Misandrism

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It turns out that, yes, the Human Resources department is staffed mostly be women, and it is they who go through the initial screening process. And they don't like attractive women - or more precisely: They don't want any extra competition!

That makes more sense than concluding that attractiveness is a detriment to gainful employment, especially for one gender and not another. It usually is an advantage to both.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Close, but now you've managed to mix up the argument a bit. The point was that attractive women were less likely to be hired, right?

But remember that less attractive women didn't have this problem.

It turns out that, yes, the Human Resources department is staffed mostly be women, and it is they who go through the initial screening process. And they don't like attractive women - or more precisely: They don't want any extra competition!

New attractive women being hired is, simply put, extra competition for the women already working there. And most humans don't like extra competition. So naturally enough, they choose away the more attractive ones, and have no problem with the less attractive ones.

Aren't humans great?

I looked for the study online and what you wrote is the exact conclusion of the study.

I am afraid this rules out the following reasoning (I assumed anyway that such a bias was circumvented but wasn't sure any more when faced with the following argumentation):

That study looks like the sort where people are put on the spot to give the answer expected, and then remarkably perform that way. It is not socially acceptable to judge women on anything but merits for a job, so anyone that does looks like a chauvinist pig immediately. To compensate, everyone will answer the opposite. How else do you explain the discrepancy between judging male appearance, from female? If hotness were really a liability, you would expect the judgemental attitude for both genders.

To give more details to the study:
University students independently judged the attractiveness of applicants.
Said applicants apply with the same application papers.
Attractive men are favored. (expected by previous studies on general attractiveness)
Attractive women are not. (not expected by previous studies on general attractiveness)

 

[Brighteye]

Y
But I still believe there is a balance between individualism and collectivism that is important to attain, and I am concerned that we - as in the modern, developed world - are leaning to far towards individualism, and that we will reap some great problems from it. The societies that emphasised collectivism too much - most notably fascism and communism - made great damage to the collective, including the institutions, the environment, the infrastructure, and the "zeitgeist" and thought processes of the people.

I fear what damages our too great emphasis on individualism will create.

Why would it create any damage? I fear a return to any sort of state involvement in collectivism. I heard a report on 'Blue Labour', a movement to try to redirect the Labour party here to more conservative social values, as though Labour hadn't been nannying enough. It's appalling that Labour and the Conservatives might engage in a race to the bottom in the field of 'family values', which broadly equate to returning to the bigoted, pre-modern world in which individuals' lives are scripted for them by society without their input.

The report quoted some members of this movement who specifically denigrated the 'excessive' focus on individualism. It made me sick. Individualism is not the opposite of a welfare system; it's an essential feature of self-realisation and is perfectly compatible with a welfare system that gives everyone an opportunity. In fact, both are necessary.

 

[Leoreth]

Why does everyone jump at "state involvement" right off the bat?

What Cheetah was talking about is mostly a social phenomenon.

 

[NovaKart]

I think in more traditional societies people generally think of the benefit to their family more than the benefit of society. That's certainly the way it is in Turkey. People tend to have much stronger family obligations than in Western countries. I'm sure this has some benefits but I don't know if it's really any more of a benefit to society.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think in more traditional societies people generally think of the benefit to their family more than the benefit of society. That's certainly the way it is in Turkey. People tend to have much stronger family obligations than in Western countries. I'm sure this has some benefits but I don't know if it's really any more of a benefit to society.

I would like to add that in some "collectivist" societies that the lines between society and family are blurred. Especially in olden days when all you knew your entire life was your village, it was pretty important that you got along well with everybody in your village and supported each other.

As an Asian with sort-of-sort-of-not traditional parents, my parents were very critical of the individualism they say in American culture, even though they actually came to America from a very young age, much younger than the average Asian parent from my generation (so far as I know). Perhaps it was that early exposure that made them question it, and they had a lot of difficulty finding a middle ground, even when raising me (should we be nice to him like those 'American' parents and let him do whatever his heart wants? or should we discipline him and make sure he does everything he is 'supposed' to? etc.); I myself also have a difficult time trying to find a middle ground.

But regardless, there IS a difference in a society where the cultural norm is to encourage communal and/or familial ties rather than individualism (i.e. traditional China, Japan, etc.) and stuff like communism and fascism.

 

[timtofly]

"it is my way or the highway, now go, be a good leader"

 

[NovaKart]

Some of the negative effects I see from countries with strong family loyalty is that nepotism is really common. It can be difficult to get a job without family connections and there are many unqualified people who just have their job because of their family. I think in some ways the individual can be better for society than a family.

There are some advantages though, like children are provided for unlike the deadbeat dad phenomenon we see in America and poor family members are taken care of.

 

[Flying Pig]

"it is my way or the highway, now go, be a good leader"

Brian Clough had a phrase, the motto of many great leaders across all fields: "We'll agree to discuss it, then we'll all agree with what I think'

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well Cloughie had many great quotes

http://www.brianclough.com/new_page_2.htm

 

[Brighteye]

...they had a lot of difficulty finding a middle ground, even when raising me (should we be nice to him like those 'American' parents and let him do whatever his heart wants? or should we discipline him and make sure he does everything he is 'supposed' to? etc.); I myself also have a difficult time trying to find a middle ground.

I don't think that the choice you present has anything to do with individualism. Spoiling your child is not raising him to be an individual any more than drilling him.

Why does everyone jump at "state involvement" right off the bat?

What Cheetah was talking about is mostly a social phenomenon.

As long as it's not state, it's individual choice, and is the essence of individualism. As soon as someone starts demanding a force that is exerted on all members of society, which is typically a state force, but can also be a demand for a return to atavistic culture, it is wrong.
And not everyone jumps at it. It was just me.

 

[Leoreth]

I've seen it brought up a lot in similar discussions, that's why I phrased it that way.

And it certainly doesn't need the state to limit individualism. There's this thing called "society", i.e. in practice your partner, friends, family, coworkers etc. They all influence what we do, and each other, consciously and unconsciously.

 

[Brighteye]

If there's no laws involved then you're free to believe what you want. If it's arbitrarily restrictive on who you accept as righteous, decent people, that's up to you. Collectivism which recognises my right to dissent is not really collectivism. Collectivism is an imposition of a way of life on others; collectivism within an individualist society is right and proper, and I fully support people's rights to believe whatever wacky doctrines they want, as long as I am free to do without them.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I don't think that the choice you present has anything to do with individualism. Spoiling your child is not raising him to be an individual any more than drilling him.

I did not mean so in terms of discipline by itself per se, but rather in the choices the child makes for themselves later on: in the former case, the "American" way of raising the child, the parents let the child go into whatever interests they want to go into, and they encourage the child to do so and to go on their own path in life; in the latter case, the "traditional Asian" way of raising the child, the parents make the child do certain things not only because they believe it will help the child in the long run in that they'll find the 'better' job (like the typical doctor or lawyer or engineer), but because the parents believe it will also be have a reciprocal benefit on them, because the child can then support the parents - and other family members - if the child has a good job.

So far as I know, the first case is more supportive of individualism, the second is less so; in the first case, the child can choose whatever path he or she wants, but in the second case, the child is more obliged to stay and help their parents and family, and thus a more communal approach.

I also would add that this also concerns whether the parents believe the child has a right to question them and state their own opinions. Parents who espouse more individualism might allow their children to question their authority or their methods of parenting and to state their own opinions when there is conflict, while more traditional parents might see this as disrespectful and impolite at best and outright undermining of a social structure at worst regardless of whether the children's complaints are justified and/or reasonable or not.

Ultimately it's a source of tension for many Asian parents and their children, who are oftentimes pressured into - if not actually obliged or outright forced into - doing what the family (not just the parents, often) wants or suggests them to do.

 

[Narz]

Wow, this thread actually got kind of interesting since I gave up on it.

Regarding the "women & children first" I remember reading somewhere that in very poor areas (parts of Africa IIRC) the men usually eat first with the women & children getting the leftovers. Of course this could be pragmatic since the men are the ones who have to do the most work & thus need the most energy with women & children needing less.

 

[RedRalph]

A friend yesterday said to me "I am against feminism... I'm for equality." He basically said women should have every right and obligation men have, so let them serve in the army, go as frontline fire-fighters, and so on. I agree with his points, but it highlights how problematic the name feminism is. How well would we respond to anti-racism if it was called Negroidism or Mongoloidism? Yeah, it's a semantic issue but an important one. Feminism doesn't mean putting women ahead of men, but the name is pretty counterintuitive

 

[Disgustipated]

One thing about sparing the women and children is men are expendable. Most men are capable of having multiple gf's or wives, and throughout history they've had mistresses along with their wives. It doesn't take an equal number of men as women to keep the population going. One man can spread his seed far and wide. Look at Ghenghis Khan for example. He really spread his seed far and wide. So the death of half of the population of men is not cause for concern. But if half the women died, you basically cut your population growth in half.

 

[NovaKart]

How often does a situation come along where half of the men die? I don't think something like the Titanic would cause a population shortage. Is that really why people protect women or is it because people say they're weaker?

 

[Yared]

I'd consider giving my life for a woman if there was incredibly mass-death involved.

In situations where mass-death isn't involved, please don't make the choice of giving my life for the sake of a woman's life for me.

 

[Jabarto]

but the name is pretty counterintuitive

This is the main thing, I think. "Feminism" is the most gender-biased term ever conceived by the English language. Applying it to a movement designed to end gender bias is going to cause some problems with exactly the kind of people you're trying to reach.

That said, I think your friend was being a little childish. Although it's true feminists tend to pay lip service to men's issues in practice despite claiming to be concerned with them, this guy is veering dangerously close to, "where's my white history month?" territory.