|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The trouble with girls
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right. And no one watches collegiate sports, do they? Not at all popular because the average level of play isn't pro-level.
I don't see how this applies to what LC said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right. And no one watches collegiate sports, do they? Not at all popular because the average level of play isn't pro-level.
I don't see how this applies to what LC said.
He said people do not watch women's sport because they are not as good as men. By that logic no one would watch any school sport either as they are not as good as the professionals.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exhibit A: US women's soccer wins world cup, makes $2 million; men's team loses and makes $9 million.
Women's soccer is less popular. Is that due to latent sexism? Maybe.
How much does the US men's field hockey team make? Probably not much, because nobody watches them.
Much as I love to stand against sexism and patriarchy, L.C. nails this one.
I agree that popularity/ commercial interests are the cause of the discrepancy, but would argue that is, indeed, an indication of sexism-- especially when you're talking the same exact game, just played by a different gender. Just as we point to racism as the underlying cause when TV shows (and to a lesser degree, films) featuring African-American actors make less box office (causing the actors to receive less $$) than those featuring white actors.
But isn't there a difference between men's and women's football on the pitch, which also accounts for the diffference in interest? Is women's football as fast, physical and skilfull as the men's game? Maybe that's why it fails to capture the imagination of many. I'm not sure that has much to do with sexism. The same goes for hockey (that is the one played on ice). Has anyone watched the women's game? Try watching it after having watched an NHL game.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Some of us enjoy women's sports because we simply admire women who compete and excel. We especially admire women who have overcome cultural and other barriers to accomplish their dreams. We also enjoy women's sporting events because the atmosphere is nicer and the spectators less obnoxious.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Some of us have daughters. To see a daughter who need fear nothing, who can crack walnuts with her thighs and drop-kick an attacker's head right through the goal posts, is curiously comforting for a mother.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... The same goes for hockey (that is the one played on ice). Has anyone watched the women's game? Try watching it after having watched an NHL game.
Good idea - there's more hockey and less fighting.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... The same goes for hockey (that is the one played on ice). Has anyone watched the women's game? Try watching it after having watched an NHL game.
Good idea - there's more hockey and less fighting.
There aren't that many fights. Still, part of the game. Much better game to watch when played by angry men with no teeth. Anyway, I just like my football and hockey to be physical and played at a hundred miles an hour. It's why I don't watch women's football or hockey. It's also why I watch Premier League and why I don't watch Serie A. Well, that's my thoughts anyway but I do think it goes some way in explaining why women's versions of these sports will never be as popular and never demand the same wages, and it's not all about sexism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... The same goes for hockey (that is the one played on ice). Has anyone watched the women's game? Try watching it after having watched an NHL game.
Good idea - there's more hockey and less fighting.
There aren't that many fights. Still, part of the game. Much better game to watch when played by angry men with no teeth. Anyway, I just like my football and hockey to be physical and played at a hundred miles an hour. It's why I don't watch women's football or hockey. It's also why I watch Premier League and why I don't watch Serie A. Well, that's my thoughts anyway but I do think it goes some way in explaining why women's versions of these sports will never be as popular and never demand the same wages, and it's not all about sexism.
Well that's your opinion but not everyone shares the same opinion. You seem to be suggesting that just because you don't like it means that proves it will never be popular. Yet a record crowd of 45,619 watched England ladies in a friendly against Germany last year. So it already is quite popular. Record numbers tuned into BBC3 in the early hours to watch England's progress. I think there is a direct correlation with investment in any case so most critics of women's football have it the wrong way round. But that's just my opinion and I haven't done any special research on it, I think it doesn't matter if it is as popular, the question is is it popular enough and should FIFA be investing more in women's football and the answer should be a resounding yes, but present there is a lot to be desired, because of sexism.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Some of us enjoy women's sports because we simply admire women who compete and excel. We especially admire women who have overcome cultural and other barriers to accomplish their dreams. We also enjoy women's sporting events because the atmosphere is nicer and the spectators less obnoxious.
Plus too, given the choice and being a red-blooded heterosexual American male, I'd rather watch a bunch of women than a bunch of men do just about anything. Or is that sexist? I dunno.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I like to watch the Cuban women's volleyball team. For purely sportive reasons.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Ad Orientum is close to advocating both this and this.
I'm not convinced that either is a good idea, for the participants, the audience, or society as a whole.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Plus too, given the choice and being a red-blooded heterosexual American male, I'd rather watch a bunch of women than a bunch of men do just about anything. Or is that sexist? I dunno.
Ah well, with the number of times I have sat through girls conversation as they covertly watched rugby games on University sports grounds you'd think I knew something of the rules.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
I think it probably depends. Being bisexual I appreciate the finer points of athletic form in watching either men or women's football but it's not the only or primary reason I like it. I just like to watch entertaining competitive sport and I like supporting a team sometimes.
So using my own experience as I guide in my view I think probably not sexist to prefer watching women perform but if you don't support the concept of equality of opportunity within the sport then probably yes. One doesn't necessarily correlate with the other.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I watch women's football because I like women and I like football. Can't really see where the problem lies.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I watch women's football because I like women and I like football. Can't really see where the problem lies.
I don't think it's a problem but if someone is going ask why women footballers are payed less then I would argue that it is because it fails to capture the imagination in the same way men's football does, for a number of reasons, which in turn means there is less money.
There are sports that are dominated by men, there are sports that are dominated by women, and there are sports that neither dominate but attract men and women, both participants and spectators, more-or-less equally. I think that is always likely to be the case. I can quite happily watch women's tennis or athletics, but I couldn't football or hockey (for the reasons I expressed earlier).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Some of us enjoy women's sports because we simply admire women who compete and excel.[..]
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Some of us have daughters. To see a daughter who need fear nothing, who can crack walnuts with her thighs and drop-kick an attacker's head right through the goal posts, is curiously comforting for a mother.
Which is fine. People who enjoy watching women's sports (for whatever reason) will watch them. People who prefer to watch men will watch men. Some people will watch both. Other people would prefer to watch paint dry.
As I said earlier, MLS players make less than 10% of what NBA players make. This has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of soccer vs basketball, or of the relative level of skill required to kick a ball vs bounce it, but is entirely driven by the amount of money available in the sport, which is driven by is popularity.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As I said earlier, MLS players make less than 10% of what NBA players make. This has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of soccer vs basketball, or of the relative level of skill required to kick a ball vs bounce it, but is entirely driven by the amount of money available in the sport, which is driven by is popularity.
The difference here is that we're talking about the same organization (FIFA) over both groups-- men & women. They have a pool of $$ to draw from. Even if more of those profits was drawn from the men's sport than the women's, there is nothing there that says they have to divide the pot accordingly. Just as FIFA made a judgment call re how much of those profits go to the winners vs. the losers, so they have made a judgment call on how to split the profits between the men's and women's teams. FIFA could choose to split the profits differently-- as well as how it promotes the women's games v. the men's games-- which could ultimately lead to a different perception of women's soccer.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Steppe Bladders has the nerve to say he admires the women because they play "for the love of the game" and suggests they should wear tighter uniforms. If it looks like a sexist duck, and it quacks like a sexist duck ...
And if we take Ad Orientem's arguments to the end, it would mean no Paralympics, because paralympians can't possibly be as good as other athletes, so who would want to watch. And no Special Olympics either - boring. Heck, it means the end of sports days as we know them, and why would any parent bother to show up for their kid's game?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it is very likely that the popularity of sports are related to long-term sexist attitudes in society. As far as I can see, payment and popularity has almost nothing to do with the quality of the game and almost everything to do with societal and historical norms.
I was reading recently about traditional Irish sports, which have very high levels of support, particularly in the Republic (as I understand more watch these than football etc). According to wikipedia - which of course might be completely wrong - sportsmen from Hurling, Gaelic football etc are not allowed to take any payment of any description. If true, this does not seem to affect the numbers who engage with the sport.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I expect England's women coming 3rd in the World Cup earned the country just a fraction of the revenue that England's men did for getting knocked out of the group stage in Brazil.
If those tables are ever turned maybe women's football will become less watchable and men's more so again.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
I think there's probably a tipping point where over investment becomes players having more money than talent which adversely affects the quality?
Just a theory.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, the English Premiership (men) has tons of money, and many people would say that the level of play is high. I used to watch teams 30 years ago, and I am convinced that the play is superior today, although of course, there is the argument that it's all the bloody foreigners doing their clever tricks for too much money.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
On the other hand, women footballers having to hold down part time jobs as well because investment has been so low has kept the quality stunted in the women's game in our country at least.
Compared to their male counterparts who have had investment, better facilities and the time and money invested in them for training.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
For several World Cups many of us following the fortunes of England's men have felt the massive hype, and yes, the size of the pay packets possibly impacting on their ability and willingness to give it their all.
That's where the appeal of women's football has so far been for me. This World Cup has seen a marked improvement in quality of play, although it was slightly disappointing to see fake injuries and falling over in the penalty box creeping in, coming to mimic the rather tedious aspect of the men's game.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Heck, it means the end of sports days as we know them, and why would any parent bother to show up for their kid's game?
Parents show up for sports days and their child's sports matches precisely because it's their child playing. Random strangers do not, as a rule, pop down to St. Somewhere's School of an afternoon because they've heard that there's going to be a particularly closely-contended game of under-15s badminton.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Ah, so it's not just the level of play that makes a game worth watching. Apparently having a personal connection to the athletes is also a factor in deciding what sporting events are worth watching, even when the athletes aren't tying their own laces yet. We root for the home team even when all the players are imports and the team is at the bottom of the league, because it's our team. I rooted for Japan because they have taken the name Nadeshiko - they're proudly saying that the ideal flower of Japanese womanhood is a world-class athlete and I find that courageous and inspiring.
Women are not boring, so why would anyone assume women athletes are boring? Perhaps the problem isn't that they're boring, but that sports is just one more thing that women can do that men had pretty much all to themselves for aeons, and they don't want to share. OMG, if women find out they can do anything, then men won't be special any more. Boo hoo.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Women are not boring, so why would anyone assume women athletes are boring?
It's not relevant whether the women are interesting - it's whether their athletic performance is interesting, which is dependent on the level of skill on display. Mary Beard is an interesting woman, but I wouldn't pay to watch her play soccer.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Women are not boring, so why would anyone assume women athletes are boring?
It's not relevant whether the women are interesting - it's whether their athletic performance is interesting, which is dependent on the level of skill on display. Mary Beard is an interesting woman, but I wouldn't pay to watch her play soccer.
The level of skill on display is likely to reflect opportunities to play and practice, which is a self-reinforcing cycle.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And to underline the point, the burden of proof of bias and distortion rests with the claimant. Since the given aim of egalitarians is equal rights and opportunities for all, the burden of proof of bias in those aims also rests with the claimant. Assertions are not good enough. (Sent by iPhone).
Did you read the statement from the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University. They don't even pretend to be neutral between egalitarianism and anti-egalitarianism, they're quite open about being ideologically committed to egalitarianism. If you were to look at other Universities you'd find a similar story.
Reaching back to this, on my return from leave.
No institute owns the concept of egalitarianism. The concept may indeed by applied by folks with an axe to grind - as may any other.
I'm happy to state that I'm ideologically committed to the concept of fairness as a right approach to living. I find it difficult to understand why anyone shouldn't be.
You seem to be arguing - and I could be wrong about this - that egalitarianism is not always fair, on the basis that some of its proponents use it for more specific ideological ends. If so, I think you should drop references to egalitarianism and concentrate on the errors you see in those specific uses.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And to underline the point, the burden of proof of bias and distortion rests with the claimant. Since the given aim of egalitarians is equal rights and opportunities for all, the burden of proof of bias in those aims also rests with the claimant. Assertions are not good enough. (Sent by iPhone).
Did you read the statement from the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University. They don't even pretend to be neutral between egalitarianism and anti-egalitarianism, they're quite open about being ideologically committed to egalitarianism. If you were to look at other Universities you'd find a similar story.
Reaching back to this, on my return from leave.
No institute owns the concept of egalitarianism. The concept may indeed by applied by folks with an axe to grind - as may any other.
I'm happy to state that I'm ideologically committed to the concept of fairness as a right approach to living. I find it difficult to understand why anyone shouldn't be.
You seem to be arguing - and I could be wrong about this - that egalitarianism is not always fair, on the basis that some of its proponents use it for more specific ideological ends. If so, I think you should drop references to egalitarianism and concentrate on the errors you see in those specific uses.
The notion that egalitarianism may be used for ideological ends presupposes that it is not inherently ideological in itself. To simply equate social egalitarianism with fairness or to simply equate feminism with fairness is an ideological position.
The issue isn't simply that the pro-feminist bias of the above mentioned institutions and all the others like them could lead them to be biased in their research because feminism can be used for ideological ends. The issue is that feminism is inherently ideological in itself.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
This is what I was wondering, but was laughing too much too much to type that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I admit to a little sly smile ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
I would have thought it was perfectly obvious to the meanest intelligence. It is always unfair to remove something from someone who has been enjoying it without question. This is the sense in which Tory supporters use it. Or newcomers in a nursery class.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination. However, of course, there are plenty of examples that would suggest otherwise.
For example men typically make up over 90% the prison population. Now whilst it has been argued that at least some of this difference is due to men receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes I think that most people would agree that the bulk of this huge disparity is simply due to men committing far more crime (due in large part to larger size and higher testosterone levels). It is not, certainly not for the most part, due to any kind of unfairness against men.
To give another even clearer example. Jewish people are about 0.2% of the worlds population but have won about 20% of the Nobel prizes. Gentiles are about 99.8% of the world's population but have only won about 80% of the Nobel prizes. Now there are various possible reasons for this huge disparity but I have never heard anyone suggest it is because the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is biased against gentiles or that they are being unfair to gentiles or that gentiles are discriminated against.
So inequalities, even huge inequalities, can exist without it being the result of any unfairness and yet feminist dogma holds that any social or economic inequality must be the result of unfairness. For example we've had people in this very thread saying that even where some of the pay gap between men and women is explained by other factors that those other factors must themselves be seen as the product of unfairness or injustice.
When such an ideological view is so prevalent in the academy its naive to think that such biases won't influence the research itself.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination.
Perhaps. But that's not egalitarianism, and Barnabas asked about egalitarianism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination.
Perhaps. But that's not egalitarianism, and Barnabas asked about egalitarianism.
Feminism is one of the major forms of egalitarian thought that dominate the academy (and indeed society) today.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination.
[citation needed]
quote:
However, of course, there are plenty of examples that would suggest otherwise.
[citation needed]
quote:
Feminism is one of the major forms of egalitarian thought that dominate the academy (and indeed society) today.
[citation needed]
[ 15. July 2015, 22:26: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination.
[citation needed]
Well a key illustration of this is the way the 'gender pay gap' is discussed. Throughout politics, academia and on this very thread the argument is made that the so called 'gender pay gap' is unfair, an injustice, should be eliminated etc. The various other factors that have been shown to cause most (if not all) of the 'pay gap' are explained as being part of how sexism works.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
However, of course, there are plenty of examples that would suggest otherwise.
[citation needed]
I just gave two examples. The imprisonment gap between men and women that is not commonly thought to be caused by unfairness to men and the Nobel Prize gap between Jews and gentiles which is not commonly thought to be caused by unfairness to gentiles. Those examples clearly show that even very great inequalities shouldn't be assumed to be the result of unfairness.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Feminism is one of the major forms of egalitarian thought that dominate the academy (and indeed society) today.
[citation needed]
well I hardly think its a minor form of egalitarian thought. There are laws devoting to upholding feminist goals, there are many entire University departments (such as the ones I mentioned earlier in the thread) devoted to spreading feminist ideas.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is unfair about egalitarianism?
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination.
Perhaps. But that's not egalitarianism, and Barnabas asked about egalitarianism.
Feminism is one of the major forms of egalitarian thought that dominate the academy (and indeed society) today.
Perhaps. But Barnabas asked about egalitarianism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Egalitarian dogma, in this case feminist dogma, tends to make a default assumption that any form of inequality, social, economic etc that is seen to disadvantage women must be assumed to be the result of unfairness or discrimination.
[citation needed]
Well a key illustration of this is the way the 'gender pay gap' is discussed. Throughout politics, academia and on this very thread the argument is made that the so called 'gender pay gap' is unfair, an injustice, should be eliminated etc. The various other factors that have been shown to cause most (if not all) of the 'pay gap' are explained as being part of how sexism works.
You simply haven't shown this.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
However, of course, there are plenty of examples that would suggest otherwise.
[citation needed]
I just gave two examples. The imprisonment gap between men and women that is not commonly thought to be caused by unfairness to men and the Nobel Prize gap between Jews and gentiles which is not commonly thought to be caused by unfairness to gentiles. Those examples clearly show that even very great inequalities shouldn't be assumed to be the result of unfairness.
Nor this.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Feminism is one of the major forms of egalitarian thought that dominate the academy (and indeed society) today.
[citation needed]
well I hardly think its a minor form of egalitarian thought. There are laws devoting to upholding feminist goals, there are many entire University departments (such as the ones I mentioned earlier in the thread) devoted to spreading feminist ideas.
Again, we have to ask, what is unfair about egalitarianism? And would you have university departments and the legal system promoting unfairness?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Bibliophile, I think your answers demonstrate a wriggle. You seem to me to be guilty of a straightforward category error. I don't dispute that there may be illustrations of ideological misuse of the term egalitarianism, but that does not change its basic definition.
But let me try to move things on. There is a Wiki article on Christian egalitarianism.
Nailing my own colours to the mast, my belief that egalitarianism is, by definition, a proper moral stance whether or not one is Christian, and my belief that the Christian egalitarian viewpoint is the right stance; these two beliefs are complementary and self-reinforcing. I understand the complementarian and ontological approaches, and their place in traditional understandings (including Catholic Holy Tradition), but I think these traditions place too much weight on prior cultural beliefs - e.g. that women are property, that women are weaker, that women are more likely to be influenced by emotions than reason etc. These strike me as a form of prejudice in their application to any particular individual, even if there were evidence of a statistical connection. So I disagree, for example, with this view as summarised in the article I've linked.
quote:
The Roman Catholic Church has formally opposed radical egalitarianism and has stated that the differences between men and women are not merely phenomenal, but are in fact ontological in nature.
In his 2004 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned against a related tendency to see gender as culturally constructed, which has generated "a new model of polymorphous sexuality", which reflects an "attempt to be free from one’s biological conditioning".
You might argue, I suppose, that my view is ideological. It certainly seems to me to be a logical inference from some central ideas. But I do not know what is supposed to be wrong with it. To take, for example, the argument from the then Cardinal Ratzinger about attempting to be free from one's biological conditioning. The egalitarian principle "does not imply that all have equal skills, abilities, interests, or physiological or genetic traits". (A quote from the wiki argument).
All of us have to come to terms with "our biological conditioning", the stuff we are born with. I never was capable, for example, of reaching the running, jumping and throwing standards demonsntrated by Olympic heptathlete Jessica Ennis-Hill. But it seems completely fair to argue that seeking to make the best use of what we've got, and not be frustrated in our endeavours by various social constructs and distinctions, is an opportunity which should be available to all. That's pretty much a major message from the parable of the talents, for example.
Sure, I'm looking critically at some traditional (or Traditional) Christian beliefs in coming to these conclusions. I guess you might argue that I shouldn't do that, should recognise the weight of those traditions. But my conscience is driven by a moral imperative which I also find in the Christian tradition. I've simply chosen to follow that imperative, sensing that this hermeneutical approach is a more excellent way. Essentially, the way of agape love.
So, having attempted to explain in more detail where I'm coming from, and why, what is your personal take on these things? Where am I wrong, in your opinion?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
There has to be some degree of hardwired "biological" difference ... The length of gestation and infancy for human children places them at an advantage in adult life but makes them more vulnerable and in need of care in earlier life than other animals. This then automatically creates specific roles that men and women gravitate towards when they are parents or when they are coming into relationship with the possibility of becoming parents. I don't believe that this is a fixed polarity (i.e. there is a lot of variation in how necessary roles can be played out) or that it needs to have any bearing on what happens to men/women in other contexts. But the hardwiring part is important to acknowledge.
I knew a few radical feminists in the 1980's - well - they weren't really radical because apparently the really radical feminists were in favour of surgically removing their ovaries so that they no longer were tethered by the above childbearing considerations. I would say that physically and emotionally, that's not so different form a man wanting to be castrated so that he doesn't have to consciously deal with all of the sexual feelings in a normal days run of hormones. But here again we have a qualitative difference - for a woman the implication of an ovulation can result in pregnancy and has a cycle of several weeks. For a man, what Ursula LeGuin called "Kemmer" can come and go within a few minutes or seconds and there is little significance in any particular instance of it.
It's always struck me as odd that hysterectomies are seen by everyone as being acceptable but castration is not so popular... This can be seen as a societal loss of value of the female body and/or it could be that indeed there is such a profound difference between men and women that what would be destructive to one is of relatively little consequence to another. I guess this is also an aspect of the nature/nurture debate. Again - there are big questions about societal conditioning and of our measurement of "normality" and "health" - but trauma research indicates that women are most strongly incapacitated in later life if there is a deficit of emotional and physical contact with the mother/parents - whereas male infants are most affected in later life by the insecurity caused by (extreme) poverty, and (apparently) are less affected by attachment deficits than female infants.
Emotionally, the hormonal changes in the menstrual cycle make it almost impossible for a woman to totally ignore emotions in the way that a man can suppress emotions - so generally speaking, women are forced by their bodies to be emotionally aware in ways that men are not. The menstrual cycle and the sheer blood and guts experience of carrying a baby to term and delivering it also automatically makes it so that women - generally speaking - are more aware of nature and the Earth and the quality of the natural environment. That's not to say that men cannot also have that awareness, but they have to make more of a conscious choice. When we were in a hunter gatherer state, of course, that choice would not be necessary. But in hunter gatherer communities there is both equality of respect AND quite clearly defined roles based on the fact that all the men can go off for a few days hunting with little impact but a woman cannot if there are infants to take care of.
You could say that all the above is a bit moot in a modern society. But my experience working with people and their bodies is that - al though we have a human brain, most of our physiology and emotional life and the nuts and bolts of how we respond to life are driven - not by the human brain - but by the animal body. My opinion is that "the problem with girls" originates from the fact that human societies have largely changed humans in exactly the same way that puppies are no longer wolf cubs. You might ask - why does a puppy not grow into a wolf?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There has to be some degree of hardwired "biological" difference
Well, yes, but egalitarianism as normally defined doesn't deny differences, including biological ones. The arguments in favour of equitable treatment do not require any denial of human diversity and variations.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There has to be some degree of hardwired "biological" difference
Well, yes, but egalitarianism as normally defined doesn't deny differences, including biological ones. The arguments in favour of equitable treatment do not require any denial of human diversity and variations.
I find myself agreeing with Ratzinger - there is a lot of gender confusion and conflict layering on top of the mess we already have because there is a should/ought equality agenda which does not sufficiently acknowledge instinctive roles. If the instinctive roles playing out internally are acknowledged, then it produces a lot of room for manoeuvre - whereas if the head is used as the main organ of decision, internally important requirements can be contradicted.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There has to be some degree of hardwired "biological" difference
Well, yes, but egalitarianism as normally defined doesn't deny differences, including biological ones. The arguments in favour of equitable treatment do not require any denial of human diversity and variations.
I would replace the word "treatment" with "respect" - which would I think cover equal pay and opportunity issues without creating oddities of its own.
I find myself agreeing with Ratzinger - there is a lot of gender confusion and conflict layering on top of the mess we already have because there is a should/ought equality agenda which does not sufficiently acknowledge instinctive roles. If the instinctive roles playing out internally are acknowledged, then it produces a lot of room for manoeuvre - whereas if the head is used as the main organ of decision, internally important requirements can be contradicted, at a cost.
I work in an industry in which there is a majority of very powerful women - and nevertheless often the spokespeople and leaders often end up being male. Why is this? The spiritual group I am in also has a very similar gravitational arrangement... When no suitable male is around, women do the leadership task extraordinarily well, and if there is a man around then - not by any specific decision or injunction - more often than not the woman takes on a supportive role (without which the man would be a lot reduced) and the man takes on the leading role. And I can name one or two exceptional cases in which that situation is reversed. Understand that I am not arguing that this should or has to be the case, or that women are inferior or incapable, but rather - the biological internals and probably the nature of the spiritual male-female polarity mean that in a very broad and general sense those are the roles that are most naturally enacted. Call it a Yin/Yang thing - or whatever. And there ought to always be exceptions to that broad "rule" because it's not a rule - it's a propensity. That is quite clearly demonstrated when one sees a person strongly inhabiting the archetype of a particular task, because - except where gender is important - the person becomes androgynous in that task.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I find myself agreeing with Ratzinger - there is a lot of gender confusion and conflict layering on top of the mess we already have because there is a should/ought equality agenda which does not sufficiently acknowledge instinctive roles. If the instinctive roles playing out internally are acknowledged, then it produces a lot of room for manoeuvre - whereas if the head is used as the main organ of decision, internally important requirements can be contradicted, at a cost.
My problem is that human beings actually have very little in the way of what can truly be called "instinct" (i.e. unlearned complex behaviors) and most of what gets passed off as "the instinctive roles" is just a mass of socially constructed prejudice. For example, take itsarumdo's argument as applied to a late nineteenth / early twentieth century egalitarian question.
quote:
Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a women consequently the privilege should not be granted to her.
The mother's influence is needed in the home. She can do little good by gadding the streets and neglecting her children.
quote:
But it is not social facts or traditional manners on which our arguments are based, but natural constitution and the laws written by the Creator on the nature of the two sexes, to which human laws ought to be conformed. St. Paul, in his chapter on the subordination of woman, — upon which so much shallow sophistry and irreverent wit has been expended, — appeals in his argument chiefly to nature and the original constitution of woman, which no social facts or customs can essentially change. It is not a social, but a natural fact that woman is shorter in stature, weaker in body, lighter and less forcible and less commanding in voice and movement and all that indicates authority and mastery, than man, notwithstanding a few abnormal exceptions. It is not a tradition, but a scientific fact or law, that the average weight of the brain of woman is one-tenth less than that of man, and differs from it also in structure, — indicating not that she is mentally inferior, but that certain spheres of thought and activity are specially adapted, and certain others not adapted to her mental, no less than to her bodily organization.
It is a psychological and not a social or traditional fact, that the logical and judicial faculties are in most women subordinate and inferior in strength to the intuitive and spiritual; that feeling enters more largely into her opinions and judgments than the lumen siccum of pure reason,—a fact which in some departments makes her a more true and acute discerner, and in others a more partial and prejudiced observer.
To sum up the argument, what itsarmundo calls "the instinctive roles" of men and women renders the latter unsuitable for suffrage, or any involvement in politics for that matter. Is it just a bunch of feminist propaganda (as Bibliophile would argue) that we now reject these arguments? Or is it just that they were simply wrong?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
