Discordian Feminists

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.

But isnt this a strawman? Or how did that conversation go, as in "it took place with certain person"?

It's a strawman, but I wasn't using it as a reason to beat up on feminism, just an illustration of how Discordianism has helped moderate my own tendencies and beliefs. I like feminism.

[The Johnny]

It doesnt really come out that way, but ok i guess?

[Juana]

What Joh'Nyx said.

In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.

I have to sort of side-eye you here. A) I don't think that happens very often and b) I really need to stress the fact that men (and white, middle/upper class people in general) get all sorts of things that non-privileged people don't. Everything from someone's reaction to your name to things that are supposed to be objective like standardized testing are biased. So that other person may actually be as or more qualified than the white/male applicant.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

What Joh'Nyx said.

In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.

I have to sort of side-eye you here. A) I don't think that happens very often and b) I really need to stress the fact that men (and white, middle/upper class people in general) get all sorts of things that non-privileged people don't. Everything from someone's reaction to your name to things that are supposed to be objective like standardized testing are biased. So that other person may actually be as or more qualified than the white/male applicant.

Yea, this is why if I ever had my own babby and it was female, I'd choose a gender neutral name.

I quite like Rowan for that purpose, cos I've met girls and guys with the name.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

What Joh'Nyx said.

In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.

I have to sort of side-eye you here. A) I don't think that happens very often and b) I really need to stress the fact that men (and white, middle/upper class people in general) get all sorts of things that non-privileged people don't. Everything from someone's reaction to your name to things that are supposed to be objective like standardized testing are biased. So that other person may actually be as or more qualified than the white/male applicant.

I'll give you that, and I also realize that the system for compensating for inequality is (by necessity) designed and implemented by privileged people, and that it is likely to retain at least some bias toward the already-privileged. And I know the whole "women and minorities are getting stuff they don't deserve because of Affirmative Action" argument is the bread and butter of bigots and misogynists, and it's dangerous territory to get into, and I'm trying not to trigger any monkey reflexes here.

I do think it's important that, in guiding a society toward tolerance while maintaining multiculturalism, we take care to avoid reverse discrimination and self-segregation. How much of that is actually a problem I don't know, and it's entirely possible I'm imagining problems that don't exist just because I'm surrounded by idiots.

[The Johnny]

Take welfare as an example

"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"

Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.

[The Johnny]

Also, tolerance is a different pony.

I think what we are referring to is the attempt to balance equality of opportunity at jobs and positions, in which if these measures werent taken, it would be dominated by a gender.

Look up statistics of women in positions of political power, its completely slanted.

[Juana]

"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.

And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.

Take welfare as an example

"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"

Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.

The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.

[The Johnny]

Look at the presidential candidates of last election in the USA.

People would rather vote for a black male than a white female.

Correct me if it didnt boil down to this.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Welfare is a whole different animal and I'll openly admit to leaning Conservatard on that topic, with important caveats.

Equality: I'll cede the point because to continue arguing, I'd have to dig myself into some holes I don't want to be in, and the problems I'm warning about don't actually exist in any meaningful way.

[The Johnny]

"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.

And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.

Take welfare as an example

"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"

Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.

The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.

The reverse discrimination aversion thought process, to me, seems this way:

"Them blacks or hispanics arent really qualified for the job, they are getting a free pass"

[Junkenstein]

On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?

Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.

I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.

No real answers or insights here, just questions.

[The Johnny]

On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?

Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.

I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.

No real answers or insights here, just questions.

Im talking about voter's preference, not about presidential actions.

This is within the scope of historical events, in which male minorities always get their rights before women.

Women's liberation and rights came after the segregation battles.

[Juana]

On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?

Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.

I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.

No real answers or insights here, just questions.

Are you talking about the federal level, Junk? 'Cause I thought Obama's been relatively good on that score. Clinton would have put her foot down, definitely though. That's kind of one of her things, iirc.

"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.

And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.

Take welfare as an example

"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"

Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.

The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.

The reverse discrimination aversion thought process, to me, seems this way:

"Them blacks or hispanics arent really qualified for the job, they are getting a free pass"

I kind of think we're interpreting that phrase differently, JN. "reverse discrimination" = POC/women/queers fucking over white people/men/non-queers over the way they've been screwed over (essentially).

[tyrannosaurus vex]

On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?

Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.

I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.

No real answers or insights here, just questions.

Im talking about voter's preference, not about presidential actions.

This is within the scope of historical events, in which male minorities always get their rights before women.

Women's liberation and rights came after the segregation battles.

On the other hand it's arguable that white women have a much shorter and less painful trail to equality than African-Americans had, and their struggle for equality began decades later. Women got the vote in 1918, but even though blacks technically "could" vote in 1869, they were effectively (and brutally) denied that right for over a century in many cases -- well after women got the right.