|
new phone who dis posted:It's notable because Salon is well-known for taking pretty extreme political positions favorable of the left and feminism and even in 2014 they thought the term was burnt-out and ineffective. bahahahaha
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:Realpost: if you're a guy, you can add the concept of mansplaining to your cognitive repertoire to in some situations avoid dumb actions, like talking really stupidly to a woman. If you're a woman, maybe it'll help you stand up for yourself in some situations or something, I don't even know I'm consciously trying to shut up about things that could come off as condescending, because it's a common courtesy and good manners. I also usually end up feeling stupid and embarrassed when I retroactively see myself acting like an rear end to people in that way. I don't think the idea of mansplaining has been useful in this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
So many pages dedicated to the hurt feelings of men because a derogatory word contains the prefix man- Not a single post on the much more ubiquitous tendency to deride things that are being done "like a girl" or "like a woman", such as hitting, running, driving, throwing, etc Yawn yawn yawn yawny yawn
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:
Where did I insult you, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:So many pages dedicated to the hurt feelings of men because a derogatory word contains the prefix man- Ahh see, you're looking for the Feminism thread. This is abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit is a pretty good piece on this. Rebecca Solnit posted:Having the right to show up and speak are basic to survival, to dignity, and to liberty. I’m grateful that, after an early life of being silenced, sometimes violently, I grew up to have a voice, circumstances that will always bind me to the rights of the voiceless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'm consciously trying to shut up about things that could come off as condescending, because it's a common courtesy and good manners. I also usually end up feeling stupid and embarrassed when I retroactively see myself acting like an rear end to people in that way. I don't think the idea of mansplaining has been useful in this. E.: I see a lot of people were they have, in addition to many gender-neutral ways of being an rear end, some way of being an rear end to people which they only use for women, and another which they only use for men. (I'm one of these people.) Maybe that doesn't describe you. In which case, good on you. But I think it describes a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:So many pages dedicated to the hurt feelings of men because a derogatory word contains the prefix man- Maybe gendered insults are... bad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
It became mansplaining when he went on to explain that 3 k's meant 3 strikeouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It became mansplaining when he went on to explain that 3 k's meant 3 strikeouts. No it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm not saying their lived experience isn't accurate, I'm saying no one ever knows what the gently caress they're doing. The greatest illusion of communication is that it has taken place, etc etc. If there's an issue of 'mansplaining', it's it women not being socialized to vocalize their thoughts, and being punished for doing so, while men aren't. But no one ever really knows what's happening in the heads of other people, that's called mind reading. The best part about this post is not only does it deny the condescension from men, but then actually tries to turn it around by saying women don't vocalize their thoughts(loolll)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Honestly I think privilege theory is a wasteful dead end because it consists of vague, wide-net accusations that will never draw a useful response from anyone. Agreed. Additionally describing basic human rights as "privilege" is beyond hosed up. Not being stopped by police for my skin tone is not a privilege, it's the way every person should have it. Privilege implies I should either give it up or be ashamed of it. That I'm getting something I shouldn't have gotten. What the gently caress is a person supposed to do with their privilege? They shouldn't give it up because it constitutes basic human rights, so are you telling them to make them feel guilty? To shame them into being an ally? We fix this problem by moving people UP, so why does the term imply the fix would be bringing people DOWN? It's something we fix by removing something minorities have (disadvantage) but the term implies we fix the problem by removing something the majority has (privilege). It's a really terribly bad idea to use it on the majority. It was always going to cause anger, and it drat-well deserves to cause anger. Time to drop it and move on. It's entirely possible to teach about inequality without using this terrible term. Forgot another thing. The concept of privilege takes a systemic problem and places it on the individual. It shouldn't be possible to miss-describe a real existing problem this thoroughly. It's like the term was designed to be wrong. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
The way the whole story is laid out, it seems to split up the disenfranchised roughly in half: on one hand, white working-class-and-lower men, on the other women and all kinds of minorities. So it basically looks like the perfect right-wng weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Agreed. Additionally describing basic human rights as "privilege" is beyond hosed up. Not being stopped by police for my skin tone is not a privilege, it's the way every person should have it. Privilege implies I should either give it up or be ashamed of it. That I'm getting something I shouldn't have gotten. What the gently caress is a person supposed to do with their privilege? They shouldn't give it up because it constitutes basic human rights, so are you telling them to make them feel guilty? To shame them into being an ally? We fix this problem by moving people UP, so why does the term imply the fix would be bringing people DOWN? It's something we fix by removing something minorities have (disadvantage) but the term implies we fix the problem by removing something the majority has (privilege). It's a really terribly bad idea to use it on the majority. It was always going to cause anger, and it drat-well deserves to cause anger. Time to drop it and move on. It's entirely possible to teach about inequality without using this terrible term. That's not what it does. Yes. No. No. To be conscious about it. No. No. It doesn't. No it does not. What? No. No. Maybe, but why give up a useful tool? No. Lol. Lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Agreed. Additionally describing basic human rights as "privilege" is beyond hosed up. Not being stopped by police for my skin tone is not a privilege, it's the way every person should have it. Privilege implies I should either give it up or be ashamed of it. That I'm getting something I shouldn't have gotten. What the gently caress is a person supposed to do with their privilege? They shouldn't give it up because it constitutes basic human rights, so are you telling them to make them feel guilty? To shame them into being an ally? We fix this problem by moving people UP, so why does the term imply the fix would be bringing people DOWN? It's something we fix by removing something minorities have (disadvantage) but the term implies we fix the problem by removing something the majority has (privilege). It's a really terribly bad idea to use it on the majority. It was always going to cause anger, and it drat-well deserves to cause anger. Time to drop it and move on. It's entirely possible to teach about inequality without using this terrible term. It is really a bad term. Many of its users are addicted to it and mistakenly think that you need the word 'privilege' to describe the idea that different groups of people experience different amounts of systemic bigotry. It's a pretty terrible way to sell your idea unless you think that shaming people is an effective way to influence behavior. In defense of using shame as a strategy to influence behavior, it works to some degree in many sects of Christianity. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. At that point you're advocating cultural supremacy and colonialism while stoking largely unfounded or exaggerated problems with maleness to begin with. When feminism starts demandingg conformity instead of equality it ceases to be progressive and becomes authoritarian. It is not the right or the place for one form of thought to dictate the identity of an entire gender and if any group outside feminists tried to do it to women they would be rightly rejected. lol it was literally explained a few pages ago what exactly is meant by toxic masculinity and what mra shitbirds try to misrepresent it as. you're positing it as the exact opposite of what it is and exactly what mra shitbirds do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:That's not what it does. Yes. No. No. To be conscious about it. No. No. It doesn't. No it does not. What? No. No. Maybe, but why give up a useful tool? I wasn't talking about the underlying thing privilege seeks to describe. I'm saying what the term itself implies. And you should give it up because it is not a useful tool, unless it's supposed to cause conflict and increase rifts while describing a phenomenon we've otherwise had the language to describe forever ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:In defense of using torture as a strategy to influence behavior, it works to some degree in many sects of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:That's not what it does. Yes. No. No. To be conscious about it. No. No. It doesn't. No it does not. What? No. No. Maybe, but why give up a useful tool? If you want to use privilege as a popular term, you need to respond to the things it evokes in people with more than lol and nah. Or use different, less confusing terms to use the same concepts, like having empathy or feeling solidarity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:lol it was literally explained a few pages ago what exactly is meant by toxic masculinity and what mra shitbirds try to misrepresent it as. you're positing it as the exact opposite of what it is and exactly what mra shitbirds do. the person you're arguing with is still mad about gamergate so it's not really any suprise that they might refuse to accept a correct definition of toxic masculinity. i would imagine most people who struggle with such a simple concept either have some kind of grudge to air or some other reason why they would refuse to accept it
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The fact that the word aggression has replaced violence in thus argument us pretty telling in how feminism has reached the decadent phase. There's nothing wrong with many kinds of aggression and the blanket disavowal of it is just another unnecessary escalation of attempted control. I've been busy today so I haven't been able to read all the posts up to right now, and right now is about the time I go to bed, so maybe I'm missing stuff, but I will point out: I dunno why you're randomly bringing violence into this. Aggression can in certain situation be rude or damaging in and of itself. Aggression is what I was talking about. And yes, I will admit that there was ambiguity in the way I said it, but I'm not referring to aggressive chess plays, or making a strong argument to get a promotion or whatever. I'm referring to certain aggressive behaviours that are rightfully considered out of line, yet are still "what is expected" of a man in many corners of modern society, and that expectation is what feminists are trying to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit is a pretty good piece on this. That is indeed a good piece, but the term mansplaining is kinda iffy, and is often used to mean "a man is disagreeing with me." and that is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:That is indeed a good piece, but the term mansplaining is kinda iffy, and is often used to mean "a man is disagreeing with me." and that is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:This is kind of a silly place to use that thought terminating cliche. It's a biotruth to say that women love pink because evolution, it's not really one to say that half the population is basically taking steroids and the other half has a cycle of mood changing drugs going through their body monthly, and it's hard to say how this affects employment. Given how dimorphic men and women are it would be kind of surprising if they had similar statistics in everything across the board. The problem about this sort of point is that it's virtually impossible to divorce what's socialized from what's biological (since we can't really compare males/females that have been isolated from any societal influence). And the fact that we see significant differences in career outcomes, IQ, etc between races/ethnic groups (which we absolutely know are not biological in basis*) implies that a huge portion of observed differences in behavior/outcomes between men and women are due to socialization/discrimination. As a result, it makes more sense to assume that any particular difference is likely due to socialization rather than biology, even if it's technically possible it could be the latter. * Basically the genetic difference between ethnic groups is not even remotely big enough to create an observable difference in a trait as ridiculously complex as intelligence, so we can be sure that any observed differences in intelligence between races represent a flaw in the methodology and/or imply the cause is "nurture" rather than "nature". People (somewhat understandably) assume "intelligence is caused by biology, ethnic groups must differ at least some biologically, ergo they might differ in intelligence!", but in reality the only actual differences are going to be things that rely upon some really minor genetic difference, like susceptibility to a particular disease or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:That is indeed a good piece, but the term mansplaining is kinda iffy, and is often used to mean "a man is disagreeing with me." and that is bad. Where has it been used like that, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:* Basically the genetic difference between ethnic groups is not even remotely big enough to create an observable difference in a trait as ridiculously complex as intelligence Ytlaya posted:it makes more sense to assume that any particular difference is likely due to socialization rather than biology, even if it's technically possible it could be the latter. I again prefer an ignoramus. On one hand, we have no evidence that any given trait is congruent with, or causally determined by, biology, on the other hand, it's very clearly not impossible. So let's just admit ignorance for now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:This is kind of a silly place to use that thought terminating cliche. It's a biotruth to say that women love pink because evolution, it's not really one to say that half the population is basically taking steroids and the other half has a cycle of mood changing drugs going through their body monthly, and it's hard to say how this affects employment. Given how dimorphic men and women are it would be kind of surprising if they had similar statistics in everything across the board. Except that "statements about biology" implies rejection of the null hypothesis and the *overwhelming* majority of the time when speaking of sexual dimorphism in humans (excluding the obvious stuff like "females have larger breasts"), there is not even close to enough evidence to justify rejecting it. If you claim you're making scientific statements, then you need to accept all the trappings of science. Until then, it's biotruths, because of the pattern of so many before you who have used "statements about biology" to oppress various races, and various genders, and other groups of people. Edit: Cingulate posted:What are you getting this from? I don't think our understanding of the biology of intelligence is anywhere near sufficient for supporting such claim, in one way or the other. Except *this is how science works*. There are good philosophical reasons why Occam's Razor is a thing. Unless we see sufficient evidence of a causal relationship, yes, we are obliged to assume that two independent variables (such as gender and intelligence), are unrelated. If we don't function that way, we give birth to cargo cults. Dancer fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
I was just reading through the past few pages and the gamergate shithead really used the "maybe it is the feminists who are the real mysognists" thing, loving lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What are you getting this from? I don't think our understanding of the biology of intelligence is anywhere near sufficient for supporting such claim, in one way or the other. We know that intelligence, under pretty much any definition, is a super complex trait that is influenced by countless factors both genetic and environmental. The genetic difference between ethnic groups is small and is unlikely to have a significant impact on such a complex trait as a result. Here is an explanation from the Wiki page on "Race and Intelligence": quote:Intelligence is a polygenic trait. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in g. Current studies using quantitative trait loci have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. Robert Plomin is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.[113] Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.[93] Several candidate genes have been proposed to have a relationship with intelligence.[114][115] However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences".[116] In 2001, a review in the Journal of Black Psychology refuted eight major premises on which the hereditarian view regarding race and intelligence is based. Basically, intelligence is influenced by such a huge number of genetic factors and no individual factors have a significant impact on it, at least as far as we've been able to measure. Since race/ethnicity only represent a small consistent (across population groups) genetic difference, it is also unlikely that it has a notable impact on intelligence. Cingulate posted:I'm not buying this one either. Did you see the "likely"? It means that it's technically possible that a particular difference could have a biological basis, but it is usually unlikely to be the case given the countless ways we're already aware that environment (which includes socialization, etc) can affect behavior. It makes more sense to take a "until proven otherwise assume this is socialization" approach than vice versa (and these assumptions are important for stuff like policy, so we can't just throw up our hands and say "welp not sure so who knows!"). Just because you're not 100% sure whether variability of a particular trait is caused primarily by biology or environment/socialization doesn't mean the chance is 50/50. edit: Sorry if my tone came off as aggressive at all. As I think I mentioned in my initial post, I completely understand why someone with a layperson's (or even a bit above a layperson's) understanding of science might assume that it makes sense for there to be relationships like this between race/gender and intelligence/behavior. Also it's not exactly the same to compare race and gender here, since there are actually fairly significant differences between genders, while there aren't between ethnic groups. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Except *this is how science works*. There are good philosophical reasons why Occam's Razor is a thing. Unless we see sufficient evidence of a causal relationship, yes, we are obliged to assume that two independent variables (such as gender and intelligence), are unrelated. If we don't function that way, we give birth to cargo cults. Moreover, the heritablities of basically any cognitive trait are probably not only nonzero, probably not only positive, but rather substantial, see: the entire field of behavioral genetics (or if you want something more specific, Plomin & Deary, 2015; Polderman et al, 2015; Power & Pluess, 2015). And if our null hypothesis for heritability is nonzero, then why should our null hypothesis for the genetic contribution be zero? Now I'm not saying it should be any particular value - zero, positive, negative, large, small - I'm saying, I don't find your argument for zero being the null hypothesis at all convincing. In fact, I'm much more willing to believe in counterstereotypical coefficients than in precisely-zero ones. Ytlaya posted:We know that intelligence, under pretty much any definition, is a super complex trait that is influenced by countless factors both genetic and environmental. The genetic difference between ethnic groups is small and is unlikely to have a significant impact on such a complex trait as a result. Here is an explanation from the Wiki page on "Race and Intelligence": (I'm a bit hesitant to use the term "race" next to the term sex here, because sex is a biological category and race is at best a complex concept touching upon both biology and culture, but it'll have to do for now. I'm certainly not trying to presuppose races - that is, the races you can find boxes to check on on US surveys - are natural kinds, and in fact I doubt they are.) So let me just get out of the way that I can think of tons of reasons for why I put very little faith into any story of how any given biological story is supposed to be the truth; essentially, a story that naturalizes our cultural stereotypes should IMO always be put under the heaviest of scrutinies. So we agree on how little we think of the simple "race<-genes->IQ" story. But I think in what you did here you're putting way too much faith in one single, and rather isolated, counternarrative. What speaks against the Ashkenazi carrying a set of a few 100 genes who all together correspond to a substantially higher g? What, to begin with, speaks against the idea of a unified g underlying a lot of the ways in which intelligence expresses itself? Well, a lot - but mostly principled doubts, not so much the story you just told. You would have to show that in the variance between sexes/races/... is not enough room for the effects in intelligence we observe, and our estimates of either are way too vague to rule that out. I mean, there's people who think it's all about myelination or whatever. Do I believe that? No. Is it obviously, clearly wrong? No. It's true that we've so far failed at finding any strong linkage between genetics and intelligence, but that's simply not an argument against the existence against such a link. And any specific cultural story we have still has to stand to the test of high heritability estimates from twin studies, and I don't really think they do. Which leaves us with, for now, nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
I love that literally every single "feminism is wrong" thread eventually comes into "actually whites ARE genetically superior" eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Are you objecting to my use of the word "taught" to include things picked up by socialization and cultural osmosis, or is this a "Not All Men" complaint (or both)? I object to the word taught, as it can come off as Men are taught to go to women and explain things to them and that men are taught to spread there legs while on the bus. Ill also steal someone else's words on the topic of Mansplaining and etc.. They mirror my own thoughts rudatron posted:Also shut up about mansplaining, it's literally the dumbest thing ever. People treat others like idiots all the time, no one can read your mind and know what you already know. Social communication is always awkward and full of errors, you only trick yourself into thinking is not. It's not a symptom of the patriarchy, it's just how humans interact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I object to the word taught, as it can come off as Men are taught to go to women and explain things to them and that men are taught to spread there legs while on the bus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Cingulate can you go even one thread without bringing up your worthless, disproven, repulsive human biodiversity pseudoscience? Go to fuckin' Stormfront, they'll love you there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
now we've got "human biodiversity", and that doesn't even have anything to do with gender. this is just turning into the arguing with fascists thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
IQ tests are borderline junk science so working them into any overarching theory of anything is just poisoning your own argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:IQ tests are borderline junk science so working them into any overarching theory of anything is just poisoning your own argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:IQ tests are a total garbage way of deciding an individual is "smart" or not (or rather maybe the concept of smart is just garbage on its own), but what's the preferred method of figuring out whether low level lead poisoning or some such is bad for populations of people? Kind of a derail but lead poisoning is a long-term and pernicious thing with a lot more symptoms than could be detected on an IQ test. IQ tests are super subjective and a bad measure for anything by themselves, but I suppose if you gave the same test to someone before and after being poisoned by lead it could serve as a baseline, but then so could any type of similar test. I've actually had quite a few IQ tests when I was a kid and once you've had one or two, they get a lot easier when you know what to expect. It wouldn't surprise me at all if whatever racial disparity that dude was citing is a result of black kids just getting tested way less often because they have less access to that sort of thing. I can vouch for the fact that they are very easy to game with practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
glad you were able to claw your way back into the regular classes
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
IQ tests can be a useful tool, but it's not clear that they measure any kind of innate intelligence. Get banned Cingulate. Amused to Death posted:The best part about this post is not only does it deny the condescension from men, but then actually tries to turn it around by saying women don't vocalize their thoughts(loolll) OwlFancier posted:The best way to learn is to take advantage of the resources available to you, people make mistakes yet resolutely fail to learn from them quite often. Plus, that's just scientifically not the best way to learn, the best way to learn is by actually doing things, that's why schools make you write poo poo out. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:34
|
|