The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:So, how bout that blog post about that article about that report? I haven't had time to read the full report yet, but it looks like good shtuff. Australians take note, this is about you.


I find these findings scary. I sort of wanted to believe the evidence from my own life that supports this was just my crap luck in relationships and knowing the wrong people. I could only read part of the article so far, I will work my way through it.

It is a good thing though, because showing people things they don't want to believe is important. It helps them wake up to the problem.

Also, Chai, the real problem is not looking at a problem both ways. Many people do not even try to make their opponent make sense, but rather try to make them wrong. This will never fix the problem. Hearing others and being heard will help the problem.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jessica » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:05 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:It bothers me that the counterargument against affirmative action is, essentially, an ad hominem of varying degrees of subtlety.

The problem is, there are many counterarguments against affirmative action. This thread is full of them. But, if neither side is trying to understand the other side, then there's no point in arguing. If you're just going to ignore arguments against your side until you switch sides, then my argument stands.

I'm not saying that either side is not culpable for ignoring arguments. I'm just saying if neither side is going to acknowledge the other side, then there will be no understanding until you switch sides.

And, part of the argument IS that EVERYONE, both for and against affirmative action, both feminist and equalist, both male and female, is biased. That's what society does to people. It ingrains bias. So, yeah, you might get offended when someone says you're biased (and that's, in part, part of the problem), but it's not meant to be offensive. It's like saying you live in western society in 2008. It's just, something that everyone needs to work with.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Indon » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:44 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:So, yeah, you might get offended when someone says you're biased (and that's, in part, part of the problem), but it's not meant to be offensive.


I'm not so sure how it could be conveyed as not offensive. I mean, if someone has bias and they aren't acknowledging it, something's wrong. Just like if you accuse someone of being an alcoholic, if they haven't admitted it to themselves, they're going to take offense, because they're being told something is wrong with them.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Noc » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:51 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:Okay, this represents one of my pet peeves with -ism activism that's exemplified in this thread. I know you don't intend it in particular, Jessica, nor most of the people who say things like it, but it's incredibly condescending, which is a turnoff to people interested in feminism who might not agree with everything a given group of feminists say. Also, it creates this sort of safety wall from logic: "Well, if you just got it, then you wouldn't disagree with us." I saw the same thing happening in the affirmative action debate upthread, that implication of "If you weren't such a biased pig, you'd support affirmative action the same way we do." It bothers me that the counterargument against affirmative action is, essentially, an ad hominem of varying degrees of subtlety.


[Warning: Long, much longer than I intended. And not entirely related to Feminism. Feel free to skim.]

I think that this can be a problem, and it's certainly easier for the subject of unfavorable scrutiny to respond with "Well it only doesn't make sense to you because you can't understand it!"

But the reason I made that point in the first place is because there's a definite trend among people of all sorts to attack things they don't understand based on imagined inconsistencies or oversights that aren't actually part of how the object of their attack actually works. People do this with feminism; they do it with most other sociological -isms, too, in ways we've spent the last 20 pages discussing. They do it with religion ("How can Jesus be both God and the son of God? Pick one, damnit.") They do it with science: for example, "The universe can't be both infinite expanding because it would have to expand into something. Like, duh." This apparent inconsistency bugged me for years, until I was thinking about something else and it finally struck me how it makes sense. I'd just been thinking about it wrong.

When I was younger, and in school, I used to do this with math all the time. I would see something that didn't seem right to me, and start arguing about it. I would be smug and self-satisfied, and get into fights with teachers. And in many cases, I'd feel like I'd "proved the wrong," because they couldn't refute my argument to my satisfaction. But then, later, I'd be thinking about it, and I'd realize how it actually worked. I'd realize that most of the things I was being taught actually made sense, and that the reason they seemed wrong to me was not that they were inherently flawed, but because I simply didn't understand them properly. Once I "got it," everything made perfect sense, and I could see exactly why my teacher was saying what he did. Would my teacher have convinced me of this himself if he'd been a better teacher and better able to explain the matter? Maybe. Would I have learned it in the first place if I hadn't been such a stubborn and argumentative prick? Maybe.

This keeps being proven to me over and over again, in my attempts to learn to program. Again and again something will break, and I will rail against the faultiness of the language and the system, and proclaim Feature X to be "broken," and then I'll discover that I was simply doing things wrong. That things actually worked fine, and that I was just overlooking something.

. . .

A lot of the attacks on sociological items work this way. Like the apparent inconsistency between feminism's opposition to gender inequality, and its assertion that "violence against women" is a specific problem. "But wait," people say, "If the genders are supposed to be equal, then shouldn't we treat violence against women and violence against men the same way?" It looks, on the surface to someone who doesn't understand the matter involved, that feminism is contradicting itself. The answer is "No," for several reasons that have been previously discussed in this thread. Once those reasons are known and understood, the assertions makes sense and are no longer self-contradictory. Similarly, the primary point against affirmative action is "If we're trying to make things equal, why are we giving advantages to some people based on demographic?" It appears to be an inconsistency, but further knowledge of the matter reveals that it really isn't. Proponents of affirmative action aren't actually half-witted idiots who fail to see the gaping logical flaw in their ideology; they actually have an idea that makes sense and is internally consistent despite outward appearances to the contrary.

I have spent a lot of time, in my past, arguing against things I didn't understand on the basis that the fact they didn't make sense to me was indicative of their faultiness. In the process, I made an ass out of myself on numerous occasions, and learned relatively little.

I'm not saying that everything that seems wrong to someone is actually right and perfectly legit and that they'd agree if only they knew where the other party was coming from. But what I'm saying is that instead of arguing against it, and saying "This is wrong! It doesn't make any sense," the proper course of action is to learn about it. To listen to what the other party is saying, and approach things from their side, and try and reach those conclusions yourself. Sometimes you might still find flaws along this path, at which point it's useful to talk about them. And sometimes things might make sense to you. Either way, this is productive discussion; you are learning something that you may not have known before, and thinking about things in different ways, and the other party is evaluating and thinking about his own position. Either way, whether you ultimately end up agreeing or not, it's a discussion worth having and not two entrenched sides, one of whom thinks that the other is a bunch of idiots who hold a clearly flawed position and the other of whom thinks that the first are a bunch of idiots incapable of seeing the truth in front of their face.

Sometimes you might disagree about the relative impacts of certain things, or about the facts of the matter; for example, whether the impact of the resentment that affirmative action can create outweighs the benefits of the system. Or about how prevalent sexually-driven violence actually is in our culture. The road here, then, is not to claim this uncertainty as a fault; not to say "Affirmative action is stupid because it creates resentment," but to say "Well, lets try and learn about this. Lets try to research, lets try to figure out how extensive this actually is, and how it compares to the other factors involved."

Another example: Every time the results of a study come up showing that the numbers of sexual violence and rape among women are astronomically high (one in five, I think?), there's nearly always a flurry of responses saying "Well, this doesn't mean anything because the definition for sexual assault is this, so it might catch these other things which aren't an issue at all." We're given a value that seems absurd to us; the numbers "can't" be true, and "can't" be indicative of anything real. But instead of seeking to learn more, to find out about these numbers and to seek to get to the bottom of the problem and ascertain for ourselves what they really mean, and whether they're astronomical because they're artificially inflated or because the problem was actually much, much worse than we thought it was . . . we reflexively seek to discredit them. We argue against, instead of trying to learn from.

. . .

Doing this requires a couple things. It requires a respect for the other party, and the belief that they have something worth learning from. It requires a willingness to work with them; not even a willingness to "compromise," but simply a willingness to try and learn from what they have to say, and to seriously consider the possibility that your objections are borne of a lack of understanding. Sometimes the other party's position makes sense, and you'll come to realize this through the discussion . . . and sometimes learning more about the matter simply reveals to you more of what exactly the problem is. But if you stick with your assumption from the get-go, and dig in and argue stubbornly and try to prove the other party "wrong" instead of coming out of your foxhole and trying to learn more to make sure you're on the right side, while accepting the possibility that you might not be . . . then nothing will be accomplished, and we'll just have another Internet Argument that will devolve into quote-sniping and ad-hominemity.

Huh. This post turned out to be a lot longer than I was planning it to be. And a lot broader, too, since it sort of encapsulates most of my frustrations with SB as well. Go figure.

. . .

tl:dr - Try to be constructive? The point isn't that if you're stupid and just don't understand if you think that something is wrong - it's that if something seems stupid to you, it might be because you don't understand it properly, and the only way to find out which is which is by trying to learn more. Nonconstructive arguing accomplishes nothing useful.
Have you given up?

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Nath » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:59 pm UTC

Rereading the last couple of pages, I realize I could afford to turn down the snideness a bit.

I also realize that Indon has very probably been misreading my argument, and I his. So, in response to all the sighs of relief that we are no longer trying to stab each other, I give you (edit: Indon) three choices for how to proceed from here:
  • Continue a point-by-point discussion in this thread.
  • Take it to PMs.
  • Let it go.
One thing I want to clear up if you choose option 3, though. Was your accusation of bias referring to the whole 'everybody in society is biased' effect that Jessica was talking about, or were you claiming that it's something specific to me, causing me to actively try and sabotage progress by arguing against affirmative action? If the former, how does my ingrained bias negate my arguments against affirmative action any more than your ingrained bias negates your arguments for affirmative action? I took it to mean the latter.

Noc wrote:Nonconstructive arguing accomplishes nothing useful.

By definition. But constructive arguments do exist. This hasn't been one, but I've had a few.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Chai Kovsky » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:18 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:And, part of the argument IS that EVERYONE, both for and against affirmative action, both feminist and equalist, both male and female, is biased. That's what society does to people. It ingrains bias. So, yeah, you might get offended when someone says you're biased (and that's, in part, part of the problem), but it's not meant to be offensive. It's like saying you live in western society in 2008. It's just, something that everyone needs to work with.

If it is indeed universal, as you assert, then it shouldn't be brought up in the conversation; both parties are biased. There's a sort of hierarchy of bias, as I see it:
1. Those of whom Godwin Speaks
2. Ku Klux Klan
3. Outright racist/sexist/other "ist" people ("I hate niggers" and so forth)
4. Quietly racist people (who think "I hate niggers" but don't say it aloud)
5. Equalists who don't acknowledge their own bias
6. -Ism activists, who work to negate bias

On the surface, this makes sense (yeah, both Klan members and equalists are biased, but one is more so than the other), but it creates a problem as you get farther down the list: are -ism activists implying that they are less biased? If so, you run into the original problem I mentioned, although instead of "You're biased and I'm not," you get "Your opinion is invalid because I'm less biased than you are. If you agreed with me, you would be less biased."

I don't think saying things like "That's just part of your bias towards x" is helpful in any sort of -ism conversation because of those implications. If we're all biased (and I believe we are), then it's kind of a "cast the first stone" sort of thing.

Oh Noc, it was so tempting to quote your entire post to respond to it :D I certainly see your point about not understanding and being smug about proving the wrong, but I think it goes both ways: you are equally convinced that you are in the right as your opponent. In fact, once people have changed their minds once and "gotten the right answer," they can be even more smug.

As far as I can tell, most arguments don't stem from a flawed logic that can easily be corrected; instead, they stem from different fundamental premises. For instance, a proponent of affirmative action might hold as a fundamental premise "Discrimination is so detrimental that we must abolish it any way we can" while someone opposed to it might say "Discrimination is bad, but the ends do not justify the means." Each then follows the logic of his position and arrives at his conclusion. The problem is not a flaw in logic, but the inability to reconcile those premises.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Noc » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:09 pm UTC

Nath wrote:
Noc wrote:Nonconstructive arguing accomplishes nothing useful.

By definition. But constructive arguments do exist. This hasn't been one, but I've had a few.

In my experience, constructive arguments tend to be called "discussions." It's a very minor semantic distinction, but its quite useful.
Oh Noc, it was so tempting to quote your entire post to respond to it :D I certainly see your point about not understanding and being smug about proving the wrong, but I think it goes both ways: you are equally convinced that you are in the right as your opponent. In fact, once people have changed their minds once and "gotten the right answer," they can be even more smug.

Right, so that's why the respect needs to go both ways: in the same way that you shouldn't condemn a position simply because it doesn't make sense to you at the moment, and seek to learn about it, someone who holds a position needs to respect those speaking against it, and accept that they may bring something to the table that you haven't noticed.

On the other hand, though, it's worth pointing out that when I've fallen into the "I've changed my mind and now have the right answer" crowd, it's usually because that change was brought on by having access to new information, or realizing something I hadn't before. The respect is still necessary, because just the fact that my opposition to the point was originally based on ignorance doesn't mean that someone with yet more information will come around back to the previous conclusion. But the point I want to emphasize is that if a primary objection to something can be phrased as a question (Especially one starting with "But how can . . . "), the proper course of action is to seek an answer, instead of holding the up question as evidence of a fault.
As far as I can tell, most arguments don't stem from a flawed logic that can easily be corrected; instead, they stem from different fundamental premises. For instance, a proponent of affirmative action might hold as a fundamental premise "Discrimination is so detrimental that we must abolish it any way we can" while someone opposed to it might say "Discrimination is bad, but the ends do not justify the means." Each then follows the logic of his position and arrives at his conclusion. The problem is not a flaw in logic, but the inability to reconcile those premises.

I don't think I agree. Which, interestingly, is actually a very good example of what I'm talking about.

The way I see it is this: the opponents of Affirmative action take the position that "If discrimination is bad, we should make sure that our policies aren't discriminatory. This makes perfect sense." The proponents, on the other hand, are taking the position that "Discrimination is entrenched solidly in our culture, and that its presence is self-perpetuating. This is the problem we need to fix, so we need to use our policies to move us towards this end." Both sides are actually talking about different things: the opponents are simply applying the "things should be equal" logic to the problem of policy making, to, you know, make nondiscriminatory policies, while the proponents are dealing with the social issues and are simply using the policies as a tool.

The opponents, as I understand it, see the proponents as being inconsistent because they're advocating a policy that's clearly counter to their aims. You yourself put it in Machiavellian terms, naming it as wrong that (may be) necessary to bring about an eventual right. The proponents, on the other hand, are dealing with a different problem entirely that the opponents aren't talking about. Clearly this is an oversimplification of the argument that's been raging through the past several pages, but the point is that at least on the very basic level, the argument for affirmative action deals with a more information than the argument against does. In light of that information, affirmative action suddenly seems like a much better idea.

Is it a perfect idea, beyond all criticism and discussion? Not at all. But it's worth noting that before we started quibbling about its relative effectiveness, and the relative weight of the benefits versus the drawbacks, and the place pro-active policy has on social change . . . the discussion started with people saying "Affirmative action is discriminatory and doesn't make sense," and other people saying "Actually it does, and this is why we need it."

This is quickly starting to get very long again, so I'll wrap up here. But can you see what I'm getting at?

[Edit: Or rather, do you think there's merit in what I'm getting at?]
Have you given up?

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Indon » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:20 pm UTC

Nath wrote:I also realize that Indon has very probably been misreading my argument, and I his. So, in response to all the sighs of relief that we are no longer trying to stab each other, I give you (edit: Indon) three choices for how to proceed from here:
  • Continue a point-by-point discussion in this thread.
  • Take it to PMs.
  • Let it go.

Considering how giant our posts have become, I'm all for option 3.

Nath wrote:One thing I want to clear up if you choose option 3, though. Was your accusation of bias referring to the whole 'everybody in society is biased' effect that Jessica was talking about, or were you claiming that it's something specific to me, causing me to actively try and sabotage progress by arguing against affirmative action?

Kinda both. At the end of my last ginormous post, I quote Quixotess, who in turn had quoted a letter written by Martin Luther King earlier in the thread. One of MLK's points in his letter was that he suspected the biggest obstacle his people faced was not the outright, hostile racist, but the sympathetic white man, who said, "I agree with you, but I disagree with your methods" - individuals who felt that the conflict created by trying to fix the problem just wasn't worth trying to actively fix the problem, and that if black people could just take their time, keep waiting, then all the problems will be fixed. Needless to say, MLK did not have a high opinion of that view.

And ultimately, isn't your position that we should stop affirmitive action because it creates conflict, and that instead women (or <insert minority here>) should take their time, keep waiting, and all their problems will be fixed, rather than take aggressive steps towards achieving equality?

Nath wrote:If the former, how does my ingrained bias negate my arguments against affirmative action any more than your ingrained bias negates your arguments for affirmative action?

I never meant to communicate that I thought your bias negated your argument. I argued against the argument's legitimacy itself, and noted as an additional point that it is an argument which stems from bias. I guess I failed to do that particularly well.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Tronald
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: Post yo' fess - Sponsored by the NBA

Postby Tronald » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:27 pm UTC

Nath wrote:My attempt at a translation:
Perhaps Tronald wrote:Um, what :D? Women can be just as good as men at fighting fires.
Anyhow, feminism is just the same idea as racism, from my understanding of what feminism is. Anyway, I have never heard an outburst against feminism; yet racism is a big thing (and I can understand why). By the way, I'm not saying all feminists are like the KKK or a white supremacy, but some are, and that's my two cents.

Yea, i mback, i had a long Thing for my life and yes, that's what i meant.
There is no good or evil just better or worst.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:28 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:As far as I can tell, most arguments don't stem from a flawed logic that can easily be corrected; instead, they stem from different fundamental premises. For instance, a proponent of affirmative action might hold as a fundamental premise "Discrimination is so detrimental that we must abolish it any way we can" while someone opposed to it might say "Discrimination is bad, but the ends do not justify the means." Each then follows the logic of his position and arrives at his conclusion. The problem is not a flaw in logic, but the inability to reconcile those premises.

Maybe it's just your examples, but that sounds like a load of hooey to me. I don't know anyone who would claim "we must get rid of discrimination any way we can." I mean, I can think of infinite ways of getting rid of discrimination (eugenics!) that I think would suck. In fact, I don't know anyone who supports affirmative action who thinks that it will get rid of discrimination. Meanwhile, M'sieur Anti-Affirmative Action has a further implicit premise that "affirmative action is a bad means;" that is, he's assuming his conclusion in his premise. (Is that begging the question or circular reasoning? I can never remember.)

Chai Kovsky wrote:If it is indeed universal, as you assert, then it shouldn't be brought up in the conversation; both parties are biased.

That's only true if both parties accept that they are biased. If I'm arguing with Belial, I don't have to bring that up. If I'm arguing with...uh...a lot of other people, I do have to rehash that until we're working from the same premises. The idea that everyone has ingrained biases is a fundamental part of the argument for affirmative action.

Chai Kovsky wrote:[hierarchy of bias]

Jigga the who in the what now? This makes no sense to me. Your hierarchy is clearly one of actions, not of prejudices.

Chai Kovsky wrote:but it creates a problem as you get farther down the list: are -ism activists implying that they are less biased?

Um...that's a hierarchy that you created. I as one ism activist think it's crap, and I've never seen other -ism activists talk about any such hierarchy. In other words, you just said "I see the world like this and that's a stupid idea what is wrong with you people!"

Chai Kovsky wrote:I don't think saying things like "That's just part of your bias towards x" is helpful in any sort of -ism conversation because of those implications. If we're all biased (and I believe we are), then it's kind of a "cast the first stone" sort of thing.

Not, uh, not really.

I'm finding it somewhat difficult to explain my thoughts here because your entire post and its implied questions are wrong to me, not in the sense of "2+2=5" but in the sense of "what sound does yellow make?" That is, you're coming at this from the wrong angle. It seems like there are at least two things here, a dislike of being called out on one's privilege and a feeling that once one has claimed to accept the general principle "I am biased" one under no circumstances needs to be called out on matters of specific prejudice.

You seem to be arguing that because all negative numbers are below zero, they are worth the same amount, but that's the wrong angle too; and it's not because -2 != -3, it's because bias isn't a number. You can't put it in a hierarchy. Someone doesn't have more or less bias - or rather, it's impossible to quantify that given the multitude of things that there are to be biased about.

Here's what can, in some circumstances, be quantified: your participation in systems of oppression. (I think that's why I dislike the word "bias;" it has a connotation of being an individual quality, when really the problem is systemic.) If I see you hurting me, or espousing beliefs that hurt me, I will call you out on it. If we're allies, we appreciate being called out on it because it means we get to take one more step away from hurting other people.

"My position is inherently no worse than yours because both positions come from flawed human minds" is, itself, a form of ad hominem. Or maybe strawman. No one arguing for affirmative action claimed to be free from bias. The claim was that of the two positions, one was harmful to oppressed groups and the other, implemented correctly, was not. Simplified:

Ally: So, how 'bout that violence against women? It sure sucks.
Non-ally: Oh, totally, except [insert apologism, misrepresented statistics, victim-blaming, and a helping of "what about the men?]
Ally: Your position is harmful to women.
Non-ally: Yeah, well, you've caused harm to women too! HA!

It...doesn't follow.

Note that I don't have to prove, for the sake of this post, that affirmative action is a positive means, because we are being meta right now.

Also, sometimes people just need to be called on their privilege, but this post is already too long and confused. Hopefully someone's ninja'd me with smarter things.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby JayDee » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:35 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:Okay, this represents one of my pet peeves with -ism activism that's exemplified in this thread. I know you don't intend it in particular, Jessica, nor most of the people who say things like it, but it's incredibly condescending, which is a turnoff to people interested in feminism who might not agree with everything a given group of feminists say. Also, it creates this sort of safety wall from logic: "Well, if you just got it, then you wouldn't disagree with us." I saw the same thing happening in the affirmative action debate upthread, that implication of "If you weren't such a biased pig, you'd support affirmative action the same way we do." It bothers me that the counterargument against affirmative action is, essentially, an ad hominem of varying degrees of subtlety.
Noc wrote:But what I'm saying is that instead of arguing against it, and saying "This is wrong! It doesn't make any sense," the proper course of action is to learn about it.
See, when I saw Chai's post, I was thinking of the times where people are questioning, and trying to learn, but are dismissed in that fashion anyhow. Which certainly does happen, but maybe not be what Chai was concerned about, on reflection.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Noc » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:47 pm UTC

Quixotess: It's worth noting here that you're doing the same thing I've been trying to caution your opponents against. What Chai said seems wholly wrong-headed and inconsistent and badly thought out to you, but instead of trying to learn more about exactly where she's coming from, and figure out exactly where you disagree and how best to explain your objection to her position in a way that will make sense and be meaningful to her, you're tearing it apart because it seems stupid and wrong. Because it's organized circularly, and because it presents unfounded assumptions, and such. Your own rebuttal is rather badly organized, and presents unfounded assumptions and metaphors of dubious application and the like. You mention this yourself.

If we continue this way, you'll both continue ripping into each other's arguments until one of you just gets fed up with the whole process, and we'll accomplish nothing.

So, Chai, since you're the one presenting a position here: could you try and restate what you mean, in a different way, making your chain of logic and the assumptions your working from as clear as you can? And Quixotess, can you suspend counter-ranting until you're satisfied that you understand where she's coming from enough to say something helpful?
Last edited by Noc on Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Have you given up?

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Nath » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:50 pm UTC

Indon wrote:Kinda both.

I see. I understand where you're coming from for the first point, but the second one still befuddles me. Which group of people am I attempting to harm through my sabotage?

Indon wrote:And ultimately, isn't your position that we should stop affirmitive action because it creates conflict, and that instead women (or <insert minority here>) should take their time, keep waiting, and all their problems will be fixed, rather than take aggressive steps towards achieving equality?

No. My position is that aggressive steps are fine, but being aggressive is not sufficient for a measure to be useful. If I thought affirmative action would make things fairer in the long run, I'd be in favour of it, regardless of who it upset. The fact that I don't have an alternative aggressive measure to suggest doesn't change the fact that I think affirmative action does more harm than good (like the 'throwing rocks at Joe' example). And I'm talking about harm to its intended benefactors, not to the status quo.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Chai Kovsky » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:52 pm UTC

No worries, Noc. I know Quixotess, at least, has good intent, and I can take care of myself, albeit in a massively wordy post. It's mostly quoting, though, so my bad.

Noc wrote:The way I see it is this: the opponents of Affirmative action take the position that "If discrimination is bad, we should make sure that our policies aren't discriminatory. This makes perfect sense." The proponents, on the other hand, are taking the position that "Discrimination is entrenched solidly in our culture, and that its presence is self-perpetuating. This is the problem we need to fix, so we need to use our policies to move us towards this end." Both sides are actually talking about different things: the opponents are simply applying the "things should be equal" logic to the problem of policy making, to, you know, make nondiscriminatory policies, while the proponents are dealing with the social issues and are simply using the policies as a tool.

Could you explain more clearly how this is different than what I said?

Noc wrote:The opponents, as I understand it, see the proponents as being inconsistent because they're advocating a policy that's clearly counter to their aims. You yourself put it in Machiavellian terms, naming it as wrong that (may be) necessary to bring about an eventual right. The proponents, on the other hand, are dealing with a different problem entirely that the opponents aren't talking about. Clearly this is an oversimplification of the argument that's been raging through the past several pages, but the point is that at least on the very basic level, the argument for affirmative action deals with a more information than the argument against does. In light of that information, affirmative action suddenly seems like a much better idea.

By characterizing the opponents with a broad brush (not all opponents of affirmative action are avoiding the subject of entrenched discrimination, but merely want other policy alternatives), you lay the base for a groundless assertion that the proponents of affirmative action are dealing with more information than the opponents.

Indon wrote:And ultimately, isn't your position that we should stop affirmitive action because it creates conflict, and that instead women (or <insert minority here>) should take their time, keep waiting, and all their problems will be fixed, rather than take aggressive steps towards achieving equality?

Not my battle, necessarily, but can we agree that aggressive steps towards achieving equality in and of themselves are not inherently good or useful towards achieving the end of anti-discrimination/equal rights? I'm thinking of the California Supreme Court decision with regard to gay marriage. Although the state legislature passed two gay marriage statutes and public opinion was creeping towards marriage equality, by using the courts, gay rights activists found themselves fighting a constitutional amendment. Now they have even more of an uphill battle than before. Would it have been better to wait? I think so; it's a lot easier to pass legislation than overturn a constitutional amendment. Aggressive steps can and do create backlash. The response to this should not be "fuck the will of the people, they're just bigots" (as many anti-Prop 8 activists are doing now by attempting to declare the prop an illegal constitutional revision), but to slow down and try to gather public support. PR is more important to civil rights than many -ism activists would like to admit. I believe someone's sig on these fora is "It's not enough to bash in skulls, you have to bash in minds."


Quixotess wrote:Here's what can, in some circumstances, be quantified: your participation in systems of oppression.

In effect, that was what the hierarchy I designed was trying to show, though participation is indeed a better way of putting it than bias. KKK participate in systems of oppression more than -ism activists do. Should that participation be conflated with bias?

Quixotess wrote:Here's what can, in some circumstances, be quantified: your participation in systems of oppression. (I think that's why I dislike the word "bias;" it has a connotation of being an individual quality, when really the problem is systemic.) If I see you hurting me, or espousing beliefs that hurt me, I will call you out on it. If we're allies, we appreciate being called out on it because it means we get to take one more step away from hurting other people.

"My position is inherently no worse than yours because both positions come from flawed human minds" is, itself, a form of ad hominem. Or maybe strawman. No one arguing for affirmative action claimed to be free from bias. The claim was that of the two positions, one was harmful to oppressed groups and the other, implemented correctly, was not.

I think it's relativism, which, while not a direct logical fallacy, sure leads to some. There certainly is an element of holier-than-thou in calling out bias, though it may not be an inherently bad thing. You are saying "I am less prejudiced than you in this regard, so I have the right to call you out on it." My problem is the dogma that can be attached to the "calling out," as if you are more sexist because you support or oppose some policy.

Let counter-ranting commence; I'll be back in a few hours.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:54 pm UTC

Nath wrote:I see. I understand where you're coming from for the first point, but the second one still befuddles me. Which group of people am I attempting to harm through my sabotage?


In most cases, you're (hypothetical you) not trying to actively harm anyone. You're just trying to maintain the status quo. Often because, on some level, you like your current position within it and don't want to upset it. Harming people is a byproduct. A side effect. If you had to have outright malice or ill will towards a group to oppress them or contribute to a social construct that does so, we probably wouldn't have nearly the problems we do now.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:55 pm UTC

Noc wrote: you're tearing it apart counter-ranting

Well, I object somewhat to this characterization, but never mind. PM on its way.

You are saying "I am less prejudiced than you in this regard, so I have the right to call you out on it." My problem is the dogma that can be attached to the "calling out," as if you are more sexist because you support or oppose some policy.

I think that's a reading and not a writing.

This is a "you are being prejudiced in this regard. Quit it." Relative quantaties of prejudice in the arguer are, generally, irrelevant. (Privilege is an argument that I'm still separating out from this one right now.)

And it's not about "you are more sexist" because you $thing, it's you are perpetuating oppression by $thing. This can be difficult to determine, but is generally not subjective.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby JayDee » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:09 am UTC

Belial wrote:In most cases, you're (hypothetical you) not trying to actively harm anyone. You're just trying to maintain the status quo. Often because, on some level, you like your current position within it and don't want to upset it. Harming people is a byproduct. A side effect. If you had to have outright malice or ill will towards a group to oppress them or contribute to a social construct that does so, we probably wouldn't have nearly the problems we do now.

Maybe I've missed something (and the talk of sabotage refers to something other than question / disagreeing with affirmative action) but this reads like it's being said that "things are messed up now and need changing, therefore you are not allowed to question or disagree with our prosed changes / action". Or perhaps the related argument that people aren't allowed to question a course of action without having a better solution of their own to propose.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jessica » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:20 am UTC

I'd argue, but Belial, Noc, Quiz will all way what I want to say. And they'll say it better, more eloquently and with less fuckups.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby kinigget » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:04 am UTC

^ do it anyway. Lord knows that hasn't stopped me, and I've learned things because of it.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:10 am UTC

Actions can be questioned. However, look at why you are questioning things. Are you doing it because you are afraid of what it means or because the actions are truly that questionable?
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Noc » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:06 am UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:
Noc wrote:The way I see it is this: the opponents of Affirmative action take the position that "If discrimination is bad, we should make sure that our policies aren't discriminatory. This makes perfect sense." The proponents, on the other hand, are taking the position that "Discrimination is entrenched solidly in our culture, and that its presence is self-perpetuating. This is the problem we need to fix, so we need to use our policies to move us towards this end." Both sides are actually talking about different things: the opponents are simply applying the "things should be equal" logic to the problem of policy making, to, you know, make nondiscriminatory policies, while the proponents are dealing with the social issues and are simply using the policies as a tool.

Could you explain more clearly how this is different than what I said?

Sure. This feeds into your second point, as well.

What you said was that the opponents to affirmative action are saying that, "Discrimination is bad, but the ends do not justify the means," while the proponents want us to "Abolish discrimination any way we can." The implication here is that policies that are "discriminatory" - in the sense that they deal specifically with a given demographic, and aren't color/gender/etc-blind - are an evil and a step backwards. (I'm going to put "discriminatory" in quotes, for the rest of the post, because there are other facets of the word which this definition does not address.) The way you put things is that affirmative action policies are wrong, and the issue was a question of whether they are a necessary evil or not.

The position of proponents is that this is not the issue at all. It's that a "nondiscriminatory" policy, even though it looks fine and dandy at first glance, serves to prop up a shitty and discriminatory system. It's not that nondiscriminatory policies are good, and discriminatory ones are bad, but that we sometimes have to do bad things to bring about good later; it's that policies that look like they're fine and dandy are actively serving to help perpetuate a system that isn't. It's that people of different demographics not being legally identical on paper isn't actually a problem; the problem is that, well . . . pick a problem. You've got plenty to chose from: Racial economic divides, poor neighborhoods that don't actually improve no matter how long we wait for them to, pay gaps between genders, absurd gender imbalance in certain professions, how badly domestic violence is weighted towards women . . . there's a whole list, and I didn't even scratch the surface here.

The argument for affirmative action does not accept that affirmative policies are a necessary evil, because they aren't an "evil" at all by any comprehensive standard. It asserts that if we're going to apply such a label, we should apply it to the policies that condone and otherwise perpetuate all of the discriminatory systems that create these problems in the first place. Which means that it asserts that the labeling system that defines "nondiscriminatory" policies as "good" fails to take into account the actual effect of said policies, and all of the historical precedent for such matters. Thus, it's a different judgment based off of a far wider sample of information and more complete analysis rather than simply a different approach to the same issue.

Which brings us to your second point: no, this may not be representative of the full breadth of opponents to affirmative action. But firstly, this is a permutation of an example that you brought up. You gave an example of two opposing viewpoints which, at your assertion, both arrived at a destination by equally sound means and without any misunderstanding of the other position. My counterpoint provided an alternate example that I considered to more aptly represent the discussion at hand, by which one side reaches a conclusion from an oversimplified and ill-understood derivation of the other side's position. It's quite possible that neither of our examples are representative of the issue as a whole . . . but they are certainly representative of the subjects of our example, as a whole, to the extent that their actions are relevant. Straw men, perhaps, but illustrative of my point nonetheless.
Last edited by Felstaff on Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Cleaned up Knock's quote tags
Have you given up?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:13 pm UTC

JayDee wrote:Maybe I've missed something (and the talk of sabotage refers to something other than question / disagreeing with affirmative action) but this reads like it's being said that "things are messed up now and need changing, therefore you are not allowed to question or disagree with our prosed changes / action". Or perhaps the related argument that people aren't allowed to question a course of action without having a better solution of their own to propose.


Maybe, if I were asserting that that was definitely and solely the cause for disagreement.

As it is, Nath was asking who he could possibly want to hurt, as though the idea that he could have an interest in maintaining the current system were patently ridiculous. I am explaining why it is not ridiculous, and why the desire to hurt anyone is unnecessary to create an interest in maintaining the status quo. I am not asserting anything else beyond that.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Awia
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:57 pm UTC
Location: Britland!

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Awia » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:58 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:I'd argue, but Belial, Noc, Quiz will all way what I want to say. And they'll say it better, more eloquently and with less fuckups.
I'm feeling exactly the same way, damn you lot for being so eloquent.
Francis wrote:Look on the bright side, if you all die I'll still be handsome

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Decker » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

*sigh* This thread is making me think and I'm not sure I like what I'm coming up with.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:52 pm UTC

How's that?
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Indon » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

Nath wrote:And I'm talking about harm to its intended benefactors, not to the status quo.

But that 'harm to its intended benefactors' manifests in the form of hostility from other individuals, does it not?

Chai Kovsky wrote:Would it have been better to wait? I think so; it's a lot easier to pass legislation than overturn a constitutional amendment. Aggressive steps can and do create backlash. The response to this should not be "fuck the will of the people, they're just bigots" (as many anti-Prop 8 activists are doing now by attempting to declare the prop an illegal constitutional revision), but to slow down and try to gather public support.

I disagree. In this case, it's pretty clearly a case of California saying, "Fuck you, we're bigots", to gay people, meaning they can either roll over and get discriminated against for who knows how many years, or they can try to fix it.

How do you 'gather public support' from people who have been proven to actively dislike you? And how do you get backlash from trying to get equal rights despite all these people who actively dislike you - what're they gonna do, vote to make your marriage more illegal? Unless you're afraid of concentration camps getting set up in America (and admittedly, that's not out of the question), how could it get worse?

And, furthermore, how does taking aggressive steps make your PR worse? PR pretty much means 'propaganda', and you can run commmercials no matter what you're doing provided you have the money to run them.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Decker » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:57 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:How's that?

That I'm one of those status-quo people.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:01 pm UTC

Look at it this way - Recognition of the problem is the first step to recovery.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Decker » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:04 pm UTC

I just have a extreem fear of conflict. I have all of two posts in Serious Business.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:38 pm UTC

Oh sweet jumping osiris christ, I just had this huge post on the oft-alluded-to "intuitive leap" and how it relates to Schema Theory in psychology, and somehow I got logged out in the middle and when I logged back in it was gone.

I'm going to go punch the servers now.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:20 pm UTC

Being loud and agressive is only one way to be a feminist Decker--as long as you support those who are working for feminism and work for it in your own way you can avoid status quo. As long as you are aware that changes still need to happen, y'know?

Belial--if you want I could pretend to have read the fantastic post about intuitive leaps, I'm sure it was fantastic.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:32 pm UTC

Actually, go ahead and assume it was largely nonsensical and incoherent.

I'll work on retyping all of it later tonight when the words all make sense again.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Decker » Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:34 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Being loud and agressive is only one way to be a feminist Decker--as long as you support those who are working for feminism and work for it in your own way you can avoid status quo. As long as you are aware that changes still need to happen, y'know?

I know change needs to happen, I just don't want to draw attention to myself by doing anything about it.
It's selfish, I know.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Chai Kovsky » Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:40 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
Chai Kovsky wrote:Would it have been better to wait? I think so; it's a lot easier to pass legislation than overturn a constitutional amendment. Aggressive steps can and do create backlash. The response to this should not be "fuck the will of the people, they're just bigots" (as many anti-Prop 8 activists are doing now by attempting to declare the prop an illegal constitutional revision), but to slow down and try to gather public support.

I disagree. In this case, it's pretty clearly a case of California saying, "Fuck you, we're bigots", to gay people, meaning they can either roll over and get discriminated against for who knows how many years, or they can try to fix it.

How do you 'gather public support' from people who have been proven to actively dislike you? And how do you get backlash from trying to get equal rights despite all these people who actively dislike you - what're they gonna do, vote to make your marriage more illegal? Unless you're afraid of concentration camps getting set up in America (and admittedly, that's not out of the question), how could it get worse?

And, furthermore, how does taking aggressive steps make your PR worse? PR pretty much means 'propaganda', and you can run commmercials no matter what you're doing provided you have the money to run them.

Not even remotely. Most people support full rights for gay couples and only don't want it to be called marriage. It has to do with the idea of marriage as an institution and its holdover as a religious concept (let's be frank: if civil marriage were not even remotely religious, everyone would have "civil unions").

If we want to get married (and dammit, I DO want to get married someday!) we need to convince those "bigots" to repeal the amendment. Backlash involves getting a higher percentage of people opposing gay marriage (or even those opposed to do so more vehemently).

The view that those who oppose gay marriage are uniformly bigots has been one of the things hurting the cause. What if we had applied that reasoning years ago? Minds have changed since then and can continue to change. Labeling people bigots will not cause some sort of epiphany ("Oh my G-d, someone called me bigoted! I like them so much more now and am inclined to support them!"). Thwarting the will of the people by going over their head to the courts will be used as a scare tactic in other state elections to ban marriage in other states. That's how it gets worse.

We were impatient and now we're fucked harder than before. The last thing we need is to scare those swing voters who went against us last time to go for us the next time it's on the ballot. Telling them that their votes don't matter won't do that.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Indon » Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:45 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:Not even remotely. Most people support full rights for gay couples and only don't want it to be called marriage. It has to do with the idea of marriage as an institution and its holdover as a religious concept (let's be frank: if civil marriage were not even remotely religious, everyone would have "civil unions").

America has a formal term for when one (minority) group is given something supposedly equivalent, but distinct, from what another (majority) group gets. It's not a term with a good history, it's not a policy with a good history, and it has sure as hell never involved full rights.

And that term's the writing on the wall here. I don't need to say it, I'm pretty sure you're an American if I remember the rest of the thread correctly, and if you're an American you know what it is.

Chai Kovsky wrote:If we want to get married (and dammit, I DO want to get married someday!) we need to convince those "bigots" to repeal the amendment. Backlash involves getting a higher percentage of people opposing gay marriage (or even those opposed to do so more vehemently).

What do you think would have happened had anti-abortion laws not been challenged in the legal system decades ago, and instead women had tried to "convince those 'bigots'" to give them freedom of choice?

Chai Kovsky wrote:The view that those who oppose gay marriage are uniformly bigots has been one of the things hurting the cause.

Admittedly, they're not uniformly bigots. Some are ignorant voters who got manipulated into supporting the proposition because they probably didn't understand what it was about. Some bought into justifying logic supporting the bigotry. Etc.

Chai Kovsky wrote:What if we had applied that reasoning years ago?

Give me an example - like, calling a state governor who threatens to use the national guard to support segregation a bigot? (that's why our national guard has nationalized authority, if I recall)

Chai Kovsky wrote:Minds have changed since then and can continue to change. Labeling people bigots will not cause some sort of epiphany ("Oh my G-d, someone called me bigoted! I like them so much more now and am inclined to support them!").

No, it won't. But it notifies the people who aren't bigots who they need to watch out for, and it tells people precisely what kind of actions it takes to be a bigot. Refusing people equal rights is bigotry, and maybe the people who didn't think about what Prop 8 actually meant will actually think a bit more about their actions in the future.

Chai Kovsky wrote:Thwarting the will of the people by going over their head to the courts will be used as a scare tactic in other state elections to ban marriage in other states. That's how it gets worse.

Which will only push all the harder for a Supreme Court decision - and when the SCotUS is looking at Brown vs. Board of Education pt. 2, I trust them to realize what's going on.

Chai Kovsky wrote:We were impatient and now we're fucked harder than before. The last thing we need is to scare those swing voters who went against us last time to go for us the next time it's on the ballot. Telling them that their votes don't matter won't do that.


You're proposing to rely on the people who already have a history of failing you, in fact actively stripping you of rights, to give you rights that you should have right now, and could be fighting tooth and nail to get back?

Edit:
Rinsaikeru wrote:Being loud and agressive is only one way to be a feminist Decker--as long as you support those who are working for feminism and work for it in your own way you can avoid status quo. As long as you are aware that changes still need to happen, y'know?


Am I the only person who immediately thought of Shadowrun when reading this?

I know they don't use decking anymore in the new version, it's wireless and doesn't require a deck, but still. Feminist hacker faction. How awesome a cyberpunk concept is that?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Nath » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:13 am UTC

Belial wrote:In most cases, you're (hypothetical you) not trying to actively harm anyone. You're just trying to maintain the status quo. Often because, on some level, you like your current position within it and don't want to upset it. Harming people is a byproduct. A side effect. If you had to have outright malice or ill will towards a group to oppress them or contribute to a social construct that does so, we probably wouldn't have nearly the problems we do now.

Fair enough. But in what is the basis for the claim that I'm any more prone to this than anybody else on this thread? I'm neither a white American nor an upper-caste Hindu. There are plenty of other people here with at least as much to gain by maintaining the status quo. The accusation reads suspiciously like, "you disagree with me; therefore, your motives are suspect".

Indon wrote:But that 'harm to its intended benefactors' manifests in the form of hostility from other individuals, does it not?

I guess you could say that, in the sense that oppression (which is a form of hostility) is the problem we're trying to solve.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Chai Kovsky » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:35 am UTC

"Separate but equal" is a bad analogy, Indon. The problem isn't that it's separate, but that "separate cannot be equal." Marriage is a legal fiction. Schools aren't. It is entirely within the ability of Congress to write a Civil Unions Act such that any right bestowed upon marriage is equally upon that of civil unions, and to require private industry (think insurance) to do the same.

Indon wrote:
Chai Kovsky wrote:If we want to get married (and dammit, I DO want to get married someday!) we need to convince those "bigots" to repeal the amendment. Backlash involves getting a higher percentage of people opposing gay marriage (or even those opposed to do so more vehemently).

What do you think would have happened had anti-abortion laws not been challenged in the legal system decades ago, and instead women had tried to "convince those 'bigots'" to give them freedom of choice?

You name me one state where there is or ever was a constitutional amendment banning abortion (please do tell me if there was before Roe v. Wade—I'd be interested). Prop 8 now requires that we get the consent of the governed to marry. Before, we could have done it through the legislature, where there is an impression of greater democratic legitimacy (as a republic) than the courts. We shot ourselves in the foot.

As for SCotUS, you take one look at that court and ask yourself if they're going to even take up a case, let alone decide in our favor. They've had plenty of opportunity the past few years (and, since the "full faith and credit" clause arguably applies to marriage, it probably should be decided by SCotUS). I don't trust the present court as far as I could sling a piano.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Indon » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:41 pm UTC

Nath wrote:I guess you could say that, in the sense that oppression (which is a form of hostility) is the problem we're trying to solve.


Indeed - you're arguing that a measure to guarantee a place in oppressed workplaces for minorities will cause people who are already oppressing those minorities to oppress them more - even though they are no longer empowered to exclude them from their workplaces.

In my eyes, that's basically saying, 'let the oppressors win', and it's nonproductive. Why should we expect anyone to quietly give up a system that favors them? Why shouldn't we expect conflict and hostility when we try to change the system? And if we give up on trying to change the system just because that expected conflict and hostility would happen, then we're basically letting the indignation of those oppressors serve as a shield to let them continue on as they have been, unmolested, for as long as they like.

Chai Kovsky wrote:"Separate but equal" is a bad analogy, Indon. The problem isn't that it's separate, but that "separate cannot be equal."

But it can't - not when one side of the divide has the majority, with the voter representation and all the ability to create favorable legislation, and the other is scorned and derided by the majority.

Laws can be left in disrepair just as easily as an underfunded, overcrowded school can be. So say the Civil Unions Act specifies that civil unions get all marriage rights - Great. There's one problem with that. Now you basically have two kinds of marriage rights - marriage rights which don't specify themselves as exempt from the Civil Unions Act, and marriage rights that do. Only one of these groups has immense funding and popular support, and it isn't what the gay people get.

Chai Kovsky wrote:You name me one state where there is or ever was a constitutional amendment banning abortion (please do tell me if there was before Roe v. Wade—I'd be interested).

There doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment - a law has the force of law, subordinate only to higher jurisdictions of the law. A state law is just as much law as a state constitution is, and while the state law is subordinate to the state constitution, they are both equally - totally - subordinate to the federal constitution.

If proposition 8 is in violation of the federal constitution - and I'm pretty sure it is - then it is illegitimate as law, and should be struck down. The superiority of the federal constitution over state law has not been in question for a hundred and fifty years.

We are a republic precisely because we are not a democracy, and the people can not go around and discard each other's rights just because they're in the majority.

Chai Kovsky wrote:As for SCotUS, you take one look at that court and ask yourself if they're going to even take up a case, let alone decide in our favor. They've had plenty of opportunity the past few years (and, since the "full faith and credit" clause arguably applies to marriage, it probably should be decided by SCotUS). I don't trust the present court as far as I could sling a piano.


I wouldn't trust this court with doing anything particularly progressive, but if a clear case of state vs. federal power lands on their lap, which this is, I expect a swift and decisive ruling in keeping with over a hundred years of precedent.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Chai Kovsky » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:17 pm UTC

Indon wrote:I wouldn't trust this court with doing anything particularly progressive, but if a clear case of state vs. federal power lands on their lap, which this is, I expect a swift and decisive ruling in keeping with over a hundred years of precedent.

You keep faith in the courts and I'll keep it in the people, then.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:27 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:
Indon wrote:I wouldn't trust this court with doing anything particularly progressive, but if a clear case of state vs. federal power lands on their lap, which this is, I expect a swift and decisive ruling in keeping with over a hundred years of precedent.

You keep faith in the courts and I'll keep it in the people, then.


To quote the great spider jerusalem:

"You want to know about voting? I'm here to tell you about voting.

Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you aren't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight.

You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation".

They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed.

So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades.

That's voting. You're welcome."

Needless to say, I think democratic votes on civil rights issues are a heinously bad idea. Nevermind the fact that they've rarely, if ever, worked before.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests