• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

In order for women to rise, men must fall.

Metaphor

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
12,378
Are white men lucky to have Clementine Ford or what?

But what does equality really look like, and how can male allies work towards it? Such a thing is possible, but unfortunately the methods prove extremely unpopular when laid out bare for everyone to see. The truth is that equality - real, substantial, tangible acts of equality and not just the kind of lip service we normally see directed towards it - involves loss. It involves loss of power, privilege and positions. The dominant group has to sacrifice the privilege and power they have in order to meet a level playing field. There is no other way around it.

A good example of this can be found in Canadian government. Not only has Prime Minister Justin Trudeau followed through on his commitment to establish a gender equal Cabinet, but it appears his move is being emulated in individual legislatures around the country. Last week, Ontario representative Ted McMeekin announced he would be stepping down from his position as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing so he could help achieve "gender parity in [Premier Kathleen Wynne's] next Cabinet." He followed up in a Facebook post, writing, "Like our Prime Minister, I've never been afraid to call myself a feminist. In fact, I've always been proud of being an honourary member of the Women's Caucus, and working for equality. But sometimes the best way for a man to advance the equality of women may be to step back and make room at the table."

Such a move will invariably be howled down as 'misandrist' by those determined to misunderstand what the reality of gender equality looks like. After all, how can it really be equality if men are forced to lose something? That sounds like discrimination!

But how else is it going to work? Talking about equality in government won't make it magically appear, especially not if the majority of leadership positions continue to not only be held by men but be fiercely defended by them. When 70% of visible positions in society (the lawmakers, the media creators, the voices and the faces of authority) are still held by men, no amount of claims to believing in equality can change the fact that it just doesn't exist. Gender parity under that structure inevitably means that 20% of those positions will need to transfer from men to women - that means that 20% of men currently holding positions of leadership will have to let go of them. That's the reality.

Commitment to real gender equality therefore becomes less a measure of how willing men are to call themselves feminists and more about how willing they are to actually leave their position at the table and transfer it to a woman. And I don't just mean white men letting go so that white women can take their place. I mean a radical restructure of power so that diversity, not homogeneity, is reflected. This means white people losing power so that people of colour can have their equal share, heterosexual voices staying quiet to listen to LGBTQI representatives, able bodied people being denied the right to determine the futures of people with disabilities.

Equality isn't a word that can just be waved around like a talisman against accusations. It has to actually mean something. And right now, in 2016, part of that definition needs to be recognising the necessary loss of power for the people who've always had it and who cannot conceive of what it might look like to start letting that go.

I'm not going to dissect every line of this; I've got a simple question. Are there any men on this board who would step down from their positions solely to allow somebody with a vagina to take his place, in the name of equality?
 
I would not give up a position to anybody who wasnt more qualified and talented than myself. Having a vagina in and of itself is not superior talent or qualification.

The actual answer to equality is to encourage everybody equally (such as not discouraging girls from math and science) and treat them fairly. It takes honesty, scrutiny, and time. People are usually just too lazy and impatient. They want "equality" of outcome so they can pretend things are fair and obscure unfairness unstead of actually fixing it.
 
I would not give up a position to anybody who wasnt more qualified and talented than myself. Having a vagina in and of itself is not superior talent or qualification.

The actual answer to equality is to encourage everybody equally (such as not discouraging girls from math and science) and treat them fairly. It takes honesty, scrutiny, and time. People are usually just too lazy and impatient. They want "equality" of outcome so they can pretend things are fair and obscure unfairness unstead of actually fixing it.

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.
 
Here's a thought

Instead of getting Miz Ann to run the plantation in Mr. Charlie's stead, we find a better way to live that doesn't involve plantations.

This.

Oh, wait. I forgot. I don't have a penis or testicles. I'm not qualified to post in this thread. Sorry 'bout that, Metaphor.

Your attempt at wit is noted, but it's ultimately a failure, as you'll never be able to point to any thread where I've dismissed the opinions of women qua women. Possibly, you would not be qualified to speak in a thread where I'm asking about personal narratives from cis gender men about experiences with their genitals.

As for Ms Ford's imagined solution to an imaginary problem, inasmuch as I think the cultural acceptance of the solution by the people who need to accept it will never gain traction (and therefore the 'solution' will not work), at least she does not appear to advocate involuntary crucifixion (unlike Diane Smith-Gander).

Ms Ford only asks that the men who have caught her own religion sacrifice themselves of their own free will. Perhaps they will; sinners have always been persuaded to become penitents, and some even to become martyrs.
 
There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Feminists, progressives generally support the latter which is why they love Troudou's "gender parity" nonsense. Cabinet posts should be based on merit, not plumbing.
 
There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Feminists, progressives generally support the latter which is why they love Troudou's "gender parity" nonsense. Cabinet posts should be based on merit, not plumbing.
Okay. What makes you think Cabinet post placements are solely based on merit and not other factors, one of which is plumbing? And if Cabinet posts are based solely on merit, why wouldn't one expect the gender distribution of Cabinet heads to be roughly similar to the gender distribution in the adult population?
 
There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Feminists, progressives generally support the latter which is why they love Troudou's "gender parity" nonsense. Cabinet posts should be based on merit, not plumbing.

Really? Because for hundreds of years, such positions were definitely based on plumbing. As well as (largely inherited) wealth, status, birth order and skin color.

Nice to see you on board with modernity, no matter how much you like to mid characterize feminism.
 
There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Feminists, progressives generally support the latter which is why they love Troudou's "gender parity" nonsense. Cabinet posts should be based on merit, not plumbing.
Okay. What makes you think Cabinet post placements are solely based on merit and not other factors, one of which is plumbing? And if Cabinet posts are based solely on merit, why wouldn't one expect the gender distribution of Cabinet heads to be roughly similar to the gender distribution in the adult population?

None of that follows from what Derec said. He said Cabinet posts should be based on merit; he did not proffer an opinion about whether they are based on merit.

Why ought we expect the gender distribution of Cabinet heads to be roughly similar to the gender distribution in the adult population? What basis do you have to assume merit is equally distributed in the population?

Merit isn't 'equally distributed' on a million non-gender factors, why is the presumption that gender is exception? Do you think the age distribution of medical chiefs of staff in hospitals reflects (or ought to reflect) the age distribution of 'the population', or even the age distribution of medical staff in the same hospital? It would be ludicrous to imagine so.
 
This.

Oh, wait. I forgot. I don't have a penis or testicles. I'm not qualified to post in this thread. Sorry 'bout that, Metaphor.

Your attempt at wit is noted, but it's ultimately a failure, as you'll never be able to point to any thread where I've dismissed the opinions of women qua women. Possibly, you would not be qualified to speak in a thread where I'm asking about personal narratives from cis gender men about experiences with their genitals.


I wasn't trying to be funny.

I'm not going to dissect every line of this; I've got a simple question. Are there any men on this board who would step down from their positions solely to allow somebody with a vagina to take his place, in the name of equality?


Again, my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

My personal female experience is that there is no end to the sacrifices men will gladly accept and even demand from women so that men can get what they want and feel better about themselves while doing it.

In light of full disclosure, the fact that I'm pissed at my husband has something to do with the above statement.
 
This is simply a straw man against equal opportunity.
When African Americans were given more opportunities in the job market, does this mean whites were sacked? Of course not. They are looking for vacant positions. The same is for women. They don't have to simply replace men in existing jobs but have more opportunities to fill vacancies.
 
Your attempt at wit is noted, but it's ultimately a failure, as you'll never be able to point to any thread where I've dismissed the opinions of women qua women. Possibly, you would not be qualified to speak in a thread where I'm asking about personal narratives from cis gender men about experiences with their genitals.


I wasn't trying to be funny.

I'm not going to dissect every line of this; I've got a simple question. Are there any men on this board who would step down from their positions solely to allow somebody with a vagina to take his place, in the name of equality?


Again, my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

My personal female experience is that there is no end to the sacrifices men will gladly accept and even demand from women so that men can get what they want and feel better about themselves while doing it.

In light of full disclosure, the fact that I'm pissed at my husband has something to do with the above statement.

When I see someone make a statement (in bold) like this, I always wonder how they rationalize that with the sacrifices men made for women when the Titanic was sinking. And this was over 100 years ago, when supposedly men were pretty mean and awful towards women. Care to offer an explanation?:

http://www.titanicfacts.net/titanic-survivors.html

20% - the percentage of male passengers who survived.

75% - the percentage of female passengers who survived.

22% - the percentage of male crew members who survived.

87% - the percentage of female crew members who survived.
 
I'm not going to dissect every line of this; I've got a simple question. Are there any men on this board who would step down from their positions solely to allow somebody with a vagina to take his place, in the name of equality?


Again, my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

You did misunderstand. Perhaps I should clarify:

To the (cis) men reading this thread: would you personally step down from a position you had obtained for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer to 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions?

To everyone else reading this thread: do you think enough men in positions of power will step down voluntarily for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions? Do you think you know any personally?

The first question does not apply to you but the second would. You're as qualified as anyone else to participate in the thread.
 
This is simply a straw man against equal opportunity.
When African Americans were given more opportunities in the job market, does this mean whites were sacked? Of course not. They are looking for vacant positions. The same is for women. They don't have to simply replace men in existing jobs but have more opportunities to fill vacancies.

It is not a straw man. It is the quoted and literal position of Clementine Ford.
 
Again, my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

You did misunderstand. Perhaps I should clarify:

To the (cis) men reading this thread: would you personally step down from a position you had obtained for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer to 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions?

To everyone else reading this thread: do you think enough men in positions of power will step down voluntarily for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions? Do you think you know any personally?

The first question does not apply to you but the second would. You're as qualified as anyone else to participate in the thread.

Do you actually believe that that false equivalence is relevant?

Building new roads costs millions of dollars per mile. Are you willing to personally pay $100,000 for a short stretch of road? Does that mean we shouldn't have roads?
 
Back
Top Bottom