|
Zeitgueist posted:No not really at all, it doesn't. None of those terms have any biological background that's consistent with their usage in the USA, and I would encourage you to research the genetics of race to help disabuse yourself of this idea. or this: self-reported race and genetic ethnic ancestry appear to be highly correlated as a dichotomy Now you've implied you have a better understanding of the subject matter than I do, so could you please help me and show me a good explanation of how I am wrong here? (I'm not saying race is biological, I'm saying within the US, the social construct of race and the biological reality of genes are at least somewhat correlated.) V. Illych L. posted:well, you apparently cannot read, so it's no surprise that you don't understand biology
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not sure what it would mean for social constructs such as race to 'have a biological background', but what I'm talking about is this: "Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity" What people self-report and how they are treated are different things. What society deems "black" or "latino" isn't at all checked with what that person identifies themselves as. Quite a few folks who identify as black and would show geographical genetic data for black can pass. That's why they used self-reported race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
no i have explained myself and you've failed to read the posts and are currently engaging in a blithely ignorant misrepresentation of basic biology, terrible reading comprehension and a lack of understanding of the term "race". if you have specific objections to my posts, make them and if they're reasonable i'll even respond
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:What people self-report and how they are treated are different things. What society deems "black" or "latino" isn't at all checked with what that person identifies themselves as. Quite a few folks who identify as black and would show geographical genetic data for black can pass. (I am absolutely confident though, if self reported race can be predicted near perfectly from genes, then race assigned by a group of 5 random people could also be predicted much better than at the level people are usually satisfied with in studies of genetic association, and I assume you could even predict the level of racist abuse a person receives, or the chances of "passing", from their genes, at least to a small, but statistically significant degree.) V. Illych L. posted:no i have explained myself and you've failed to read the posts and are currently engaging in a blithely ignorant misrepresentation of basic biology, terrible reading comprehension and a lack of understanding of the term "race". if you have specific objections to my posts, make them and if they're reasonable i'll even respond
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:At least with regards to the US and the black/white/asian/latino distinction, that actually correlates very strongly with genes for all I understand. quote:Next, science does not desire. When science says "trait X is desirable", it means "people find trait X desirable"; it's a descriptive statement about the people who judge the trait, not a moral statement about the people who have it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:The law needs to discriminate between people based on behavior, but probably shouldn't care about whether people like Bono, why are you asking legal questions about whether people should be morally equal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not sure I get the point. What I mean by morally equal is, deserving of equal respect, having equal rights, and so on. And any call you make with regards to that is on you, never on biology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:There are definitely biological traits that will degrade your legal rights, mental competence is what comes to mind first. OwlFancier posted:Personally I'd argue that racism is wrong because it is generally proper to try to find a use and place for everybody to contribute to society and try to facilitate their happiness as they do so. Essentially humans are pretty good and maybe we shouldn't be dicks to them. So even if someone did come up with scientific proof that there is some kind of provable causative relationship between one's race and some social problem, that isn't grounds for being a dick to anyone. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can you come up with an example at the group level, except where it is the very trait that defines the group? quote:The point should instead be that regardless of how similar or different we are in biology, we are all morally equal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
So give an example - what group should be treated differentially by the law? What group should have less rights?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So give an example - what group should be treated differentially by the law? What group should have less rights?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So give an example - what group should be treated differentially by the law? What group should have less rights? Rich people should have more rights, also whites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why does the group I've already provided not qualify as an answer to this question? I seriously don't understand what you think you are asking for that I haven't already provided.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What group? If you've said it clearly before, just say it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:The group of people who do not have the mental competence required to exercise certain rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend non-batshit criticisms of contemporary feminism? There's these MRAs who may just be hosed up from single-sourcing their material and I'd like to be able to show them something normal but in-line with their concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
it depends a lot on where you're critiquing from, to be honest. what do you want?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
The best place to start is always with the internal disagreements in the ideology IMO.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Can anyone recommend non-batshit criticisms of contemporary feminism? There's these MRAs who may just be hosed up from single-sourcing their material and I'd like to be able to show them something normal but in-line with their concerns. V. Illych L. posted:it depends a lot on where you're critiquing from, to be honest. what do you want?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Well, there's stuff like this that acknowledges how feminists in the past have at times not been inclusive enough of minorities of all sorts within the movement. Are you looking for contemporary critiques of historical feminism, contemporary critiques of contemporary feminism, critiques of theory, practice, or... what, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
There's also lots of different ideas in feminism. Like there's the second-wavers, who are what a lot of people think of when they think of "feminists" - the bra-burning womyn who think transwomen are "male spies," but they're also dying out. Third Wave and beyond is much nicer and more inclusive and "for everybody." So yeah, what are you looking for? If you just want to prove a pre-conceived notion that "there are cases of feminists being dumb" then look up second-wavers, though I don't know how useful that would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Yeah you'll have to be more specific. I can usher you in some directions though. As Chantilly suggests, you may want to look in to the feminist relationship with other movements, particularly gay rights and latterly trans rights. The feminist perspective on homosexuality has generally been tolerant and receptive but not untroubled. Radical feminism has often elected to emphasise political lesbianism, which has often been a topic of controversy inside feminism, as well as a subject of criticism from the outside. The belief in political lesbianism often stems from, aside from the anti-essentialist view that sexual identity is constructed (accepted by pretty much all feminists), a belief that male-female sexual encounters are symbolically or actually rape or are in some way intrinsically violent. Further, a number of (60's-70's wave, typically) feminists have often been quite hostile to the trans community. Some of this appears to be for superficially prejudiced reasons. However, there are theoretical concerns: (1) Many feminists believe that gender is a construct that is not inherent in individuals. You may think, as the trans community does, that this should make feminists trans-friendly. Contra that, the desire to be trans may in fact show a failure to internalise this logic concerning gender. If gender is constructed there should be nothing stopping you from being a [cis]male female, and therefore no reason to cut away healthy tissue. You could call this the Germaine Greer objection. Some feminists link this to other ways in which people alter their bodies to conform to gender stereotypes, demands and expectations. (2) Further, other feminists argue that the mere fact of physical alteration of the body to the female form allows you to suddenly become part of the community of women, particularly concerning the historical experience of women. In other words, a person who undergoes gender assignment surgery doesn't necessarily do it having had the experience of actually growing up and being treated like a woman, and moreover still is unable to experience life as a woman in the same manner ciswomen do. There may even be an accusation that you have opted out of a position of male privilege by transitioning male to female. This has led to controversies in the UK with leading feminists who have argued transwomen should not be able to become staff at women-only colleges (e.g. Newnham college, Cambridge). This is often regarded as a less successful and more callous argument given the hardships suffered by transpeople in undergoing their transition and how offensively put some of these arguments are by their proponents.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
You guys, if he's arguing with MRAs, and is looking for anti feminist stuff, I don't think criticisms of feminism from the left are what he's after...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 15:15
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:You guys, if he's arguing with MRAs, and is looking for anti feminist stuff, I don't think criticisms of feminism from the left are what he's after... I'm giving him the best rational pain points for feminism today whether he wants them or not  By post does give good indications for where to look from a rightward perspective. Most ordinary people are not that sold yet on the idea that gender is just made up by humans and isn't instinct to men and women, that's probably the best place to start.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:You guys, if he's arguing with MRAs, and is looking for anti feminist stuff, I don't think criticisms of feminism from the left are what he's after... "Feminists think the stereotype of feminists is pretty nuts" isn't the worst strategy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:05
|
|
computer parts posted:"Feminists think the stereotype of feminists is pretty nuts" isn't the worst strategy. Yeah. Also this in general for radical feminism vs feminism.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
It's worth distinguishing between radical feminism and trans-exclusive radical feminism and the like . Most branches of radical feminism are perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
It's a pretty diverse movement.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
This blog post meanders a lot, but it makes some interesting points about systems of power and feminism. Warning, the author has a pretty douchey writing style, and you really need to read this to the end before making judgments about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I don't want to copy+paste one of his novellas so I'll try to summarize. The man in question, ~in service to egalitarianism~, runs non-stop polemic on feminism while touting various elements of The Manosphere (MRAs and Men-Going-Their-Own-Way, specifically) and he appears to believe his own poo poo. His own poo poo being argumentation that western women are over-privileged at this point because feminism already won their victories. He believes that women have the benefits of sexist female gender roles, the same level of empowerment as men and that feminists don't just want to preserve their privilege (because they don't want the responsibility and accountability men live with), they want more and are getting it. At that point, his conclusion is that MRAs/MGTOW are needed for balance and to achieve true egalitarianism. His writing also tends to be sprawling, crazy and rife with (contemporary) feminist versus (historical) 'True Feminist' type distinctions. So, he thinks feminism already won and the current movement is dominated by misandry, therefore we need The Manosphere (minus the PUA crowd), and that western women won their war and need to either stand down or look abroad. Also, he occasionally alludes to  .And he can't stop posting everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
then you don't need critiques of feminism, you just need data tbh
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:01
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:then you don't need critiques of feminism, you just need data tbh
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:then you don't need critiques of feminism, you just need data tbh Bonus: That data will all support feminism
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I don't want to copy+paste one of his novellas so I'll try to summarize. The man in question, ~in service to egalitarianism~, runs non-stop polemic on feminism while touting various elements of The Manosphere (MRAs and Men-Going-Their-Own-Way, specifically) and he appears to believe his own poo poo. He sounds like someone who's never actually looked into women's issues before and like he doesn't even know what feminism is or does. If he's genuinely an okay person who just has weird notions, give him that Feminism is for Everybody book I linked earlier. But he's probably not. Show him stats that demonstrate how the problem definitely still exists (and don't let him weasel out of them, he'll probably try to claim poo poo like "women WANT to stay home and do less work than men and therefore don't get higher salaries because makes them want to be a housewife!"). You're almost certainly just going to get fallacious attempts to "demote" feminism in return like "well people elsewhere have it way worse!" so have fun. Fun Bonus: Have him list actual ways in which men are supposedly more "responsible" and "accountable" and women don't want that. Then have him say them out loud to a real life woman and film the reaction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I've never met anybody who started with the whole "I want equality - REAL equality, feminists want superiority" thing and didn't end up at "women want this and men want that and that's the way it'll always be and also gays are bad" once given enough rope to hang himself with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:34
|
|
Cingulate posted:I've never met anybody who started with the whole "I want equality - REAL equality, feminists want superiority" thing and didn't end up at "women want this and men want that and that's the way it'll always be and also gays are bad" once given enough rope to hang himself with. Yeah sounds about right. The only intellectual foundation that can come from is loving suspect.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
We need feminism because I literally mansplained mansplaining to a woman once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:We need feminism because I literally mansplained mansplaining to a woman once. I hope I never hear someone say "Mansplain" to me in person because I won't be able to stop myself from conjugating it into all sorts of forms. Is inmansplicable a word?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Chiming in to say, having argued with a LOT of sexists on the internet(boy is that embarassing to type out), trying to sympathize will just convince them they're right. Don't join in the criticism, the underlying problem is that they don't understand (and often don't want to understand) what feminism stands for and what it is. If you can't get them to understand basic concepts they're you're simply helping them tear down their construct of what they think feminism is. Data will of course support you but they won't believe it so 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I hope I never hear someone say "Mansplain" to me in person because I won't be able to stop myself from conjugating it into all sorts of forms. ... This is a trap, right? (To be fair, I didn't explain the term, but the concept.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:26
|
|