Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[MAYA EL]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

just because i am confident doesn't mean I don't leave room to be wrong it just means you don't like my opinion despite it being factual and grounded in observable reality

I respect your opinions as such. But I resent your assumption that my perspective is "man-hating". I have not said this, and the main reason I haven't said it is that I don't believe it to be an appropriate, helpful, or correct perspective.

To support the struggle of women against long-term inequality is not to hate men. That is binary thinking at its very worst: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

Your the one with the binary thinking and your the one making 2 teams out of this and I'm the one trying to tell you to stop looking at it as a history of inequality (2 teams) and start looking at it as just life
Where some had it good and others had it bad and as technology progresses and jobs aren't so labor intensive and with the invention of birth control when woman is now able to go pretend to be a man (that was a poke just for fun lol so I take that remark back lolz) if she wants or in some cases has to

So my thinking is by no means binary

[Pattern-chaser]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

just because i am confident doesn't mean I don't leave room to be wrong it just means you don't like my opinion despite it being factual and grounded in observable reality

I respect your opinions as such. But I resent your assumption that my perspective is "man-hating". I have not said this, and the main reason I haven't said it is that I don't believe it to be an appropriate, helpful, or correct perspective.

To support the struggle of women against long-term inequality is not to hate men. That is binary thinking at its very worst: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

Your the one with the binary thinking and your the one making 2 teams out of this and I'm the one trying to tell you to stop looking at it as a history of inequality (2 teams) and start looking at it as just life

You recommend, then, that I should just accept what is, and what has been? In the case where it is something that I couldn't change, I would agree with you, wholeheartedly. But if it is something that could and should be changed, I would be remiss simply to accept it, wouldn't I? That would be apathy, cowardice, and probably quite a few other negative descriptions too.

Where some had it good and others had it bad and as technology progresses and jobs aren't so labor intensive and with the invention of birth control when woman is now able to go pretend to be a man (that was a poke just for fun lol so I take that remark back lolz) if she wants or in some cases has to

So my thinking is by no means binary

You accused me of "man-hating" because I did not post in direct and active support of my masculine brethren. I say again: That is binary thinking at its very worst: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

[LuckyR]

Few things in life are more certain than the whining from the historically privileged when the previously disadvantaged speak of or heaven forbid, acquire equity.

[Pattern-chaser]

Few things in life are more certain than the whining from the historically privileged when the previously disadvantaged speak of or heaven forbid, acquire equity.

Yes, nothing is more certain ... except taxes, of course!

[MAYA EL]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

just because i am confident doesn't mean I don't leave room to be wrong it just means you don't like my opinion despite it being factual and grounded in observable reality

I respect your opinions as such. But I resent your assumption that my perspective is "man-hating". I have not said this, and the main reason I haven't said it is that I don't believe it to be an appropriate, helpful, or correct perspective.

To support the struggle of women against long-term inequality is not to hate men. That is binary thinking at its very worst: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

Your the one with the binary thinking and your the one making 2 teams out of this and I'm the one trying to tell you to stop looking at it as a history of inequality (2 teams) and start looking at it as just life

You recommend, then, that I should just accept what is, and what has been? In the case where it is something that I couldn't change, I would agree with you, wholeheartedly. But if it is something that could and should be changed, I would be remiss simply to accept it, wouldn't I? That would be apathy, cowardice, and probably quite a few other negative descriptions too.

You keep blindly assuming that the narrative that you were fed by the woke is true in its entirety and don't question it yet you will then say a philosopher needs to always keep an open mind

Like I said you were fed a stupid perspective that is overlaid on top of parts of reality that do infact exist it's just that the information you were indoctrinated with was distorted in just the right way to make it appear to be true if a person doesn't have the wisdom to see it for what it really is

Their is no inequality there is gender differences
Do to practicality and logical business management decision making and lack of technology ( IE birth control)
And the family being looked at as 1 unit (as in that's the Jones family which =1 and not "hey look it's Mr Richard and his 4th wife dian)
So woman didn't need to vote because the family unit voted IE the dad voted
Likewise why would the woman buy the land when the husband is the only one bringing in any $$ and being 1 unit IE the Joneses it didn't make any sense for the wife to buy the land because she still owns if so long as her husband buys it (1 unit) and she didn't have a job because 1 she has kids and 2 their weren't any jobs available that were safe for a woman to do (early years of an industrial society low technology brutal grunt jobs that are very difficult)

So this woke cult that's been barfing distorted perspectives of reality did exactly that took reality and changed the perspective ever so slightly to where instead of seeing reality where men and women are different and they're naturally things are easier for women to do than men and vice versa people now see it as inequality.

And even if it were true which it's not but if it were there is no way what so ever to "even the playing field" without making it extremely oppressive and unfair for men not to mention that it would be almost impossible to determine exactly when enough is enough so that you don't tip the scale and qualify as tyrannical by your own standards and then there's the possibility that the second you stop it would just go back to the way it was making it completely pointless to have even tried in the first place that is if somehow it doesn't turn into a Hitler and Stalin type of global conundrum which it would very quickly.

Where some had it good and others had it bad and as technology progresses and jobs aren't so labor intensive and with the invention of birth control when woman is now able to go pretend to be a man (that was a poke just for fun lol so I take that remark back lolz) if she wants or in some cases has to

So my thinking is by no means binary

You accused me of "man-hating" because I did not post in direct and active support of my masculine brethren. I say again: That is binary thinking at its very worst: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

See this is the annoying thing about having conversations with people discussing the main site guys of society because the social psychosis has no limit to the level of irrational thinking processes to where a person caught up in social psychosis would deny that there's a son if you stood him outside on the equator at lunch time with their face tilted straight up

Likewise I'm trying to tell you there is no inequality there's this biological differences and you're the one trying to say this is good team A, and that is bad team B, and that bad team B needs to be suppressed so good team A can win

I mean you are literally displaying textbook binary thinking

I'm trying to explain to you how there's no teams it's one team the family unit and you can't see that because of your social psychosis

[Mounce574]

Women and Men are biologically different. That is it. Both have the same human rights. I know some men who are stay at home dads while their wife works. I also know families where both parents work. We are equalin every manner except for physical attributes.

[Pattern-chaser]

...you're the one trying to say this is good team A, and that is bad team B, and that bad team B needs to be suppressed so good team A can win

No! I am saying that team A and team B should be allowed and enabled to compete on equal terms, where no team has an advantage due to historical discrimination (or for any other reason).

[MAYA EL]

...you're the one trying to say this is good team A, and that is bad team B, and that bad team B needs to be suppressed so good team A can win

No! I am saying that team A and team B should be allowed and enabled to compete on equal terms, where no team has an advantage due to historical discrimination (or for any other reason).

That is binary thinking! Because the reality is there is no team a or team b that's just part of the woke perspective that's been shoved down everyone's throat and besides that

men and woman are allowed and enabled to compete on equal terms, where no team has an advantage due to historical discrimination (or for any other reason that is the way it is right now!

[Fried Egg]

This is a real advert for a job vacancy in Canada:



This is overt discrimination against those who "self identify" as men. It is a direct affront to those that adhere to the ideals of equality.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is overt discrimination against those who "self identify" as men. It is a direct affront to those that adhere to the ideals of equality.

No, it's an attempt to even up things that have been out of balance for centuries. Those who "self identify" as men need to grow up and look around. The hierarchy of our society is constructed to favour men. As this is (very) gradually dismantled, women continue to suffer from the disadvantage of living in a world built by men, to favour men. Women need and deserve a 'kick-start' to help them catch up, and to help them overcome the obstacles that a male-dominated society still places in their way. It is the only practical way in which "equality" can be approached. This is obvious, and shouldn't need saying.

[Fried Egg]

This is overt discrimination against those who "self identify" as men. It is a direct affront to those that adhere to the ideals of equality.

No, it's an attempt to even up things that have been out of balance for centuries. Those who "self identify" as men need to grow up and look around. The hierarchy of our society is constructed to favour men. As this is (very) gradually dismantled, women continue to suffer from the disadvantage of living in a world built by men, to favour men. Women need and deserve a 'kick-start' to help them catch up, and to help them overcome the obstacles that a male-dominated society still places in their way.

If that was even true you might at least have a point but it's not. Quoting the article that I took that image from:

For decades now, there have been more women than men enrolled in Canadian postsecondary institutions. But that isn’t enough: Many Canadian academic administrators are demanding that every program be at least 50 percent female—including engineering, despite abundant evidence that men and women tend to exhibit, on average, different academic preferences. Meanwhile, no one seems to worry about the disappearance of young men from postsecondary education, despite the fact that women now outnumber men in Canadian post-secondary institutions by a ratio approaching 60-40.

And, as I stated earlier in this thread, these measure are never temporary:

These preferential-hiring policies were originally justified as stopgaps that would supposedly be phased out over the years, as disadvantaged groups caught up. Yet they’ve become part of Canada’s permanent policy landscape, with the federal government already having set expanded equity targets for 2029.

There is nothing obvious about this being the only practical way in which "equality" can be approached. No more obvious than the idea that you can fight fire with fire, or end violence with violence.

It looks to me that many institutions in Canada (and elsewhere) are swept up in an ideology that has little to do with equality. If it isn't stopped, it will only get worse, more discriminatory. Moreover it is self defeating:

Well, one academic who isn’t for it is Mark Mercer, a philosophy professor at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, one of the few Canadian scholars who’s candidly pointed out that academic values and EDI are often at odds with one another. Or, as he bluntly puts it, “a university that engages in preferential hiring is signalling to the world that it can’t be serious about its academic mission.” He notes that, as with some of the examples cited above, EDI programs tend to come with ideological agendas that undermine the whole idea of merit, which is dismissed as a white, male, Eurocentric value that stands in the way of social justice. And while universities are supposed to foster dispassionate inquiry, EDI doctrine tends to smother such inquiry under the rhetoric of oppression.

Even scholars who may object to all of this are pressured to play along. All applicants for CRC positions, for instance, are now required to state whether or not they’re members of “equity-seeking” race or gender demographics. Choices currently on offer include trans, gender-fluid, non-binary, two-spirit, asexual, bisexual, and pansexual, with no doubt more to come. (Applicants may decline to self-identify if they wish, though one presumes that would serve to admit one’s lack of intersectional status.)

[Mounce574]

To be honest, what Tom MacDonald says in his song Straight White Male seems completely accurate with all of the facts Fried Egg has shared. All of the gender terms that have been created seem to be more descriptive of sexual acts than of biological factors. I follow traditionalist values though.

[Astro Cat]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

Tossing in my two cents as a woman that I agree with LuckyR here.

I think the best thing that we can do to help women is to fight implicit biases that still exist.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

Tossing in my two cents as a woman that I agree with LuckyR here.

I think the best thing that we can do to help women is to fight implicit biases that still exist.

A non controversial proposal (I hope). I would guess that black women would report that they consider that they are held back more by racism than sexism, though I would defer to their expertise in this area.

[Astro Cat]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris






Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

Tossing in my two cents as a woman that I agree with LuckyR here.

I think the best thing that we can do to help women is to fight implicit biases that still exist.

A non controversial proposal (I hope). I would guess that black women would report that they consider that they are held back more by racism than sexism, though I would defer to their expertise in this area.

In conversations about pay gap I know Black women fall at the lower ends of the spectrum (so, the worst gap). I know that studies on name biases with things like résumés shows the same (e.g., "ethnic" sounding names and female names are perceived as less competent/desirable, so no surprise, the combination gets the worst of it)