We've All Got a List(ashedryden.com)
ashedryden.com
We've All Got a List
http://ashedryden.com/blog/weve-all-got-a-list
4 comments
The title is a bit unfortunate. It reminded me of this[1] more than anything else. I can't imagine it's a deliberate reference though.
(This must be the first thread where I've actually played a comedy British person.)
[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mikado/Act_I/Part_Va
(This must be the first thread where I've actually played a comedy British person.)
[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mikado/Act_I/Part_Va
Public Open Source Developer Blacklist, major version 4, minor version 2, revision 6:
Entry #846: Guy McGee. Offense: Rejecting a commit that consisted of nothing but changing two gendered pronouns. Notes: Vehement sexist, may be dangerous. Projects: Works on GenericWebStartup.
-----------------
Yeah, I can see how this could quickly devolve. Even if the initial intentions are benevolent, if someone truly committed something as serious as sexual assault, they would be assigned into an already existing sex offenders' registry. On the other hand, "dismissiveness towards someone in a marginalized group" is something very vague and can be abused easily by people harboring personal vendettas.
The end result? People self-censoring on an unprecedented level.
Entry #846: Guy McGee. Offense: Rejecting a commit that consisted of nothing but changing two gendered pronouns. Notes: Vehement sexist, may be dangerous. Projects: Works on GenericWebStartup.
-----------------
Yeah, I can see how this could quickly devolve. Even if the initial intentions are benevolent, if someone truly committed something as serious as sexual assault, they would be assigned into an already existing sex offenders' registry. On the other hand, "dismissiveness towards someone in a marginalized group" is something very vague and can be abused easily by people harboring personal vendettas.
The end result? People self-censoring on an unprecedented level.
In other words, never talk with people who self identify as ideologue extremists.
It's all just about wanting power. Such a list would be a nifty device.
Edit (there was one upvote before I wrote this): Another issue: could such a list enable people to sue for getting a job, on the grounds that they had been discriminated against for being on the list?
Actually one reason I am opposed to feminism is that they seem to reject the notion that I should be able to decide who I like or not by myself (and it's not that I dislike people because of their gender or race - it's just a basic principle that I want to be in power of my own mind, thank you very much). Now they turn that on it's head - of course, not liking people is OK, if it's the feminists who do the not liking.
Edit 2: another thing, she should read some books by Dan Ariely. Turns out the "rational theory of crime" (claiming people commit crimes because they are unlikely to be caught or punished) does not explain things very well. Iirc people commit crimes because they can rationalize that they are still good people if they do so, for example they might feel they somehow deserve it, they see others doing it so they feel entitled to it, too, stuff like that.
Edit (there was one upvote before I wrote this): Another issue: could such a list enable people to sue for getting a job, on the grounds that they had been discriminated against for being on the list?
Actually one reason I am opposed to feminism is that they seem to reject the notion that I should be able to decide who I like or not by myself (and it's not that I dislike people because of their gender or race - it's just a basic principle that I want to be in power of my own mind, thank you very much). Now they turn that on it's head - of course, not liking people is OK, if it's the feminists who do the not liking.
Edit 2: another thing, she should read some books by Dan Ariely. Turns out the "rational theory of crime" (claiming people commit crimes because they are unlikely to be caught or punished) does not explain things very well. Iirc people commit crimes because they can rationalize that they are still good people if they do so, for example they might feel they somehow deserve it, they see others doing it so they feel entitled to it, too, stuff like that.
Um, what? I think your definition of "feminism" is a bit flawed. Could you explain which part of feminism rejects the notion that you decide who you like?
In a way that is the essence of political correctness, it tries to establish a general law for your preferences. The article here is a case in point - it's not enough that everybody has their own list, now there has to be a public list, under control of the feminists.
Of course feminism has more aspects than that, I don't define feminism in that way.
Of course feminism has more aspects than that, I don't define feminism in that way.
Feminism is about how people are treated, not about who you like. No one cares who you like.
By the way, what is with this "the feminists" bullshit? It's not a society. People of all walks of life, who believe that women deserve the same respect and rights men do, call themselves feminists. It is a sure sign of a small mind to go around blaming shit on supposedly homogeneous and insidious groups like "the feminists," "the communists," or "the homosexuals."
By the way, what is with this "the feminists" bullshit? It's not a society. People of all walks of life, who believe that women deserve the same respect and rights men do, call themselves feminists. It is a sure sign of a small mind to go around blaming shit on supposedly homogeneous and insidious groups like "the feminists," "the communists," or "the homosexuals."
It seems that if you want to say something good about feminism, it is a perfectly well defined concept. But the moment a person says something critical about feminism, suddenly there is no such thing as feminism to be criticized.
They want to determine who I hire, or who I am attracted to (the subgroup of feminists who campaign against certain beauty ideals).
As for "the feminists", it's true that some people who haven't really given it much thought call themselves feminists (they think they fight for equality). I don't really blame them.
But I have followed feminism for a while now and I think there is a group you can call "the feminists". For starters, even the people you mention ("women deserve the same respect") tend work on the basic assumption that women get less respect and generally receive the shorter end of the stick in society (or in other, more common words, women are victims).
Never mind that "they" tend to generalize about men and "masculinity" in much the same way as you claim nobody should about feminists.
And why would anybody have to call themselves a feminist if they were merely for equality? It seems fair that if you call yourself a feminist, certain prejudice is applied to you.
As for "the feminists", it's true that some people who haven't really given it much thought call themselves feminists (they think they fight for equality). I don't really blame them.
But I have followed feminism for a while now and I think there is a group you can call "the feminists". For starters, even the people you mention ("women deserve the same respect") tend work on the basic assumption that women get less respect and generally receive the shorter end of the stick in society (or in other, more common words, women are victims).
Never mind that "they" tend to generalize about men and "masculinity" in much the same way as you claim nobody should about feminists.
And why would anybody have to call themselves a feminist if they were merely for equality? It seems fair that if you call yourself a feminist, certain prejudice is applied to you.
> the basic assumption that women get less respect and generally receive the shorter end of the stick in society
That's not really an assumption, that's just a cold, hard, documented fact. And, for most women, first-hand experience. Just one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in...
That's not really an assumption, that's just a cold, hard, documented fact. And, for most women, first-hand experience. Just one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in...
I've read lots of papers explaining the wage gap. The wikipedia article is too long for me to read right now, but thanks for pointing it out. I may update it if applicable.
Also what you don't take into account is that "wage gap" is not an arbitrary measurement. It is picked specifically to make women look like victims. You could also measure "time spent with friends and family instead of working" or "life expectancy" or "probability to die on the job" instead and men would look like the victims.
Another thing I wonder is how many of the wage gap studies take into account that typically income in a marriage is split equally. So a woman's wage in a job might be less than her husbands, but her effective income is the same.
Furthermore, might it be a privilege that women don't need to worry about money as much as men.
Just a few things to think about. Actually I think statistics like the wage gap are interesting. Something is going on, but it is probably not what feminists think. It's worthy of study, but feminism is not open to study or science - the only allowed result is "women are the victims". Typically the wage gap papers stop when they have identified the wage gap. Then they blurt out "see, it's discrimination" and no further investigation is attempted.
Also what you don't take into account is that "wage gap" is not an arbitrary measurement. It is picked specifically to make women look like victims. You could also measure "time spent with friends and family instead of working" or "life expectancy" or "probability to die on the job" instead and men would look like the victims.
Another thing I wonder is how many of the wage gap studies take into account that typically income in a marriage is split equally. So a woman's wage in a job might be less than her husbands, but her effective income is the same.
Furthermore, might it be a privilege that women don't need to worry about money as much as men.
Just a few things to think about. Actually I think statistics like the wage gap are interesting. Something is going on, but it is probably not what feminists think. It's worthy of study, but feminism is not open to study or science - the only allowed result is "women are the victims". Typically the wage gap papers stop when they have identified the wage gap. Then they blurt out "see, it's discrimination" and no further investigation is attempted.
This sort of thing always turns out well.