Primal Attraction page 36

[kenn]

Yes, I think I can see a narrow view there.

Reminds me of this farce

*snip*

Do you have a blog? I'd read it.

[Uncephalized]

Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

Of course there has been discrimination against men through history in some circumstances, as well as discrimination along the lines of race or social class, which affects men and women both. That's irrelevant to whether a certain policy is discrimination against women, which is what I was talking about. One neither excludes nor excuses the other.

Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

Actually I have, and generally I do think before I write or speak. I understand perfectly well that social customs can evolve to benefit one or another group of people in a given social environment. I also don't care a whit about whether a policy is "good for society" (although how you can make that claim with a straight face when the policy in question is clearly bad for women, who are half of any society, is beyond me). "Society" is a made-up abstraction. A person is not. There are people, and there are more people. If a policy unjustly deprives a class of people of their rightfully owned property, that is an unjust and immoral policy. I don't care if it's good for someone else; it's morally wrong. What you're doing is harming a person, who is a real and concrete being, in order to help a society, which is a made-up construct composed of other people you have lumped into a group. So what you are actually doing is stealing from a person to help other people you have taken the liberty to decide are more deserving of someone else's things.

Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?

Um, yes, I am genuinely offended by sexism and sex discrimination. The amount of offense I take is also naturally partly a product of my upbringing, education and exposure to modern culture. I suspect if I had been brought up in Victorian England or some such I would be much more tolerant of rigidly enforced gender roles and unequal property and participatory rights for women. What's your point? Sounds to me like society has made progress on this front and I have benefited from that progress by being raised as a more tolerant and fair-minded person than I might otherwise have.

[Saoirse]

Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?

the presence of institutional discrimination against men (if any) does not negate the fact that women have been institutionally discriminated against for centuries.

[kenn]

the presence of institutional discrimination against men (if any) does not negate the fact that women have been institutionally discriminated against for centuries.

However, it is in our current society one that we could change. The past is long gone and we can't change it.

[canio6]

Yes, I think I can see a narrow view there.

So a straight white man is explaining why it is easy being a straight white man? Eh, it is John Scalzi so I will get over it. The man can write.

[Uncephalized]

Interesting, the way this question is phrased. It's trajectory traces back to female privilege.

I suppose that the snippet of inheritance law in question would have been beneficial to several women...the widow, and the dead man's surviving female blood relations. It's pretty silly to discuss without context, as inheritance law is extremely regional and complex.

Interesting. So you're claiming that it's more beneficial to a widow to inherit 1/3 of her husband's estate than the whole thing, which is what would happen if she were a man?

If I put on my leftist thinking cap for a moment, it seems clear to me that men, as a gender, are discriminated against throughout history by being expected to provide physical protection against animals and criminals, go risk their lives in wars, and do dangerous and backbreaking labor.

I guess someone forgot to tell Affirmative Action that, even today, more than 90% of fatalities at the workplace are men.

Yep. Which is why I oppose sexism, rather than only sexism against women, and call myself a humanist, and not a feminist.

It's not discrimination, it's nature. Men benefit from the objectification of women, women benefit from the disposability of men, and society benefits wherever men and women both benefit.

Naturalistic fallacy much? Just because something is the default state doesn't mean we need to enshrine it in law or worship it in our culture. We do not live in a world where it is necessary for survival or success to have our lives' purposes defined for us according to our genitalia. Maybe that was the case once, but it's not anymore. It's time to move on from that now. Please note that I do not have any problem with people who choose traditional gender roles out of genuine preference. I live that way myself. I have a problem with anyone being told they are to be treated differently by law because of their genitalia, or the possession or lack of a Y chromosome.

Anyone who claims to seek progress for society but only advocates for one gender is a charlatan, or a collectivist dupe.

I agree. But nothing you have said erases the legitimacy of the complaints about discrimination against women, which is a very real phenomenon. It's the equivalent of me coming up to you and saying "I could use some help; my car broke down and I can't get to work" and you replying that it's narrow-minded for me to focus on only one problem, because your roof needs reshingling and might leak if it rains. It's just a non-sequitor.

[kenn]

Presentism, ffs stop committing the same fallacy over and over

[Uncephalized]

Presentism is not a logical fallacy kenn. It's just a way of looking at things. If you believe moral truths are timeless and independent of situation, then presentism isn't an error at all. If you believe in moral relativism then yeah, presentism is a problem. But I am not a relativist.

It's only a problem to look at past events through current mindsets if we are trying to understand people's motivations and falsely ascribe to them modern ideas. Judging their actions as more or less moral is best done through the best moral framework available, which in my opinion is the one I'm using now--naturally, or I would be using a different one.

[kenn]

Presentism is not a logical fallacy kenn. It's just a way of looking at things. If you believe moral truths are timeless and independent of situation, then presentism isn't an error at all. If you believe in moral relativism then yeah, presentism is a problem. But I am not a relativist.

It's only a problem to look at past events through current mindsets if we are trying to understand people's motivations and falsely ascribe to them modern ideas. Judging their actions as more or less moral is best done through the best moral framework available, which in my opinion is the one I'm using now--naturally, or I would be using a different one.

It actually is a fallacy. Fallacy of nunc pro tunc is what it is referred to as.

You're comparing societies views of today of what is moral/right and comparing it in a narrow scope without understanding why things existed the way they did except purely in a modern context.

[Uncephalized]

It actually is a fallacy. Fallacy of nunc pro tunc is what it is referred to as.

You're comparing societies views of today of what is moral/right and comparing it in a narrow scope without understanding why things existed the way they did except purely in a modern context.

I understand what the fallacy is kenn, I explained why I think it's not always an error as long you don't believe that people shared the same ideas as you do now.

To bring the subject back to the OP, this is what I am Primally Attracted to:





I just found her, but Jaime Koeppe may be the hottest woman I have ever seen. I'll also note that she has quite a lot of muscle mass, even in the upper body, for a female. I find it damned hot as long as the curves are there to go with it. Fantastic back and shoulders on her.