I really think that we are so much worse off than in the past, and it is not because there is more oppression than in the past. We are now becoming more tribal, self segregating, and self policing. I am of the opinion that the thought police have been running rampant these days. No it is not an external force, it is in your head. It's that voice that tells you not to think or say that certain "bad" or "immoral" thought.
I'm curious why you think things are so much worse now than in the past. From my perspective there isn't another decade in history where I think 'we' (those of us in developed nations) have had it better off.
As for external voices (I'm asuming you mean 'other people' and not an alternate personality?) telling you not to say bad or immoral things, how has is this different from other points in history and why do you consider it a bad thing?
I certainly think that we have a better standard of living than the past and less crime too. It's just as i said, i think we are worse off because now we are self segregating into identity groups, and I don't personally think that can lead anywhere good. The narrative of oppressor/oppressed can be and has been used in the past to justify great atrocities. Some say we know better this time, yeah right.
Can you please elaborate a bit on these thoughts? Specifically:
- When has simply being aware and mindful of existing oppression (and the people who are oppressed) ever been used to justify a great atrocity? I can think of many things that have come out of this (women's rights, an end to slavery, gay rights, transgender rights, etc.) but not too many atrocities.
It's not just that though. For example college campuses are having re-education programs for males to unlearn rape and violence. What if you said any other gender or race was innately violent?
I'm not familiar with these 're-education programs' you're referring to. These are required programs only aimed at men? Can you provide some examples?
College campuses are now having program to unlearn masculinity, you can look it up. Northwester and Duke come to mind as two colleges that have such programs. They are not currently mandatory no, but I would not be surprised if that changes in the future. At northwestern you can nominate a man for the program! https://www.northwestern.edu/care/get-involved/nu-men/nu-men-nomination-form/index.html
Please name an entire group of people who are pathologized in the same way.
OK, so optional courses are being offered at universities. A few minutes of Googling would appear to indicate that the goal of the courses is not to 'unlearn masculinity' as you put it, but to discuss and challenge the more toxic aspects of masculinity that have been accepted as norms. If you can find specific parts of the program that you object to, or things that you define as essential to masculinity that the programs are against, I'd be interested to discuss them.
- In what way are you seeing people self-segregate? The group of people I work with daily is quite diverse culturally, ethnically, religiously, and in sexual orientation. The same with my close group of friends. In fact, the city I live in is incredibly diverse.
Self segregating into identity groups, and the weight of your opinion is based on which identity group you belong. diversity is one thing, self segregating into identity groups to define where you are on the oppression scale is wrong, IMO.
I don't understand the terminology you're using. What do you consider an identity group, if not sex/race/ethnic/cultural/religious background? There's very little segregation along those lines occurring in my daily life.
I see it more as a mental exercise, which IMO is more dangerous. It creates in groups and out groups and allows members of the group to think of those outside the group as the evil other.
I will again refer to Nietzche concept of ressentiment:
Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be "blamed" for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external "evil."
Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction.[8] According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"[9]), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect.[10]
Take that concept and apply it on a grand scale and you get our current situation of someone else always being to blame. It is a mental thing and not something you will easily recognize in your daily life, especially when you are absolutely convinced you have the moral authority.
It's a nice Nietzche quote, but you have failed to answer my question in your response. My question was:
- What do you consider an identity group, if not sex/race/ethnic/cultural/religious background?
Just try and have a conversation with someone possessed by the oppressor/oppressed ideology. You can't because you will be labeled a racist, misogynist, mansplainer, privileged, and so on, people will shut down the conversation.
I'm not sure what the oppressor/opressed ideology that you're referring to means exactly. I've had many conversations with a wide variety of people and never been labeled a racist, misogynist, or mansplainer. If this is happening often to you, maybe it's your approach that is leading all these people to react that way to what you say. I do recognize that as a straight white middle-class guy I am privileged in many ways - not because people told me so . . . but because it's self-evident from research done on wages, hiring practices, world average wages/living standards, etc.
You are illustrating my point above. You are self segregating into your identity group and qualifying your opinion based on that group. Also see how I cannot disagree with letting girls into boy scouts without not understanding history, that women are oppressed, etc. In reality I am thinking more of the loss to boys than anything to do with girls. Maybe that makes me sexist. But again, that would illustrate my point
In what way am I segregating? I'm acknowledging the fact of my sex and ethnicity. As an example, my best friend is a guy from Trinidad who I met in university. I didn't have a car, so was always bumming rides with him to places. When I started driving around with him I pretty quickly realized how differently a middle class black guy gets treated by the police than a white guy. It was eye opening, and really proved to me why it's important to acknowledge those differences - because they are real and evident. I'm qualifying my opinion based on my personal experiences, and the research I've done into the issue . . . not because I happen to be a straight white guy.
I can state that black people get harassed more than white people without stating my race, and it is still true. Why did you feel that you had to state that you have that opinion as a white person? What does your skin color have to do with the recognition that black people are harassed more than whites? Do you feel that your contribution to the conversation on race is dictated by your skin color?
Again, you have failed to answer my question in your response. My question was:
- What segregation is occurring?
In answer to yours:
- I didn't feel a need, but it seemed relevant to the discussion.
- People who are not members of oppressed groups don't always have a full understanding of what living that life entails. As such, they're much more likely to say things like "There's no racism any more", "Sexism doesn't exist", etc.
- No.
I opposed letting girls into the boy scouts and was having a debate with a friend. She said it was good for girls because historically girls have been oppressed, and at least I can agree that women are oppressed. I said I did not agree with that and she shut down the conversation stating she can't continue it if I don't admit that women are oppressed, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
While things are certainly much better than they were in the 60s, which was still better than things were in the 20s, it's very evident that women are not currently treated equally as men in the United States:
- How many women have been president? How many men?
Is it only equality until we are 50:50?
No. It's reasonable to believe that when 100% of women have been denied a position, it's a likely indicator of inequality though.
You're right, Obama told me if i don't vote for Hillary I must be sexist. I should have voted for her based on her gender not her policies, so we can get us some more of that sweet equality.
I don't agree with your viewpoint at all on this matter. Of course everyone should be absolutely free to vote for whoever they choose . . . without that, one of the fundamental tenants of democracy is broken. It doesn't change the fact that only twelve women have ever run for president, and that the American people didn't vote for any of them. This appears to be indicative of long standing systemic inequality. Being forced to vote for a woman simply because she's a woman would absolutely not solve the inequality problem that exists in the US to this day.
- What percentage of people in congress are women? What percentage of people in the country are women?
Again, is it only equality when we have 50:50
And again, no. However, it's reasonable to believe that when 54% of the people in a country are female and only 19% are elected to congress it's a likely indicator of inequality.
Is that all it is? Is there really such a simple solution to a complex issue? One cause, inequality, and that's it? In any case I am interested to see what happens in the midterm elections
I didn't propose a solution, just identified a problem. If inequality responded well to simple solutions we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
- Men are given full autonomy over their bodies in all situations. Are women?
Male circumcision. No male birth control pill.
As far as I'm aware, few (zero?) male circumcisions are performed on adult men against their wishes. Many procedures are performed on children by parents including body mutilations (ear piercing on young girls is relatively common for example).
Male birth control pills are hopefully coming soon. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/health/male-birth-control-pill-study/index.html) It's not that scientists were attempting to deny men the pill, they're a more technically complex problem than female birth control was.
I find it interesting that you can justify mutilating a baby boy that has no consent and equate it to ear piercing. At least the holes in your ears will close if you take the earrings out. And boys grow up knowing they had a part of their penis cut off because it is "dirty".
Punching a hole in a girls ear for decorative reasons vs. cutting off some skin because it's medically shown to prevent some disease/cancer . . . to me they're comparable events. Piercing the ear might grow back (it might not), but is mutilation for purely decorative reasons, like foot binding or wearing a corset. Circumcision probably won't grow back (although there exist procedures to re-stretch the foreskin) but has medical support for doing it. Either way, they're things that happen to children under their parents direction, not things that are done to adults against their will . . . so have nothing to do with my original point.
- How often are women raped in comparison to men?
Hard to say since when a man is raped it is called "forced penetration" in the stats instead of rape. This is a criminal justice issue though, rather than one of oppression. If more men commit suicide than women do we need to make that 50:50 too? What about deaths on the job which is currenlty around 11:1 men:women. Make that equal too?
Tally up the numbers for rape then. In every study I've seen, it shows that women are raped by men orders of magnitude more than men raped by women.
If more men are committing suicide than women, then we should probably provide extra support to men to try and reduce that number. If work situations are less safe for men than women, then yes . . . they should be improved as well. This is self-evident . . . not controversial, isn't it?
Nope, not controversial at all, but it's not inequality. In the UK it is only possible for males to commit rape as it is defined as penetration. Men and boys who are raped is called "forced to penetrate". Now can you explain why the statistics look the way they do? More women are certainly raped than men, but again this is a criminal justice issue not proof of oppression or inequality.
Inequality : difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.
If there exists a difference in the number of men committing suicide than women, then there's a problem. We should work to fix this inequality by providing more services to men in need.
If there exists a difference in number of women vs men being raped there is a problem. We should work to fix this inequality by providing preventative services to the men and women involved in this act.
While you have admitted that there's no problem with the former statement, earlier you said that attempts to do the latter (via optional programs being offered to men on college campuses) were deplorable. That seems to be rather inconsistent.
- Do women make the same amount as men when doing the same job?
In general yes, but there tends to be a 2-5% difference with men getting paid more. This has to do with negotiations and assertiveness more than anything. My coworker that was hired 8 months before me makes less than me, but I negotiated a higher salary and he didn't, we do the same job. I guess if he was a woman he could claim oppression, but since he is male he is SOL. or he could have just tried to negotiate a higher salary.
Ah. So you believe that women are paid less because they're inferior negotiators. Do you believe that this is entirely due to their ovaries, or maybe that a lifetime of gendered expectations has resulted in this situation?
That's not what I said, and I even gave you an example of a male coworker that is not assertive and a bad negotiator. On average women are more agreeable and will not be as assertive during negotiations, that does not mean all women will act a certain way any more than men will. I don't think it is gendered expectations as I think there are likely biological reasons for this such as raising children and survival. You really want to twist my words to be able to fit me into the box that you have constructed for me.
You're saying that women are 'more agreeable' and not as assertive during negotiations as men and that 'there are likely biological reasons for this such as raising children and survival'. While you've carefully avoided using the word 'inferior', everything you've listed is an inferior trait when negotiating . . . which is the reason that you believe women are paid less than men.
Is anything that I've just said incorrect? If so, could you please clarify/correct me?
It's difficult for many to look at the answers to the above questions and then argue that they're all just a coincidence. It seems more likely that there's some fundamental disparity still going on.
Except what you are describing above is equality of outcome, which I do not agree with.
If you fundamentally believe that people are predisposed to inferiority/superiority because of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or race then equality in work conditions, sexual assaults, job availability, etc. will be impossible to achieve. The thing is, that's the same argument that was used to keep black slaves. It's the same argument that was used to persecute the Jews. It was the same argument used to suppress women voters. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need some pretty strong supporting evidence that the assumption you're making is correct.
Again you are trying to place me into a box you have constructed for me. I never said any of that nor believe it. I say I do not believe in equality of outcome which leads you to think that I think some people are inferior or superior than others. Are you saying that equality of outcome is necessary to for some groups to be successful? Cause that seem pretty racist to me.
Your previous comment indicated that women on average are inferior negotiators for biological reasons, and that's why they make less money on average. If that is not your view point, could you please clarify/correct it?
Another example is when a black man is not allowed to have an opinion that he "shouldn't" have, such as kanye liking trump, blacks are supposed to be democrats don't you know.
So, to show how black men are not allowed to have opinions that they shouldn't . . . you give an example of a black man who has an opinion that (you allege) he shouldn't? :P Can you show an actual example of what you're talking about here?
It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.
Kanye felt comfortable enough to freely voice his own opinion publicly. He has experienced no state issued sanction, no persecution by people in power. If your 'black friends' don't agree with BLM or affirmative action, they can freely voice their own opinions too. An opinion doesn't have to be popular to be voiced.
What exactly is the problem that you're referring to?
Ah yes, but the moral authority forces apologies. You can voice your opinion but you have to be sorry for it. Not sure why you put black friends in quotes.
No. You don't ever have to be sorry for your opinion. You're always free to voice it. This is true for everyone. It doesn't just work for you. If your opinion is unpopular, others are just as free to voice their opinion of your views.
Everyone's free to voice their opinion, nobody's allowed to be free of criticism though . . . which appears to be what you want. If this is incorrect, please directly answer the question that you've ignored the two previous times it has been asked:
What exactly is the problem you're referring to?