Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

See King Merv you are ignoring what a lot of us are saying.

*SNIP*

Having talked to you at length, I know how it feels, believe me. I address a point, you snip it. I ask an uncomfortable question you snip it. I quote you directly, you snip it.

I won't put you on ignore because you do make valid points at times. Until and unless you are able to have a conversation like Tyr, I will not respond.

 

[cyborg]

I have heard the hypothesis (from 30 year old vague memories of sociology classes in college) that there is some evidence as unemployment goes up, there are social pressures for women to leave the workforce and as unemployment goes down, elements of women's lib tend to emerge. I'm wondering if we are seeing any of that now.

I like the unequal dichotomy you've set up there of women's liberation being proportional to the amount of women in the workforce.

 

[KingMerv00]

Then why bring up irrelevant statistical information you don't think would indicate whether or not society is actually in a good state or not? How am I supposed to be interpreting your numbers exactly?

I was objecting to your hyperbolic use of the word "utopia".

Is this a relevant statistic then? What number of female US presidents would indicate a healthy US society?

At least one.

You are falling into the Loki's Wager fallacy. Even if I can't define define a clear line between egalitarian and inegalitarian, that doesn't mean I am incapable of defining "inegalitarian".

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm curious though, King Merv, when you said, were your encounters akin to the general backlash as we have in the thread, or was there was something more current going on?

I have heard the hypothesis (from 30 year old vague memories of sociology classes in college) that there is some evidence as unemployment goes up, there are social pressures for women to leave the workforce and as unemployment goes down, elements of women's lib tend to emerge. I'm wondering if we are seeing any of that now.

Don't think I can help you. I haven't been at this long enough to give you an anecdotal trend. I don't think my anecdotes would be useful in proving anything larger about society anyway.

 

[cyborg]

I was objecting to your hyperbolic use of the word "utopia".

If you don't know what outcome you expect to see you can't expect to see it.

If you're going to use numbers but deny specificity that is not really my fault for calling you on it.

At least one.

And why is that exactly?

You are falling into the Loki's Wager fallacy.

No I'm not. I'm asking you to justify the means and measures you are using in your argument. If you're going to in one instance bring up a measure and then say you can't specify what that measure would have to say in order for your goal of "equality" to be achieved who exactly is participating in the fallacy?

Even if I can't define define a clear line between egalitarian and inegalitarian, that doesn't mean I am incapable of defining "inegalitarian".

Ok go ahead and try that then.

 

[KingMerv00]

I have heard the hypothesis (from 30 year old vague memories of sociology classes in college) that there is some evidence as unemployment goes up, there are social pressures for women to leave the workforce and as unemployment goes down, elements of women's lib tend to emerge. I'm wondering if we are seeing any of that now.

I like the unequal dichotomy you've set up there of women's liberation being proportional to the amount of women in the workforce.

Not exactly on point but I think this 2010 Pew survey is relevant:

 

[cyborg]

Not exactly on point but I think this 2010 Pew survey is relevant

It isn't and misses the point entirely: having equal rights and having equal lives are not the same thing.

 

[KingMerv00]

If you don't know what outcome you expect to see you can't expect to see it.

If you're going to use numbers but deny specificity that is not really my fault for calling you on it.



And why is that exactly?



No I'm not. I'm asking you to justify the means and measures you are using in your argument. If you're going to in one instance bring up a measure and then say you can't specify what that measure would have to say in order for your goal of "equality" to be achieved who exactly is participating in the fallacy?



Ok go ahead and try that then.

I think a quote from my earlier post best covers your concerns:

In any nominally free society, there is power stratification. We expect to find some people are powerful and wealthy and others are poor and weak. That is the price we pay for living in a country that donesn't have state thought police. To test whether or not the society is egalitarian, we take arbitrary factors like race or gender and see where they fall on that strata. If everything were equal, we'd see women distributed in the same way as men. But the results say men on average have more wealth, governmental representation and business power. This is a bad thing and we need to do something about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't think I can help you. I haven't been at this long enough to give you an anecdotal trend. I don't think my anecdotes would be useful in proving anything larger about society anyway.

I wasn't looking for anecdotes, I meant was the stuff you were looking at on the Net recent or from multiple time frames?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not exactly on point but I think this 2010 Pew survey is relevant:

[qimg]http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1639-2.gif[/qimg]

Interesting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It isn't and misses the point entirely: having equal rights and having equal lives are not the same thing.

Sure it is. The survey shows a measure of the same thing, perception of women's and men's roles in society. And there is a sharp contrast in the beliefs of countries correlating with liberated vs un-liberated societies.

 

[cyborg]

I think a quote from my earlier post best covers your concerns:

No it doesn't because now you're giving me contradictory information.

If there are statistics relevant to showing that men and woman's social equality are the same then you should be using those and not ones that don't.

Otherwise all you have is a nice little hypothesis but no way to verify it. The perfect system under which one can create self-justifying measurements that show what one wants them to show.

You do understand why this is a problem right?

 

[KingMerv00]

It isn't and misses the point entirely:

I admit the survey was more relevant to Ginger than you.

having equal rights and having equal lives are not the same thing.

So if women didn't have the right to become president she could still have an equal life?

If I am misreading you, please let me know.

 

[KingMerv00]

Interesting.

Sadly.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have encountered the attitude that jobs should be prioritized to men as breadwinner. I once had an employer who felt that way.

He and I disagreed on a lot of other things, too.

 

[cyborg]

Sure it is.

No it isn't.

The survey snippet says nothing about the lives of women; there is absolutely no reason to presuppose that the women in any of these countries should necessarily have different lives because of it.

That they do or don't is neither here nor there; you talked about a relationship of employment of women and attitudes to women that tacitly states that attitudes to women cannot be positive if the employment of women does not fall within a certain criterion.

This is the basic objection I am making - a failure to establish that the economic measures indicate an actual inequality that needs addressing. I am not saying that they do or do not merely that if you cannot you cannot possibly hope to establish an end point as to when one could say women are "equal" and hence you are free to continue your grievance in perpetuity using whatever measures you feel like using at any time.

 

[KingMerv00]

I wasn't looking for anecdotes, I meant was the stuff you were looking at on the Net recent or from multiple time frames?

I've never looked at anti-feminist sentiment from the past. It never interested me. It is a bad idea to view one's opponents through the lens of a petty era.

I wish people would do the same when they felt the need to slam feminists with stuff from the 1970s.

 

[KingMerv00]

No it doesn't because now you're giving me contradictory information.

If there are statistics relevant to showing that men and woman's social equality are the same then you should be using those and not ones that don't.

Otherwise all you have is a nice little hypothesis but no way to verify it. The perfect system under which one can create self-justifying measurements that show what one wants them to show.

You do understand why this is a problem right?

I do understand why it is a problem. I don't see why it applies to me. Could you give me an example?

 

[cyborg]

So if women didn't have the right to become president she could still have an equal life?

That is almost completely backwards - that a woman hasn't become president doesn't mean she necessarily could not be. This is certainly true of the US today since there are no legal measures that prevent this.

As a corollary if 23 women had been presidents that doesn't necessitate that women have equal lives in general or even that they have equal rights.

Do you think that the fact that the UK has had several female heads of state means anything in general when it has remained a monarchy during that period? Does it mean the UK has had a better track that the US on the equality of women in society? I really don't think it does.

 

[cyborg]

I do understand why it is a problem. I don't see why it applies to me. Could you give me an example?

Can you give me the set of measurements you would use to tell when women are equal to men or not? Are the previous stats you quoted relevant? If so what numbers would indicate a lack of a problem?