‹ First  < 5 6 7
 
   
 

#141- Is #Me Too Going Too Far? A Conversation with Rebecca Traister

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 November 2018 11:37
 
GAD - 16 November 2018 09:09 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 08:15 AM
GAD - 16 November 2018 08:03 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 07:27 AM
GAD - 16 November 2018 07:19 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 03:30 AM
GAD - 15 November 2018 05:58 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 15 November 2018 10:05 AM

Yeah, that article reflects what I have read, so I’m going to go with it, unless, GAD, you have an alternative source.  I knew (surprisingly) that women initiated around 70% of divorces, but I’d always understood that men cheated more. 

That younger demographic is interesting.  That’s the generation coming of age now. I wonder what that graph will look like in another 40 years.

I didn’t drill down on the data in the article, but times they are a changing. I also read the divorce stat, probably tied to the increasing infidelity of women as no fault divorce is now a golden ticket for women who can get taken care of for life no matter how many men they screw.

Damn, GAD, you are hardcore.  Haven’t the alimony laws changed to keep pace with the no-fault divorce laws?  Can a woman really collect indefinite alimony after initiating a divorce for any reason, much less after having cheated?  What you imply here does not square with what little I know about divorce; not at all..

No, the laws are a joke, basically 1 year of alimony for every 2 years of marriage up to 15 years of marriage then they can petition for lifetime and I think after 20 years of marriage it goes automatically to lifetime. And they get this for cheating and leaving marriage just to be with someone else even if they could work but chose not to. And they get half of everything you have, your retirement, SS etc no matter how large the amount.

Well, I had no idea.  Is that universal, or does it vary state by state?  Can a man be paid alimony for the same reasons?

I’m sure there are variations, but divorce is an industry that has a process that takes in 10’s of billions in profit every year and courts and lawyers don’t want to lose that, but it’s for the children and poor women of course. Yes, in theory men could get it as well, but in practice you don’t see it very often. The main reason is that women “chose” to be stay at home moms to be with their children which the court views as a sacrifice, yes, choosing to be with your kids while everything you have and do is paid for by your spouse who is working a 100 hours a week to make the bills is considered a huge sacrifice on the part the women who wanted the children. In the court the primary caretaker is the stay at home parent and the bestows a bunch of benefits in the form of primary custody and of course more money.     

 

Well, I can say anecdotally I have seen what you describe, but I am not as sure as you that this is a general problem.  That said, I think, in my state it is still the default to give residing custody of the children to the woman, absent some clear reason not to (but I think unemployment is a reason, though I am not sure).  If it’s not, then that does speak to your broader point, if she gets to collect alimony after initiating a divorce and then be a single, stay-at-home mom (unless she sacrificed her career to raise the kids, per agreement while married; that would be different.  Some allowance for that needs to be made).  In any case, I would be surprised (and dismayed) to see men getting such a short end of the stick..  Being happily married this is not something I have looked into.  But I now I’m curious, so I will…

If you don’t know then good for you. And yes, men DO get the short end of the stick. In divorce the first thing you will learn is that your wedding vows were not even worth the breath they were spoken with and the the certificate was nothing more then an agreement that on divorce that the court has full control of your life. 

If your cheating spouse is sobbing about how hard it is to get here money and move on to be with her lover she is consoled by the court, but if the man is emotional about his family and everything he’s worked for in his life being destroyed he is strongly recommend to get counseling, if he continues to be emotional about it he gets threats of mandatory counseling, restraining orders, loss of rights to children etc all at his cost. This appears pretty universal as it is considered that men will always be violent toward the poor women if they are emotional. So you just have to sit there and say NOTHING while the court divides your life up. 

   

 

Now that’s just fucked up, and I’m not going to stand on any ground that says what you went through can’t happen.  But do you think that since it happened to you it must happen generally?  Do you know other men this happened to?  My brother lives in California, he cheated, she divorced him, then he paid spousal support for…four years, I think.  But even when the divorce was his fault he didn’t suffer as much injustice as you have.  So this makes me wonder if your situation is an unfair exception more than a general rule.

I admit I know very little about this, only what I can read about on the Internet.  And those sources did say that much is left to the discretion of the courts, leaving it possible that that discretion works out like your situation more often than not.  I surely hope not, but I won’t say either way.

 

[ Edited: 16 November 2018 12:09 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 November 2018 11:51
 
czrpb - 16 November 2018 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 07:58 AM
czrpb - 16 November 2018 07:30 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 November 2018 02:41 PM

When it comes to the personal enjoyments of work, I think women have something to offer men, and men have something to offer women, even if it’s only a difference in sensitivities and tendencies that make people interesting to work with.

What do men offer women that is worthwhile that they (often? generally?) cant get from other women?

TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 November 2018 02:41 PM

I like this diversity myself.  But when it comes to the substance of getting the work done I don’t think there is anything specifically male or female either offers to the other.

Having a bit of a hard time understanding: In previous posts you disagreed that men/women are much different on axes like ‘cooperation’ and ‘aggression’, and instead said their modalities are different correct? This would change work dynamics yes? And, you havent found working with different genders much different? Fair summary?

The answer to your first question is in the text you quoted: a difference in sensitivities and tendencies.  Just to name one, watch the (typically) different reactions of women and men around an infant.  To name another, a tendency among men to suppress emotion and women to express it.  These kinds of differences make people interestingly different to one another.

To clarify the point underlying your second question, regarding the substance of getting the job done, the modality of unproductive aggressiveness and non-cooperation matters less than the fact of it, so no, factoring out their different modalities of being competitive and non-cooperative, men and women do not differ—the unproductivity in the end is the same.  At least in my experience, and there are good theoretical grounds to think this is generally the case. 

As a final clarification, yes, the flavor—as it were—of experiencing group malfunction will be different among men and women, but the underlying dynamics relative to malfunction will be the same.  The group will still malfunction, and when it’s a matter of adjusting means to ends, that consequence is what counts, not the specific form it takes (though when correcting for it, one will want to keep in mind the specific form, as to better rectify the problems).

Well, Im not sure you did answer the first wrt to what men provide that women generally cant get from other women, or put another way: Since not all women are the same, what have you often found missing when in a group of women?

Hopefully Im not being obtuse or difficult; personally I havent found anything missing and generally prefer groups of women.

And just so Im clear: To date, “science” has shown there is little significant gender difference between men/women wrt cooperation correct?

I don’t think you are being obtuse or difficult, but I am pretty sure in most circles (this board included) had I said I prefer the company of men because associating with women offers nothing of value, I’d be called sexist.  And god forbid I bring this preference and belief to hiring practices, or to the funding of college sports, for instance.  But instead of calling you sexist, I’m going to point out that it sounds to me like you have closed yourself off to an important dimension of human experience, or that you haven’t met the right men, or some combination of both (perhaps for the same underlying reason).  In any case, I’m not even going to answer a question like “what can men provide that women generally can’t get from other women.”  The answer is both obvious and quite frankly the morally appropriate one.  Call it my bow to political correctness.

I know of no research per se that looks at the relative competitiveness between men and women, and I’m not even sure how it could be done.  But a sexual selection argument suggests they will be more or less equally competitive under existing conditions, without specifying a biological separable from a cultural reason.  For, under current conditions—and unlike most species—both men and women compete among themselves to attract the opposite sex.  And, since sex is a huge selection pressure, one would expect competitiveness to be highly selected for in both.  In any case, there doesn’t seem to be any reason but social prejudice to think that women are somehow more cooperative and less competitive than men, and there is even some reasons to think the opposite—that men used to be more cooperative than women.  For note, under ancient conditions, i.e. the hundreds of thousands of years as roving hunter-gatherers, men would have had to learn to cooperate in virtually all activities specific to the survival of the band, advancing then perhaps an argument that under those conditions, men would be more cooperative than women, there being definite selection pressures toward cooperation (for women’s activities in hunter-gatherer times, these pressures are not so clear).  I’m not saying that argument holds under the cultural milieu we have now, only that evolutionarily speaking, before settled agriculture and the new forms of social organization that entailed, men surely would have had to be highly cooperative, leaning even more toward cooperation with one another over competition, with the most cooperatively successful men among men being selected by the women as mates.

These arguments are admittedly just theory, but they are more plausible than women simply thinking they are more cooperative than men, based on their preferences for associating with other women. 

And like I said in the earlier post, this is not a universal preference or belief among women either.

 

[ Edited: 16 November 2018 17:59 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 November 2018 12:07
 
Jan_CAN - 16 November 2018 09:19 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 08:50 AM

...
Yes, thankfully emotional gender roles are changing.  You might be interested to know than in a domestic violence alternatives program I interned in, we did an exercise when participants put in a box all the expectations that gather around men and women.  Invariably the main ones for men center on appearing weak or incompetent (hence the imperative to always appear competent and strong) and the main ones for women center on not being conspicuous or a bother (hence the imperative to always be nice).  And note: these boxes were filled the same way whether the participants were men or women.  The goal of this exercise was to help the participants become aware of the societal gender roles imposed on them, and thus enable them to change them accordingly, as satisfaction and happiness dictates.  So yes, these tendencies are there, and they are changing—indeed, they need to change.

Yes, this type of exercise would be interesting and bring about awareness.  Perhaps it would be particularly useful for adolescents in school to have the opportunity to learn from such an exercise.  I can imagine some very interesting discussions would follow.


I think something like that would be appropriate in a health class, if they still have those.  I think many life-lesson exercises and pointers (like how to use and not use social media) could also be included in a similar class.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
16 November 2018 18:34
 
Jan_CAN - 16 November 2018 10:02 AM
GAD - 16 November 2018 09:09 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 08:15 AM

Well, I can say anecdotally I have seen what you describe, but I am not as sure as you that this is a general problem.  That said, I think, in my state it is still the default to give residing custody of the children to the woman, absent some clear reason not to (but I think unemployment is a reason, though I am not sure).  If it’s not, then that does speak to your broader point, if she gets to collect alimony after initiating a divorce and then be a single, stay-at-home mom (unless she sacrificed her career to raise the kids, per agreement while married; that would be different.  Some allowance for that needs to be made).  In any case, I would be surprised (and dismayed) to see men getting such a short end of the stick..  Being happily married this is not something I have looked into.  But I now I’m curious, so I will…

If you don’t know then good for you. And yes, men DO get the short end of the stick. In divorce the first thing you will learn is that your wedding vows were not even worth the breath they were spoken with and the the certificate was nothing more then an agreement that on divorce that the court has full control of your life. 

If your cheating spouse is sobbing about how hard it is to get here money and move on to be with her lover she is consoled by the court, but if the man is emotional about his family and everything he’s worked for in his life being destroyed he is strongly recommend to get counseling, if he continues to be emotional about it he gets threats of mandatory counseling, restraining orders, loss of rights to children etc all at his cost. This appears pretty universal as it is considered that men will always be violent toward the poor women if they are emotional. So you just have to sit there and say NOTHING while the court divides your life up.

GAD - 16 November 2018 09:12 AM

Nope! Get a divorce and find out for yourself, but don’t tell me I don’t know as I went though 2 years of this nightmare.

I’m sorry that you went through this “nightmare”.

It sounds like the court system was more interested in an adversarial approach, rather than a conciliatory one that a family court situation should have had.  Primary emphasis should be on what’s best for the children, which would include not creating additional animosity between divorcing parents.

And perhaps some left-over animosity towards women in general?

On paper the court is equal but in practice the process is heavily biased in favor of the poor woman. Good news for the poor women club who think a world where women can make accusations without any evidence and destroy a mans life is a wonderful world.

And no, don’t try and pull that bullshit with me, no animosity towards women in general, my animosity is toward the court for their bias and the poor women crusaders who think women having unfair advantages makes the world great, in general. 

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
16 November 2018 18:36
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 11:37 AM
GAD - 16 November 2018 09:09 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 08:15 AM
GAD - 16 November 2018 08:03 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 07:27 AM
GAD - 16 November 2018 07:19 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 03:30 AM
GAD - 15 November 2018 05:58 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 15 November 2018 10:05 AM

Yeah, that article reflects what I have read, so I’m going to go with it, unless, GAD, you have an alternative source.  I knew (surprisingly) that women initiated around 70% of divorces, but I’d always understood that men cheated more. 

That younger demographic is interesting.  That’s the generation coming of age now. I wonder what that graph will look like in another 40 years.

I didn’t drill down on the data in the article, but times they are a changing. I also read the divorce stat, probably tied to the increasing infidelity of women as no fault divorce is now a golden ticket for women who can get taken care of for life no matter how many men they screw.

Damn, GAD, you are hardcore.  Haven’t the alimony laws changed to keep pace with the no-fault divorce laws?  Can a woman really collect indefinite alimony after initiating a divorce for any reason, much less after having cheated?  What you imply here does not square with what little I know about divorce; not at all..

No, the laws are a joke, basically 1 year of alimony for every 2 years of marriage up to 15 years of marriage then they can petition for lifetime and I think after 20 years of marriage it goes automatically to lifetime. And they get this for cheating and leaving marriage just to be with someone else even if they could work but chose not to. And they get half of everything you have, your retirement, SS etc no matter how large the amount.

Well, I had no idea.  Is that universal, or does it vary state by state?  Can a man be paid alimony for the same reasons?

I’m sure there are variations, but divorce is an industry that has a process that takes in 10’s of billions in profit every year and courts and lawyers don’t want to lose that, but it’s for the children and poor women of course. Yes, in theory men could get it as well, but in practice you don’t see it very often. The main reason is that women “chose” to be stay at home moms to be with their children which the court views as a sacrifice, yes, choosing to be with your kids while everything you have and do is paid for by your spouse who is working a 100 hours a week to make the bills is considered a huge sacrifice on the part the women who wanted the children. In the court the primary caretaker is the stay at home parent and the bestows a bunch of benefits in the form of primary custody and of course more money.     

 

Well, I can say anecdotally I have seen what you describe, but I am not as sure as you that this is a general problem.  That said, I think, in my state it is still the default to give residing custody of the children to the woman, absent some clear reason not to (but I think unemployment is a reason, though I am not sure).  If it’s not, then that does speak to your broader point, if she gets to collect alimony after initiating a divorce and then be a single, stay-at-home mom (unless she sacrificed her career to raise the kids, per agreement while married; that would be different.  Some allowance for that needs to be made).  In any case, I would be surprised (and dismayed) to see men getting such a short end of the stick..  Being happily married this is not something I have looked into.  But I now I’m curious, so I will…

If you don’t know then good for you. And yes, men DO get the short end of the stick. In divorce the first thing you will learn is that your wedding vows were not even worth the breath they were spoken with and the the certificate was nothing more then an agreement that on divorce that the court has full control of your life. 

If your cheating spouse is sobbing about how hard it is to get here money and move on to be with her lover she is consoled by the court, but if the man is emotional about his family and everything he’s worked for in his life being destroyed he is strongly recommend to get counseling, if he continues to be emotional about it he gets threats of mandatory counseling, restraining orders, loss of rights to children etc all at his cost. This appears pretty universal as it is considered that men will always be violent toward the poor women if they are emotional. So you just have to sit there and say NOTHING while the court divides your life up. 

   

 

Now that’s just fucked up, and I’m not going to stand on any ground that says what you went through can’t happen.  But do you think that since it happened to you it must happen generally?  Do you know other men this happened to?  My brother lives in California, he cheated, she divorced him, then he paid spousal support for…four years, I think.  But even when the divorce was his fault he didn’t suffer as much injustice as you have.  So this makes me wonder if your situation is an unfair exception more than a general rule.

I admit I know very little about this, only what I can read about on the Internet.  And those sources did say that much is left to the discretion of the courts, leaving it possible that that discretion works out like your situation more often than not.  I surely hope not, but I won’t say either way.

Yes and yes.

 

 
 
czrpb
 
Avatar
 
 
czrpb
Total Posts:  126
Joined  17-11-2006
 
 
 
16 November 2018 18:42
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 11:51 AM
czrpb - 16 November 2018 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 07:58 AM
czrpb - 16 November 2018 07:30 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 November 2018 02:41 PM

When it comes to the personal enjoyments of work, I think women have something to offer men, and men have something to offer women, even if it’s only a difference in sensitivities and tendencies that make people interesting to work with.

What do men offer women that is worthwhile that they (often? generally?) cant get from other women?

TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 November 2018 02:41 PM

I like this diversity myself.  But when it comes to the substance of getting the work done I don’t think there is anything specifically male or female either offers to the other.

Having a bit of a hard time understanding: In previous posts you disagreed that men/women are much different on axes like ‘cooperation’ and ‘aggression’, and instead said their modalities are different correct? This would change work dynamics yes? And, you havent found working with different genders much different? Fair summary?

The answer to your first question is in the text you quoted: a difference in sensitivities and tendencies.  Just to name one, watch the (typically) different reactions of women and men around an infant.  To name another, a tendency among men to suppress emotion and women to express it.  These kinds of differences make people interestingly different to one another.

Well, Im not sure you did answer the first wrt to what men provide that women generally cant get from other women, or put another way: Since not all women are the same, what have you often found missing when in a group of women?

Hopefully Im not being obtuse or difficult; personally I havent found anything missing and generally prefer groups of women.

And just so Im clear: To date, “science” has shown there is little significant gender difference between men/women wrt cooperation correct?

I don’t think you are being obtuse or difficult, but I am pretty sure in most circles (this board included) had I said I prefer the company of men because associating with women offers nothing of value, I’d be called sexist.  And god forbid I bring this preference and belief to hiring practices, or to the funding of college sports, for instance.  But instead of calling you sexist, I’m going to point out that it sounds to me like you have closed yourself off to an important dimension of human experience, or that you haven’t met the right men, or some combination of both (perhaps for the same underlying reason).  In any case, I’m not even going to answer a question like “what can men provide that women generally can’t get from other women.”  The answer is both obvious and quite frankly the morally appropriate one.  Call it my bow to political correctness.

. . .

I know of no research per se that looks at the relative competitiveness between men and women, and I’m not even sure how it could be done.

Ok! Sounds like we are wrapping our interaction up then!

Ill end with:

  1.  My argument is: (a) I prefer cooperation & (b) women are generally more cooperative, thus (c) i prefer interactions with women. I wonder if I dont know what “sexism” is? (i) I prefer certain behaviors, (ii) groups of people differ in behaviors, (iii) im not a relativist, thus (conclusion) i prefer the company of certain groups. I guess I thought “sexism” was more than a preference but a statement that one or the other is inherently superior and that there should be a power relation where one is dominant. Or maybe this way: Because cooperation/aggression is a range, there are men who are cooperative & much less aggressive, I know some and do call 2 of them friends. But, in American society masculinity as I understand and experience values aggression and devalues cooperation. Thus, I find little connection with most men and dont find it terribly enjoyable.

  2. My understanding is that the “Big Five” personality traits (https://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html#whatisit) are reasonably well verified at this time. Thus, for example I found Damore “Google Memo” fine wrt the science, repellent wrt to morality. The heterodoxy academy (https://heterodoxacademy.org/) has summarized the state of this science and finds there to be gender differences wrt traits that influence competitiveness/cooperation/etc. So, if we are going to talk about this ok, but men come out looking bad/worse.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
17 November 2018 03:49
 
czrpb - 16 November 2018 06:42 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 11:51 AM
czrpb - 16 November 2018 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 November 2018 07:58 AM
czrpb - 16 November 2018 07:30 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 November 2018 02:41 PM

When it comes to the personal enjoyments of work, I think women have something to offer men, and men have something to offer women, even if it’s only a difference in sensitivities and tendencies that make people interesting to work with.

What do men offer women that is worthwhile that they (often? generally?) cant get from other women?

TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 November 2018 02:41 PM

I like this diversity myself.  But when it comes to the substance of getting the work done I don’t think there is anything specifically male or female either offers to the other.

Having a bit of a hard time understanding: In previous posts you disagreed that men/women are much different on axes like ‘cooperation’ and ‘aggression’, and instead said their modalities are different correct? This would change work dynamics yes? And, you havent found working with different genders much different? Fair summary?

The answer to your first question is in the text you quoted: a difference in sensitivities and tendencies.  Just to name one, watch the (typically) different reactions of women and men around an infant.  To name another, a tendency among men to suppress emotion and women to express it.  These kinds of differences make people interestingly different to one another.

Well, Im not sure you did answer the first wrt to what men provide that women generally cant get from other women, or put another way: Since not all women are the same, what have you often found missing when in a group of women?

Hopefully Im not being obtuse or difficult; personally I havent found anything missing and generally prefer groups of women.

And just so Im clear: To date, “science” has shown there is little significant gender difference between men/women wrt cooperation correct?

I don’t think you are being obtuse or difficult, but I am pretty sure in most circles (this board included) had I said I prefer the company of men because associating with women offers nothing of value, I’d be called sexist.  And god forbid I bring this preference and belief to hiring practices, or to the funding of college sports, for instance.  But instead of calling you sexist, I’m going to point out that it sounds to me like you have closed yourself off to an important dimension of human experience, or that you haven’t met the right men, or some combination of both (perhaps for the same underlying reason).  In any case, I’m not even going to answer a question like “what can men provide that women generally can’t get from other women.”  The answer is both obvious and quite frankly the morally appropriate one.  Call it my bow to political correctness.

. . .

I know of no research per se that looks at the relative competitiveness between men and women, and I’m not even sure how it could be done.

Ok! Sounds like we are wrapping our interaction up then!

Ill end with:

  1.  My argument is: (a) I prefer cooperation & (b) women are generally more cooperative, thus (c) i prefer interactions with women. I wonder if I dont know what “sexism” is? (i) I prefer certain behaviors, (ii) groups of people differ in behaviors, (iii) im not a relativist, thus (conclusion) i prefer the company of certain groups. I guess I thought “sexism” was more than a preference but a statement that one or the other is inherently superior and that there should be a power relation where one is dominant. Or maybe this way: Because cooperation/aggression is a range, there are men who are cooperative & much less aggressive, I know some and do call 2 of them friends. But, in American society masculinity as I understand and experience values aggression and devalues cooperation. Thus, I find little connection with most men and dont find it terribly enjoyable.

  2. My understanding is that the “Big Five” personality traits (https://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html#whatisit) are reasonably well verified at this time. Thus, for example I found Damore “Google Memo” fine wrt the science, repellent wrt to morality. The heterodoxy academy (https://heterodoxacademy.org/) has summarized the state of this science and finds there to be gender differences wrt traits that influence competitiveness/cooperation/etc. So, if we are going to talk about this ok, but men come out looking bad/worse.

Yeah, we can wrap it up here.  It seems we differ quite a bit on this, but that’s fine.

 
czrpb
 
Avatar
 
 
czrpb
Total Posts:  126
Joined  17-11-2006
 
 
 
18 November 2018 16:05
 
czrpb - 16 November 2018 06:42 PM

Ill end with:

  1.  My argument is: (a) I prefer cooperation & (b) women are generally more cooperative, thus (c) i prefer interactions with women. I wonder if I dont know what “sexism” is? (i) I prefer certain behaviors, (ii) groups of people differ in behaviors, (iii) im not a relativist, thus (conclusion) i prefer the company of certain groups. I guess I thought “sexism” was more than a preference but a statement that one or the other is inherently superior and that there should be a power relation where one is dominant. Or maybe this way: Because cooperation/aggression is a range, there are men who are cooperative & much less aggressive, I know some and do call 2 of them friends. But, in American society masculinity as I understand and experience values aggression and devalues cooperation. Thus, I find little connection with most men and dont find it terribly enjoyable.

  2. My understanding is that the “Big Five” personality traits (https://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html#whatisit) are reasonably well verified at this time. Thus, for example I found Damore “Google Memo” fine wrt the science, repellent wrt to morality. The heterodoxy academy (https://heterodoxacademy.org/) has summarized the state of this science and finds there to be gender differences wrt traits that influence competitiveness/cooperation/etc. So, if we are going to talk about this ok, but men come out looking bad/worse.

Replying to myself for reflection and self-indulgence! hahaha!

Here is how I *think* I got to my present state:

  A precipitating event to the creation of the IDW and the Heterodox Academy was Damore’s “Google Memo”. Certainly this wasnt the only and at least two others are important, the first specific to my reflection: (1) The college free speech/race/gender fiascoes, specifically Bret Weinstein at Evergreen and of course (2) Jordan Peterson (not important to the rest of this story).

  What was important to me (sometime ago when I was reading stuff on this topic) is Damore, Sam, Bret and Peterson issues around gender differences. They basically are annoyed with the “PC” around gender, things like equal representation in tech (Damore), bathroom bill in NC (Sam), pronouns (Peterson), and Bret’s is (as I see it) a scientific annoyance that gender isnt respected. In my readings and viewings I came across his and Sam’s discussion and specifically this bit: https://youtu.be/IjqY6-waTYo?t=255

  Ok, since no one cares about my self-indulgent writing and thus no one is reading this far, I will summarize, fairly I think, Bret’s point:

    *  Women have a “long-term thinking” wisdom. His explanation in the video is quite good.
      QUOTE: “We would behave much more reasonably on environmental issues.”
    *  Men have a “insane risk-taking” wisdom. His explanation in the video is pretty sad; he gives ZERO examples of what “risk-taking” has done for humanity.
        QUOTE: “We should also figure out what the message of male wisdom is with respect to risk.”

  Is that is IT? He can not articulate what this “risk-taking” is good for nowadays. So:

    1.  Even if “insane risk-taking” was true and important in the past, it is NOW a liability to humanity. 1st strike against men.
    2.  Since traits have significant overlap, why do we need the extreme tail of the “risk-taking” trait that exists only in men?  Strike 2.

  So, it seems to me that it is the IDW that wants to focus on gender and thus if we do, as I said AFAICT it doesnt bode well for men.

  This is why I have taken to asking in discussions on gender: What are the “good” male traits that we need more of? Bret doesnt have an answer and the “average” person I create enough of a relationship with to discuss “serious” things doesnt either.

 

 
Ned Flanders
 
Avatar
 
 
Ned Flanders
Total Posts:  8
Joined  09-07-2018
 
 
 
20 November 2018 12:54
 

What an enjoyable guest to listen to. Afterwards, I thought of some differing views that I had. But during, I really just enjoyed hearing her views. Well done Ms. Traister.

 
‹ First  < 5 6 7