| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the Drow are about as misandristic as we were misogynistic several hundred years ago. Treating said gender as second class citizens with very few rights.
Sounds to me that you're pretty much defining our present day. If the State and Religon are going to be granted rights about my personal body that are not being leveraged against another gender, I'd consider myself to be considerably in the second-class budget, even if I can wear shoes and a power suit.
But a sexist/patriarchal/matriarchal society without misogyny/misandry is in an inherently unstable state.
That's a bit of a stretch. Consider a very authoritarian society which also instills a strong sense of duty to protect and nurture one's charges. While an outsider might view the actions of the leader class as sexist, that does not inherently make their actions hateful.
"That is, the people in power are in power because they are somehow inherently better, and the people not in power are not in power because they're somehow inherently not suited to it."
Or that justification could just be a belief that distributed power is inefficient and that they elevate themselves by placing society's needs above their own. (I.e. they follow the leader rather than their own selfish needs/wants.)
So while you can theoretically construct a society that's matriarchal or patriarchal without misandry or misogyny, such a construction is artificial and unlikely to last unless you have some sort of benign, probably magical influence that's propping up the society and scouring out negative attitudes to the gender not in charge.
Nah. If the power in society is sufficiently centralized, the vast majority of the gender in charge will be relatively powerless. At which point it's less of a gender thing than it is a kyriarchy thing that just happens to be sex based. (As opposed to power that's based on gender.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a bit of a stretch. Consider a very authoritarian society which also instills a strong sense of duty to protect and nurture one's charges. While an outsider might view the actions of the leader class as sexist, that does not inherently make their actions hateful.
But a sexist/patriarchal/matriarchal society without misogyny/misandry is in an inherently unstable state.
There is no "an outsider might view their actions as sexist." Their actions are sexist. End of story. They may not be hateful, but they are absolutely sexist. Treating different genders differently is literally what it means to be sexist.
You seem to have missed my point, which is that it doesn't start out as hateful, but people will come to believe that people of one gender are inherently unsuited to the role of the other gender, and come up with a (hateful) justification for why. E.g. if women are barred from military leadership, they will come to view women as inherently weaker, unable to make tough choices, etc.--that is, they will come up with a misogynist justification for a sexist prohibition.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why institutionalized -isms are far more subtle devils than overt -isms. Everyone can agree that people that someone shouldn't be judged solely on the color of their skin, as that's clearly wrong.
But person of color A still has a lot of obstacles in their way to success that person not of color B does not. Person B feels justified in saying "Hey, I wasn't handed anything, I became successful all by myself, why should we treat person A any differently?"
It's a decent argument, and one that likely does not come from racist beliefs, but one that ignores the invisible advantages granted person B solely by the virtue of his skin color. The best analogy is that, yes, person B, you did make it all the way from the beach to the top of the mountain, but person A is starting five miles out to sea. Shouldn't we do something about that?
Now take race out of the comparison, and replace it with gender, sexual preference, or what ever other social group is disadvantaged. The principle applies across the board - the playing field is not equal, and people who say it is are defending a rigged game, even if they don't realize it.
You seem to have missed my point, which is that it doesn't start out as hateful, but people will come to believe that people of one gender are inherently unsuited to the role of the other gender, and come up with a (hateful) justification for why.
Not so much that I missed it, I just don't buy it. Your argument implies that women will inherently come to hate men because we're unsuited for breastfeeding and giving birth.
Less flippantly, there are too many examples of asymmetric power relationships in the real world that don't devolve into hate on the broad scale for it to be inherently unstable.(e.g. parent and child, teacher and student, professor and student, doctor/nurse and patient, officers and soldiers etc.)
And all that ignores that we're talking about a fantasy world where it's easy to hand wave reasons why it could be stable.
E.g.: -gender 1 of race XYZ literally can't think further than a month in advance for biological reasons therefore gender 2 takes care of leadership
-they're short-lived mammals but have a 2 year gestation period that is exceedingly prone to miscarriage, therefore pregnant females have to be sheltered and protected to keep the species alive. the males in that society believe that the defense, safekeeping and happiness of their females is the highest virtue they can pursue and guarantees their entrance into their version of heaven. (And in that particular fantasy world, it may.)
-The society lives in a dangerous environment and uses stimulants to keep alert, but only gender can safely take those stimulants
Besides, if that's truly what you believe, it pretty closely mirrors why MRA's argue that feminism leads to misandry, and while I can see how that link can be made, I also think that society can find a way around that trap too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much that I missed it, I just don't buy it. Your argument implies that women will inherently come to hate men because we're unsuited for breastfeeding and giving birth.
You seem to have missed my point, which is that it doesn't start out as hateful, but people will come to believe that people of one gender are inherently unsuited to the role of the other gender, and come up with a (hateful) justification for why.
"Hate" is a strong word there, but hi, have you met our society? Where fathers taking pictures of their own kids get treated--usually by women--as if they might be pedophiles? Where the idea that men are incompetent at parenting is a trope powering half the commercials out there for childcare products?
If our society treated those things as if they had value, those attitudes would also be more hateful. The only reason they're not is because women are disempowered and things seen as women's work are devalued. So there's not much power to put real hate behind it, and the idea that men are incompetent at childcare is positioned as "affectionate" rather than "disdainful."
Less flippantly, there are too many examples of asymmetric power relationships in the real world that don't devolve into hate on the broad scale for it to be inherently unstable.(e.g. parent and child, teacher and student, professor and student, doctor/nurse and patient, officers and soldiers etc.)
All of your examples are temporary/highly situational.
Children grow up. Students graduate. Patients receive a service from their doctor, then leave. Soldiers are doing a job, from which they may leave, be promoted, etc.
All of these power differentials involve a status that is either temporary or not inherent.
As soon as you start dealing with permanent, inherent differences--gender, race, etc.--you get hateful rationalizations for the difference in power.
And all that ignores that we're talking about a fantasy world where it's easy to hand wave reasons why it could be stable.
E.g.: -gender 1 of race XYZ literally can't think further than a month in advance for biological reasons therefore gender 2 takes care of leadership
-they're short-lived mammals but have a 2 year gestation period that is exceedingly prone to miscarriage, therefore pregnant females have to be sheltered and protected to keep the species alive. the males in that society believe that the defense, safekeeping and happiness of their females is the highest virtue they can pursue and guarantees their entrance into their version of heaven. (And in that particular fantasy world, it may.)
-The society lives in a dangerous environment and uses stimulants to keep alert, but only gender can safely take those stimulantsBesides, if that's truly what you believe, it pretty closely mirrors why MRA's argue that feminism leads to misandry, and while I can see how that link can be made, I also think that society can find a way around that trap too.
That's a deeply disingenuous argument, and a silly one, given that feminism opposes restrictions on roles based on gender, making it do precisely the opposite of what you're attempting to say.
But you already knew that--you weren't arguing in good faith. I'm done interacting with you. Welcome to my ignore list.
"Hate" is a strong word there
You used hateful. It seemed appropriate in this context.
As soon as you start dealing with permanent, inherent differences--gender, race, etc.--you get hateful rationalizations for the difference in power.
You're making a statement here, but you're not explaining why it has to be that way. My point is that the rationalizations don't have to be hateful, in fact I think there's strong arguments that some of the differences you mention (e.g. race) aren't inherent differences and shouldn't be viewed that way.
That's a deeply disingenuous argument, and a silly one...
Not really. It's directly reflected in your own examples and words:
"If our society treated those things as if they had value, those attitudes would also be more hateful. The only reason they're not is because women are disempowered..."So unless you're going to argue that feminism isn't about empowering women it's pretty straightforward to follow the conclusion that'll be reached.
However I also think that's a shortsighted place to end up. There are ways, even if we haven't perfected them yet, to be different from one another and not have those differences result in hate or hateful attitudes.
"given that feminism opposes restrictions on roles based on gender"
Depends which version of feminism you're talking about. TERF's and real misandrists wouldn't agree with you on that.
"making it do precisely the opposite of what you're attempting to say."
Doesn't change that your original point is uncomfortably similar to a weak argument made by MRA's.
"But you already knew that--you weren't arguing in good faith."
Actually I was. I thought you were being too cynical about the situation.
"I'm done interacting with you. Welcome to my ignore list."
Well that escalated rapidly.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that tends to happen when you annoy people.
Well, and the amount of emotional labor I'm willing to donate to random Internet people is "as much as serves me, not them." :-)
If people want to practice their debate skills with me, they can pay me. I don't work for free.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that tends to happen when you annoy people.Well, and the amount of emotional labor I'm willing to donate to random Internet people is "as much as serves me, not them." :-)
If people want to practice their debate skills with me, they can pay me. I don't work for free.
I'd be willing to kick in a couple of Patreon dollars for that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be willing to kick in a couple of Patreon dollars for that.Yeah, that tends to happen when you annoy people.Well, and the amount of emotional labor I'm willing to donate to random Internet people is "as much as serves me, not them." :-)
If people want to practice their debate skills with me, they can pay me. I don't work for free.
DOOD!
Patreon supported Verbal Duels!
My skills aren't that good though...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
However I also think that's a shortsighted place to end up. There are ways, even if we haven't perfected them yet, to be different from one another and not have those differences result in hate or hateful attitudes.
History however has yet to show where this hasn't been the case. When men fail at being parents, they get treated with amusement or sympathy. When women have issues being parents, they will get no slack for circumstances... such as the single mother having to work 80 hours of unpaid labor to get a welfare check, or one facing post partum depression issues. We don't give those roles support because quite frankly as a society we don't value them.
Conversely when women DO excel in leadership roles that have been traditionally assigned to men, they're denigrated with terms such as "bossy" and others that won't past the messageboard censors, for behaving exactly the way we expect male leaders to behave.
This isn't just an American or Christian thing. In other cultures, we have gender based mutilation. In ISIS, troopers regularly kidnap women to use as sex slaves and in an ironic twist force them to take birth control to keep them usable as slaves under their version of Islamic law.
So yes in a purely theoretical sense you may be right, but history has yet to show ONE example of a culture that validates your assessment over that of Ms. Price's.
That's sort of an aside though, I really wanted to suggest looking outside the well known larger cultures, particularly the Christian and Islamic ones. I know there were some tribal cultures that shocked Europeans at contact with how differently their women were treated. I believe most still had strong gender roles, but I'm not sure how much that translated into dominance of one over the other or into hate.
Women are still being brutally murdered for the crime of being raped thus "dishonoring" their families. There are still countries that either overtly sanction this behavior by not outlawing it, or by looking the other way when it is done. Just today, an author who advocated LGBT rights in Bangladesh was brutally literally hacked to death.
Are you still not sure?
I was once naive enough to think that we had made great progress during the 60's and 70's having lived through those eras.
Now I have to face the brutal realization that we've just barely started, and the backlash from what little we've accomplished is hitting back seven fold.
History however has yet to show where this hasn't been the case.
Okay, lets assume that you're correct and it's never happened in the past and therefore can't be done in the future.
Your/Jessica's argument basically leads to the conclusion that because of inherent gender differences there will always be hatred between the genders. If so, you've basically made a strong case that men should be actively trying to oppress women in order to prevent being oppressed by women.
And maybe I'm an optimist, but I really don't think that's where you wanted to go with that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
History however has yet to show where this hasn't been the case.Okay, lets assume that you're correct and it's never happened in the past and therefore can't be done in the future.
Your/Jessica's argument basically leads to the conclusion that because of inherent gender differences there will always be hatred between the genders. If so, you've basically made a strong case that men should be actively trying to oppress women in order to prevent being oppressed by women.
And maybe I'm an optimist, but I really don't think that's where you wanted to go with that.
The argument is that enforcing social roles based on physical gender inevitably leads to the misery we've lived through for all genders.
There is absolutely no justification of using the "inherent gender differences" argument in modern society. History has been teaching us that repetitive lesson from day one.
The only solution is to change the game. To discard the assumptions that have long been proven false.
The argument is that enforcing social roles based on physical gender inevitably leads to the misery we've lived through for all genders.
I'm not so sure that's what was said earlier. The argument was more along the lines that inherent differences unavoidably lead to hate. I don't think they do and no one's offered a good reason why they have to. Just that it's never been done before... and I'm not convinced that's the case either. (Or even philosophically relevant to a fantasy world where reality works differently at the GM's discretion.)
History however has yet to show where this hasn't been the case.Okay, lets assume that you're correct and it's never happened in the past and therefore can't be done in the future.
Your/Jessica's argument basically leads to the conclusion that because of inherent gender differences there will always be hatred between the genders. If so, you've basically made a strong case that men should be actively trying to oppress women in order to prevent being oppressed by women.
And maybe I'm an optimist, but I really don't think that's where you wanted to go with that.
It seems like you and they have a fundamental disagreement on one point. Your arguments seem to be predicated on the axiom that "inherent gender differences" exist and matter, whereas their arguments seem to be predicated on the axiom that "inherent gender differences" either don't matter or don't exist (and therefore can't matter).
For the record, I'm firmly on the "don't matter or don't exist" side of that particular argument, but that particular axiom is always going to be a sticking point in these kinds of debates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument is that enforcing social roles based on physical gender inevitably leads to the misery we've lived through for all genders.I'm not so sure that's what was said earlier. The argument was more along the lines that inherent differences unavoidably lead to hate. I don't think they do and no one's offered a good reason why they have to.
You really are blithely ignoring facts presented to you. You get daily demonstrations on the fact that they DO. All of the Abrahamic religions put the fall of Man on Eve, as it's fallen Eve who tempts Adam to the forbidden fruit and it's Adam's fall, not Eve's that dooms Humanity. For the Greeks it was Pandora, and they thought that the proper way to treat their women was to shut them up in darkened isolated rooms.
I don't really care if you find one isolated tribe, or some sci-fi social experiment of a society that works the way you imagine it.
We live and bleed in the real world, and the real world gives constant examples that you can not have equality when you put value and role differences on physical gender. And putting role differences will, has, and always will lead to value differences as well. The only way to get out of the trap of the conclusion is to stop buying into the premise.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your/Jessica's argument basically leads to the conclusion that because of inherent gender differences there will always be hatred between the genders. If so, you've basically made a strong case that men should be actively trying to oppress women in order to prevent being oppressed by women.
And maybe I'm an optimist, but I really don't think that's where you wanted to go with that.
The argument, if I am understanding Jessica's post correctly, is that when roles are divided up between different groups some of those roles will be perceived as less valuable eventually, or even at the time, and that perception often leads to that group being perceived as less valuable. The use of real world groups, in this case genders, demonstrates this. The roles that are viewed as the purview of women are globally viewed as less valuable than the roles that are viewed as the purview of men. When any group is viewed as less valuable than another group it becomes easier and easier for members of the group with the greater perceived value to dehumanize and abuse, intentionally or not, members of the other group. This doesn't automatically mean hate, in fact many of the people may not even realize they are doing it. None of that suggests that men should be worried about being oppressed by women if we don't oppress them first. Rather, I think it suggests that dividing roles between the genders is destructive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But all of those are cases deriving from historical roots of serious, blatant discrimination. This thing we're currently trying to do - treating women like actual equals capable of filling any of the same roles in society as men, and vice versa - is really a completely new experiment as far as I know. That we've come as far and as quickly as we have is surprising. That there are still serious problems and backlash isn't.
That's sort of an aside though, I really wanted to suggest looking outside the well known larger cultures, particularly the Christian and Islamic ones. I...
Yup, Medieval/Renaissance Jewish culture, for example, viewed learning/scholarship as the defining masculine characteristic, which meant that men who could afford to spent their time studying while women ran businesses. It wasn't quite a straight reversal of the men=public, women=private spheres that the Victorians set up, but it definitely resulted in a different dynamic. (Of course, it also privileged scholarship and devalued what women were doing, but that's a different point.)
And there were a ton of different gender setups in Africa and Asia. (See the Mosuo, the Igbo, etc.)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason that Men's Right's Groups teach that feminism leads to misandry, is that many of them do have some awareness of history.
However they can only view things solely through a power arrangement, Master over slave, or Slave overthrowing and enslaving or killing Master.
They can only see feminists as misandrists precisely because they have been instilled in the meme of genders only existing in a bipolar relationship of one dominating the other. This is an example of the kind of damage that patriarchy does to men.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument is that enforcing social roles based on physical gender inevitably leads to the misery we've lived through for all genders.I'm not so sure that's what was said earlier. The argument was more along the lines that inherent differences unavoidably lead to hate. I don't think they do and no one's offered a good reason why they have to.
You really are blithely ignoring facts presented to you. You get daily demonstrations on the fact that they DO. All of the Abrahamic religions put the fall of Man on Eve, as it's fallen Eve who tempts Adam to the forbidden fruit and it's Adam's fall, not Eve's that dooms Humanity. For the Greeks it was Pandora, and they thought that the proper way to treat their women was to shut them up in darkened isolated rooms.
I don't really care if you find one isolated tribe, or some sci-fi social experiment of a society that works the way you imagine it.
We live and bleed in the real world, and the real world gives constant examples that you can not have equality when you put value and role differences on physical gender. And putting role differences will, has, and always will lead to value differences as well. The only way to get out of the trap of the conclusion is to stop buying into the premise.
I think that's going too far. This is a discussion about a fantasy universe, not the real one (look at which forum it's in!) and therefore about the possible, not the merely probable. As such, our real world experience is a guide but not a straightjacket, because part of the role of fantasy is to explore the improbable possible.
It's also a fantasy world, which means we're not necessarily dealing with humans. Different species can have different psychologies and respond differently to such pressures or even have completely different gender divides or even genders for that matter.
True but since we have very limited to no experience with non-human sapience, we generally characterize these races with caricatures of human behavior.
You really are blithely ignoring facts presented to you.
Not really, I said if your argument is correct, this is the conclusion it leads to, and if you don't like that you need to revisit your assumptions.
I don't really care if you find one isolated tribe, or some sci-fi social experiment of a society that works the way you imagine it.
You should. If they've created a working way to address inherent differences without creating hate they're closer to your goal than you are.
We live and bleed in the real world, and the real world gives constant examples that you can not have equality when you put value and role differences on physical gender.
The problem here is in how you measure equality. Is it equality of outcome or opportunity?
If you measure it based purely on outcome, you by nature have to limit choice. If you measure it by opportunity, on the surface things may not look equal at all even though it is functionally equal.
The only way to get out of the trap of the conclusion is to stop buying into the premise.
Agreed but I'm not so sure you're doing that with Jessica's arguement. It just circles down the same path to where you started from.
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also a fantasy world, which means we're not necessarily dealing with humans. Different species can have different psychologies and respond differently to such pressures or even have completely different gender divides or even genders for that matter.True but since we have very limited to no experience with non-human sapience, we generally characterize these races with caricatures of human behavior.
Absolutely. The "fantasy world" is written by humans and read by humans, and that's important to keep in mind. PARTICULARLY for us who are creating the game, and who place the goal of making inclusivity at the top of the goals for creating and developing the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather, I think it suggests that dividing roles between the genders is destructive.
I get the argument, but there are certain roles and differences that are imposed by biology. Males don't menstruate. Women don't get prostate cancer. Men can't lactate without serious hormone treatments. Women can't impregnate other women without a lab and some serious science. Men have ~10x as much testosterone as women do which causes physical differences both good and bad.
Simply put differences exist between the genders. They don't have to lead to hate or devaluing people like Jessica's argument implies they must (particularly in a fantasy world where reality is pretty malleable.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also a fantasy world, which means we're not necessarily dealing with humans. Different species can have different psychologies and respond differently to such pressures or even have completely different gender divides or even genders for that matter.True but since we have very limited to no experience with non-human sapience, we generally characterize these races with caricatures of human behavior.
True, but taking a shot at developing or working with a race with different gender psychologies can be a lot of fun. Back on Traveller's Aslan example, one of the really fun aspects of their gender divide is how that spills over into how they deal with other races and cultures. A human male working in a technical or financial field will be assumed to be female by the Aslan because, to them, those are female jobs. That's a fun one to spring on your male players with engineer or steward PCs.
Traveller writers did some pretty awesome development of alien races over the years (one of my favorites being the K'Kree). Though most of them don't really address this topic quite like the Aslan do, I'd recommend people check out any resources you stumble on about the K'Kree, Vargr, Aslan, Droyne, and Hivers. Even the other human cultures (Zhodani and Vilani) have some nice ideas to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason that Men's Right's Groups teach that feminism leads to misandry, is that many of them do have some awareness of history.
However they can only view things solely through a power arrangement, Master over slave, or Slave overthrowing and enslaving or killing Master.
They can only see feminists as misandrists precisely because they have been instilled in the meme of genders only existing in a bipolar relationship of one dominating the other. This is an example of the kind of damage that patriarchy does to men.
hmmm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather, I think it suggests that dividing roles between the genders is destructive.I get the argument, but there are certain roles and differences that are imposed by biology. Males don't menstruate. Women don't get prostate cancer. Men can't lactate without serious hormone treatments. Women can't impregnate other women without a lab and some serious science. Men have ~10x as much testosterone as women do which causes physical differences both good and bad.
Simply put differences exist between the genders. They don't have to lead to hate or devaluing people like Jessica's argument implies they must (particularly in a fantasy world where reality is pretty malleable.)
You don't get the point. Whether or not they "have to" the issue is that they do. They've been used to justify paying women less. "He's heading a family he needs it more.", They've been used to deny women combat pay, despite the fact that they've been deployed in combat zones.
And even the way you list those differences is skewed. Women are also considerably better built in enduring pain then men which in the modern battlefield is as important as upper body strength.
No one has said that there are not inherent differences in physical gender. However these differences do not justify MANDATING gender roles. I really would love to hear your discourse on how the ability or lack of it to either menstruate or contract prostrate cancer justifies a mandated difference in roles.
Men can be nuturing parents, Women like my sister can be hard as nails cops. While my sister may not top the scores in running through a ROTC marathon, there are men who will do considerably worse than she does, and still pass. The old stone age reasons for locking people into gender roles are inhabiting a space for validity that is shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather, I think it suggests that dividing roles between the genders is destructive.I get the argument, but there are certain roles and differences that are imposed by biology. Males don't menstruate. Women don't get prostate cancer. Men can't lactate without serious hormone treatments. Women can't impregnate other women without a lab and some serious science. Men have ~10x as much testosterone as women do which causes physical differences both good and bad.
Simply put differences exist between the genders. They don't have to lead to hate or devaluing people like Jessica's argument implies they must (particularly in a fantasy world where reality is pretty malleable.)
Whether they have to or not, more often than not they do. In a fantasy world where reality is pretty malleable those gender differences stand for even less as they can be minimized, our outright eliminated, with magic. In that case dividing roles between genders becomes even more likely to devolve into devaluation as it is being done purely for social and cultural reasons.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
prostrate cancer
i've fallen and I can't get up
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has said that there are not inherent differences in physical gender. However these differences do not justify MANDATING gender roles.
This is exactly what I was going to say (before my comment got eaten by the board monsters).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.
Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.
Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.
Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?
But anchovies!!!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But anchovies!!!...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.
Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?
I understand; I've been there too. It's not easy to embrace diversity; you can't just simply mentally acknowledge that it's good to treat others as equals and leave it at that. You've got to proactively alter yourself, because your actualized beliefs don't automatically align with your declared beliefs with the flip of a switch. It takes ongoing work. It's a process. And the moment you think you're done, you've failed. You must constantly work toward greater acceptance in practice, not just in declaration.
Even in regard to anchovy-lovers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get the point. Whether or not they "have to" the issue is that they do.Rather, I think it suggests that dividing roles between the genders is destructive.I get the argument, but there are certain roles and differences that are imposed by biology. Males don't menstruate. Women don't get prostate cancer. Men can't lactate without serious hormone treatments. Women can't impregnate other women without a lab and some serious science. Men have ~10x as much testosterone as women do which causes physical differences both good and bad.
Simply put differences exist between the genders. They don't have to lead to hate or devaluing people like Jessica's argument implies they must (particularly in a fantasy world where reality is pretty malleable.)
But -- and this is the point you seem to be missing -- not necessarily in a fantasy world. And, as I said earlier, one of the purposes of fantasy literature is to explore the limits of the possible, without allowing the real, or even the realistic, to be a set of handcuffs.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's correct that society could develop in a fantasy world differently from how ours has developed. For example, sexism is not the norm on Golarion in the same way it is on Earth.
On the other hand, I also think it's worth considering how the way we approach these issues in fiction reflects on how we relate to them in the real world. This is why people become concerned when some fantasy works portray "good races" as mostly European-looking, while "evil races" are dark-skinned or otherwise reflect racist stereotypes. In this instance, by overstating the actual differences between gender in our fiction or by presenting overly strict and possibly asymmetrical gender roles in a favourable light, we give credence to the idea that in our world it is indeed reasonable and desirable to treat gender difference in this way.
It sounds like part of the reason the Aslan work well is because they actually run counter to our usual ideas about how gender dynamics work, which causes the reader to examine their own assumptions.
Finally, because I think this was dismissed too easily earlier in the discussion, I do believe that the stereotype of incompetent dads is a form of misandry. It might be limited in scope and softened with a sort of tolerant affection, but there's a dose of contempt here of the same sort as seen here. Of course, this doesn't disprove Ms. Price's overall point. The "dumb dad" is yet another example of a scornful attitude that developed in order to support a sexist system by assigning the duties of homemaking to women - because a man "can't" do them right. Predictably, this leads to career sacrifices for many women. As an added "bonus", hostility towards male parenting efforts combined with the general devaluing of feminine pursuits punishes men who try to fight the system and be equal partners with their wives.
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.
Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?
When religion is part and parcel of the foundation and justification for our prejudices, it's fair game. For millennia Eve has been used by both Hebrews and Christians as justification for women's "lesser" place in the world. The Greeks did the same thing with Pandora, the first woman, a creature created by Zeus specifically both to tempt men,and to make foolish decisions, such as opening the eponymous Box, to unleash all of the Troubles to plague mankind.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When religion is part and parcel of the foundation and justification for our prejudices, it's fair game. For millennia Eve has been used by both Hebrews and Christians as justification for women's "lesser" place in the world. The Greeks did the same thing with Pandora, the first woman, a creature created by Zeus specifically both to tempt men,and to make foolish decisions, such as opening the eponymous Box, to unleash all of the Troubles to plague mankind....shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.
Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?
By all means, discuss those specific things that have been done wrong. Those are very valid points of contention.
They're also not what I replied to.
I replied to a backhand against an entire category of people, not a citation of specific grievances.
Folks who believe in some form of god are no more a monolith than women are. Discuss individual wrongs (religious or otherwise) that have been committed, rather than taking cheap swipes at entire categories of people. You know, just like how you'd like men to handle this discussion. Hypocrisy is bad.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get the point. Whether or not they "have to" the issue is that they do. They've been used to justify paying women less. "He's heading a family he needs it more.", They've been used to deny women combat pay, despite the fact that they've been deployed in combat zones.
Indeed. It's a toxic and unpleasant attitude that I agree should go away.
And even the way you list those differences is skewed. Women are also considerably better built in enduring pain then men which in the modern battlefield is as important as upper body strength.
This has actually been proven false a bit ago, just for the record. Women have a higher pain tolerance only in the months leading right up to giving birth (it's the hormones), not all the time.
Of course, averages are a stupid reason to ban people from military service on the front lines. Set up tests with standards everyone has to meet. Who cares if women aren't strong enough for X on average? If this particular woman is, she should be should be allowed to do the job. Just like if a particular man isn't, he shouldn't.
No one has said that there are not inherent differences in physical gender. However these differences do not justify MANDATING gender roles. I really would love to hear your discourse on how the ability or lack of it to either menstruate or contract prostrate cancer justifies a mandated difference in roles.
Absolutely. Gender roles are a whole load of b!&*$%**. What physiological differences there are in capability, with the exception of upper body strength, are all exceedingly minor and smaller than the individual variation within each gender...making them meaningless in regards to any individual man or woman.
Men can be nuturing parents, Women like my sister can be hard as nails cops. While my sister may not top the scores in running through a ROTC marathon, there are men who will do considerably worse than she does, and still pass.
Absolutely. Agreed entirely.
The old stone age reasons for locking people into gender roles are inhabiting a space for validity that is shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.
And here we run straight into an issue. There are plenty of reasons to be religious, and demonstrating prejudice against religious people while demanding an end to prejudice against women is not a good way to make friends or influence people. It's not technically internally inconsistent, but it comes off as 'Ignore my obvious prejudices while I talk about other people's!' which is counterproductive and comes off as hypocritical (even though it's not per se).
If you want to argue that religion is irrational, sure, I even agree with that. But faith is definitionally irrational, that's what makes it faith and not knowledge, and being irrational isn't a reason nobody should ever experience a thing. I mean, there's falling in love...that's pretty irrational. Is there no reason to do that either?
When religion is part and parcel of the foundation and justification for our prejudices, it's fair game.
Well, first, speaking as a man of reason, I'm kinda annoyed by the assumption that something is either untrue or morally bad, just because people have used it as a justification for bad things. That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Every belief humans have ever had has been used as the justification for at least one seriously unpleasant thing, because people look to their pre-existing belief structures to justify each other.
A Christian who is sexist will cite Eve in the Bible, an Atheistic scientist who is sexist will cite inherent biological differences in the sexes. Both are rather missing the point, and using the belief structure they already have to justify something that it does not inherently justify.
Blaming the belief structure because people use it to justify bad things is ridiculous unless you want to blame every belief structure human beings have ever had, including those that are factually and empirically true.
I mean, evolution has been used as an excuse for racism, eugenics, and to some degree even genocide. That doesn't mean it's bad to believe in evolution.
For millennia Eve has been used by both Hebrews and Christians as justification for women's "lesser" place in the world. The Greeks did the same thing with Pandora, the first woman, a creature created by Zeus specifically both to tempt men,and to make foolish decisions, such as opening the eponymous Box, to unleash all of the Troubles to plague mankind.
Secondly, speaking as a pretty devout pagan who worships a Goddess, I'm actually pretty offended by the assumption that all religion is Judaeo-Christian (or Greek, I suppose). I mean...a fair number of religions have had sexist elements, but it's hardly universal, and certainly not universal in the particular way you're citing here.
Don't lump all religions in together and then only actually comment on two. The ancient Greeks were sexist as hell, and so were the ancient Jews, so both having some potentially sexist stuff in their myth cycles isn't exactly a surprise. Many cultures and religions were (and to some degree are) notably less sexist than those two.
Heck, even Christianity per se is way less sexist if you just ignore St. Paul (who, to be clear, didn't even meet Jesus, and was a persecutor of Christians until he had a change of heart), or at least don't treat his words as gospel [;)]. And even counting Paul's words, it's significantly less sexist than many pundits make it out to be in their own interpretations...largely for exactly the reason I mention above (ie: they're reaching for justifications to support their own preexisting sexism).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't separate Paul from Christianity--at least not from organized Christianity, any more than you can separate Islam from Mohammed or Hinduism from the authors of the Vedas. Paul's the one who invented Christianity as a separate religion, rather than as a Jewish sect. I mean, sure, if you leave out Paul and everyone that followed him, Christianity wasn't particularly sexist. But then you don't have Christianity. You have a short-lived Jewish sect in the 2nd temple period.
Which, to be clear, wasn't radically non-sexist. Early Christian congregations had female leadership--just like the other Jewish congregations around them. They weren't permitted into the hereditary priesthood (officiating over sacrifices in the Temple), but that had little to do with practices within rabbinic Judaism.
And ancient Israel wasn't unusually sexist--it was on par with its contemporary civilizations.
Christians like to throw Judaism under the bus to position Christianity as an improvement to women's status, but historical evidence doesn't actually support such claims. Early Christianity was on par, as far as women's status, with other Jewish sects of the time.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't separate Paul from Christianity--at least not from organized Christianity, any more than you can separate Islam from Mohammed or Hinduism from the authors of the Vedas. Paul's the one who invented Christianity as a separate religion, rather than as a Jewish sect. I mean, sure, if you leave out Paul and everyone that followed him, Christianity wasn't particularly sexist. But then you don't have Christianity. You have a short-lived Jewish sect in the 2nd temple period.
Sociologically and historically? Sure. Agreed completely. Religiously? That's a somewhat different matter, and varies by the believer. I've met a few different Christians who were...ambivalent at best regarding Paul (mostly based on some of his ideas not lining up with stuff Jesus was quoted as saying combined with his not having actually interacted with Jesus), while still believing in the rest, more or less.
His evangelism having caused Christianity to be as big a thing as it is, is pretty indisputable...but that has little to do with whether individual Christians abide by his words.
I mean, most certainly do and I'm not disputing that, but saying removing him from the religion (or just ignoring some of the stuff he says) is impossible in a religious context is simply untrue. People can and do stuff exactly like that all the time.
Which, to be clear, wasn't radically non-sexist. Early Christian congregations had female leadership--just like the other Jewish congregations around them. They weren't permitted into the hereditary priesthood (officiating over sacrifices in the Temple), but that had little to do with practices within rabbinic Judaism.
I never said they did? I said Christianity was less sexist than some people make it out to be. Not that it wasn't sexist (at least historically...I really don't want to get into an argument about whether it is nowadays, and that'd depend on denomination anyway). Or even about as sexist as Judaism.
And ancient Israel wasn't unusually sexist--it was on par with its contemporary civilizations.
In the area? Absolutely. The Babylonians were probably every bit as sexist, for example. We have some evidence that people other places were somewhat less so, though. And then of course, there are non Judaeo-Cristian cultures of other eras as well...
My point was that not all religions throughout time have been sexist. And saying they are based on one example is silly.
Christians like to throw Judaism under the bus to position Christianity as an improvement to women's status, but historical evidence doesn't actually support such claims. Early Christianity was on par, as far as women's status, with other Jewish sects of the time.
I'm not actually disputing that, though Jesus personally seems to have been a bit more inclined to egalitarianism in general than either Judaism or later Christianity.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Christians like to...
...be a monolith?
Most of your post was reasonable and fair (regardless of whether anyone might agree or disagree with the actual points you made), but here you've slipped into the exact same type of "Here's what this whole group is like" talk that I've so often seen you caution others not to do in regard to women. (And to be clear, I agree that we mustn't talk about "women" as though they were a homogeneous whole; I'm just saying that applies to all large groups, including those of a religious nature.)