The "women and children first" policy as you envision it simply does not exist. It has never been a part of maritime law, it has, at best, been the personal policy of a few captains over a century ago. Even in those cases, the policy was understood in a much different way than you assert.
Did you miss this link I provided already? Again, you are ignoring the list of other things I provided as well.
Quote from Tiax »
You ask, "why would that same society create policy that benefit women at all? What's more, create a policy that benefits women at the expense of men?" and then IMMEDIATELY quoted me giving an example of how a misogynistic society could create a policy that sometimes benefits women at the expense of men...
Your explanation is inherently flawed because it starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it and whether or not you think I am guilty of this isn't anything more than a tu quoque argument. I can't agree with your explanation and frankly no one including you should either, even if it was true, for that reason alone.
There might be other explanations that you haven't considered, like perhaps maybe the women who were being put into life boats on the titanic did not want to leave their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons on the ship to die and refused to leave without them. That might not even be correct, but honestly it sounds more plausible to me than your explanation does.
Quote from Tiax »
Misogyny does not mean wanting women to suffer or die. It does not mean wanting men to always benefit at the expense of women. A policy that benefits women in some way is not contradictory with the hypothesis of a misogynistic society.
I have to agree with Blinking Spirit's example and disagree with you here.
On women in power... Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters. Hilary was close. How many hundreds of men have tried and failed to become president? When you compare that to the tiny number of females that have tried to run I don't see how anyone can expect a different result. You can't expect everyone to just push any female candidate forward because we need to satisfy some social requirement of having a female leader. This reminds me of the outcry last year when no black head coaches were hired in the NFL for that year(There were black head coaches but no new ones were hired!). Sometimes it just works out that way. I'd be curious to know the percentage of success for females running for congress versus males running for congress... I have a feeling that the success rate of women running for office is not in some horrible state that requires attention.
"Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters."
And yet none. Are you saying women are incapable, or that the voters require men?
Why do you think so few women try to run? (By trying to run, I assume you mean making it as far as becoming a primary candidate; if not, feel free to correct me.) Do you really think that four times as many men as women want to be senators/congresspeople/president? Or do you think it's possible that women face a certain amount of sexism at every stage of the political process, so that the number that make it to the level of presidential candidate is vanishingly small? I offer the Yale study that showed men being offered higher salaries than women, for the same resume, as evidence that there's still a difference in perception.
A quick Google brings up work showing that although women are equally likely to respond to encouragement to run for office by political recruiters, they are significantly less likely to receive that encouragement. Women are significantly more likely to have been _discouraged_ from running by a party official. There's also a significant party bias, with Republicans having a significantly lower proportion of woman legislators. (http://www.representation2020.com/uploads/9/2/2/7/9227685/swr_highlights_2013-2014.pdf)
Additionally, "For the most ethnically diverse nations —those with high EF [ethnic fractionalisation] — having a woman in the top national leadership position was correlated with a 6.9 percent greater increase in GDP growth in comparison to nations with a male leader." (http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/node/1633) So it might actually be a good idea.
It's certainly not the case that women aren't getting into positions of power because there's so many there already! I don't think "Sometimes it just works out that way" applies in this case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Did you miss this link I provided already? Again, you are ignoring the list of other things I provided as well.
No one in this link was in even the tiniest amount of danger. There is no comparison.
Your explanation is inherently flawed because it starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it and whether or not you think I am guilty of this isn't anything more than a tu quoque argument. I can't agree with your explanation and frankly no one including you should either, even if it was true, for that reason alone.
There might be other explanations that you haven't considered, like perhaps maybe the women who were being put into life boats on the titanic did not want to leave their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons on the ship to die and refused to leave without them. That might not even be correct, but honestly it sounds more plausible to me than your explanation does.
There certainly might be other explanations. The important things are that:
1) The evidence contradicts the conclusion that the policy was due to a view that men's lives were less valuable.
2) There exist potential explanations by which a misogynistic society could generate this policy. Note that I am not arguing that this policy proves that society is misogynistic. I certainly accept that there could be other explanations.
Quote from Tiax »
I have to agree with Blinking Spirit's example and disagree with you here.
Disagree all you want - the definition of the word is clear.
Grant your arguments suffer the same exact problem as tiax's argument. It is inherently flawed because it relies on an assumption that has yet to be shown to be true. Perhaps there are other explanations you haven't considered.
On women in power... Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters. Hilary was close. How many hundreds of men have tried and failed to become president? When you compare that to the tiny number of females that have tried to run I don't see how anyone can expect a different result. You can't expect everyone to just push any female candidate forward because we need to satisfy some social requirement of having a female leader. This reminds me of the outcry last year when no black head coaches were hired in the NFL for that year(There were black head coaches but no new ones were hired!). Sometimes it just works out that way. I'd be curious to know the percentage of success for females running for congress versus males running for congress... I have a feeling that the success rate of women running for office is not in some horrible state that requires attention.
"Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters."
And yet none. Are you saying women are incapable, or that the voters require men?
Or they just aren't running in a high enough number to have been elected. While not every candidate has the same chance they have a similar chance (assuming they come from a major party). You can't just say "well 5 women have tried and failed so there must be a problem!" When in that same period of time 10 times more men may have run.
One explanation to account for some of the disparity in who runs could be that it's extremely expensive to run for office and old dudes tend to be the ones with really deep pockets and the "background" for politics. Now that can lead us down to why it is the case that there are fewer women in those positions... but how far down do we go and still say we have a problem with dis-allowing women to be in power.
I think the problem here is that you think I'm saying "women and children first" proves a misogynistic motivation. This is not my point. My point is that policy is at least consistent with the misogyny hypothesis, and inconsistent with the disposability hypothesis.
I think the problem here is that you think I'm saying "women and children first" proves a misogynistic motivation. This is not my point. My point is that policy is at least consistent with the misogyny hypothesis, and inconsistent with the disposability hypothesis.
In your mind... I'd venture to say that it depends on who you asked. I would guess that if you polled enough people you would have a large percentage say they think it's because men should protect women because they are more valuable and a large number say they should protect women because they are less able to protect themselves.
In your mind... I'd venture to say that it depends on who you asked. I would guess that if you polled enough people you would have a large percentage say they think it's because men should protect women because they are more valuable and a large number say they should protect women because they are less able to protect themselves.
Um...what? Who cares what people's poll answers are?
On women in power... Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters. Hilary was close. How many hundreds of men have tried and failed to become president? When you compare that to the tiny number of females that have tried to run I don't see how anyone can expect a different result. You can't expect everyone to just push any female candidate forward because we need to satisfy some social requirement of having a female leader. This reminds me of the outcry last year when no black head coaches were hired in the NFL for that year(There were black head coaches but no new ones were hired!). Sometimes it just works out that way. I'd be curious to know the percentage of success for females running for congress versus males running for congress... I have a feeling that the success rate of women running for office is not in some horrible state that requires attention.
"Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters."
And yet none. Are you saying women are incapable, or that the voters require men?
Or they just aren't running in a high enough number to have been elected. While not every candidate has the same chance they have a similar chance (assuming they come from a major party). You can't just say "well 5 women have tried and failed so there must be a problem!" When in that same period of time 10 times more men may have run.
One explanation to account for some of the disparity in who runs could be that it's extremely expensive to run for office and old dudes tend to be the ones with really deep pockets and the "background" for politics. Now that can lead us down to why it is the case that there are fewer women in those positions... but how far down do we go and still say we have a problem with dis-allowing women to be in power.
If you read the rest of my post, you see that I mention women being _actively discouraged from running_ by party officials. I think that would be another place to look.
Certainly money could be another issue. But that begs the question 'why are women less wealthy than men?'. Also 'why do men have the background for politics?'. And an answer to that last could be that, due to the _history_ of men dominating political power, both women and men tend to believe that men should have political power.
But no matter where you follow this trail, it keeps coming back to discrimination, either historical or present, causing the exclusion of women from, and male domination of, government. That's still patriarchy even by bLatch's own definition, let alone feminism's term of art.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I understand that tiax, but the problem still remains. The explanation might be consistent with the hypothesis, but both still suffer from the same problem and as such are inherently flawed.
Put it this way, if I start with the conclusion that society is inherently misandric, do you think you think I could find evidence of that? Could I also explain how certain actions are misandric just like you've been doing?
More importantly going about things this way may incorrectly identify problems or worse, create fictional problems and end up helping no one or drawing attention away from real problems that could be solved.
In your mind... I'd venture to say that it depends on who you asked. I would guess that if you polled enough people you would have a large percentage say they think it's because men should protect women because they are more valuable and a large number say they should protect women because they are less able to protect themselves.
Um...what? Who cares what people's poll answers are?
Who cares where the phrase originated? For a discussion like this, is it not more important to know what people believe it to mean?
If 80% of people believe women and children are more valuable than men and that is why "women and children first" then who cares if it originally came about because people thought women needed to be protected like children?
But no matter where you follow this trail, it keeps coming back to discrimination, either historical or present, causing the exclusion of women from, and male domination of, government. That's still patriarchy even by bLatch's own definition, let alone feminism's term of art.
Whether or not you believe it fits some definition if you can make the connection to historical discrimination that is no longer a road block (like women not really being able to be in positions of power or money making) then I find it hard to say there is still a problem. If the current disparity is caused by historical problems that no longer exist then there is good reason to believe that the disparity will eventually correct itself naturally over time. Any attempt to speed that process along is most likely going to lead to some other kind of discrimination.
For example... the NFL artificially tries to promote racial equality in coaching by forcing a team to interview at least 1 black candidate for any head coaching job. I could argue that this could create a culture where qualified black coaches are fast tracked to head coaching over white coaches that are equally qualified because of sheer opportunity. If there is only 1 black assistant coach that is ready for a head coaching job with 10 white assistants in the same position, and 3 positions available the black coach must be interviewed by all 3 teams, where the other candidates may only interview with 1, 2 or none of the teams depending on timing.
So if we say that at least a portion of the reason less women are in positions of power is historical... how do we artificially close that gap in a way that is not discriminatory in it's own right?
Who cares where the phrase originated? For a discussion like this, is it not more important to know what people believe it to mean?
If 80% of people believe women and children are more valuable than men and that is why "women and children first" then who cares if it originally came about because people thought women needed to be protected like children?
Are you talking about what people today think it meant, or what people on the Titanic and Birkenhead think it meant? What people think it means today is irrelevant, because the policy does not exist today.
I realize that but I am on my phone. I am talking about feminist theory and they do not have a hypothesis so much as dogmatic doctrine.
Great, but you're talking to me, not to a faceless "feminist theory". I'd appreciate it you adjusted your replies accordingly. Don't try to hold me accountable for the reasoning of others, only for my own reasoning.
Who cares where the phrase originated? For a discussion like this, is it not more important to know what people believe it to mean?
If 80% of people believe women and children are more valuable than men and that is why "women and children first" then who cares if it originally came about because people thought women needed to be protected like children?
Are you talking about what people today think it meant, or what people on the Titanic and Birkenhead think it meant? What people think it means today is irrelevant, because the policy does not exist today.
What people thought it meant 100 years ago is pretty irrelevant, since the general view on women has dramatically changed between then and now. If people today though are of the opinion that it should be women and children first because their lives are more valuable then that points to people generally feeling women are more valuable than men.
Great, but you're talking to me, not to a faceless "feminist theory". I'd appreciate it you adjusted your replies accordingly. Don't try to hold me accountable for the reasoning of others, only for my own reasoning.
Now wait a minute Tiax, your very first post in this thread you said:
Quote from Tiax »
The phrase "women and children first" is certainly interesting. Why is it that women are grouped with children as needing special protection? It's a form of paternalism that relegates women to the status of defenseless child-like beings. This is a form of misogyny, not evidence that misogyny doesn't exist.
Then in post #59 you say:
Quote from Tiax »
I think the problem here is that you think I'm saying "women and children first" proves a misogynistic motivation. This is not my point. My point is that policy is at least consistent with the misogyny hypothesis, and inconsistent with the disposability hypothesis.
Your arguments throughout have been pretty consistent with feminist theory. Even past that, your argument that women and children first is misogynistic still has to make several assumptions, that may or may not even be true in the first place and as such is still inherently flawed.
In all honesty, I'm not even sure what it is then you are trying to argue or what point you are even trying to make because it doesn't seem as though you are being consistent or very clear.
Right, so let's draw a distinction between "is evidence of societal misogyny" and "is misogynistic". What I am suggesting in my first post is that the policy is misogynistic because of how it treats women as children. I am not, however, claiming that that policy is proof that society is inherently misogynistic. Considering that my position is that the policy is extremely rare and a mere historical footnote, it would make absolutely no sense for me to believe it was part of a larger societal misogyny. Regardless of its motivation, the policy is itself misogynistic, because it infantilizes women. This fact requires no assumptions about the motivations of the policy.
You, by contrast, are arguing that society views males as disposable, and further that society cannot be inherently misogynistic. As one piece of evidence to support this, you offer the example of the supposed "women and children first" policy. I note that, first, the policy is not what you would expect were males actually disposable. It does not demand, for example, that the oarsmen give up their lifeboat seats to women. Instead it demands that oarsmen and other men be allowed on to shepherd the women and children. Further, it is consistent with, though not proof of, an explanation of societal misogyny, because it is the sort of policy we would expect a society that views women as weak like children to construct.
Right, so let's draw a distinction between "is evidence of societal misogyny" and "is misogynistic". What I am suggesting in my first post is that the policy is misogynistic because of how it treats women as children. I am not, however, claiming that that policy is proof that society is inherently misogynistic. Considering that my position is that the policy is extremely rare and a mere historical footnote, it would make absolutely no sense for me to believe it was part of a larger societal misogyny. Regardless of its motivation, the policy is itself misogynistic, because it infantilizes women. This fact requires no assumptions about the motivations of the policy.
So your argument is because women and children are grouped together it is misogynistic? Is that right?
Quote from Tiax »
You, by contrast, are arguing that society views males as disposable, and further that society cannot be inherently misogynistic.
No, that's not my argument at all. I reject the claim of feminism, that society is inherently misogynistic, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that fact that this policy exists at all, as a television troupe, as an actual policy, etc., because it seems to run contrary to the claim that society is inherently misogynistic.
I wrote 2,052 words in my OP and you latched on to 5 of them and just ignored the rest. Let's assume that I agree and retract on that point, there's much more to my argument than just those 5 words, so stop ignoring them. I didn't write all of those words to talk about 5 of them, I wrote all of them because I wanted to engage in an honest discussion about feminist views and ideology.
Quote from Tiax »
As one piece of evidence to support this, you offer the example of the supposed "women and children first" policy. I note that, first, the policy is not what you would expect were males actually disposable.
As I've already said in this thread, there's multiple ways of looking at things. Why do you get to assert the reason women and children are grouped together is misogynistic? Why to you get to assert that this makes them no better than babies?
Another way to look at it is that the men left behind were viewed as disposable. Another might be that women might be viewed as better able to care for children than men. The point is if you want to go this route, then it's completely subjective opinion.
If you want to say that is only your subjective opinion on said actions, fine, I won't argue with your opinion - you're entitled to view a situation however you want. But then in that same time, my opinion is just as valid as yours.
So are you making an objective claim or are you making a subjective opinion?
So your argument is because women and children are grouped together it is misogynistic? Is that right?
It's not quite that simplistic.
No, that's not my argument at all. I reject the claim of feminism, that society is inherently misogynistic, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that fact that this policy exists at all, as a television troupe, as an actual policy, etc., because it seems to run contrary to the claim that society is inherently misogynistic.
I wrote 2,052 words in my OP and you latched on to 5 of them and just ignored the rest. Let's assume that I agree and retract on that point, there's much more to my argument than just those 5 words, so stop ignoring them. I didn't write all of those words to talk about 5 of them, I wrote all of them because I wanted to engage in an honest discussion about feminist views and ideology.
Yes, I understand that you made a lot of points. I'm discussing one that strikes me as incorrect.
As I've already said in this thread, there's multiple ways of looking at things. Why do you get to assert the reason women and children are grouped together is misogynistic? Why to you get to assert that this makes them no better than babies?
You are still failing to grasp this. I'm not arguing that the policy shows that society was misogynistic. The policy, however, IS misogynistic. It is prejudicial against women. It could be that a non-misogynistic society came up with a misogynistic policy for other reasons.
Another way to look at it is that the men left behind were viewed as disposable. Another might be that women might be viewed as better able to care for children than men. The point is if you want to go this route, then it's completely subjective opinion.
If you want to say that is only your subjective opinion on said actions, fine, I won't argue with your opinion - you're entitled to view a situation however you want. But then in that same time, my opinion is just as valid as yours.
So are you making an objective claim or are you making a subjective opinion?
Again, the hypothesis that the men were viewed as disposable does not match the facts. Of the possible explanations, that is not one.
Whether or not you believe it fits some definition if you can make the connection to historical discrimination that is no longer a road block (like women not really being able to be in positions of power or money making) then I find it hard to say there is still a problem. If the current disparity is caused by historical problems that no longer exist then there is good reason to believe that the disparity will eventually correct itself naturally over time. Any attempt to speed that process along is most likely going to lead to some other kind of discrimination.
For example... the NFL artificially tries to promote racial equality in coaching by forcing a team to interview at least 1 black candidate for any head coaching job. I could argue that this could create a culture where qualified black coaches are fast tracked to head coaching over white coaches that are equally qualified because of sheer opportunity. If there is only 1 black assistant coach that is ready for a head coaching job with 10 white assistants in the same position, and 3 positions available the black coach must be interviewed by all 3 teams, where the other candidates may only interview with 1, 2 or none of the teams depending on timing.
So if we say that at least a portion of the reason less women are in positions of power is historical... how do we artificially close that gap in a way that is not discriminatory in it's own right?
If you read the rest of my previous post, you see that I mention women are more likely than men to be _actively discouraged from running_ by party officials.
A start would be not doing _that_.
They're also less likely to be actively recruited by parties.
In another study, the researchers found that "girls will envision greater levels of future political activity when there are competitive female politicians who run for high profile political office in their district or country". So maybe equality is, as you say, something that will snowball. At the current rate of increase, though, the projection is that it will take another 500 years to reach parity.
Is it discrimination if new political candidates are selected at a ratio favouring females, when Congress/Senate are 80:20? You could certainly interpret it that way - or you could interpret it as discrimination _not_ to. Depending on whether your goal was parity of representation overall, or parity of selection from a very small subset.
Grant your arguments suffer the same exact problem as tiax's argument. It is inherently flawed because it relies on an assumption that has yet to be shown to be true. Perhaps there are other explanations you haven't considered.
Well, I'm convinced. No, wait, the opposite of that.
But feel free to persuade me. Come up with an argument that explains why the US has never had a female president, and why the highest ever proportion of women in Senate/Congress is about 20%, but doesn't involve discrimination in the way the genders are treated.
But feel free to persuade me. Come up with an argument that explains why the US has never had a female president, and why the highest ever proportion of women in Senate/Congress is about 20%, but doesn't involve discrimination in the way the genders are treated.
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
The first is easily solved by having positions which big spending donators agree with or want pushed.
The second is solved by appealing to the biggest demographic of voters you can possibly appeal too, which ironically is female voters. The fact is female voters themselves are statistically one of the major reason that women are entering government at such low levels.
You have no basis to claim that US society is misogynistic, and calling it as such is just offensive.
Instead of attacking men for something that isn't their fault, reach out to women voters to help more women win elections for government positions.
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
The first is easily solved by having positions which big spending donators agree with or want pushed.
The second is solved by appealing to the biggest demographic of voters you can possibly appeal too, which ironically is female voters. The fact is female voters themselves are statistically one of the major reason that women are entering government at such low levels.
You have no basis to claim that US society is misogynistic, and calling it as such is just offensive.
Instead of attacking men for something that isn't their fault, reach out to women voters to help more women win elections for government positions.
If women are poorer than men, I'd be keen to hear how that's not somehow a result of gender discrimination. And women can't vote for women if those women don't break through the (higher) barriers to candidacy.
I also haven't claimed that US society is misogynistic. I've suggested that it's discriminatory. That's not the same thing.
And I'm not attacking men. I've pointed out that men dominate positions of political, economic and judicial power. That also isn't the same thing.
Please desist with the strawmen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
If women are poorer than men, I'd be keen to hear how that's not somehow a result of gender discrimination. And women can't vote for women if those women don't break through the (higher) barriers to candidacy.
I also haven't claimed that US society is misogynistic. I've suggested that it's discriminatory. That's not the same thing.
And I'm not attacking men. I've pointed out that men dominate positions of political, economic and judicial power. That also isn't the same thing.
Please desist with the strawmen.
Men usually go into fields that pay more, because they are more demanding, while women go into fields that pay less. If you compare and men and women who work the same job, the wage difference is basically not existent.
In the context of this discussion they basically have the same meaning.
You are attacking men though, by making false claims that demonize them with no proof.
Please tell me how and why my argument is a strawman? I think my argument fits you perfectly. You are the person who is making the huge assumption that US society is discriminatory just because women are not 50% of the US senate and congress,
"Given the numbers I've already cited, it's pretty clear that men hold the power. Are you going to argue that 20% representation for women (and that's a record high) isn't "largely excluded"".
Even if women were 0% on the senate and congress, it still would not prove your insane discrimination claims, maybe women on average just don't want job, or maybe, just maybe, men are better at the job, which is why they are picked more often, even by female voters.
Take of your tinfoil hat please, there is no mass conspiracy by men to push women to the bottom of society.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That exact phrasing sure... but the idea behind it?
Did you miss this link I provided already? Again, you are ignoring the list of other things I provided as well.
Your explanation is inherently flawed because it starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it and whether or not you think I am guilty of this isn't anything more than a tu quoque argument. I can't agree with your explanation and frankly no one including you should either, even if it was true, for that reason alone.
There might be other explanations that you haven't considered, like perhaps maybe the women who were being put into life boats on the titanic did not want to leave their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons on the ship to die and refused to leave without them. That might not even be correct, but honestly it sounds more plausible to me than your explanation does.
I have to agree with Blinking Spirit's example and disagree with you here.
"Nothing is preventing a female president other than a capable woman running for the position that meets the requirements of the voters."
And yet none. Are you saying women are incapable, or that the voters require men?
Why do you think so few women try to run? (By trying to run, I assume you mean making it as far as becoming a primary candidate; if not, feel free to correct me.) Do you really think that four times as many men as women want to be senators/congresspeople/president? Or do you think it's possible that women face a certain amount of sexism at every stage of the political process, so that the number that make it to the level of presidential candidate is vanishingly small? I offer the Yale study that showed men being offered higher salaries than women, for the same resume, as evidence that there's still a difference in perception.
A quick Google brings up work showing that although women are equally likely to respond to encouragement to run for office by political recruiters, they are significantly less likely to receive that encouragement. Women are significantly more likely to have been _discouraged_ from running by a party official. There's also a significant party bias, with Republicans having a significantly lower proportion of woman legislators. (http://www.representation2020.com/uploads/9/2/2/7/9227685/swr_highlights_2013-2014.pdf)
Additionally, "For the most ethnically diverse nations —those with high EF [ethnic fractionalisation] — having a woman in the top national leadership position was correlated with a 6.9 percent greater increase in GDP growth in comparison to nations with a male leader." (http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/node/1633) So it might actually be a good idea.
It's certainly not the case that women aren't getting into positions of power because there's so many there already! I don't think "Sometimes it just works out that way" applies in this case.
No one in this link was in even the tiniest amount of danger. There is no comparison.
There certainly might be other explanations. The important things are that:
1) The evidence contradicts the conclusion that the policy was due to a view that men's lives were less valuable.
2) There exist potential explanations by which a misogynistic society could generate this policy. Note that I am not arguing that this policy proves that society is misogynistic. I certainly accept that there could be other explanations.
Disagree all you want - the definition of the word is clear.
Or they just aren't running in a high enough number to have been elected. While not every candidate has the same chance they have a similar chance (assuming they come from a major party). You can't just say "well 5 women have tried and failed so there must be a problem!" When in that same period of time 10 times more men may have run.
One explanation to account for some of the disparity in who runs could be that it's extremely expensive to run for office and old dudes tend to be the ones with really deep pockets and the "background" for politics. Now that can lead us down to why it is the case that there are fewer women in those positions... but how far down do we go and still say we have a problem with dis-allowing women to be in power.
In your mind... I'd venture to say that it depends on who you asked. I would guess that if you polled enough people you would have a large percentage say they think it's because men should protect women because they are more valuable and a large number say they should protect women because they are less able to protect themselves.
Um...what? Who cares what people's poll answers are?
If you read the rest of my post, you see that I mention women being _actively discouraged from running_ by party officials. I think that would be another place to look.
Certainly money could be another issue. But that begs the question 'why are women less wealthy than men?'. Also 'why do men have the background for politics?'. And an answer to that last could be that, due to the _history_ of men dominating political power, both women and men tend to believe that men should have political power.
But no matter where you follow this trail, it keeps coming back to discrimination, either historical or present, causing the exclusion of women from, and male domination of, government. That's still patriarchy even by bLatch's own definition, let alone feminism's term of art.
Put it this way, if I start with the conclusion that society is inherently misandric, do you think you think I could find evidence of that? Could I also explain how certain actions are misandric just like you've been doing?
More importantly going about things this way may incorrectly identify problems or worse, create fictional problems and end up helping no one or drawing attention away from real problems that could be solved.
Who cares where the phrase originated? For a discussion like this, is it not more important to know what people believe it to mean?
If 80% of people believe women and children are more valuable than men and that is why "women and children first" then who cares if it originally came about because people thought women needed to be protected like children?
Whether or not you believe it fits some definition if you can make the connection to historical discrimination that is no longer a road block (like women not really being able to be in positions of power or money making) then I find it hard to say there is still a problem. If the current disparity is caused by historical problems that no longer exist then there is good reason to believe that the disparity will eventually correct itself naturally over time. Any attempt to speed that process along is most likely going to lead to some other kind of discrimination.
For example... the NFL artificially tries to promote racial equality in coaching by forcing a team to interview at least 1 black candidate for any head coaching job. I could argue that this could create a culture where qualified black coaches are fast tracked to head coaching over white coaches that are equally qualified because of sheer opportunity. If there is only 1 black assistant coach that is ready for a head coaching job with 10 white assistants in the same position, and 3 positions available the black coach must be interviewed by all 3 teams, where the other candidates may only interview with 1, 2 or none of the teams depending on timing.
So if we say that at least a portion of the reason less women are in positions of power is historical... how do we artificially close that gap in a way that is not discriminatory in it's own right?
Are you talking about what people today think it meant, or what people on the Titanic and Birkenhead think it meant? What people think it means today is irrelevant, because the policy does not exist today.
Great, but you're talking to me, not to a faceless "feminist theory". I'd appreciate it you adjusted your replies accordingly. Don't try to hold me accountable for the reasoning of others, only for my own reasoning.
What people thought it meant 100 years ago is pretty irrelevant, since the general view on women has dramatically changed between then and now. If people today though are of the opinion that it should be women and children first because their lives are more valuable then that points to people generally feeling women are more valuable than men.
Now wait a minute Tiax, your very first post in this thread you said:
Then in post #59 you say:
Your arguments throughout have been pretty consistent with feminist theory. Even past that, your argument that women and children first is misogynistic still has to make several assumptions, that may or may not even be true in the first place and as such is still inherently flawed.
In all honesty, I'm not even sure what it is then you are trying to argue or what point you are even trying to make because it doesn't seem as though you are being consistent or very clear.
You, by contrast, are arguing that society views males as disposable, and further that society cannot be inherently misogynistic. As one piece of evidence to support this, you offer the example of the supposed "women and children first" policy. I note that, first, the policy is not what you would expect were males actually disposable. It does not demand, for example, that the oarsmen give up their lifeboat seats to women. Instead it demands that oarsmen and other men be allowed on to shepherd the women and children. Further, it is consistent with, though not proof of, an explanation of societal misogyny, because it is the sort of policy we would expect a society that views women as weak like children to construct.
So your argument is because women and children are grouped together it is misogynistic? Is that right?
No, that's not my argument at all. I reject the claim of feminism, that society is inherently misogynistic, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that fact that this policy exists at all, as a television troupe, as an actual policy, etc., because it seems to run contrary to the claim that society is inherently misogynistic.
I wrote 2,052 words in my OP and you latched on to 5 of them and just ignored the rest. Let's assume that I agree and retract on that point, there's much more to my argument than just those 5 words, so stop ignoring them. I didn't write all of those words to talk about 5 of them, I wrote all of them because I wanted to engage in an honest discussion about feminist views and ideology.
As I've already said in this thread, there's multiple ways of looking at things. Why do you get to assert the reason women and children are grouped together is misogynistic? Why to you get to assert that this makes them no better than babies?
Another way to look at it is that the men left behind were viewed as disposable. Another might be that women might be viewed as better able to care for children than men. The point is if you want to go this route, then it's completely subjective opinion.
If you want to say that is only your subjective opinion on said actions, fine, I won't argue with your opinion - you're entitled to view a situation however you want. But then in that same time, my opinion is just as valid as yours.
So are you making an objective claim or are you making a subjective opinion?
It's not quite that simplistic.
Yes, I understand that you made a lot of points. I'm discussing one that strikes me as incorrect.
You are still failing to grasp this. I'm not arguing that the policy shows that society was misogynistic. The policy, however, IS misogynistic. It is prejudicial against women. It could be that a non-misogynistic society came up with a misogynistic policy for other reasons.
Again, the hypothesis that the men were viewed as disposable does not match the facts. Of the possible explanations, that is not one.
If you read the rest of my previous post, you see that I mention women are more likely than men to be _actively discouraged from running_ by party officials.
A start would be not doing _that_.
They're also less likely to be actively recruited by parties.
In another study, the researchers found that "girls will envision greater levels of future political activity when there are competitive female politicians who run for high profile political office in their district or country". So maybe equality is, as you say, something that will snowball. At the current rate of increase, though, the projection is that it will take another 500 years to reach parity.
Is it discrimination if new political candidates are selected at a ratio favouring females, when Congress/Senate are 80:20? You could certainly interpret it that way - or you could interpret it as discrimination _not_ to. Depending on whether your goal was parity of representation overall, or parity of selection from a very small subset.
Well, I'm convinced. No, wait, the opposite of that.
But feel free to persuade me. Come up with an argument that explains why the US has never had a female president, and why the highest ever proportion of women in Senate/Congress is about 20%, but doesn't involve discrimination in the way the genders are treated.
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
The first is easily solved by having positions which big spending donators agree with or want pushed.
The second is solved by appealing to the biggest demographic of voters you can possibly appeal too, which ironically is female voters. The fact is female voters themselves are statistically one of the major reason that women are entering government at such low levels.
You have no basis to claim that US society is misogynistic, and calling it as such is just offensive.
Instead of attacking men for something that isn't their fault, reach out to women voters to help more women win elections for government positions.
If women are poorer than men, I'd be keen to hear how that's not somehow a result of gender discrimination. And women can't vote for women if those women don't break through the (higher) barriers to candidacy.
I also haven't claimed that US society is misogynistic. I've suggested that it's discriminatory. That's not the same thing.
And I'm not attacking men. I've pointed out that men dominate positions of political, economic and judicial power. That also isn't the same thing.
Please desist with the strawmen.
Men usually go into fields that pay more, because they are more demanding, while women go into fields that pay less. If you compare and men and women who work the same job, the wage difference is basically not existent.
In the context of this discussion they basically have the same meaning.
You are attacking men though, by making false claims that demonize them with no proof.
Please tell me how and why my argument is a strawman? I think my argument fits you perfectly. You are the person who is making the huge assumption that US society is discriminatory just because women are not 50% of the US senate and congress,
"Given the numbers I've already cited, it's pretty clear that men hold the power. Are you going to argue that 20% representation for women (and that's a record high) isn't "largely excluded"".
Even if women were 0% on the senate and congress, it still would not prove your insane discrimination claims, maybe women on average just don't want job, or maybe, just maybe, men are better at the job, which is why they are picked more often, even by female voters.
Take of your tinfoil hat please, there is no mass conspiracy by men to push women to the bottom of society.