In response to the #MeToo campaign, I pledge to
... I had written up my thoughts on every single point you made. But then I posted and... it was of course over 10k characters.
I genuinely poured my heart out and explained everything that I didn't or did agree with and elaborated.
If you want any more proof as to why Steamgifts is not a place for this, then here you go.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude a video game giveaway website is the best platform on the planet for the self-serious,pretentious pseudo-intellectual slacktivists who think they are doing nothing short of a great humanitarian service by making a thread on,again to reiterate-a website for video game giveaways
Comment has been collapsed.
On the bright side, what you did post here educates people (like me) that there's a 10K character limit. I was not aware of it, and will definitely make sure to copy long posts before clicking Submit.
I obviously don't think that a technical forum limitation proves that this site is not a good place for serious discussions. I personally enjoy reading and participating in this threads and hope to continue reading your posts in them. They're typically very well thought out.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just think that while some points can be made in less than 10k characters, it's pretty difficult to counter something huge like this. It's difficult to convey your point in-depth when you know that you can write maybe 2-3 sentences for each point.
I'm just... disappointed, I guess. Also, I think that maybe SG should have a "Political" tag, which would let these types of posts stay separate and also maybe have those tags get infinite characters for comments.
But... thanks for the compliment. I'm genuinely flattered by it :D
To me, from day 1 (probably day 200 because I got into this site way after actually registering here) you've been one of those "big dogs" in the yard. Same went with people like Tzaar, Mully, SadisticKitten and many more that I literally just can't remember off the top of my head.
While to you, this might sound kind of childish, to me it's a genuine thing. So, thank you :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Now your response to Voidy really made me curious to read that 10K post, because it just doesn't align with other posts I read from you. If you ever get the time... ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm tempted to rewrite it. But it's just the issue of time.
Not to mention that I think my original comment was... while not perfect, still very good. I doubt I could make it anywhere near as good as that one was.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember kids you can only be "decent" person if you will share OP world view.
Comment has been collapsed.
Practice this phrase: "That's not cool." Say it to other men who are saying disrespectful things to or about women because i'll have to post another sg discussion if you dont you fucking patriacher mysoginists
You sound like you know what's cool.
Comment has been collapsed.
While women are screaming about disrespect to their side, they are not the only ones suffering from it. People of other races, culture, mentality are often shown disrespect too as well. Why do we always have to stand up for women while there are lots of other people suffering from it as well?
p.s: There are Men who also suffer from sexual harrasment, but who cares?
Comment has been collapsed.
No one is suggesting otherwise, and someone did make a post about male-bodied people being harassed. For whatever reason, that thread got closed.
Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, etc are all generally interlinked and most people focusing on progressive social change recognize those links and work actively in their individual spheres as well as crossing over.
Comment has been collapsed.
Justice isn't a zero-sum game, ExOp. We should be allies, since you're absolutely right that other people suffer, too. Although it's arguably most important to talk about the problems that are far more prevalent, no one is either implicitly or explicitly denying the reality of other people being harassed.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Don't call her sweetie.
In UK I heard more women calling "sweetie" "darling" "love" than vice versa and nobody is offended or triggered by that... It is just nice way to address someone. - Give extra space after dark.
Every morning I walk same path to work. I walk faster that most people and listen to music. If morning is cold I am with hoodie. There is no way to cross street and I see women in front. I have to slow down and be late to work? Wouldn't if be more creepy if I suddenly slow down to stay behind?
I do not slow down because it is nonsense. While I approach women she increases speed (I don't know why) and her speed now matches my speed. Again slow down? Not viable. Keep same speed? Oh look I am following. Increase speed? She is more stressed because I increased speed.
This story happened and not once and tell me again how it is my fault and makes my worse as a person? (It doesn't follow one of your rules).
Comment has been collapsed.
With regards to 1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzqHeaHgtdw
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, Kate Smurthwaite - constantly bleating about being oppressed by the patriarchy in some form or another, she's somehow managed to forge a career in the media as a feminist comedian, despite never actually saying anything remotely funny. Most people that are shit at their jobs, male or female, end up having to look for a new one.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Signal-boost female voices. If you're sharing an article about a social issue -- especially a sexism issue -- find one written by a woman. Same goes for other groups: Boost articles about race by IBPOC writers (Indigenous, Black, and People of Colour); and articles about disability by writers with disabilities. A great rule of thumb when seeking commentary is the classic revolutionary slogan: "Nothing about us without us."
Articles, whether on social issues or otherwise, should be linked (on social media) or cited (in academia) based on the quality of the writing and/or research, NOT based on someone's sex or race.
Also, while considering an insider's perspective is important, it is just as important to look at outsiders' perspectives. People within a group, or otherwise invested in an issue, are often likely to bring their bias into play when writing / speaking / thinking about related issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
I absolutely agree that visibility based on quality is and should be the goal (as is pay based on merit, etc.). But it's a bit naive to think we're starting from a level playing field for everyone.
To take a simplified example: if it's determined that equally qualified and experienced women are paid, for example, 80 cents on the dollar/euro for equivalent work at a given corporation, then in order to achieve the goal of equity in pay, the women's salaries in that company need to be boosted (by 25% to be precise) in order for them to be paid the same.
Similar considerations apply in fields like literature or web writing: assuming that the vast majority of attention and critical acclaim is going to male writers (as it historically has), then it should be obvious that in order to achieve the goal of linking and citing based on the quality of writing (which is your stated goal), you will have have to signal-boost the female writers in order for them to receive equal attention based on merit.
I don't think you're intentionally overlooking the ways in which groups of people are systematically disadvantaged, or the ways in which all of us have implicit biases and so systematically fail to actually respond to merit alone even when we think we are doing so, but your view seems to imply that structural disadvantages and implicit bias don't exist--which simply isn't born out by the data (e.g., on pay). And because they exist, they have to be counteracted--precisely through the sorts of recommendations Smith makes in this article.
Comment has been collapsed.
A) Pay inequality claims have largely been debunked at this point. Whatever disparity there is is largely not due to discrimination.
See for example: https://fee.org/articles/truth-and-myth-on-the-gender-pay-gap/
B) Even if the pay gap was as large as you claim, it would not follow that "signal boosting" writing is comparable to giving women a raise who are earning less than their male counterparts.
If two people are doing the same job to the same standard, and truly the only difference is their sex, then yes they should be paid the same. Raising the woman's salary in such a scenario makes sense. The same cannot be said for a situation where there is some supposed bias against female authors as a whole, and people "solve" it by blindly up-voting, retweeting, citing, etc. That does not bring about a situation where merit is rewarded.
All blind "signal boosting" accomplishes is a situation where women have an unfair advantage in their favor. And no, that does not ultimately lead to some kind of balanced situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who's advocating blind signal-boosting, upvoting, etc.? The writers Smith mentions are all incredibly skilled and brilliant writers who deserve to be read more widely, not least of all because their message (like Smith's) is timely and clearly, in light of the #MeToo campaign, not widely accepted either in theory or in practice.
Again, it's just stunningly naive to think that there isn't discrimination against women, people of color, etc in a whole host of fields. I'm hopeful that we can continue a productive dialogue, because you agree to the principle that people should be treated equally in my (explicitly hypothetical) example, but you seem to be in denial about the extent to which many groups of people are in fact not currently treated equally in our actual society. And obviously any recommendation for how to correct a problem should be based on solid evidence that there is a problem and about the extent of that problem.
If you disagree with signal boosting, but you're willing to entertain a scenario in which authors of equal merit receive unequal attention, what do you propose is a better way to remedy the situation?
Comment has been collapsed.
I will quote your article again:
Signal-boost female voices. If you're sharing an article about a social issue -- especially a sexism issue -- find one written by a woman. Same goes for other groups: Boost articles about race by IBPOC writers (Indigenous, Black, and People of Colour); and articles about disability by writers with disabilities. A great rule of thumb when seeking commentary is the classic revolutionary slogan: "Nothing about us without us."
No mention is made of specific authors, nor is any kind of discernment about quality called for. People are urged to blindly choose women because they are women... people of color because they are people of color... etc.
The only valid solution is to encourage people through logic and reason to select articles based on merit, not based on who the author happens to be. One doesn't get people to select based on merit by telling them to do anything but (as the article clearly suggests).
Comment has been collapsed.
But the whole point is that the proven existence of implicit biases mean that those biases are both invisible to us from the inside and in practice impossible for us to accurately calibrate our sense of objective qualities like "merit" without doing what feels from the inside like overcorrecting, in order to achieve an accurate result. If we know that our gun sights are off in one direction, and we can't take them off or replace them, we have to overcorrect in the other direction in order to hit the target. Advice to "shoot straight" in that case would turn out to be, in practice, simply advice to shoot off to one side.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is yet another bad analogy.
Our target should not be to merely hit some statistic. Firstly, to aim for a statistic alone (say 50-50 split between men and women cited in academic papers), misses the actual target. The actual target is for people to be chosen based on merit, regardless of their sex (or other factors). Aiming for the statistic neither hits the procedural target (that is, people are not now learning to select based on merit) nor does it hit the real result (since the best works are not being cited).
That brings us to the second problem. You cannot go in assuming what the result should be in these cases. That is part of why the supposed pay gap has been severely overstated at times. Simply put, there are many reasons other than discrimination why there might not be a 50-50 split between men and women cited in academic papers (or any other stat you want to choose, this is just an example I pulled out of the hat).
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're being uncharitable. The analogy seems totally apt: we agree that what we want to do is to teach people how to select based on merit. But if you're unconsciously biased (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) against people of a certain group, then how you learn to accurately perceive merit to correct* your own skewed perceptions of merit. How is that not what you have to advocate for if you accept both (i) that merit is what matters and (ii) irrelevant factors like gender systematically interfere with our very ability to accurately perceive merit?
Again, we should both be able to agree that any proposed remedy should be based on good data, but these problems (to the extent that they exist) are all in principle quantifiable, and if we can put a number on how bad our behavior or judgment is skewed, then trying to use data to help correct our implicitly skewed perceptions of merit isn't inappropriate; in fact, it's the only way we have to even approximate accurate perception. Seeing the "thing-in-itself" just isn't in the cards for creatures like us: the whole point of implicit bias is that we can't take off these tinted glasses.
Comment has been collapsed.
All the credit goes to Nicole Stamp (the source material)--see link in OP above.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yawn. I already treat women the same as men, and minorities the same as others. Why should I give them special treatment just because I can? What's next, Gordon Ramsay fired for calling people darling? Honestly let me live how I want to live and not give anyone special treatment because they feel like they deserve it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll make sure to follow #11 so I get hit by a car since there's only sidewalk on one side of the street on the street I walk on the most.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh one more thing. Rule 14... I should feel discomfort to make you feel more comfortable? Why? Are you special as human? You have mental illness?
Comment has been collapsed.
Original headline:
- What decent men can do in response to
Well, nothing.
Because decent men already do half the stuff mentioned, and the other half is just crazy shit by some bitching cunt. Sorry OP, can't take this serious, at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
If that quote is typical of the article you linked, then I honestly do not see what is so "insightful".
Everyone, men and women, are bombarded with images and ideas of what constitutes normal. However, it's not just women, it's everyone. And it's not just about body image, it is everything from the toilet paper we use to the foods we eat to our body image to our religion, politics, and philosophy.
Nor is it something exclusively controlled by one ideology or another; there are people in positions of influence across the spectrum. Nor is it something nefarious that is a result of intentional "manipulation" from marketing departments, governments, influential academics, or artists. It is something that occurs at all levels at all times humans interact. We are constantly attempting (at least on a subconscious level, though often conscious too) to advocate for our worldview (i.e. what is normal) to others. This may be done verbally or non-verbally.
Also, it bears noting that many of these streams of influence that people are "bombarded" by are themselves a choice people make. People choose the entertainment, news, and academic sources they get and now more than ever can skip any advertising thanks to Tivo and Adblock.
So, are we to conclude that all of the choices we think we make day to day are not actually our own; that we are manipulated? That, not only is our idea of body image controlled, but so is our other choices and ideas of normal? And if so, who is responsible? Even the most monolithic of corporations or governments is still made up of people who, themselves, are part of this system of influence. And, while a lot of direction comes from the top, it is never just one or a handful of people dictating what is produced or spoken. And even if it was, they too were raised in a world influenced by others, so did they too have no choice?
All this that you have linked boils down to is yet another case of someone trying to influence others and make her idea of normal and choice the definitive one. She is doing the exact thing she is complaining about. Furthermore, her idea of choice means that we are all just a bunch of victims, incapable of making free choices because we are so bombarded by these "evil" ideas. And yet, somehow, she and others like her are able to rise above it so that she can tell us what is normal and what choice is.
So, which is it? Are we helpless victims, or do we have the potential to take personal responsibility and make choices (such as the author did by writing the article in this world of idea bombardment)? The author does not know or care. Like most, she does not care about intellectual consistency, but rather only about cherry-picking the ideas that are the most self-serving.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry to butt in, but there was one thing that caught my eye in that thread.
5 days ago i got suspended for a nonsense thread with a giveaway - why should anyone be any different?
Am I reading that correctly? You were suspended for creating that Toast Awareness thread? As in, that was the official reason for suspension, the mere fact of that thread existing?
If so, that's messed up on a couple of levels (and I'm not talking about the underwater ones -shudders-).
Comment has been collapsed.
you're right on the money of it...
I don't get why the mods allow these kinds of threads...
Politics has no place in SG... We're here to enjoy and share games, if anyone wants to talk about politics, they can go over to /pol/...
Comment has been collapsed.
first of all they need to report any harassment and assault then they need to stop wearing that BS clothes that half of their body is open to public it is their fault we have this BS thing every day . man do what their animal side what and we cant change that .
look at dogs it dose not matter who bent over they will jump on everyone and everything .
Comment has been collapsed.
He never said anything about touching though. Men look too.
Comment has been collapsed.
that is our animal sides even when we don't want to look or stair we cant stop it lol ... it is not our fault womans are beautiful you know ...
but some ppl take it to next level they want to touch and ....... so
Comment has been collapsed.
That's impossible since unless you're only glancing at somebody you don't get a good look at somebody.
Comment has been collapsed.
if a girl walks by with her ass cheeks hanging out under her daisy dukes im going to look, whether i want to or not, im going to look
- because i like big butts and i can not lie, thats my thing (forget breast)
- because im a man and sometimes i find myself tracking a women who crosses my view without even thinking anything about her at all, mid conversation n all (this is in our dna, research it)
- i like to tease my inherited instincts (i see you checking out her features, her wild flowing hair, those wide child bearing hips, those sexy long black boots that clack with every perfect step during that womanly strut radiating confidence, yeah you want that dont you, you find her attractive, you want to further the human race dont you, whispers: have babiesssssssss, well you cant have her you bastard!!!!, HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (joker style)
yeah, im not about to go all harakiri because i checked out what was hanging out and happened to like it. though sometimes i can feel the self rape from my mind as im not in the mood to check out any butts and my eyes are attracted to them and i have to turn my gaze. its tiring
Side note: check out Big Mouth on Netflix, its hilarious, this makes me think of the show
oh wait, before the stoning "he that is without sin among you" PS: i love women, i believe in protecting them and all that manly holding doors stuff. this gender neutral treat everyone the same nonsense is utterly retarded. just as 1 simple off the top of my head example that would mean that if some women stepped in my face and started curing\shouting i should react by kneeing her in the crotch and punching the shit out of her (as i would do a man). thats gender equality if you ask me and im not for that kind of stupidity. be a normal decent human being and act like your parents raised you with basic manners (please and thank you) and the world will be a better place.
theres all kinds of weird people in this world and thats cool n all, do what you want to do, if you think you can or should change me then that reflects on the type of person you are and in my eyes thats a damn ugly person. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
Something about staring. It turned into a lot more than was intended. But based on your reply I must be some evil POS that should be exterminated because I enjoy looking at beautiful women. (Maybe you think I follow them around the store or look them up and down and throw a thumbs up their way, who knows)
While some guys might be gay and others might secretly be women I believe the vast majority have an affinity to women. Some guys have a really high sex drive, some have absolutely none. Etc etc
So you don't look at women, you stare off into empty space or other men, maybe you stare at the floor a lot, idk. Is that suppose to make you the ideal man or something? I don't think it makes you any less a "man" but if you think "your" way is the only/right way you might have a case for elitism..
EDIT: came across this on facebook, reminded me of this. lol
https://www.facebook.com/Brotality.me/videos/1925816197652971/?hc_ref=ARSQ54mw6OIhP_xVUzrwwxJDWFLTL_KWI_r1EwsAXTT9CFleAC7QatBdFQoOYuvdvgc
Comment has been collapsed.
our animal side drove us to it but only few people can resist that is only 30% man
Comment has been collapsed.
"developed brain that can tell us what's wrong and right, and prevent us from doing stupid stuff" tell me why then half of females are Gold digger ? ha ? mans going to army and war the women stay back and cheat on thier husband they have brain right ? how about when they have a boyfriend and they sleep with other mens ??? or how about when they have 2 kids and a husband but they send naked pictures to other ppl ?????
i see all of this in my life explain this thing to me ???? whyy ??? they have brain right ???
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow. A public apologist for sexual harassment and assault as natural and inevitable.
SteamGifts. 2017.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll treat you like an animal then. I'll cut your balls if you can't control yourself. You are not worth anything more then. Women can wear anything they want, even be naked for all I care, even then they are not asking for it or deserve anything. Women should feel safe not matter what they wear. You are the problem, not them. But hey, you can come to my place, i'll ready my knife and the problem will be solve!
Comment has been collapsed.
did i say I doing it ??? it is come form all female they are the problem if they want to stop this they can but they don't because they are gold digger . we are in 20 century we invent clothes to cover our self but ppl like you send us back to stone age
"even be naked for all I care " i think you are one of dose ppl who go to night clubs to see naked womans everyday ha ???
Comment has been collapsed.
Men like you are the problem. Not the way women dress. Maybe you were hurt by someone in your life but they are very few gold digger. Women can wear what the fuck they want. It's the 21 (not 20) century so yeah women should be able to put on what they want and be judge by it or worse. You are the one living in the stone age and wanting to hide women and put rules on their body. And No I don't go clubbing.
Comment has been collapsed.
for your info I worked with alot of women but I did not touch them at all not even get close to them but guess who get close to us ???? themmm!!! even you dont want to get close to them they come to you ... what you call that ?? mans are evil ? or womens ?
right now I have 3 female coworker / partner one of them is keep touching every one she is old but that dose not mean that is ok
dont blame mans for womens .
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a normal social interaction to go close to someone. How do you talk to someone otherwise ? For the rest, I don't really understand your point. I blame men like you for forcing women to wear what they want. You should go to Saudia Arabia, you will be happy there. Sorry if that's not the way I want my country to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
but not is work place . by saying close I mean right next to you when she can put her body on you or next to you .. I mean too close .
don't try to defend female they are part of the problem ..
Comment has been collapsed.
then you should go to Africa because half of the are naked over there ... you know ...
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh man. When did SG regress into an SJW circlejerk? This is a gaming forum, not Buzzfeed.
Comment has been collapsed.
...I wish this was a parody. Sad it isn't.
Let's be honest. People like this Nicole Stamp are part of 'the problem'. These people will never admit it or even realise it, but they are just as part of the problem as any male sexist person.
The solution is simple: Everyone should stop doing anything different based on gender. (or skincolour for that matter).
Simply stop caring if it's a woman or man or any of the million variations people feel they are and do your own thing.
See the picture attached with regards to race. Same thing applies to gender.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you actually read the list, you'll see that most of these items are advocating for exactly what you propose: to stop treating people differently based on gender.
Comment has been collapsed.
....are you trolling me now? Cause if so: well done.
Truth be told, I did read the list. And it's absolutely about treating people differently based on gender. I wonder how you'd miss that when reading it. It clearly states to elevate one above the other. And I can't condone that. No-one needs special treatment and giving that to the gender that feels they're treated unfairly (and in this society aren't being treated fairly) won't fix the problem.
Example: "Amplify women's voices at work" or "Signal-boost female voices.". So..I need to do this with women, based on their gender. Not about whether they actually make a good point. I'll be honest: If someone at work makes a good point, I'll amplify it and signal-boost it regardless of whether it was a man, a woman or an apache helicopter. But I am 100% against amplifying it cause it's a woman.
And quite frankly this goes for all the points on the list. The more you read the worse it gets.
It's not rocket science: The rules should be 'Don't harass people, regardless of gender. And 'Judge based on content, not on gender' and so on. That's a way forward....instead of wanting to "change society" just by shifting the same old roles around which stops any progress from being made.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're just making yourself look foolish by saying "this goes for all the points on the list."
In #5, when Smith advocates for introducing women by their professional titles at the same rate as men, that's advocating for not treating people different based on gender--which currently happens, and needs to stop.
In #6, Smith advocates for not applying diminutive nicknames only to one gender, and instead calling everyone by their preferred name, regardless of gender.
Item #8 is about not using insults that presuppose the inferiority of one gender over another--in other words, treating different genders as equal.
Items #9 and #10 are both explicitly about not treating children differently based on gender.
How can you miss that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why resort to saying I look foolish because I disagree? Penalty point for bad manners, that's not how to have a discussion, since you do seem sincere enough to talk with. I've mentioned before that I'm in favor of gender-neutrality and against special treatment and because of that am against the way that first post was written. Maybe I should apologize for being in favor of actual gender-neutrality and making you apparently feel discomfort.
But fine I'll bite and respond to your points cause I've got some spare time:
In #5...it states in your post: "Be mindful of how you introduce women" and continues about how one should or shouldn't introduce female colleagues o a sort of ruleset. Again I say: you shouldn't care they are female. Introduce men and women alike...and in BOTH cases one should be mindful how to introduce. That's not what this point mentions though so this point just emphasizes special treatment instead of resolving the issue.
In #6, it again centers on not calling females nicknames that are seen as diminutive. Apart from the obvious dicussion about what is or isn't diminutive (it's a fine subjective line between that and a positive use but i'll give you that.) it really is weird how it again misses negative nicknames towards men. Should they shut up and enjoy when women call them such names? Better to state: stop using any form of patronizing and diminutive nicknames That's not what this point mentions though so this point just emphasizes special treatment instead of resolving the issue.
In #8 it supposes apparently that only words that target women are bad. I would say words targeting men are equally bad. Demeaning traits of a gender regardless of which gender are bad. Or should one be happy with the stereotype dumb jock or pathetic nerd being used to demean men. The one sentence I agree with in there would be " If you must insult someone, focus on their actions, not their body or their gender." And it's sad that the rest of that same point just bulldozes over it and emphasizes special treatment instead of resolving the issue.
In #9 and #10 I see the actual points specifically state to do culturally 'feminine coded' things with boys and do culturally 'male coded' things with girls. And to avoid making any appearance-comments about little girls. What about boys? Why negate appearance entirely? That is just switching the roles out instead of fixing the issue. The idea of gender-neutrality touched on here is good but it falls short in the way these points approach it. I'd say: Ignore what a boy/girl should play with, let them play with whatever they want. Praise regardless of whether its appropriate. Comment on any traits including appearance if you want, just don't do it "cause it's a girl". But that's not what is written there, so again it just emphasizes special treatment for little girls instead of resolving the issue.
Now....it is obvious you were cherrypicking points since some of those are impossible to defend as genderneutral. (like..i dunno...#11 comes to mind or #2 and so on.) But let's be fair: Those points are in there and they really lower any value of the post that you cited.
From your last reply I gather that you interpret Nicole Stamp's post differently from what is actually written. You make them about being gender-neutral which is how you interpret it: good on you. I mean that sincerely. That is something I can support. But if you honestly look at the actual content that she wrote....that's something different than what you've made of it in your last post.
I guess the pattern should be self evident now. I'm not saying the way society is handling it now is right. I'm saying this SJW backlash is handling it just as badly as society does. And your post with the text from Nicole Stamp is making it worse if anything. Again: I'm in favor of a solution where regardless of gender/race/age/etc people can live together on the same planet without needlessly putting eachother down.
I really can't see how someone could disagree with that last sentence I wrote, but I might be wrong cause I'm just a foolish man, how dare I even speak of these things. And yes, this hidden part is a joke cause judging from the blacklists God knows some people can use a little levity since they won't follow #13 or #14
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your response! I actually don't think I'm cherrypicking, but I think the defense of principles like #2 is a little more subtle, since what you (and many others) are calling "special treatment" is only necessary as a temporary, contingent measure and only as a means of achieving equity, and only because certain groups are starting from a deficit. I give a couple examples here: https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/plvspUw, such as how if two groups are being paid different for equal work, then what might look like special treatment to boost the wages of the group being paid less is actually fair treatment.
I can see how you might misconstrue Stamp's particular application of uncontroversial, gender-neutral principles of equality to our actual society--which is in fact one in which women are systematically disadvantaged--as advocating special treatment, or how the list can come across as advocating something other than a basic respect for human dignity, but I think it's uncharitable to assume that.
But besides being uncharitable, it's also deeply unhelpful to point out in a society where women are systematically disadvantaged that it would also be wrong if men were disadvantaged in similar ways, and to criticize an author for not advocating the more general claim. If the criminal justice system demonstrably has worse outcomes for black people (in terms of police brutality, length of prison sentences, conviction rates for similar crimes, lack of access to quality legal representation, etc.), it's not only uncharitable but deeply unhelpful to criticize the Black Lives Matter movement for not recognizing that white lives matter too (which isn't something our criminal justice system currently fails to recognize), or for not advocating for a more general principle such as 'all lives matter'. Likewise, if a house is on fire, and someone is giving accurate directions for how to put out this particular house fire, and your problem with her message is that it doesn't recognize the fact that all houses are worth saving from fires, you might want to ask why you feel the need to redirect attention away from the very real problem the author is pointing out.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will say only about #5, since neokarasu already wrote nice answer for the rest.
Article for #5 shows only that women uses professional titles almost always and men sometimes uses and sometimes not. Lets assume there is another analysis of this data and someone found out that 80% of people, that wasn't introduced by formal title had blue eyes. Does this mean there is correlation? NO. We don't know when those men are using professional titles. It is the same level of research as "100% of people who drinks water dies, thus water is poisonous.”
Of course, in professional setting they should use professional titles, but don’t make it gender issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm glad you're familiar with the causation/correlation fallacy, but thinking you've found a fallacy where there is none is just as bad. Smith isn't trying to correlate men not introducing female doctors by their professional titles with some other outcome (like being paid less), for which causation is in doubt. Rather, it's the fact of not being introduced by their professional title that is the whole problem: men demean, insult, and lower the status of female doctors by not introducing them to others by their professional titles (regardless of whether this behavior is intentional or not). They do this at demonstrably higher rates than women. Therefore, there's a gender-specific problem. No correlations attributed, and thus none to be misattributed either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it is probably because of my English, but I think that you misunderstood me.
I mean that even if outcome is that more women was harmed (I will call it “harm” mainly because of my lacks in English words, but it is harming somehow) than men, it doesn’t mean that they were harmed because they are women. It is overinterpretation (like my abstract examples with eye color or water) and that’s why I said “don’t make it gender issue”.
Problem is that those men didn’t use professional titles towards almost half of introduced man. But why they did it? We don’t know since we can find multiple possible reasons through observation, but if some reasons are possible it doesn’t mean that are true.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you raise a good point: sexism doesn't have to be intentional in order to be harmful! (The same is true, by the way, for racism.) Many people think that you have to hate people of a certain color to be a racist, but that's not the case at all: if your actions systematically disadvantage or harm people of a certain race, then your actions are racist. The problem with not using professional titles isn't that it involves sexist intentions (at least not necessarily--after all, who can know another's mind?), but that it's a sexist action.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.