Serious PC thread

[mrzz]

What I am saying is that I don't understand what YOU think it's all about.

Well, this is the point. Everyone will have its own notion, of what it is and of what it should be. And, obviously, being the world a big place, there will be a lot of people and organizations doing a lot of things, in a lot of different ways. Every time we write the word "feminism" we are doing a giant generalization, and don't think for a moment that I ignore that.

The point I am trying to make -- and I guess the others will agree to a large extent -- is that, regardless of what we think, a specific part of the "movement" is driving the conversation, and this is the exact point that we are arguing. You said more than once that there are a lot of different conversations being mixed up... well, again, that is the problem. We are not mixing them up, that is exactly one of the things we are complaining about.

But, since you asked what I think this is all about, I will give my personal opinion. I think women should have the freedom and the means to do whatever they want to do, without anyone freaking out because they found out that some category has more or less women then men, and without having the brilliant idea of enforcing an artificial (and meaningless) "equality". I think sexual crimes and offenses should be properly categorized, false criminal allegations seriously dealt with and law enforcement and public workers properly trained to deal with victims. I think teenagers (and not children) should be exposed to education in this regard. I think that reducing the reproductive rights issues to two simple opposing categories as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is over simplistic and idiotic -- and it baffles me how the public debate nowadays is so shallow in comparison to the analysis present in the US supreme court decision of the Roe vs Wade case (back in 1973).

And for fuck's sake bring grid girls back.

 

[Moxie]

Grid girls?

 

[Moxie]

Well, this is the point. Everyone will have its own notion, of what it is and of what it should be. And, obviously, being the world a big place, there will be a lot of people and organizations doing a lot of things, in a lot of different ways. Every time we write the word "feminism" we are doing a giant generalization, and don't think for a moment that I ignore that.

The point I am trying to make -- and I guess the others will agree to a large extent -- is that, regardless of what we think, a specific part of the "movement" is driving the conversation, and this is the exact point that we are arguing. You said more than once that there are a lot of different conversations being mixed up... well, again, that is the problem. We are not mixing them up, that is exactly one of the things we are complaining about.

But, since you asked what I think this is all about, I will give my personal opinion. I think women should have the freedom and the means to do whatever they want to do, without anyone freaking out because they found out that some category has more or less women then men, and without having the brilliant idea of enforcing an artificial (and meaningless) "equality". I think sexual crimes and offenses should be properly categorized, false criminal allegations seriously dealt with and law enforcement and public workers properly trained to deal with victims. I think teenagers (and not children) should be exposed to education in this regard. I think that reducing the reproductive rights issues to two simple opposing categories as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is over simplistic and idiotic -- and it baffles me how the public debate nowadays is so shallow in comparison to the analysis present in the US supreme court decision of the Roe vs Wade case (back in 1973).

I gotta be honest, I think something is getting lost in translation here. You're doing some kind of chicken/egg thing here about what's getting conflated and who's confusing whom. If you could be the slightest bit more specific, it might help. I'm especially confused about the bolded above. I've also said that I think the conversation about sexual violence is a different one, but you are verging on acting like men are victims here. You say you know a lot of people who work with victims of sexual violence. Ask them what they think about the notion that there is a lot of false accusation out there. As opposed to the opposite, which is claims of sexual abuse that fall on deaf ears, and where the victim is the one treated like the criminal. Again, though, I think you're taking about a different conversation.

As to "pro-choice" v "pro-life," that construct was invented by the Republicans, as part of their very cynical campaign to turn Evangelicals in this country from non-political to a political force, which got Reagan elected. I think a more accurate dichotomy is "pro-choice" v. "anti-abortion." It isn't actually a lot more complicated than than, unless you want to get into the weeds as to how the Republicans turned a country that was basically neutral on abortion and majority in favor of a woman's right to make her own choice into basically creating an "anti-abortion" base out of whole cloth, where there never had been one. Talk about controlling the words and the narrative.

 

[mrzz]

@Moxie, about the bolded part, I wrongly used the pronoun "they" and it seemed I referred to women in general, when I was referring to a specific group.

My point is that there is a huge difference into women being forced into a specific role (i.e., being a house wife) and the fact that on average men and women might make different life choices. Is really that simple.

About sexual violence, I am not verging to act as men are victims, mainly because I would never make such a general statement. My whole point is that sexual violence is both serious and complex, and, for the general public, different conversations are being confused and this only helps growing the number of "deaf ears".

I will share one thing I heard (actually through my wife, which is a psychologist who works daily with those social workers) that illustrates well the question: false claims of sexual violence are a huge part of the day to day activity of these people, but for a simple and almost innocent reason. It is very common that teenagers and young women have something they want to hide from their parents (a pregnancy or simply a lost virginity, remember the generational cultural abyss), and while at home they suggest sexual violence. And the parents freak out and take them to a hospital. 99,99% of those cases are later clarified, no one is falsely accused and crucified, but this process consumes time from the people who work on the field -- and if badly dealt with they can indeed turn for the worst. Now the first thing you don't want to happen is that those cases end up in the police station, as they will not help when the next real case gets there. And this is exactly one thing that increased lately. It is very hard not to correlate it to trivialization of the notion of sexual violence.

About abortion, I really think it is not that simple. Maybe it is the fact that I live on a country which is less educated, so I see more extreme and absurd situations as possible outcomes. In light of that, I will ask you an extreme question to illustrate my point: do you think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion in a perfectly normal and healthy pregnancy at the, say, 8th month of pregnancy?

 

[Federberg]

Fair question. I don't think equal "treatment" necessarily means anything, or is definable. What do you think? But equal opportunity surely is an objective. Level playing field, same pay for same work.

OK, though, so which of Murat's observations do you think I did not even recognize? To me, he put so much on the table that it was hard to parse stuff out. I was trying to argue points that made sense to me, or worked with my own experience. I did make an honest effort to address some of what was said, by all, including you, but you have to agree that there was a lot of murkiness in there, and it was hard to pull some of it apart. I think I did, however, make an argument for my personal POV on what feminism is, and how some issues are not really on point.

Lol! @Moxie, you're funny. I used the word treatment because you did...

"The basic concept is that women need to be treated equally in society and in the workplace, that we should have equal rights under the law, and decent access to healthcare, including some determination over our birth control decisions, as a reasonable part of how we make our own decisions about our lives."

Why don't you tell me what you meant?

 

[Federberg]

OK, though, so which of Murat's observations do you think I did not even recognize? To me, he put so much on the table that it was hard to parse stuff out. I was trying to argue points that made sense to me, or worked with my own experience. I did make an honest effort to address some of what was said, by all, including you, but you have to agree that there was a lot of murkiness in there, and it was hard to pull some of it apart. I think I did, however, make an argument for my personal POV on what feminism is, and how some issues are not really on point.

It seemed to me he clearly described 3 phases in the evolution of feminism..

1, "first wave of feminism was early 20th century, maybe a little of late 19th century and dealt with very basic issues like right to vote, not being a property of a husband, etc"

2, "second wave, probably started around the 60's but maybe earlier dealt with equality and social status issues and discrimination, etc"

3, "third wave of feminists believe in the victimhood scale as a result of the intersectionality argument. The higher you are in the victimhood scale, the more your opinion matters"

 

[Federberg]

Also, to the point of the RT article you posted, Mrzz, which headline states that "Feminists" object to no women/girls making it in the particular gaming event. Well, it wasn't "feminists" that brought out the issue of inequality in gaming, it was an individual writing for the Guardian. It was perfectly valid of him to discuss the issue. As we know, girls in gaming IS a huge issue, with a lot of controversy in it. I have no problem with anyone calling the man who wrote it a feminist, or saying that he presents a feminist-argument.

I wouldn't call him a feminist, I would suggest that there might be some virtue signalling though

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I actually picked one. Tell me what is the problem you have with Feminism in the 21st C.

To me, this is where you are muddying the waters. We have never been arguing about the far-left in this particular section of the conversation. Well, you have been, but it's beside the point. If you want to have a conversation about the far-left, start your own conversation.

Moxie, I wrote a whole paragraph about it ! Sure, I could not cover the whole subject . Could not get into to the wage gap myth, how women have been duped into believing a career is the most important thing they can ever have in their lives and as a result most of them are miserable and unhappy...Say the word and we will talk more.

 

[Moxie]

It seemed to me he clearly described 3 phases in the evolution of feminism..

1, "first wave of feminism was early 20th century, maybe a little of late 19th century and dealt with very basic issues like right to vote, not being a property of a husband, etc"

2, "second wave, probably started around the 60's but maybe earlier dealt with equality and social status issues and discrimination, etc"

3, "third wave of feminists believe in the victimhood scale as a result of the intersectionality argument. The higher you are in the victimhood scale, the more your opinion matters"

I read all of that and told him where I didn't agree. He also threw the kitchen sink in.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I wrote a whole paragraph about it ! Sure, I could not cover the whole subject . Could not get into to the wage gap myth, how women have been duped into believing a career is the most important thing they can ever have in their lives and as a result most of them are miserable and unhappy...Say the word and we will talk more.

The way you frame the question tells me that you already know what you think about that, so I see no point in talking about it more.

 

[Federberg]

Moxie, I wrote a whole paragraph about it ! Sure, I could not cover the whole subject . Could not get into to the wage gap myth, how women have been duped into believing a career is the most important thing they can ever have in their lives and as a result most of them are miserable and unhappy...Say the word and we will talk more.

you don't believe there's a wage gap?

re: women and careers.... the rest of the world should take note of the demographic collapse in Japan - more diapers used by oldsters than youngsters now. To a large extent, women have gone on strike and elected to pursue their careers, even if , at the same time, they are denied proper opportunities for advancement. The birth rate has collapsed. Seems to me society has to adjust and accept the pursuit of happiness of all. Women shouldn't need to subvert their life desires for the greater good if society doesn't also make adjustments for them...

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, about the bolded part, I wrongly used the pronoun "they" and it seemed I referred to women in general, when I was referring to a specific group.

My point is that there is a huge difference into women being forced into a specific role (i.e., being a house wife) and the fact that on average men and women might make different life choices. Is really that simple.

About sexual violence, I am not verging to act as men are victims, mainly because I would never make such a general statement. My whole point is that sexual violence is both serious and complex, and, for the general public, different conversations are being confused and this only helps growing the number of "deaf ears".

I will share one thing I heard (actually through my wife, which is a psychologist who works daily with those social workers) that illustrates well the question: false claims of sexual violence are a huge part of the day to day activity of these people, but for a simple and almost innocent reason. It is very common that teenagers and young women have something they want to hide from their parents (a pregnancy or simply a lost virginity, remember the generational cultural abyss), and while at home they suggest sexual violence. And the parents freak out and take them to a hospital. 99,99% of those cases are later clarified, no one is falsely accused and crucified, but this process consumes time from the people who work on the field -- and if badly dealt with they can indeed turn for the worst. Now the first thing you don't want to happen is that those cases end up in the police station, as they will not help when the next real case gets there. And this is exactly one thing that increased lately. It is very hard not to correlate it to trivialization of the notion of sexual violence.

About abortion, I really think it is not that simple. Maybe it is the fact that I live on a country which is less educated, so I see more extreme and absurd situations as possible outcomes. In light of that, I will ask you an extreme question to illustrate my point: do you think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion in a perfectly normal and healthy pregnancy at the, say, 8th month of pregnancy?

This is another way that you guys have basically all brought in an extreme example to talk about an otherwise more moderate conversation. Abortion, and you go straight to a normal, healthy pregnancy terminated in the 8th month? Do you know how often that happens? Basically, never. We're talking about trans rights and BB has hairy dudes in Speedos coming in to prey on women in the changing rooms. Murat has the one extremist activist who puts waxing parlors out of business because they won't wax his balls. Federberg finds the case of a sick-o self-proclaimed trans woman who's really just basically a rapist.

So I guess where we're all having problems understanding each other is that you guys either think these things are more emblematic, or that they bother you so much that they have a larger place in the conversations than I think they should. I find the general mission of feminism, including today, to be good and fine. Obviously, you and Murat don't, but I don't quite see why. Certainly feminism doesn't cause false claims of sexual assault, and so is not part of 21st feminism. Also, neither is abortion new to feminism, late-term or otherwise.

 

[Federberg]

This is another way that you guys have basically all brought in an extreme example to talk about an otherwise more moderate conversation. Abortion, and you go straight to a normal, healthy pregnancy terminated in the 8th month? Do you know how often that happens? Basically, never. We're talking about trans rights and BB has hairy dudes in Speedos coming in to prey on women in the changing rooms. Murat has the one extremist activist who puts waxing parlors out of business because they won't wax his balls. Federberg finds the case of a sick-o self-proclaimed trans woman who's really just basically a rapist.

So I guess where we're all having problems understanding each other is that you guys either think these things are more emblematic, or that they bother you so much that they have a larger place in the conversations than I think they should. I find the general mission of feminism, including today, to be good and fine. Obviously, you and Murat don't, but I don't quite see why. Certainly feminism doesn't cause false claims of sexual assault, and so is not part of 21st feminism. Also, neither is abortion new to feminism, late-term or otherwise.

I do hope you'll answer my question, perhaps that would help understanding? See here.... https://www.tennisfrontier.com/tennisforum/threads/serious-pc-thread.5454/page-20#post-394762

 

[Moxie]

I do hope you'll answer my question, perhaps that would help understanding? See here.... https://www.tennisfrontier.com/tennisforum/threads/serious-pc-thread.5454/page-20#post-394762

"The basic concept is that women need to be treated equally in society and in the workplace, that we should have equal rights under the law, and decent access to healthcare, including some determination over our birth control decisions, as a reasonable part of how we make our own decisions about our lives."

Above is said. The portion of the sentence that follows "treated equally in society and in the workplace" is the further explanation. I don't know why you didn't just bold this before and ask me. I have used the words equality of opportunity a lot. If "treatment" is a bit flabby, I'm sorry. Sometimes we just have to mix it up not to be repetitive. But you know what I mean...or you should. That we should get paid the same wage for the same work. That we should not judged for jobs as to how likely we are to get pregnant in the next 2 years and take time off. That our opportunities shouldn't be limited by perceptions of us based on gender. Does that work for you?

 

[Federberg]

"The basic concept is that women need to be treated equally in society and in the workplace, that we should have equal rights under the law, and decent access to healthcare, including some determination over our birth control decisions, as a reasonable part of how we make our own decisions about our lives."

Above is said. The portion of the sentence that follows "treated equally in society and in the workplace" is the further explanation. I don't know why you didn't just bold this before and ask me. I have used the words equality of opportunity a lot. If "treatment" is a bit flabby, I'm sorry. Sometimes we just have to mix it up not to be repetitive. But you know what I mean...or you should. That we should get paid the same wage for the same work. That we should not judged for jobs as to how likely we are to get pregnant in the next 2 years and take time off. That our opportunities shouldn't be limited by perceptions of us based on gender. Does that work for you?

Lol! Well I originally asked the question to get clarification on whether you wanted equality of treatment or opportunity. I didn’t expect to be corrected when I used your own words Thanks for elaborating. And I do agree opportunity is all the persecuted ever require

 

[Moxie]

Lol! Well I originally asked the question to get clarification on whether you wanted equality of treatment or opportunity. I didn’t expect to be corrected when I used your own words Thanks for elaborating. And I do agree opportunity is all the persecuted ever require

Look, you tripped me over my own words. Clever you. It was sloppy, but I've used a lot of words in this conversation, and a lot of stuff is being thrown into the hopper and it's been a bit hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't really see why that distinction needs being made but fine.

 

[Federberg]

Look, you tripped me over my own words. Clever you. It was sloppy, but I've used a lot of words in this conversation, and a lot of stuff is being thrown into the hopper and it's been a bit hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't really see why that distinction needs being made but fine.

I was genuinely curious. Never my intention to trick you. You made a statement and in the pursuit of understanding I asked a question. Not my fault you perceived it as a trick. I’ve said before this is about mutual understanding. Maybe you were too focused on “winning “?

 

[Moxie]

I was genuinely curious. Never my intention to trick you. You made a statement and in the pursuit of understanding I asked a question. Not my fault you perceived it as a trick. I’ve said before this is about mutual understanding. Maybe you were too focused on “winning “?

I'm not interested in "winning" this conversation. Frankly, I'm just trying to keep my head above water. There is no chance I'm persuading anyone of anything on this thread. I understood that a long time ago. I know you don't mean to make a trap.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

you don't believe there's a wage gap?

re: women and careers.... the rest of the world should take note of the demographic collapse in Japan - more diapers used by oldsters than youngsters now. To a large extent, women have gone on strike and elected to pursue their careers, even if , at the same time, they are denied proper opportunities for advancement. The birth rate has collapsed. Seems to me society has to adjust and accept the pursuit of happiness of all. Women shouldn't need to subvert their life desires for the greater good if society doesn't also make adjustments for them...

It is not a matter of what I believe, it is what numbers say. But we have to set the parameters straight and make sure we are talking about the same thing, apples to apples. A single man and a single woman, same or similar experience, working the exact same job and working exact same hours , than women actually have a positive wage gap. But far left use different parameters . They like to "average" stuff. That is part and parcel of collectivism of course. BUt of course that same way of looking at things show them that Asian Americans make more money than "whites" but since that is against the "patriarchy " argument, you will not hear it that much.
The fact is , the wage gap is really between married men and married woman and there are multiple very understandable reasons for it besides the fact that a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis. We can discuss all those reasons if you want, I am more than happy to. BUt before that, one has to answer a question: If you are a business owner, CEO, a typical capitalist type that values every cent and you are going to fill a very important position. You have two candidates with exactly the same qualifications, they will give you exactly the same thing, why would you NOT hire the one that you can get away with paying way less?
By the way, there is zero knock against women here. They have their priorities straight and that costs them money sometimes in the work place. One has to wonder about the guy who will work 90 hours a week and won't even know the name of his kids. Majority of the married women do not want that life style and no one has the right to blame them.

 

[mrzz]

Do you know how often that happens? Basically, never.

This is simply not true in poor and uneducated countries. The eight month was an intentional exaggeration, but believe me, things do get ugly. They get very ugly. And where is the cut-off then? Seven months? Five? You need to draw a line. One of the reasons why you wrote never is that basically not a single place in the world allows it in that extreme form. Open this door and see what happens... real politics is for the real world, Moxie. (actually I don't know the specifics of this discussion in the US, but here we have people pushing for the extreme pro-choice position, just in case you are wondering why I brought this).

And... I know you are probably traumatized by talking to people who watch one random internet video with some dark skinned man punching a snow white Swedish girl just to say "see what all those immigrants do?"... but please do not think people here are doing the same mistake. Everyone here understands the problem of generalization, everyone here understand what an example is, and the difference between the norm and the extremes. But you cannot shut down all discussions just like that. Sometimes the extreme cases happen just more than you think, sometimes they show a flaw in the legislation, sometimes they are the tip of the iceberg. And most times, yes, they are inconvenient to deal with.

Anyway, remember, in this particular point, we have probably quite close views. I just don't like the clear cut distinction between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" -- most of the times simplistic solutions to complex problems are actually terrible solutions. You educated me on who actually pushed the discussion to this low level on the US, fine. The problem is still there.

As for the rest, we will continue to go round in circles. I am trying to stress that we have more disagreement about the means than about the ends (but we do have about the ends as well, I know).