Check Your Privilege

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You're not a woman either

Actually I'm non-binary, so yeah I am a little.

and you're not representing all women, at best you're representing the women you've spoken to, and these women aren't automatically right just because they're more affected by the issue. People have opinions that are unrealistic, people have opinions that are selfish and people have opinions that are driven by false information.

In fact, listening to only the people who are or may be affected by something is a silly thing to do, because resources are not endless, so there's always a ratio of cost and benefit that needs to be juggled. People who are affected by something will always push towards as much benefit as possible, while being prone to ignoring the influx in cost.

Aside from that nothing that he has said was based on anything that requires "personal experience", the facts surrounding the issue are openly visible to anyone and can therefore be discussed by everyone.

I'll bet you have no problems with the idea that "democracy expresses the will of the people," though.

See, the thing is, it's not "just women," it's feminists, because, you know, they're the organized woman-qua-woman political force, thinking about women's interests, women's needs, and theorizing about how to achieve and protect them. And yeah there's multiple branches of feminism, too, some of which are quite contradictory. But you know what they all agree on? The idea that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have a child and that she has the ability to escape this fate via medical procedure when other options fail.

So yeah, the result is that "listening to feminists" constitutes "listening to women." You don't do either, apparently. You should, because they know their own business better than you do.

 

[Aea]

So yeah, the result is that "listening to feminists" constitutes "listening to women." You don't do either, apparently. You should, because they know their own business better than you do.

He listens enough to be offended though.

 

[Oruc]

Actually I'm non-binary, so yeah I am a little.

Changing your gender to win an argument, that is inspiring commitment my friend.

Moderator Action: This is flaming another member by accusing them of being insincere about their gender identity. Discuss the issue, not the poster, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

EDIT: Nope, I'm done with this conversation until the mods do something about this.

 

[Farm Boy]

That would seem reasonable to me.

 

[Flying Pig]

Actually I'm non-binary, so yeah I am a little.



I'll bet you have no problems with the idea that "democracy expresses the will of the people," though.

See, the thing is, it's not "just women," it's feminists, because, you know, they're the organized woman-qua-woman political force, thinking about women's interests, women's needs, and theorizing about how to achieve and protect them. And yeah there's multiple branches of feminism, too, some of which are quite contradictory. But you know what they all agree on? The idea that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have a child and that she has the ability to escape this fate via medical procedure when other options fail.

So yeah, the result is that "listening to feminists" constitutes "listening to women." You don't do either, apparently. You should, because they know their own business better than you do.

You've skirted straight by the issue which most people seemed to be aiming at, which is a shame: I just did a quick Google and discovered that pro-life feminism does indeed exist. One such movement was founded in Ireland in 1992, by a woman. Who gets a voice in this discussion? Is it simply a majority vote of people who identify as women? What about a majority vote of people who might ever have to use abortion services? Or one of people who have actually used them? I agree with the general sentiment of 'listen to people who know what they're talking about', but it seems like you're stumbling into giving people authority where they shouldn't have it. To give a simple example, you can imagine that the next round of budget cuts is either going to close some abortion services or decommission a warship. They could debate it on television, with an admiral (who might well be a woman, and may have had an abortion) on one side, and a feminist campaigner (who could also be a sea officer or otherwise involved in defence policy) on the other. The point of this is that listening to people isn't the end of the road when forming opinions: you listen, but then you have to evaluate and ultimately distinguish between what you hear.

 

[Camikaze]

The difference is, I listen to the people who have. You don't.

I think the problem being identified with this is the reliance on unreliable hearsay in substitution for argument or use of sources. If you were to instead present feminist sources as a rebuttal, and to say that you're going to take what they have to say more seriously than what some random guy on the internet says, that would I think be more readily accepted than saying "I have spoken to women, therefore your opinion is invalid". Simply referencing the fact you've spoken to women doesn't perform the same role in a discussion.

The distinct argument that the opinion of a woman on the topic of abortion carries more weight than the opinion of a man is more readily accepted too, I'd say. But to reject the argument that "I have spoken to women, therefore my opinion is more valid" is not the same as rejecting the argument that the opinions of women are indeed more valid. It's simply doubting the reliably of your opinion, as being entirely backed by hearsay.

Of course, you might be quite happy to not participate in the discussion in that way, by not providing sources and simply relying on hearsay (which of course no-one else could safely rely upon), effectively saying not much more than "you're wrong, QED". But then, in the spirit of this thread, it'd probably be a good idea to check your privilege. As I'm sure you're aware, not everyone has the time or educational background to reach a fully educated conclusion. Rather than being disdainful of such potential readers by assuming they have equal educational resources but have nonetheless come to a odious conclusion, surely it's incumbent on those who do have the time and educational background to charitably presume others have not had the same sort of privileged education on the topic, and to attempt to provide something more substantive. Assuming that others have the same privilege, thereby allowing you to simply assert their incorrectness, would seem to be to ignore your own privileged position.

 

[Rashiminos]

It has nothing to do with identity politics and everything to do with situation. Manfred isn't a woman, doesn't have to deal with this stuff, and can't possess a better understanding of any of those things than women can. That's a simple fact. So yeah, given the choice between lectur-y man who thinks he knows better than women, and women talking about their own situations, I'm going to choose the women. Because I'm not a chauvinist who talks over women and mansplains their own issues to them and what is and is not a problem for them.

Guess that's just "PC gone mad" to some people. And those people should reflect long and hard about just who they think they're helping with an attitude like that.

The solution here is for Manfred Belheim to learn to transform into a woman, therefore fitting Cheezy's preconceived mold and removing the wall that has been erected to block out information.

But you know what they all agree on? The idea that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have a child and that she has the ability to escape this fate via medical procedure when other options fail.

In the more perfect feminism, pro- and anti-abortion feminists disagree on this issue.

In the even more perfect feminism, I am also feminist.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But you know what they all agree on? The idea that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have a child and that she has the ability to escape this fate via medical procedure when other options fail.

Ignoring the fact that this is apparently not even true, and also ignoring the fact that even if it were true, there are DEFINITELY women who are pro-life who probably don't identify as feminists (but who still count as women)... who are you even arguing with about this? I haven't seen anyone in this thread expressing any view to the contrary. I certainly wasn't. It just adds to my impression that you don't actually read what is written half the time, or at least only read it through an incredibly distorting lens of presumptions and prejudices. I'm not wanting to be rude for the sake of it, but you just don't appear to be responding to anything that's actually being said and are instead presuming a whole bunch of negative and simplistic rhetoric that nobody's actually saying and then using that as an excuse to rail against an imagined foe.

 

[Ryika]

Actually I'm non-binary, so yeah I am a little.

See, I hoped it wouldn't get this far, but I guess there's no reason to deny it anymore. I too am non-binary. Not just a little, but a little more than a little. I win.

But you know what they all agree on?

Absolutely nothing, because for any belief you can think of there is a sect of feminism somewhere. Except for maybe "Rape-positive feminism". I hope that doesn't actually exist.

So yeah, the result is that "listening to feminists" constitutes "listening to women."

No, "listening to feminists" constitutes to "listening to feminists", which doesn't tell us anything, because feminists come in all shapes and forms. Some good, some bad.

Listening to "a feminist" basically boils down to listening to "a person with an opinion". Not an opinion that has any more validity than any other opinion by default.

No matter how much you insist on the important role of feminism as a movement, the truth is simple: Most women don't identify as feminists and feminists don't have the authority to talk for anyone but for themselves. A feminist can be just as right or wrong on any particular issue as anybody else.

And no, I disagree - political feminism does generally not seem to care about 'women', political feminism cares about people who think like they do. They will happily throw women under the bus if they disagree with them.

They could debate it on television, with an admiral (who might well be a woman, and may have had an abortion) on one side, and a feminist campaigner (who could also be a sea officer or otherwise involved in defence policy) on the other. The point of this is that listening to people isn't the end of the road when forming opinions: you listen, but then you have to evaluate and ultimately distinguish between what you hear.

...right, and ideally supply your own opinion with additional information to make an informed decision afterwards. I think listening to opinions of people who have personal investment is a good starting point, it gives an overview of where everybody stands on the issue and points towards the factors that should be investigated, but it's certainly not the end of the line.

In any case, a person who asserts authority because of who they are or what they have gone through and not by making good arguments is to be distrusted immediately. More often than not they're not looking for a good solution for everyone, they're looking for a solution that suits them personally.

 

[Borachio]

But then, in the spirit of this thread, it'd probably be a good idea to check your privilege. As I'm sure you're aware, not everyone has the time or educational background to reach a fully educated conclusion. Rather than being disdainful of such potential readers by assuming they have equal educational resources but have nonetheless come to a odious conclusion, surely it's incumbent on those who do have the time and educational background to charitably presume others have not had the same sort of privileged education on the topic, and to attempt to provide something more substantive. Assuming that others have the same privilege, thereby allowing you to simply assert their incorrectness, would seem to be to ignore your own privileged position.

That's very nicely put, imo.

(Not that my own conclusions aren't completely odious as they stand, of course.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think it's really weird that the only way you guys can imagine women being right about something is to act like it's all authoritarian to insist that people know their own situation better than someone else who doesn't share it, and to then go further and imagine that this means that someone is always right because of their identity and not because they're actually right.

I never said this, and people don't say it. Only the critics, who work so hard not to understand this basic idea, say that this is the case. It's just so very wounding to men to not be able to be right about everything, not have something out there that they just can't be the biggest expert on. So you must reimagine the situation as yourselves being the real victims and the opposition being absurd for suggesting that you aren't the experts on this.

And so, in the true spirit of liberal post-modernism, you take your ball and go home. "If I can't be right, then no one can be right," and you assert that this falsely-projected Identity Politics, which doesn't exist, applies to everyone equally, and that indeed the educated ones on this topic are the privileged ones because they bothered to listen to the oppressed and learn about what these people go through.

So now that seven people are all quoting me, each of them with their own nuanced way of accomplishing precisely this, I'm out. You've once again outsmarted yourselves and me, and managed to paint yourselves into a corner where you can't help but fail to make sense of this strange thing we call feminism. Great work, now you can go back to discussing the real issues, you can have a sensible conversation, now that any meaningful challenge to your echo chamber is gone.

You're on the internet, people. The knowledge of humanity is at your fingertips. Make a vague effort, it's not my responsibility to spell 100% of it out for you.

 

[Rashiminos]

So now that seven people are all quoting me, each of them with their own nuanced way of accomplishing precisely this, I'm out.

You're on the internet, people. The knowledge of humanity is at your fingertips. Make a vague effort, it's not responsibility to spell 100% of it out for you.

Likewise... Amen.

 

[Oruc]

And so, in the true spirit of liberal post-modernism, you take your ball and go home.

He types as he takes his ball and goes home.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you're going to presume dishonesty in what Cheezy types, down to and including statements of self, why would you comment on a cessation of posting? That seems to be the only possible goal of that presumption. It renders the entire exercise of exchanging ideas into something both meaningless and unpleasant.

 

[Rashiminos]

If you're going to presume dishonesty in what Cheezy types, down to and including statements of self, why would you comment on a cessation of posting? That seems to be the only possible goal of that presumption.

Seems?

It renders the entire exercise of exchanging ideas into something both meaningless and unpleasant.

Pleasantness isn't a requirement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just checked my privilege...yep, I've still got it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, this whole 'check your privilege'/SJW thing is futile. No one reacts well to being accused, not even if they can realistically be said to be wrong/worthy of being accused. In other words no one will change as a result of reproaches.

We aren't moving towards a hive mentality either. Being a jerk is unpleasant, obviously, but this doesn't mean it is without use within the person having become a jerk. To try to take that out would leave behind a nice open wound, and i am sure SJWs won't fix that either.

A bit like people who need religion. They aren't doing it out of the blue. Such things are aimed at somewhat pseudo-filling gaps one acquired while going on in this world.

 

[Snorrius]

Privileges are to be enjoyed, my friends. I will remark though that it is hilariously funny to read ludicrous longposts and infinitearticles on this subject made by a white western female feminist provided that a white western female is the most privileged creature on this planet.

 

[useless]

Actually the white, western, cis-gendered, straight male is the most priviledged creature on this planet.