies departments. They still get hired by reputrable orginizions without being called on it. And this is not Dwokins or some relic from the past either. Amanda Marcotte has a job with slate for example. The one womens study professor from Dartmouth? that tried to sue her student for disagreeing with her got a job at Northwestern and later at a UC school.

Pretending female advantages are disadvantages or ignoring them. Some one earlier brought up a paper abortion. I understand the issue is very difficult for many reasons but just bringing it up will get you digitially lynched.