Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Ex a woman who worked as an RN trying to speak up on behalf of working poor women. Totally bogus and uninformed. Trying to pretend an intelligence and awareness about something they know absolutely nothing about. Didn't take more then page one for said RN who is "down with the poor mothers" to start bragging about how she wouldn't put her child in a low class day care center (probably populated by the children of the mothers she claimed so much sympathy for)...

More lies. You see the world through some very distorted lenses.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you may be pulling a bait-and-switch regarding "the issue".

Your earlier assessment was that obstetric medicine is deficient because men don't get pregnant, and therefore there is a gender-specific interest in medical care. What you were claiming was sexism in medical treatment.

Now what you appear to be saying is that a) women suffer unique and disproportionate violence due to gender discrimination, and b) medical care is generally inadequate in these poor countries, so c) there is a gender-specific interest in medical care. This is not a claim of sexism in medical treatment; it is a claim that sexism causes a disproportionate need for medical treatement, which makes the provision of medical treatment a women's issue.

Again, as with other issues, we can readily bifurcate problems due to sexism with general problems that are due to something else. And, while it's certainly true that being poor makes being a second-class citizen worse, conflating problems of poverty with problems of discrimination doesn't help the situation.

There are multiple causes for the plight of women in the world. There is both sexism in medical treatment and disproportionate violence against women. An example of the former was the preponderance of research in men's health issues in Western countries until recently.

Society for Women's Health Research

SWHR is the brain-child of Florence Haseltine, MD, PhD, who also coined the term “sex-based biology,” referring to the study of sex differences in health and disease. When Dr. Haseltine began working at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), she was told that her “role was to champion the field of obstetrics and gynecology,” which at the time were under-represented in research. In 1985, NIH lacked sufficient in-house expertise and funding for academic scientists. When her friend, Rosa DeLauro, developed ovarian cancer, Dr. Haseltine seized the opportunity to promote the need for more research into conditions affecting women.

In the spring of 1989, Dr. Haseltine gathered friends and colleagues from medical and scientific organizations across the country to address this critical issue. They congregated at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and agreed on the need not only for more gynecological research at NIH but also for research regarding women’s health in general. This meeting gave rise to SWHR.

(emphasis mine)

That's a mere 20-25 years ago that the neglect of research in women's health issues was beginning to be noticed. It wasn't a coincidence this followed the women's liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.

 

[truethat]

More lies. You see the world through some very distorted lenses.

Those lenses called "Reality." I guess yes to you that would seem distorted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't reconcile this response in any way other than to ask -- are you actually reading my posts?

How does my justification on focusing on children as different from adults, while insisting that we count men and women as equals, indicate either knowledge or lack of knowledge?

Read my posts and it should be clear. If not, feel free to explain how I've not posted anything you weren't previously aware of.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those lenses called "Reality." I guess yes to you that would seem distorted.

My posts aren't the only ones you reply to with straw men.

 

[Piggy]

To equate the degree of sex trafficking in both genders is nothing more than a PC position. Are there male prostitutes? Sure. And they may be in that position because of victimization. But when you see a group of sex trafficked people, meaning they've been lured or kidnapped and forced to work in the sex trade for someone else, you find the overwhelming majority are female. The ILO link I posted cited 98% female.The fact some men may grieve over the plight of these women and girls is a separate issue.

No, it's not a "separate issue", nor can it be.

It only seems like a "separate issue" when viewed through the lens of feminism, or the particular one you're using, which filters out the interests and concerns of males.

In the world of child sex trafficking, I think you'll find the proportion of males much higher than 2%, btw.

And even if it were only 2% (or 1 in every 50, with that 1 multiplied thousands of time to get the actual number) that would still not justify simply ignoring them, as seem to want to do in your rush to label this a "feminist" issue.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I like Heinlein.

I like him enough that I'm quoting him in a feminism thread

This thread is merely crazy.

Semantically null in many cases too.

A great deal of damage has been done by thinking of people in groups, as members of categories.

Especially religious groups. I wonder if feminists would get pissed if they were compared to a religion.

Anyway I guess it's easy for me to crap on the idea of "equality" because the idea itself is nonsensical. That's not very politically correct to say though.

Fact: Men and women on average have different strengths and weaknesses. Any particular woman or any particular man can fall almost anywhere on this spectrum but the groups are still there.

Given the above fact the real issue is how we treat people. Trying to make equality mean equality of outcome is very different from equality of treatment. I'm all for equality of treatment for everyone but to expect equal outcomes is silly, especially economically.

I would expect a pay gap to exist between men and women simply due to the different way they, on average, approach life. To me it would be even more surprising if men and women had exactly the same pay. That would be rather extraordinary actually because again, on average, they have different strengths and weaknesses, different personalities, different outlooks on what's important and of course different societal pressures. For example men have incredible pressure on them to be successful monetarily for mating reasons that women simply don't have. Women, on average, do not want to date/marry guys that are lower on the socio-economic scale than they are. What kind of outcome do you expect when you setup a competition amongst all of the males based on economic success? Pay equality is just a giant red herring IMHO. Until women start actually preferring a truly equal partner, on average, men are going to be forced to put all of there energy into resource gathering. Again talking groups here every individual has their own preferences, not all women think this way but on average they seem to.

 

[KingMerv00]

No, it's not a "separate issue", nor can it be.

It only seems like a "separate issue" when viewed through the lens of feminism, or the particular one you're using, which filters out the interests and concerns of males.

In the world of child sex trafficking, I think you'll find the proportion of males much higher than 2%, btw.

And even if it were only 2% (or 1 in every 50, with that 1 multiplied thousands of time to get the actual number) that would still not justify simply ignoring them, as seem to want to do in your rush to label this a "feminist" issue.

I think your point has some merit but you have to use limited resources effectively. Trying to stop crime by focusing on poor, inner city, minority communities doesn't solve the problem for everyone but it has the greatest potential to help the most people.

I'll admit there is definitely a risk of ignoring the 2%. The best we can do is to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

[tyr_13]

I think your point has some merit but you have to use limited resources effectively. Trying to stop crime by focusing on poor, inner city, minority communities doesn't solve the problem for everyone but it has the greatest potential to help the most people.

I'll admit there is definitely a risk of ignoring the 2%. The best we can do is to make sure it doesn't happen.

What actions could be done to address sex or slave trafficking that would not help all victims? Would those actions get more value for the cost than actions that would help all victims?

I can't think of any actions that specifically help only women victims that get more value for the cost than actions that address the problem as a whole. I could be mistaken though.

The only one that could be argued that I know of is raising the status of women in places where they are oppressed, but that's not really specifically addressing human trafficking as much as one of the benefits of more equality as a whole.

 

[KingMerv00]

Anyway I guess it's easy for me to crap on the idea of "equality" because the idea itself is nonsensical. That's not very politically correct to say though.

Fact: Men and women on average have different strengths and weaknesses. Any particular woman or any particular man can fall almost anywhere on this spectrum but the groups are still there.

You are arguing against a straw man, at least with regards to me.

Arguing for absolute equality is wrong. That's why I argue for rational equality. Men have more upper body strength on average so I'm not opposed to the idea that jobs that require more upper body strength end up hiring more men. I have zero problem with that.

Given the above fact the real issue is how we treat people. Trying to make equality mean equality of outcome is very different from equality of treatment. I'm all for equality of treatment for everyone but to expect equal outcomes is silly, especially economically.

I would expect a pay gap to exist between men and women simply due to the different way they, on average, approach life. To me it would be even more surprising if men and women had exactly the same pay. That would be rather extraordinary actually because again, on average, they have different strengths and weaknesses, different personalities, different outlooks on what's important and of course different societal pressures. For example men have incredible pressure on them to be successful monetarily for mating reasons that women simply don't have. Women, on average, do not want to date/marry guys that are lower on the socio-economic scale than they are. What kind of outcome do you expect when you setup a competition amongst all of the males based on economic success? Pay equality is just a giant red herring IMHO. Until women start actually preferring a truly equal partner, on average, men are going to be forced to put all of there energy into resource gathering. Again talking groups here every individual has their own preferences, not all women think this way but on average they seem to.

Um...you realize what you just said could be construed as feminist right? You said that gender roles cause the wage gap and that to change it people need to change their behavior. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

(The wage gap was discussed in a fair amount of detail earlier in the thread if you are interested. If not, whatever.)

 

[NewtonTrino]

You are arguing against a straw man, at least with regards to me.

Arguing for absolute equality is wrong. That's why I argue for rational equality. Men have more upper body strength on average so I'm not opposed to the idea that jobs that require more upper body strength end up hire more men. I have zero problem with that.

Then we pretty much agree. I'm not trying to take a radical position, just explaining my take on the whole feminism thing. Or one aspect of it anyway.

Um...you realize what you just said could be construed as feminist right? You said that gender roles cause the wage gap and that to change it people need to change their behavior. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

(The wage gap was discussed in a fair amount of detail earlier in the thread if you are interested. If not, whatever.)

Again, I don't think we disagree. I'll support equality of treatment in whatever form I can. Feminism, gay rights, immigrant rights etc I'm down with all of that. When I start to have an issue is when it goes past that into unequal treatment trying to create equal outcomes.

 

[Complexity]

Anyway I guess it's easy for me to crap on the idea of "equality" because the idea itself is nonsensical. That's not very politically correct to say though.

Fact: Men and women on average have different strengths and weaknesses. Any particular woman or any particular man can fall almost anywhere on this spectrum but the groups are still there.

Given the above fact the real issue is how we treat people. Trying to make equality mean equality of outcome is very different from equality of treatment. I'm all for equality of treatment for everyone but to expect equal outcomes is silly, especially economically.

I don't think that equality of outcome means much. I'm not sure that it is consistent with justice.

I'm far more concerned with equality under the law and what you refer to as 'equality of treatment'. Once we make progress on that front, then we'll aim at 'equality of opportunity' (nasty zone, full of traps, complicated).

 

[KingMerv00]

What actions could be done to address sex or slave trafficking that would not help all victims? Would those actions get more value for the cost than actions that would help all victims?

I can't think of any actions that specifically help only women victims that get more value for the cost than actions that address the problem as a whole. I could be mistaken though.

I know basically nothing about the issue so I'm not much help.

Say 5% of the girls are kidnapped from all girls schools while most of the boys are homeless orphans. If we have only so many cops, it would be best to monitor the all girl schools rather than patrol the streets.

Completely hypothetical of course. For all I know, stopping boy trafficing is a easier than preventing girl traffic so resources are better allocated there. It just seems unlikely given the ratios.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I don't think that equality of outcome means much.

I'm far more concerned with equality under the law and what you refer to as 'equality of treatment'. Once we make progress on that front, then we'll aim at 'equality of opportunity' (nasty zone, full of traps, complicated).

Ok, then I think we are on the same page. Equality under the law absolutely.

The whole "equality of opportunity" is another red herring though. As you say nasty, fully of traps etc. I would argue that in a correctly setup society that equality of treatment is going to give us something as close to equality of opportunity as is practically possible.

 

[KingMerv00]

Then we pretty much agree. I'm not trying to take a radical position, just explaining my take on the whole feminism thing. Or one aspect of it anyway.



Again, I don't think we disagree. I'll support equality of treatment in whatever form I can. Feminism, gay rights, immigrant rights etc I'm down with all of that. When I start to have an issue is when it goes past that into unequal treatment trying to create equal outcomes.

We still have a ways to go on equal treatment.

As for forcing equal outcomes...depends on the situation. For example, look at the data for the recent Walmart sex discrimination case. What do you do in a situation like that? Wag your finger and tell them to treat people more equally from now on? Seems like the only thing you can do is force a change even if they don't want it.

Ideally, attacking gender roles would be enough. Unfortunately, most of the benefit goes to future generations. In the mean time, we might need to do a little ass kicking.

 

[Complexity]

Ok, then I think we are on the same page. Equality under the law absolutely.

The whole "equality of opportunity" is another red herring though. As you say nasty, fully of traps etc. I would argue that in a correctly setup society that equality of treatment is going to give us something as close to equality of opportunity as is practically possible.

I tend to agree. I have yet to see how 'equality of opportunity' isn't based upon a prior 'equality of outcome' or a just 'correction' for the individuals involved.

 

[NewtonTrino]

We still have a ways to go on equal treatment.

I'm sure there is more gap here but when you compare the US to many countries in the world it looks like a paradise for women.

As for forcing equal outcomes...depends on the situation. For example, look at the data for the recent Walmart sex discrimination case. What do you do in a situation like that? Wag your finger and tell them to treat people more equally from now on? Seems like the only thing you can do is force a change even if they don't want it.

I see nothing in that data to indicate WHY the numbers are skewed. Why is it automatically assumed that wal-mart management has created this situation? There's nothing in the data that shows that the situation is a creation of wal-mart and not just how things worked out based on the work force itself. You can't just assume the reason without doing some research, no? This is actually exactly the kind of thing I was talking about above. Why couldn't it be the choices of the individual employees that created the situation?

Ideally, attacking gender roles would be enough. Unfortunately, most of the benefit goes to future generations. In the mean time, we might need to do a little ass kicking.

Can you give me an idea of what kind of ass kicking you're talking about? Specifically what do you think would solve these kinds of issues?

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm sure there is more gap here but when you compare the US to many countries in the world it looks like a paradise for women.

Naturally. Off topic though. Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn't change the fact some things are bad here. I feel it's sort of dishonest to make the comparison. It seems like a rhetorical tactic to tell people to stop complaining.

I see nothing in that data to indicate WHY the numbers are skewed. Why is it automatically assumed that wal-mart management has created this situation? There's nothing in the data that shows that the situation is a creation of wal-mart and not just how things worked out based on the work force itself. You can't just assume the reason without doing some research, no?

It's not an assumption, it is a conclusion. Look at the evidence. Women had more experience but made less money. What choice could have caused that?

This is actually exactly the kind of thing I was talking about above. Why couldn't it be the choices of the individual employees that created the situation?

I don't think it is impossible, I just think it isn't likely the best explanation. Besides I can't prove a negative. I can't prove it couldn't be the result of choice any more than you could prove it couldn't be discrimination. You look at the evidence and balance probabilities. You don't start with an assumption on either side. If Wal-Mart came back with reasonable counter evidence and I just haven't seen it, I'd gladly reconsider.

Can you give me an idea of what kind of ass kicking you're talking about? Specifically what do you think would solve these kinds of issues?

Nothing comes to mind at the moment unfortunately. All I can think of is the analogy of forced school integration. Sometimes you have to force an equal outcome today so that future generations get equal treatment tomorrow.

Yes the analogy is very loaded...just couldn't think of something less emotional is all.

 

[Piggy]

I think your point has some merit but you have to use limited resources effectively. Trying to stop crime by focusing on poor, inner city, minority communities doesn't solve the problem for everyone but it has the greatest potential to help the most people.

I'll admit there is definitely a risk of ignoring the 2%. The best we can do is to make sure it doesn't happen.

OK, then, what efforts do you propose which will reduce the trafficking in girls but not in boys? And why would you prefer to implement them over strategies that target all trafficking?

 

[AvalonXQ]

1) Rescue sex slave
2) If male, return to slaver
3) ...
4) Feminism!