7 ms·

Both men and women will tend to be polite but brief with a person they are not attracted to (in the context that the other person is trying to develop a romanti

Both men and women will tend to be polite but brief with a person they are not attracted to (in the context that the other person is trying to develop a romantic relationship). That is completely normal and I think it's fine and healthy. Feminism will struggle against the tendency of women's attraction to be more heavily weighted by appearance than by character or economic status like men are. I feel like from there men and women have organized themselves and their "competition" according to the criteria set by the opposite sex. Women will become more critical of other women's appearances and men will be more critical of masculine criteria (how much money do you make, can you defend yourself, are you tough/independent/emotionally stable) including penis size, because that is oh so important to making a woman happy. Maybe men and women impose the harshest standards on themselves because they want to appease the opposite side more. And maybe even though it's true that those are characteristics we value in the opposite sex, we don't objectify the opposite sex as much as they objectify themselves. Some men and women will resent the way they are "judged", blaming their "judges" for their feelings of inferiority. Some men and women will try to capitalize on the others insecurity to their own gain. Mostly the inferiority is self imposed. It's a strange balance to acknowledge that (for example) appearances are important, and that it will be more difficult for either sex, particularly women, to find a partner if they don't take care of their appearances. And while that might be true acknowledging that you aren't an object and subjective qualities outside of the rubric of attraction actually do matter and are valuable to people you want to attract. I don't think attraction will ever be negotiated, and that's where feminism will fail and frustrate people. It might become more taboo to admit you like her cause she's a lingerie model, or that he's a catch because he makes 7 figures, but those things are always going to make a person stand out no matter how angry or inferior it makes us feel.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
There are many situations where those things won't make a person stand out, at least not in a positive light. You describe a landscape that exists, but there are many other landscapes interleaved. We have some degree of control over which landscapes we choose to engage. Feminism/Anarchism is not about making the "beauty+money" landscape go away, it's about helping people find situations when they can opt out of it.
- reversecs 8y ago
  Feminism and anarchy seem to target an entire culture. It really doesn't focus on the individual more than the collective. I think that necessarily manipulates all of these land scapes. If it becomes transphobic to not date a trans person, purely on the basis of them being transgender, it necessarily affects everyone who interacts with a trans person who hits on them. If it becomes sexist to watch and produce porn that can be interpreted as degrading to women, it necessarily changes decisions the porn that all people watch. If it is sexist for women to not be represented 50/50 for specifically high paying tech jobs, it necessarily affects that works with women or own a tech company. It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process. People will pretend like all of these changes are justified but deep down it doesn't change the way we think and it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair. Some of the issues that these movements take on simply do not have a place for choice. It affects the entire landscape. Helping women deal with "unrealistic beauty standards" would not work by ensuring that men don't prioritize or advertise with women that are beautiful (if you raise a bit and glorify images of women who are traditionally considered ugly, it will not work). If a boy is castrated at birth through a medical accident, and is raised as a girl and even given hormones, it still doesn't change traditionally male behaviors and sexual preference. People are not blank slates and I think we need to be careful that we set up a society that fundamentally works against ones nature. Not that we should give in to every impulse, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. At a work interview, women should be measured only in merit. Under the law, men and women should not be treated differently, except in manners that can only affect women or men (abortion, circumcision, etc.) In a social system, changing the way that people think about their attraction to women is just twisted. I think it would be better to work on an individual level to help a person change the way they think about themselves to resolve the self esteem issues that photoshopped advertisements, or cookie cutter models and newscasters produce.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    > It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process Why do you say that? You're basically presuming bad faith. Eliminating sexism in the interview process is exactly what anti-bias recruiting tries to do. > it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair Not only that. It also helps get better people into the positions where they can be more effective, which leads to a more productive economy overall. The resentment is an unfortunate (I think inevitable) side effect. To me the wage gaps are evidence that we're not using the labor force effectively, that there are talented women and people of color who are not getting into jobs where their skills are adequately leveraged. So getting them into better positions means companies will be more successful. The statistics suggest that some of the men in these positions don't deserve to be there and are holding their organizations back. I understand you interpret the data in a different way, that some things just make men and white people more valuable. Differences aside, can you see that these interpretations are subjective and the data doesn't actually differentiate between "the women are just less capable" and "the process is not promoting the best people"? Those two realities are indistinguishable from pay data alone, which is why the stats become a Rorschach test for peoples' beliefs about gender differences. Not sure how to engage the rest of your argument... I definitely wouldn't say people are blank slates, nor would I deny that gender differences exist. The vast majority of feminists don't think those things, those positions are straw men that anti-feminists like to bring up because they are easy to argue against.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

There are many situations where those things won't make a person stand out, at least not in a positive light. You describe a landscape that exists, but there are many other landscapes interleaved. We have some degree of control over which landscapes we choose to engage. Feminism/Anarchism is not about making the "beauty+money" landscape go away, it's about helping people find situations when they can opt out of it.

reversecs 8y ago
Feminism and anarchy seem to target an entire culture. It really doesn't focus on the individual more than the collective. I think that necessarily manipulates all of these land scapes. If it becomes transphobic to not date a trans person, purely on the basis of them being transgender, it necessarily affects everyone who interacts with a trans person who hits on them. If it becomes sexist to watch and produce porn that can be interpreted as degrading to women, it necessarily changes decisions the porn that all people watch. If it is sexist for women to not be represented 50/50 for specifically high paying tech jobs, it necessarily affects that works with women or own a tech company. It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process. People will pretend like all of these changes are justified but deep down it doesn't change the way we think and it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair. Some of the issues that these movements take on simply do not have a place for choice. It affects the entire landscape. Helping women deal with "unrealistic beauty standards" would not work by ensuring that men don't prioritize or advertise with women that are beautiful (if you raise a bit and glorify images of women who are traditionally considered ugly, it will not work). If a boy is castrated at birth through a medical accident, and is raised as a girl and even given hormones, it still doesn't change traditionally male behaviors and sexual preference. People are not blank slates and I think we need to be careful that we set up a society that fundamentally works against ones nature. Not that we should give in to every impulse, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. At a work interview, women should be measured only in merit. Under the law, men and women should not be treated differently, except in manners that can only affect women or men (abortion, circumcision, etc.) In a social system, changing the way that people think about their attraction to women is just twisted. I think it would be better to work on an individual level to help a person change the way they think about themselves to resolve the self esteem issues that photoshopped advertisements, or cookie cutter models and newscasters produce.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process Why do you say that? You're basically presuming bad faith. Eliminating sexism in the interview process is exactly what anti-bias recruiting tries to do. > it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair Not only that. It also helps get better people into the positions where they can be more effective, which leads to a more productive economy overall. The resentment is an unfortunate (I think inevitable) side effect. To me the wage gaps are evidence that we're not using the labor force effectively, that there are talented women and people of color who are not getting into jobs where their skills are adequately leveraged. So getting them into better positions means companies will be more successful. The statistics suggest that some of the men in these positions don't deserve to be there and are holding their organizations back. I understand you interpret the data in a different way, that some things just make men and white people more valuable. Differences aside, can you see that these interpretations are subjective and the data doesn't actually differentiate between "the women are just less capable" and "the process is not promoting the best people"? Those two realities are indistinguishable from pay data alone, which is why the stats become a Rorschach test for peoples' beliefs about gender differences. Not sure how to engage the rest of your argument... I definitely wouldn't say people are blank slates, nor would I deny that gender differences exist. The vast majority of feminists don't think those things, those positions are straw men that anti-feminists like to bring up because they are easy to argue against.