"check your privilege"

[Poiuytrewq]

I'm partially in AMFV's side here.

To dismiss people's ideas outright is kind of a horrible thing, but it's a thing that happens nonetheless.

We don't need to hear the average Joe's opinion on quantum physics, sure maybe one day an average Joe may bring a huge break thought but that's rare enough for us to dismiss it most of the time and leave quantum physics to the specialists.

But we never know, MC Echer make great math discoveries and he was "just" an artist.

Still despite the fact that there exceptions most of the time we can just ignore certain opinions after we found out they are worthless, but for that we have to hear them first! And I think that’s where the confusion is happening.

I don’t think anyone is saying that certain people can’t express their ideas, maybe they have great insights, it’s just that since they are not the “Specialists” they don’t get as much credit.

So when a guy starts talking about women’s right he’s the average Joe and women are the specialists, a backlash is natural. Just as when women start talking about video games a thing that is most predominately male, guys hate that they act like they don’t know what they are talking even if they do because that’s how things are.

There are exceptions of course, some women’s rights activists were male and there is the case of transsexuals but most of the time guys should not be talking about women’s rights because that’s not where we belong, unless you have a major insight and even then you need to be humble enough to wait for your turn and know that your views will be taken with a greater grain of salt.

[WarKitty]

How about instead of separating people divisively with racial/gender/etc lines, and then appropriating people in such a group to "talking less" or "talking more" the researchers instead just put the people who talk more into the "talk more" group, people who talk less in the "talk less" group, and then proceed to target the people in the "talk less" group to talk more? Sure, naming each individual in a research study takes more work than grouping them by physical features, but it'd give more accurate results.

Even then, it could still be silencing because well after "equality" is reached, then whoever is pushing the "talk less" group might not stop trying to encourage them, thus causing a flipped imbalance. There is no legal definition of what "equality" is exactly, and when it has reached or not.

Because it's not always that simple.

For one issue - sometimes part of the problem is that one group has less numbers than another. So that comes up with LGBT+ issues a lot. If you're trying to address those issues specifically, you can't just encourage everyone to talk evenly because LGBT+ folk are a minority of the population. If you try to focus on every person's opinion individually, you'll be spending most of your time on how cis/het folk feel about LGBT+ issues and not a lot on how LGBT+ people are managing.

Two, sometimes there are traits that have significant correlations with gender/race/etc., and you can't address the issue without addressing that. For example, one problem that's been cited is that women are more likely to be negatively stereotyped for putting themselves out there. This comes up a lot with workplace salary issues. More men negotiate for salary than women, and people who negotiate are more likely to get more money for the job. But women specifically who negotiate are more likely to be viewed negatively in ways that are detrimental to them getting future advantages compared to men, even in studies where the men and women used the exact same script. So you can't just encourage those who are quiet to speak up more - you also have to address the perception that when they speak up more they're out of line.

Well then you have to steer the conversation back to where it was. Knowing how to do that is an important part of discourse, and if Bob is as ridiculous as you describe eventually the other people involved will pull the conversation back to the point where it was.

Part of the problem we're saying is, when privilege is involved, that doesn't happen. Because there might be a half-dozen Bobs around who ALL want the discussion to be about what they want instead.

Still despite the fact that there exceptions most of the time we can just ignore certain opinions after we found out they are worthless, but for that we have to hear them first! And I think that’s where the confusion is happening.

I don’t think anyone is saying that certain people can’t express their ideas, maybe they have great insights, it’s just that since they are not the “Specialists” they don’t get as much credit.

So when a guy starts talking about women’s right he’s the average Joe and women are the specialists, a backlash is natural. Just as when women start talking about video games a thing that is most predominately male, guys hate that they act like they don’t know what they are talking even if they do because that’s how things are.

The other thing is that even if an idea is new for you, it might not be new to the discussion.

That's part of why I mentioned the "but what about men getting dates" in the example of sexual harassment. Because it might be a new idea to the guy saying it. But there's always a couple of guys with that new-to-them idea every time the subject comes up. And you end up not getting much done unless at some point you say, no, we're not talking about this because this, right now, is not about you.

[Florian]

@WarKitty:

It´s never simple. The wants and needs of a person, living in a complex system, mostly will never match up with the wants and needs of a tribe/society and is something you can never truly solve.

[WarKitty]

@WarKitty:

It´s never simple. The wants and needs of a person, living in a complex system, mostly will never match up with the wants and needs of a tribe/society and is something you can never truly solve.

No, it's not. We're never going to get perfect fairness. But sometimes the best way to get closer is to focus on one group to try to bring them up, even if it's not addressing everyone individually in a perfect way. Because we don't live in a society where people are regarded as just themselves regardless of their race, sex, gender identity, orientation, economic status, and so forth.

If we could completely live in a society where everyone was regarded solely as an individual on their own merits, then we wouldn't need to be talking about privilege at all.

[AMFV]

So when a guy starts talking about women’s right he’s the average Joe and women are the specialists, a backlash is natural. Just as when women start talking about video games a thing that is most predominately male, guys hate that they act like they don’t know what they are talking even if they do because that’s how things are.

The thing is that to use the bridge analogy a woman who has been harassed is not an expert on how harassment works, she's like somebody who has driven over a bridge. Which might give her a better perspective than somebody who has never seen a bridge. But she isn't a bridge engineer. Or the equivalent. She doesn't have better understanding of the workings of it, necessarily, barring some additional study.

I mean I lived in extreme poverty, I don't know how to fix poverty, except for what's worked for me. I've been to war but that doesn't give me any specific insights in how to to fix the issues of war. It's the same sort of thing.

Part of the problem we're saying is, when privilege is involved, that doesn't happen. Because there might be a half-dozen Bobs around who ALL want the discussion to be about what they want instead.

Again, if you are in a place where a shouting match can happen you aren't going to have any productive discussion if you are confrontational.

Also again, how is trying to shout down all the dudes going to help? You're not going to make them less likely to drown you out by doing that. The opposite in fact. So saying "check your privilege" is probably going to be not very effective.

Lastly, there is only ONE Bob, there can be other people of the same class or with similar viewpoints. But they all have different experiences and different perspectives. You're the one who is lumping them all together. That's the problem, that's the issue with "check your privilege" because you're putting them all into a box.

No, it's not. We're never going to get perfect fairness. But sometimes the best way to get closer is to focus on one group to try to bring them up, even if it's not addressing everyone individually in a perfect way. Because we don't live in a society where people are regarded as just themselves regardless of their race, sex, gender identity, orientation, economic status, and so forth.

If we could completely live in a society where everyone was regarded solely as an individual on their own merits, then we wouldn't need to be talking about privilege at all.

Again, telling somebody to "check their privilege" without intimately knowing them is making this worse. You're looking at people only by their race, or in the case of your discussion point, gender. Not their experiences, not the merit of their ideas. Nothing but their gender.

[WarKitty]

Any time there is a social interaction, there is a way to shout people down, even if you're being polite about it. The only possible way to prevent some people from being pushed aside is to tell others it's not their time to talk. It's just that most people don't notice if they or people like them are doing the talking.

The point with "bob" is, even if everyone is a unique individual with a unique viewpoint, they can and often are collectively making discussions about issues that effect them by demanding to be included. They are still creating a situation where the focus is on them and minority issues don't get addressed unless you tell them to stop talking.

[AMFV]

Any time there is a social interaction, there is a way to shout people down, even if you're being polite about it. The only possible way to prevent some people from being pushed aside is to tell others it's not their time to talk. It's just that most people don't notice if they or people like them are doing the talking.

If you're shouting people down, then you aren't going to be able to have a discussion that's productive. That's the long and short of it. And you aren't going to be able to out shout all those dudes, they're the majority. Again, you telling them to "Check Their Privilege" is not going to be effective if they already weren't politely taking turns in discussion. It's just going to make you look bad, because it's not a well-reasoned statement.

Normally in conversation people take turns talking if it's polite conversation. If that's the case you'll eventually get to state your piece. You might not get as much of a percentage of the conversation, but if what you say is compelling and well-reasoned, the conversation should shift around it. If people aren't using reasoning or concerned with what is compelling then you aren't going to convince anybody of anything, and it's just social chatting, not discourse.

And again, I know I'm repeating myself but you haven't addressed this, telling people to be quiet does not quiet them down, almost ever. Unless you're in a situation where you have some kind of authority or power over them. In my case it gets me angry, and that's hardly an atypical reaction.

The point with "bob" is, even if everyone is a unique individual with a unique viewpoint, they can and often are collectively making discussions about issues that effect them by demanding to be included. They are still creating a situation where the focus is on them and minority issues don't get addressed unless you tell them to stop talking.

They aren't "collectively making decisions" they aren't the Borg. They aren't a bunch of networked machines or clones. They're individual people. I mean you can tell them to stop talking, but that doesn't work. I mean look at this thread. I've made dozens of responses, even when by your metric I should fall silent. And I'm not doing that. So what do you do when the person you think is privileged won't shut up? I mean that's a much more likely answer when you tell somebody they're privileged. In fact the common response is "No I'm not, I'm not privileged" and then you're even further away from what you wanted to discuss.

Also sexual harassment is not exclusively a women's issue. Again, women are not de facto experts on it. In your case you might have more significant experience with it. But experiencing something does not necessarily give you additional insight into how to solve it. Period. And again, the men are peers with the people who are doing it. Maybe some of them have done that in the past, before they realized the error of their ways, maybe they're currently doing it. Don't you think listening to their insight would be pretty useful in figuring out how to solve those kind of problems?

[WarKitty]

If you're shouting people down, then you aren't going to be able to have a discussion that's productive. That's the long and short of it. And you aren't going to be able to out shout all those dudes, they're the majority. Again, you telling them to "Check Their Privilege" is not going to be effective if they already weren't politely taking turns in discussion. It's just going to make you look bad, because it's not a well-reasoned statement.

Normally in conversation people take turns talking if it's polite conversation. If that's the case you'll eventually get to state your piece. You might not get as much of a percentage of the conversation, but if what you say is compelling and well-reasoned, the conversation should shift around it. If people aren't using reasoning or concerned with what is compelling then you aren't going to convince anybody of anything, and it's just social chatting, not discourse.

Yeah, no. Just, no. That's what I'm saying - that is usually not what happens. What most people listen to is not based on what's well-reasoned or whatever, but on what meets their personal needs the most and resonates with their own experiences the most. And what counts as "well-reasoned" already has so much privilege woven through it, so that a person without privilege saying something is already treated as less reasonable and less compelling because of who they are.

So the vast majority of the time, unless someone is already convinced of what is being said, the conversation drifts right back away from what the minority is saying, no matter what, because to the majority it doesn't fit with how they see the world and what's important to them. You have to appeal to people's emotions, to get in where they can't push you aside because it's not interesting to them, because those pure reason conversations eliminate 95% of the actual discussion that have any potential to get through to anyone.

And again, I know I'm repeating myself but you haven't addressed this, telling people to be quiet does not quiet them down, almost ever. Unless you're in a situation where you have some kind of authority or power over them. In my case it gets me angry, and that's hardly an atypical reaction.

Neither does letting them blather on because they think shutting you up, as usual, is completely fair and you've totally gotten to speak your piece when they've talked over and ignored you. Because the whole point of privilege is that it makes it so people aren't looking at things fairly and rationally, and you can't just reason through that without first finding a way to make them stop talking enough to listen to you.

Because it's simply not possible to challenge the status quo and not make people angry. It's not possible to go and say, hey, this isn't fair to me, and have a calm rational discussion with no one getting upset or angry in any sort of widespread way that has any hope of making social change.

I don't believe intimate, individual discussions spark social change - someone has to get out there and make a fuss and make it so they can't be ignored. That's how they have in fact occurred in history, with speeches and protests and shouting and a collective refusal to be ignored by people who would rather ignore them because it's comfortable.

They aren't "collectively making decisions" they aren't the Borg. They aren't a bunch of networked machines or clones. They're individual people. I mean you can tell them to stop talking, but that doesn't work. I mean look at this thread. I've made dozens of responses, even when by your metric I should fall silent. And I'm not doing that. So what do you do when the person you think is privileged won't shut up? I mean that's a much more likely answer when you tell somebody they're privileged. In fact the common response is "No I'm not, I'm not privileged" and then you're even further away from what you wanted to discuss.

That's the very definition of privilege. That a bunch of people are making their own individual decisions and all of them making their own individual decisions means other people get silenced and get treated badly and the people with privilege DON'T SEE IT because they're only dealing with them and themselves whereas the people without it have to deal with it from a ton of different people every day and can't walk away from it. Because privilege is being able to treat your actions as reflecting on you and you alone.

That's the basic concept. That each of us makes our decisions in a social framework, and affects that framework. And hundreds of people making individual decisions is what shapes society. "Sexual harassment" isn't an issue because there's some borg that decided to harass women, but because of this man and that man and that man each making the choice to do so, and this other man making the choice that it's not that big a deal and he'll laugh at his buddy, and another saying you shouldn't listen because it's not a big deal...and it all works out that all those men make it so many women don't want to go out and deal with them and don't get that choice.

[AMFV]

Yeah, no. Just, no. That's what I'm saying - that is usually not what happens. What most people listen to is not based on what's well-reasoned or whatever, but on what meets their personal needs the most and resonates with their own experiences the most. And what counts as "well-reasoned" already has so much privilege woven through it, so that a person without privilege saying something is already treated as less reasonable and less compelling because of who they are.

I can tell you that when I am having a discussion I do not consider a person's race, sex, or gender to be something that would add any value to their sentiments. That's true in either direction. And of course people are going to act out in ways that suit their self-interest. To expect other than that is absurd in the extreme. Of course people are going to judge things by their own experiences, it would impossible not to.

But that doesn't mean that reasoning is a bad thing, or somehow prejudiced. That's absurd. Reasoning is the best system we have to come to the truth of something and that's what's important in figuring the best solution to anything. Now some people might not be as good at it, but that doesn't mean anything here, because there is no better system. Certainly not using bigotry to shut out people based on their race or larger category.

So the vast majority of the time, unless someone is already convinced of what is being said, the conversation drifts right back away from what the minority is saying, no matter what, because to the majority it doesn't fit with how they see the world and what's important to them. You have to appeal to people's emotions, to get in where they can't push you aside because it's not interesting to them, because those pure reason conversations eliminate 95% of the actual discussion that have any potential to get through to anyone.

And that's how you get awful, terrible things. That's how lynch mobs start. That's how people get so terrified that they become a violent mob and push people out of a city because of their race. Emotional appeals are extremely dangerous. Particularly when they are being made by people who only understand one part of the problem. If you are unwilling to listen to the side of the men involved in this conversation, then you are making it so that you can't hear the whole of the problem.

So you are attempting to rile up an emotional mob on a problem that you are unwilling to have a rational discussion on, unwilling to learn everything you can about first. That's not going to solve anything, and the negative effects of that sort of things are a serious problem. That's a big issue.

Neither does letting them blather on because they think shutting you up, as usual, is completely fair and you've totally gotten to speak your piece when they've talked over and ignored you. Because the whole point of privilege is that it makes it so people aren't looking at things fairly and rationally, and you can't just reason through that without first finding a way to make them stop talking enough to listen to you.

Well normally if you're having a discussion everybody should be taking turns, if you're not doing that, you aren't having a formal discussion and you aren't going to accomplish anything. Shouting will make people angry and likely make you look poorly. And worse it'll make them less likely to take whatever you say positively even if it's later said by other people.

If people are talking over you, then you aren't having a proper discussion, and what you're talking about is social bull****. Which is fine, but it's not the sort of thing that's going to change anything and getting angry there is a serious danger to your cause.

Because it's simply not possible to challenge the status quo and not make people angry. It's not possible to go and say, hey, this isn't fair to me, and have a calm rational discussion with no one getting upset or angry in any sort of widespread way that has any hope of making social change.

That's true. But what you're doing is trying to make changes without knowing all of the facts. What's worse you're trying to force a solution on people when you are deliberately ignoring large sections of the population for reasons that amount entirely to bigotry. I'm sorry but that is what you're doing. You aren't looking at "Men that haven't been harassed" You're saying "No man could have EVER been harassed as badly as I have." Which is BS, there have been men who have been raped, who have been molested. That seems pretty bad.

Also, it's not super productive to say "well you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs so the men being angry is cool". Because lots of people being angry is also a sign that what you are doing might be not a positive thing. And since males aren't the Borg, they aren't all part of the problem in that way, they aren't all rapists. If you are making men angry who are not harassing women, who are not part of the problem... Then maybe you should evaluate if what you're doing is actually going to be good in the end. Because you've silenced men who might have objections. And they might have valid objections to your particular brand of solutions.

I don't believe intimate, individual discussions spark social change - someone has to get out there and make a fuss and make it so they can't be ignored. That's how they have in fact occurred in history, with speeches and protests and shouting and a collective refusal to be ignored by people who would rather ignore them because it's comfortable.

You mean like committee meetings that then decide what might eventually become law? That's how we do things. Lobbyists have their courses set by meetings of small numbers of individuals. And that's what decides things. Yes, speeches can get things started, but typically congressional committees are made up of 20-40 people, the Supreme Court is made up of 9, political action group committees are probably 6-12. So it's in small groups that things are decided, not large mobs. And that's by design, because mobs are dangerous.

That's the very definition of privilege. That a bunch of people are making their own individual decisions and all of them making their own individual decisions means other people get silenced and get treated badly and the people with privilege DON'T SEE IT because they're only dealing with them and themselves whereas the people without it have to deal with it from a ton of different people every day and can't walk away from it. Because privilege is being able to treat your actions as reflecting on you and you alone.

Are you arguing that in the context of your discussion that the men in your discussion NEVER hear what women say at all? Like there are more women than men, and I'm sure that they have to interact with them in some way. And yes, your actions only reflect on you. If I harass a woman, that's on me, if I tolerate somebody harassing a woman, that's on me. Period.

That's the basic concept. That each of us makes our decisions in a social framework, and affects that framework. And hundreds of people making individual decisions is what shapes society. "Sexual harassment" isn't an issue because there's some borg that decided to harass women, but because of this man and that man and that man each making the choice to do so, and this other man making the choice that it's not that big a deal and he'll laugh at his buddy, and another saying you shouldn't listen because it's not a big deal...and it all works out that all those men make it so many women don't want to go out and deal with them and don't get that choice.

But that still doesn't explain why you'd exclude men from any discussion of solving that problem. Especially since as I pointed out, being harassed does not make you an expert on harassment solutions.

[WarKitty]

That's true. But what you're doing is trying to make changes without knowing all of the facts. What's worse you're trying to force a solution on people when you are deliberately ignoring large sections of the population for reasons that amount entirely to bigotry. I'm sorry but that is what you're doing. You aren't looking at "Men that haven't been harassed" You're saying "No man could have EVER been harassed as badly as I have." Which is BS, there have been men who have been raped, who have been molested. That seems pretty bad.

And this is what I'm saying. No one in this thread has said anything CLOSE to that. But you're hearing it anyway. You're talking about logical, rational discussion, but you're also answering back against an exaggerated form, even when I've repeatedly said that's not what I'm saying.

That's the problem with the "rational discussion" idea. It doesn't matter how logical what you're saying is unless someone else is hearing and responding to what you're saying.

[AMFV]

And this is what I'm saying. No one in this thread has said anything CLOSE to that. But you're hearing it anyway. You're talking about logical, rational discussion, but you're also answering back against an exaggerated form, even when I've repeatedly said that's not what I'm saying.

That's the problem with the "rational discussion" idea. It doesn't matter how logical what you're saying is unless someone else is hearing and responding to what you're saying.

I am saying, even if you've been harassed at some point, that's not necessarily a comparable experience for various reasons.

Here in that post you explicitly said that a man being harassed was not comparable to a woman being harassed. That seems pretty close to what I said, although I did exaggerate slightly for effect, I admit. Mostly because I had repeated that objection about six or seven times and had it glossed over.

So either a man can be subjected to all the same kinds of harassment that a woman can, up to even being raped. Or he can't. I would argue that it is entirely possible a man could suffer harassment that is worse than what you've suffered. Although I don't think it's likely that I have in that case.

[kitanas]

@amfv: I would argue that "incomparable" is closer to different than worse. And, as a guy, I agree with warkitty that society treats sexual harassment of men and of women differently. I also want to point out that you are interpret incomparable as worse because of the gender of the speaker, something you explicitly said you do not do.

[AMFV]

@amfv: I would argue that "incomparable" is closer to different than worse. And, as a guy, I agree with warkitty that society treats sexual harassment of men and of women differently.

The thing is that they aren't necessarily incomparable. The only way that Warkitty could know that they are is if she had experienced harassment both as a woman and as a man. Since that is impossible, she cannot categorically say that is true. She can't know. Which was pretty much the whole of my point here, that she has no idea what the experiences of men are vs. her own, because she only has access to one of the variables. That was pretty much my point, the only person whose privilege you can know with any surety is your own.

Also how society treats the harassment after the fact isn't the most relevant thing in a discussion about that harassment and how to correct it. Also society treats men who have been harassed MUCH worse than women, this is pretty much generally accepted. At least you can find a lot of information that will show that. Which means that harassed men are a MORE marginalized group, not a less marginalized one.

I also want to point out that you are interpret incomparable as worse because of the gender of the speaker, something you explicitly said you do not do.

No, I did not. She is the one who implied that male harassment was lesser. Because she stated that even men who had been harassed should still have to "check their privilege" in discussions about harassment. Because it was not comparable you see. Which is only a logical statement if the woman's harassment is worse or completely different. We know that it is completely different, because we can draw clear comparison points. So therefore it is the fact that it is worse that is the implication here.

So again, I was only following her implicit and explicit statements. I don't think that harassment is worse or better because of the gender of the parties involved.

Edit: Also if you'll reread the entirety of the quoted post she lists several reasons why she believes it's worse for women, such as feeling physically threatened.

[WarKitty]

Here in that post you explicitly said that a man being harassed was not comparable to a woman being harassed. That seems pretty close to what I said, although I did exaggerate slightly for effect, I admit. Mostly because I had repeated that objection about six or seven times and had it glossed over.

So either a man can be subjected to all the same kinds of harassment that a woman can, up to even being raped. Or he can't. I would argue that it is entirely possible a man could suffer harassment that is worse than what you've suffered. Although I don't think it's likely that I have in that case.

No. That's not even remotely close at all to what that means.

It's saying there are different factors that make it a different experience, and that there are specific gendered factors that affect the issue. "Not comparable" doesn't mean better or worse, it means different.

The trouble is when you turn everything into a challenge of who, objectively, has it the worst, you can't get anything done. There are discussions about rape that involve both men and women. There are also important discussions that focus on women and how it's specifically a threat that affects women's behavior. There are also important discussions on male victims and how cultural ideas of masculinity specifically hurt male victims (and those discussions should prioritize the voices of male victims).

Edit: The trouble with rational discussion is there's no way to do it in part because people tend to read and respond to what they think the implications are, or how they think you should respond, or their stereotypes of you. And especially if you have multiple people repeating what they think you said (which is often biased), it can be almost impossible for what you actually said to be heard.

[AMFV]

No. That's not even remotely close at all to what that means.

But it was what you said. You listed factors that would make it worse for a woman, frequency and physical threat were two. I didn't quote the entirety because it was a long paragraph, would you like me to? I can bold the section where you mention why it would be worse for a woman. If you would like.

It's saying there are different factors that make it a different experience, and that there are specific gendered factors that affect the issue. "Not comparable" doesn't mean better or worse, it means different.

That would be true if not for the rest of the paragraph.

Privilege isn't assuming that the privileged person has led a life free of all problems - it's assuming that, by and large, people in a certain group don't have specific experiences. I have yet to meet a man in the western world who has, on the order of several times a week on average, been harassed and pestered by people who want to go out on a date with him and refuse to take no for an answer, especially not when they are almost all bigger and stronger than him and in a context where it's very frequent that third parties will assume he brought it on himself by being too sexy. Somehow that's getting twisted into "I'm assuming no man I'm talking to has been harassed by anyone ever," which frankly I've never said. I am saying, even if you've been harassed at some point, that's not necessarily a comparable experience for various reasons.

Emphasis mine, you can see how you are clearly framing the harassment that women have experienced as being categorically worse for three reasons in this case. And you may not know that a man has experienced that level of harassment, because men generally are discouraged from discussing harassment, and you are discussing further ways to exclude men (including those who have been harassed) from that discussion.

The trouble is when you turn everything into a challenge of who, objectively, has it the worst, you can't get anything done. There are discussions about rape that involve both men and women. There are also important discussions that focus on women and how it's specifically a threat that affects women's behavior. There are also important discussions on male victims and how cultural ideas of masculinity specifically hurt male victims (and those discussions should prioritize the voices of male victims).

The discussions should not prioritize any voices because of your first section here. There is no way to figure out who has it worse. Due to the subjectivity of experience, there really is no way to know that even people with nearly identical experiences won't necessarily experience one thing more poorly.

And just because there's a discussion focusing on women, doesn't mean that you should only have female voices. Again you should hear all of the voices involved in the discussion because there are insights that you cannot have if you are a woman, who has never considered harassing another woman, or who has never intimately known somebody who has harassed somebody. That's why you want to have men there, so that you can hear all the aspects of everything.

Edit: The trouble with rational discussion is there's no way to do it in part because people tend to read and respond to what they think the implications are, or how they think you should respond, or their stereotypes of you. And especially if you have multiple people repeating what they think you said (which is often biased), it can be almost impossible for what you actually said to be heard.

No, I responded to your actual words, you can see in bolded quote were I quote the entirety of what you said. Which is pretty clear. The point being that when you do misread something, like if that wasn't your intent to say, then I accept your clarification and would state that men should be able to participate in those discussions.

[WarKitty]

AMFV, I honestly have no clue how you're getting what you're claiming is obviously what I'm saying from what I'm saying.

[AMFV]

AMFV, I honestly have no clue how you're getting what you're claiming is obviously what I'm saying from what I'm saying.

You described harassment that happens to men and that happens to women as being not comparable. This was in the same paragraph as you had just listed a series of reasons why, at least to my reading, you described harassment that was happening to women as being in your own experience much worse. I mean you can surely see how that could be read as you describing how harassment occurring to women is worse.

And to boot, you can't really they're incomparable because you haven't experienced one of them. Only the harassment that's been aimed at you. Which makes the whole thing a kind of moot point. Also in a conversation about harassment it would be useful to have both perspectives. Particularly if they are dissimilar.

[georgie_leech]

Uh, things can be dissimilar enough to not be comparable but still be valuable in their own right. For instance, the lack of support structures in place for males suffering harassment or abuse, due to masculine ideals implying they shouldn't be needed, is a real problem, but not wholly relevant to a discussion on, say, women being excluded from the workplace.

And not every discussion needs to be all encompassing. On the scientific side, how stars form and the orbits of particular planets are both governed by Relativity, but that doesn't mean that attempting to predict the orbit of Mercury means we need to consider how old the sun is.

[AMFV]

Uh, things can be dissimilar enough to not be comparable but still be valuable in their own right. For instance, the lack of support structures in place for males suffering harassment or abuse, due to masculine ideals implying they shouldn't be needed, is a real problem, but not wholly relevant to a discussion on, say, women being excluded from the workplace.

Again, in the same paragraph she described how men had it easier. While now I'm not sure that was her intention, but that is definitely how it reads if you say, "Here are three reasons men have it easier when it comes to harassment in my experience. It's definitely comparable" Which is a pretty close paraphrase to what she said. That was where that came from.

But men are important to include in a discussion on women being excluded from the workplace. First, because they are the ones being accused of exclusion, so they should be able to appropriately explain their behavior and learn how to rectify their behavior if necessary. Second, because women are not given any special insight into the workplace, so they don't qualify as experts over those men in that discussion. Third, because men might have some ideas that could be amazingly useful here, because again, the same amount of expertise on the matter.

The same holds true of discussions of men being oppressed.

And not every discussion needs to be all encompassing. On the scientific side, how stars form and the orbits of particular planets are both governed by Relativity, but that doesn't mean that attempting to predict the orbit of Mercury means we need to consider how old the sun is.

Well the thing is that you are describing a different type of discussion. Scientific discussion is very narrow in scope. Philosophical, ethical, and moral discussion is much less narrow in scope. Because you have to define big premises prior to having any useful discussion.

And the thing is: The example that we've been given by Warkitty, that women's unavailability increases male harassment, is not an irrelevant topic. Now it might not be something that can be solved or should be the focus, but it definitely is something that's a contributing factor. The equivalent in your science discussion would be discussing the mass of mercury in predicting it's orbit, it's not exactly what you're looking for, the answer, but it is a useful thing to evaluate.

[WarKitty]

Couple of things here:

One, the whole concept of racism and sexism and other isms being societal problems is that they cannot be addressed solely on an individual level. Because they are cases where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Bad things happen to everyone, but significantly more bad things of a certain type happen to people with a certain trait, by and large, and that creates a widespread unfairness. But if you insist on only addressing things on an individual level, you can't talk about that at all.

Two, part of the concept is that people engage in these behaviors without realizing it (and it's actually MORE common from people who claim they don't care about race or sex at all). So for example, a hiring manager may explicitly believe that race and sex don't matter, but when you give a bunch of them resumes that are identical except for the names, Daniel is rated as more competent than Susan or Jayden. And we're saying that also happens in discussions - people say and believe that they want a fair discussion, but their idea of fair is warped by being used to being the one in the spotlight when race/sex/etc comes up. So they may actually be talking over others and interrupting them and dominating the conversation and making it all about them and still fully believe that they are being fair.

Three, discussion that "treats everyone as an individual" in the way you're suggesting really doesn't work outside of very small groups (which always have some form of official or unofficial curation of who counts anyway). I've been trying to describe what happens - you get a large number of people who want the discussion to be about them and want to change it to that. Each one is convinced they have a new thing to add, even if it's largely the same as the last person. Emotions will run high on these topics no matter what. That was the point with my example about women being harassed versus men getting dates. If you try to run some sort of public or semi-public discussion on the topic of women being harassed in a mixed space, and open it up like you're suggesting, I guarantee that 95% of the time the discussion will end up being focused on how hard it is for men to get dates, with a good mix of how women are too sensitive anyway and most men would love to be harassed.

Four, people aren't saying no man can ever express an opinion on women's issues, or whatever. We're saying, for example, men don't get to tell women that they shouldn't be upset because it's a compliment. Or change the conversation about how hard it is to get dates. Or just plain old tell women it can't possibly be that bad because they've never seen it. And we are saying that if we spent the time to answer and dialogue individually with every man saying that, we'd never have any time for anything else.

[georgie_leech]

As an example of the "whole greater than the sum of the parts," skip to about 10 minutes in. An individual "marry me" comment is fairly innocuous; it gets significantly creepier when, well, there are that many.

[Goaty14]

For one issue - sometimes part of the problem is that one group has less numbers than another. So that comes up with LGBT+ issues a lot. If you're trying to address those issues specifically, you can't just encourage everyone to talk evenly because LGBT+ folk are a minority of the population. If you try to focus on every person's opinion individually, you'll be spending most of your time on how cis/het folk feel about LGBT+ issues and not a lot on how LGBT+ people are managing.

This is not what I was addressing. What I was saying is that the researchers of the study assumed that men spoke more because a large amount of them spoke more and women spoke less because vice versa. What they should've done is to not assume how an individual would act based on their gender and instead group them as appropriate for the study (in order to find out how effective their encouragement was, they should've measured the growth of those who spoke less -- not the growth of women).

Two, sometimes there are traits that have significant correlations with gender/race/etc., and you can't address the issue without addressing that. For example, one problem that's been cited is that women are more likely to be negatively stereotyped for putting themselves out there. This comes up a lot with workplace salary issues. More men negotiate for salary than women, and people who negotiate are more likely to get more money for the job. But women specifically who negotiate are more likely to be viewed negatively in ways that are detrimental to them getting future advantages compared to men, even in studies where the men and women used the exact same script. So you can't just encourage those who are quiet to speak up more - you also have to address the perception that when they speak up more they're out of line.

1) Ok, but that specific issue isn't applicable in all circumstances, in which the notion should be removed. I suppose you're right if that was the researcher's original mission statement, though.

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

[georgie_leech]

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

Part of statistical analysis, precisely because you can't control for those other factors, is to repeat the thing a bunch so that they average out. Sometimes good moods, sometimes bad, etc. And when they do that, it looks an awful lot like Jayden doesn't get hired as often as Daniel. Though the study I know of actually used Jamal and Greg for the male names.

[Mith]

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

When they run the experiment, they get as close as possible to the same parameters as possible. There is a known bias towards women and people of colour in the work place. They have submitted the same resume/applications to and employer changing the name based on gender or ethnicity, and have found that the white male names get picked significantly more regularly than the others, even though the resumes are the same.

While I haven't read the studies in question, unless there is a specific conspiracy out for people playing the victim card unecessarily, it is known that women are pressured to not speak out and be assertive in many professions. What gets a man called "assertive and confident" gets a woman called a "cold hearted, selfish bitch".

We know that women have a fundamentally more hostile work environment then men do. It's documented through reports and by paying attention to how people in your work talk. How then is it surprising that this manifests in pressure against wage negotiations?

[Florian]

The whole sub-discussion actually goes to show how deeply divided a society can be and also the raw merit the experience of losing can give (more on that later).

I´m a member in a progressive political party, so I know quite well how frustrating it can be to have to fight for things that I know by heart are right, again and again.
But I'm also a firm believer in the correct function of a representative democratic system and the importance of fact finding and discourse that will turn into consensus, then law. Rudi Dutschke of 68er movement fame once coined the term "the long marsh through the institutions".

So, while I understand the intentions, I strongly disapprove of some of the methods that´re currently being used and advocated, because they're basically mob justice, especially when using tactics that preemptively silence any opposition.

[WarKitty]

2) "The exact same script" at the exact same place, in the exact same circumstances, with the exact same mood, and different results? I suppose I should believe these people if they manage to pull that off, but the woman who just started her minimum-wage job vs a 15-year male worker using the exact same script and getting different results isn't surprising.

It was a controlled study where they brought hiring managers in, had them either read a script or watch a scripted interaction, and then asked them to rate the candidate. They were not told the studies were about sex. Statistically, when the written script had a female name or there was a female actor involved, the ratings were consistently lower. More specifically, the women were rated as unfriendly and difficult to work with.

There's also a lot of anecdotal stories from trans folk, that they were consistently treated differently once transitioning depending on the sex that people perceived them as. For example, reports from trans women that after transitioning they were perceived as "unfriendly" or even "hostile" when using the same approach they had used as men.

On the other study, the point was to measure perception of who spoke more versus reality. So a large part of the point was that the women were perceived as dominating the conversation at a point where they spoke more than usual but still less than equally. That's going to have implications for fair discussion, if certain parties are perceiving what is unfair in their favor to be unfair to them.

When they run the experiment, they get as close as possible to the same parameters as possible. There is a known bias towards women and people of colour in the work place. They have submitted the same resume/applications to and employer changing the name based on gender or ethnicity, and have found that the white male names get picked significantly more regularly than the others, even though the resumes are the same.

I believe they've done that with housing as well. Not so much with sex, but finding that ethnic names on a rental application tend to have a harder time getting housing. Certain accents have the same effect on the phone.

[Liquor Box]

AMFV, Liquor Box and Razade the defenders of the white cis male guy.

I'm surprised that Donnadogsoth didn't shown up yet.

This sounds a lot like "I can't actually refute the points being raised by these people, but they contradict my general point of view so they must be bad even if I don't know why".

[Liquor Box]

Its all really telling the kind of people that feel the need to insert their opinion into every discussion and insist that all sides should be listened to. Men, during discussions of womens issues. White people, with issues affect people of colour. Straight people and queer issues, cis people and trans issues, wealthy people and poor issues, and so on and so forth on basically any axis of oppression.

Maybe we can all take a minute and think why that might be the case?

It's funny (by which I mean hypocritical) that you take this position, because one of the most recent times I saw you arguing in a thread, you were arguing that there should be greater representation of asexual people. You did not identify yourself as asexual, and you completely ignored the opinion of the one person who did identify themselves as asexual in that thread (whose opinion was that asexual representation should be proportional to asexual representation in real life).

It seems that your opinion that only people in the category being discussed should comment, only applies when you consider yourself to be in that category. Perhaps it would be more honest and accurate for you to say that the only people whose opinions you think need to be heard are those whose opinions are similar to your own.

[Liquor Box]

When they run the experiment, they get as close as possible to the same parameters as possible. There is a known bias towards women and people of colour in the work place. They have submitted the same resume/applications to and employer changing the name based on gender or ethnicity, and have found that the white male names get picked significantly more regularly than the others, even though the resumes are the same.

I honestly don't understand why large employers don't have a practice whereby one person (who is not the person who vets the applications) redacts those parts of a resume/application that identifies a person's age, sexuality, gender, ethnicity etc - and then hand that redacted information on to another person to vet and shortlist the candidates for interviews. I accept it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it seems to me to be a solution for part of it.

[WarKitty]

I honestly don't understand why large employers don't have a practice whereby one person (who is not the person who vets the applications) redacts those parts of a resume/application that identifies a person's age, sexuality, gender, ethnicity etc - and then hand that redacted information on to another person to vet and shortlist the candidates for interviews. I accept it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it seems to me to be a solution for part of it.

There's actually a fun little real-world variant on this, in music. They did exactly what you said, but they also set up the auditions so the candidate did not speak to the judges and was behind a screen so they were not visible. Basically the race and sex of the candidate were completely removed from the process. And the number of women and minorities who got jobs shot way up.

This is obviously not practical for most jobs, but it does suggest that even in the absence of widespread explicit bias there are effects.

Of course, the other hard part in resumes would be redacting some information would be hard. For example, I did my college degree at a religious school and was for a time employed at a religious institution. Both have names that I would expect most americans to identify as explicitly religious immediately.