deleted by creator
Hows the second one stupid?
deleted by creator
It literally proves that two separate things can be equal. It’s an eloquent and poignant way of saying “you’re wrong.” And they are wrong, because the only argument was they’re not equal because they’re different.
If they wanted to talk about hormones and muscle mass and other physical things, then yes, your point is valid. But they made a very stupid argument and were proven wrong.
deleted by creator
There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid
Except this one. If you’re going to be so fundamentally wrong that you can be refuted by elementary arithmetic, why should anyone bother putting any more thought into it than that? No, you can’t reduce gender relations to a basic math question, but you can reduce thst guy’s take without missing anything important.
deleted by creator
There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid
If they were doing so in totality (ie: all conversations on gender being compared to basic algebra) then I’d agree with you. However the response is so targeted, in it’s content and in the context of going after a specific respondent who was saying that things that are different cannot be equal, that I don’t think they fall into this trap.
Right until its sports
Or getting the kids after a divorce
Or giving birth
Or fist fights. Or facial hair.
The shadow of a ball and a cylinder would be nice as well
Well to a certain degree I guess. They’re never going to be as equal as numbers can. What is even meant by men and women being “equal”? Equality of opportunity?
deleted by creator
this comes up in math too. there are many situations where we don’t need mathematical objects to be platonic copies to treat them “equally” so we work with equivalence relations instead.
but obviously there is a bigger difference between men and women, than between men and women themselves. Quite sure that’s the relevant bit…
there is a bigger difference between men and women, than between men and women themselves.
This is completely unquantifiable and therefore unprovable
what about physical strength and the inclination for socialization? These traits vary on both genders, but generally all men are physically strong, all women are physically weak(er); and generally all women have inclination for socialization, all men have less inclination for socialization.
Other traits that largely vary within one gender, probably also largely vary between genders, so these cancel out.
I might be wrong about this last point though, but to just shrug this off as if this is taken completely out of the blue and rarely intuitively observed in day-to-day life, is not fair.
intuitively observed
This is the biggest problem. “Intuitive observation” means the evidence is anecdotal, and without “fine tuning.” For example, you observe that in your experience women tend to be more social than men. My experience might be the opposite. And even if our experiences are the same, we can’t assume that those differences are inherent. This is because many perceived differences between genders are actually due to socialization: women are expected to engage with others, to be subservient to others in a lot of ways, to be emotionally engaged. Men are expected to be self reliant and emotionally disengaged. This does not at all suggest a difference in inherent quality - it’s due to society.
My major point still stands: the number of qualities that people have and their possible variations are practically infinite, and therefore immeasurable. Something immeasurable is unquantifiable. Thus, to say that there are more differences between genders than within individuals of a gender is an absolutely unprovable claim.
And you might insist on not being so scientific and relying on your anecdotal experience, but these ideas have profound impacts on those around us. Thus we have a responsibility to others to examine these biases and ideas with a fine toothed comb
This is the biggest problem. “Intuitive observation” means the evidence is anecdotal,…
I agree, I just wanted to point out that I felt like you shrugged away the example as if there is not even an intuitively observed phenomenon.
BUT back to the point. I may not have proof that women are more sociable, but it’s damn plausible from a evolutionary perspective, women care for children -> thus more sociable inclined to children. So what is your response to this and the trait of physical strength of men? These are pretty obvious no? Do you acknowledge this difference to be more pronounced between genders than within one gender?
Do you acknowledge this difference to be more pronounced between genders than within one gender?
This question really isn’t relevant on its own. You claimed:
there is a bigger difference between men and women, than between men and women themselves
To prove this statement it’s not enough to argue that there are singular differences from men and women, nor that that difference is more pronounced cross-gender than within gender. To prove this statement would require a summation of all qualities and differences both between and within genders, or at least the majority, then comparison of those summations. And you would have to prove that those differences are inherent and not instilled through cultural socialization. Hence it being a massive assumption, and unprovable
You make up a “just so” story by taking something that you observe in our life’s today and construct a reason why it’s supposedly biologically determined.
Time and time again studies that specifically research differences in women and men find that in-group differences are bigger than between-group differences. There are really very few traits were it is different.
Still people blow these differences out of proportion because some people have a huge interest in keeping the illusion that these two groups of people are different.
Why would it be obvious? You can just as easy postulate the opposite. What are we measuring as difference?
2 kidneys, a liver, a heart, a brain.
Looks exactly the same to me. What are these “big differences” you’ve invented?
I said bigger, not big.
Already reduced to splitting hairs, huh? Clearly your “point” is substantive and valuable.
treat them equally? But you probably don’t want to give menstrual items to a man
deleted by creator
that’s what I meant. You wouldn’t give them to whoever not needed them. I called them man, you called them people without uterus. In other words, you don’t want to treat all equally.
deleted by creator
there’s no equivalence here.
So you would give menstrual products to people with a uterus but don’t say anything about not giving menstrual products to people without a uterus?
But would you? If you do not, wouldn’t that make you treat people unequally, in some sense?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Treating someone equally is to give them equal value and respect as you’d give anyone else, it’s to not devalue them based on gender, race, etc. It’s the same as it’s been since Dr. King talked about the content of someone’s character instead of the color of their skin.
sure, no one is denying that. I was just jumping in on specifics of how that would look like, for example, when giving certain items.
Why do you ask?
It’s been my experience that people who value equality don’t care about the nitty gritty of what it means, because it’s a value. An ideal. And if you hold equality as an ideal, that means it’s always something to work towards. Inqualities are triaged, but they’re all something that we should overcome in the name of fairness and egalitarianism.
Someone always brings up “equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome” when they want to disrupt and derail people who value equality by getting them to wrestle in the mud about how much equality is too much. And, to be frank, it feels like you’re trying to throw the “equality of outcome” wrench into the gears here, and I don’t believe that is ever done in good faith.
What’s the problem with equality of outcome? What does it even mean? Where does the objection come from?
Simply put, it comes from resentment. It comes from the idea that “I worked hard, so I deserve a better quality of life than someone I choose to believe worked less hard!” And that’s just a long way of saying “I believe I am more deserving than someone else”.
But why? Often this comes from people who already have a certain level of comfort in life believing that they hold more right to that comfort, safety, and happiness than someone else. Too often in this sphere, it comes from people who liked tech and did well in technical subjects in school believing that that entitles them to a higher quality of life than someone who wasn’t interested in or had no special aptitude for those subjects. But shouldn’t one of the freedoms that comes from equality being the freedom to find joy in what you want? Why should I be rewarded more lucrative Ly than you for enjoying something different?
And if I don’t enjoy it, should it really make sense for me to suffer at something I don’t enjoy for the sake of wealth? Maybe the equality of outcome is really the equal ability to experience joy, and comfort, and security no matter what we enjoy and how we invest our time? If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?
The answer usually boils down to “I made better decisions, so I should be rewarded!” which is just another way of saying “people who make mistakes should be punished!”
And that seems like bullshit. What kind of world is that? Where people aren’t safe to make mistakes (and this is ignoring the idea that someone’s passion can be considered a mistake)? Where they’re punished for trying something different? Or for not jumping on a trend? Where safety and comfort are used as crudgles to force people to do things that make them miserable?
Because that’s really what “what do you mean by equality?” is really saying.
Dang, if this isn’t a copypasta, it ought to be.
To be quite frank this comment reads like an Ayn Rand villain monologue, the kind that Ayn Rand was rightfully laughed at for writing
The topic is different but it’s written in a very similar style to the monologue speech from atlas shrugged
you do have a point in the sense that if we live in a utopia, I think there is good reason to think that it shouldn’t matter what choices people make, they all get the same ‘reward’/financial outcome/etc.
You said:
If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?
Yes okay, but what if there are limited resources? Or a world that needs improvement? Isn’t it then better to incentivize people to work hard to make our world of limited resources a world of abundance? If yes, then it means to give those a higher reward at the expense of those who made “other choices”.
Are we now living in a world of limited resources / that needs improvement? If yes, then it would probably be justified to take from those who made “other choices”
Who decides what deserves more wealth and respect? People don’t make rational decisions in this regard. Most of the time the people with more power will simply decide that their area of expertise deserves the most resources and respect.
true but generally speaking one could say he who makes abundance for us all, deserves more.
Removed by mod
We don’t live in a zero sum game though.
Perhaps. I never stated that we are. I was just pointing to a hypothetical world with limited resources, and what then would be most appropriate.
Removed by mod
ok
but what do you mean by equality?
And in the first place, aren’t we all different?
Nobody is just man or woman and nothing else. We all have a huge number of traits that all together make us individuals. From the physical like size, hair and so on to the mental, what we enjoy, what interests us and so on.
King Charles, the Rock and me are men. Solely on gender we are the same. But people would be quick to point out all the differences.
Equity: equality of available options.
Plus a whole huge swathe of problematic gender expectations to squash to boot.
No, it’s not about squashing the identities themselves, it’s about squashing the gendered expectations. Women shouldn’t be expected to know how to do laundry, cook, or avoid dirty jobs. Men shouldn’t be expected to be tough and “walk off” injury and trauma, etc.
Sure, only some are “different”, but remember: It’s not about dissing or removing the identities themselves, (outside of the highly problematic ones like the very machismo man) it’s about not setting them as expectations for everyone.
Laundry and cooking are basic life skills and most people regardless of gender should know how to do those tasks. No one should be expected to be doing those tasks because of their gender.
My parents have been together since they were 14 and follow “traditional” gender roles when it comes to housekeeping skills including cooking and laundry (although they treat each other as equals and certainly raised my brother to be fully independent). My mum has terminal cancer and she’s started to teach my dad the things he’ll need to be able to do for himself soon. It’s equal parts heartbreaking and hilarious watching the sheer panic in my dad’s eyes as my mum is explaining pretty basic cooking skills. Everyone should know how to cook, clean and do the laundry no matter their gender.
It is very sad to hear your of your mother’s condition. It is absolutely beautiful and heartwarming she is taking the time to teach your father and leave him more prepared for his future. They must truly care for each other
They do 🙂 And as awful as it that my mum is dying, I think as a family we’re making the best of the time we have left. Thank you for your kindness.
I agree. That’s why conservatives who are ree-ing about “the queers” not knowing these basic skills not only belies how pathetic they are, but goes to show it is distinctly not about them being better than anyone. They just want legal slaves again, whether they’ll admit it or not. That’s what a trad wife effectively is. A house slave, since they lost real slaves further back.
No, it’s not about squashing the identities themselves, it’s about squashing the gendered expectations.
This is basically the same. If you remove the gendered expectations you remove the identity. Gender is the expectations.
That’s what makes it so resilient, not willing to renounce deeply held identity, people keep enforcing the expectations.
I understand you’re saying this because of the status quo, but it is egregiously foolish to state the status quo as a simple fact. It makes it appear as if you fully support the status quo.
Not just in direct discussions like this, but even bystanders get it. It’s why the news picks their words very carefully, usually to slant the truth to their corporate agenda.
Removed by mod
Women shouldn’t be expected to know how to do laundry, cook, or avoid dirty jobs. Men shouldn’t be expected to be tough and “walk off” injury and trauma, etc.
I know I’m walking a fine line, but still, in general, women have certain interests/traits and thus have their own skills/tendencies: care for children, avoid dirty jobs, etc. And men are tougher thus can more easily “walk off” injury and trauma. So when you see a man and a woman in an accident, both relatively little wounded, would it be morally bad to say to the man “you can probably walk it off”, and to the woman “do you need more help with that?” ? Because there is just a higher probability of this being the case. This shouldn’t obviously taken for granted, but if you don’t know them, and the injuries are right in the middle where you kind of expect them to be okay, but are just on the verge of asking/stating anyway, you would say these things and thus distinguish between them based on gender. Is that so bad?
Where are you getting “men are tougher than women” from? Do you have a source for men being able to walk off injury and handle trauma better? I’m not being a dick, generally asking because I’ve never heard that claim before.
Men have more muscle mass than women so they are stronger, particularly in the upper body - and their skin is thicker (literally, not metaphorically). But boys are also more fragile than girls; they are more likely to die before birth, more like to be born prematurely and more likely to die in childhood. In adulthood, women have a stronger immune system than men and they recover better from brain injuries. Boys and men are more vulnerable to environmental contaminants and disease in general.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/
So for example a physical trauma. Both man and woman get hurt by the same amount, the man would have a higher chance of “shrugging it off” because 2 reason: thicker skin (as you said), and have a rougher mental (or at least want to appear to have), e.g. they want to be seen strong, so they are more inclined to say they are ok
But do you have any evidence to back this up?
well if you are a reliable source to yourself, I’d say:
Men have more muscle mass than women so they are stronger, particularly in the upper body
And for the other other, the rougher mental, I don’t want to play mean or anything, but isn’t the burden of proof more on your side? Yes it is certainly possible society molds certain characteristics of men, but that doesn’t necessarily mean this particularly trait is - the rougher mental. Don’t you agree, right now, in western society, men are less likely to admit their pain?
No dude, the burden of proof isn’t on me. You made some bold claims and I asked for a source. Twice. You didn’t provide one. It’s ok if you just made it up, or it was an anecdote - I was just genuinely interested if there was evidence. You don’t have any so I’m moving on. It’s all good.
My dude, you are not walking a fine line, you are swimming in the pool of gender essentialism. Yes, it’s bad.
What good does it bring to expect that people behave according to gendered biases? We all know it brings a lot of misery. I think people should think really hard if they prefer to believe in stereotypes about gender because it benefits them somehow more if this status quo is kept.
Removed by mod
That’s a legit question. People are willing to say stupidest shit to feel socially acceptable.
Removed by mod
You poor thing.
You must be REALLY blissful…
I mean with all that ignorance…
That’s a lot of words to say you’ve never spoken to a woman.
3 + 2 = 6 + 1
the best part of this dumb comment is that the only way it’s right is if you fail at basic arithmetic that single-digit-age children could correct you on
it’s a perfect metaphor for sexists and transphobes
I’m pretty sure they were just making a reference to 5/7 perfect score, a nearly decade old meme.
Dont nudge in trans women related issues, please. Trans women dont face the same issues as cis women.
Hey JK Rowling is on lemmy!
This is correct if we use a different number space where the “+” symbol implies multiplication.
