I guess this is what I get for being too busy on the weekend to finish a post, suddenly there's two more pages of replies. Oh well. I like how this thread has developed, at least. Sorry for the wall of text responding to old-by-now arguments, but some of them are in desperate need of a response. Believe it or not, this is the cut-down version of this post. What that might say about my writing style or lack of other hobbies, well ... yeah. Still, I think this might be a new record, even for me. Sorry for that.
The only thing you got wrong there is that you assume such thinking is limited to the left-wing. It is not. Otherwise spot on.
Kind of yes, kind of no. I don't doubt that the majority of people on the right want to do the right thing and make the world a better place for everyone. It's just that they follow this up by acting in ways entirely opposite of this and promoting an ideology that's ultimately harmful to the vast majority of people. Non-Keynesian economics and Neoliberalist policies are some easy examples - said to make the world freer and more fair, yet all evidence points to the opposite. Trickle-down economics is an outright lie. Neoliberalist deregulation and governmental deconstruction leads to increased economic inequality, concentration of wealth, increased corruption, increased environmental damage, and a general decline in pretty much every factor that affects health, happiness and standard of living for everyone but the wealthiest. Union-busting is a comparable problem (although I've understood that some unions in the US have historically been deeply problematic, with ties to the mob and corruption issues, that still doesn't make government- or business-led uion-busting right or okay), leading to the current ongoing decline in job security, wage stagnation (IIRC wages in the US have pretty much not moved since the 1970s?), and so on. Opposing pro-diversity policies or programs is exactly the same thing. The right (of course in varying degrees) follows an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to actually achieving any kind of equality, as it opposes any kind of intervention in order to achieve it. Leaving [society/people/whatever group] alone doesn't change anything.
That is were you lost it again. The left-wing does just as much smearing, if not more.
I tend to disagree with that, but I guess it depends what you mean by smearing. If, say, calling out profiteering or abuse of power in harsh words is smearing to you, then sure. Calling a nazi a nazi is not smearing. Calling people out for promoting policy based on disproved/faulty science isn't smearing either. Or calling people out for promoting policies that actively harm poor or otherwise disadvantaged people, or make the wealthy and powerful even more so? If calling people doing these things immoral, corrupt, morally bankrupt, and so on is smearing, then sure. Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.
Of course, this is also affected by the political discourse in our respective countries. In Norway, political discourse is largely respectful. While the US seems to be far worse from my point of view, most of what I see from left-leaning people there seems accurate, even if it's harsh from time to time. Then again, I don't have anything near a full view here.
Those in/with power want to maintain that power, regardless of political leanings.
Often, yes. Well-regulated, transparent, participatory democracy is the best known antidote to this. The right's current desire for strong-man leaders, not to mention fundamentally undemocratic practices like gerrymandering or voter suppression is... well, entirely in line with wanting to maintain power. And reprehensible. In the current era, the right is almost unique in implementing practices like this.
And yet those on the left want to limit personal freedoms and liberties in the name of "safety".
Sure, some. Particularly "freedoms" that are used to harm others. There's a saying that goes something along the lines of your freedoms ending once they intersect with someone else's. That's a pretty decent principle as I see it. It also means that the more power an privilege you have, the more checks on your "freedom" need to exist, as your chance of adversely affecting other people with your choices is larger, and the chance of them being able to stand up for themselves is lower. For example, owning assault weapons is not a right that anyone actually
needs (unless you live in a war zone, I suppose), and it only leads to proliferation of highly lethal guns as these are inevitably sold on, stolen, and so on. And, given the inherent power in owning a gun like this, there ought to be strict controls and checks in place to ensure that a) this power isn't abused, and b) this power isn't given to someone not suited to handle it properly.
You have spent a lot of time smearing in this thread yourself. Perhaps you might consider looking at yourself and thinking about what is actually correct and reasonable instead of lumping in with a group and championing agenda's which are illogical and flawed.
Really? Who have I smeared, and when? By calling Ford a biological determinist? 'Cause it's obvious from his arguments that he is. I can't think of any other examples, but you're welcome to point them out if you find any.
a feminist guy (how does that even work?)
Even with your belief that human behavior is largely controlled by genetics and hormones, you should be able to recognize that men can also believe in fundamental equality between all human beings. If you believe in that, and in actually fighting for it to become reality, including by equalizing discriminatory gendered power structures, then you're a feminist, regardless of gender. I've called myself a feminist for at least a decade, even if I've evolved my views significantly in later years and realized that my own approach previously was quite heavily influenced by my own privileged background - and some of my views were downright sexist. Live and learn, and all that. Listening to other people is rewarding.
As I understand it, "true", or maybe it would be more correct to say "old" feminism merely calls for equality between women and men, to put it simply.
There's a lot of "new" shit floating about these days perpetrated by small groups of very loud, and very annoying people. The kind of people who would get you in trouble for simply holding a door for a woman... as if you are somehow implying that women are too weak to open doors. It's that kind of thing which I think is absolutely over-reaching and ridiculous, and it needs to stop. I also think these kinds of people are counter productive towards what should really be the goal for everybody, at least, what I think it should be, which is simply equality for everyone. I think that because these people generate a lot of hate towards themselves because what they say is perceived as ridiculous by a lot of people.
All feminism calls for that. Sure, there are a handful of extremist nut-jobs here and there who don't, but they're nowhere near representative of feminism as a movement, ideology or philosophy, and acting like they are only makes whoever does so look ill-informed and prejudiced. The kind of stuff you describe in your second paragraph is not quite as rare, but is still a tiny minority not at all representative of feminism.
I'm just going to leave this here: Hundreds arrested in multi-day protests of Supreme Court nominee
All the interruptions and noise have zero impact on the outcome of the vote (he will be confirmed).
There's this little thing called the 19th amendment which extends the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment to women. In terms of legalities, the matter is settled (like Roe v. Wade).
TL;DR: "Live and let live." I have no time for people overly emotional about their own private business that doesn't (nor should) concern me.
If you share a society with someone, you concern them, and they concern you, on some level. Society is fundamentally interconnected, and this is not optional. There are of course wildly varying degrees of this, but "live and let live" must then also include actually listening - respectfully and openly - when someone tells you that their experience of your behaviour or ideology is that it's hurting them - otherwise you're not heeding your own stated principle. Compromise is a necessity. And since when did outlawing discrimination ever end it? Legality is one thing, social norms and individual behaviour something else entirely. One can be changed by a vote or a signature; the other takes decades or centuries to change.
As for this being settled in terms of legalities: the guy currently nominated for the SC calls birth control "abortion-inducing drugs", which is both scientifically false and difficult not to see as a sign of what's coming in terms of attacks on women's reproductive rights and rights to control of their own bodies. It's not like this is news from right-wing movements, after all. This isn't "people overly emotional about their own private business", it's people protesting the appointment of someone who is very likely to undermine their legal right to control their own bodies. While this might be called a "private" matter, the people making it public are republicans and conservatives, not the people protesting it. Women aren't the ones making policing of women's bodies a policy matter.
As for political activism, your definition seems far too narrow. First off, activism does not only mean protests, civil disobedience, marches and so on. Discussions and debates (like this one) are political activism. Promoting a view is political activism. You're being a political activist by taking part in this discussion like you are. You can't just define that away. And it's obviously not a one-way activity. Nor are "one-way" activities like protest marches simple and disconnected enough to be summed up with "interruptions and noise". They're all part of the larger discourse on politics both in general and on specific political matters. While I vehemently oppose any kind of violence, I wholeheartedly support civil disobedience and public rallies - they both play a crucial part in evolving our political landscape and society as a whole, as they make it difficult for those with power to ignore those without it.
I think it is good to be friendly in general. The only case where I get actively hostile is when they encourage kids...and effectively make choices for them. Kids don't even know much, if anything, about sex, and barely care about gender either.. yet these people would make drag them down the rabbit hole and adopt a whole worldview surrounding it. Kids aren't even taught much about the world surrounding heterosexuality and oversexualized stories on that angle. So why is this given a pass?
Otherwise, work out your own issues. But if they persist in this, "mean words" are the last thing they need to worry about. They will eventually reap something far worse. The public at large just isn't aware enough yet.
Is exposing kids to the fact that there are many different kinds of people in the world - and that this is fundamentally okay - somehow bad? I'm always baffled by how some people (not necessarily you here, this is more of a general point) like to describe any kind of display of cultural inclusivity towards children as "propaganda", while simultaneously classifying conservative ideology and status-quo gender identities (and similar concepts) as somehow non-ideological, "natural" and unchangeable when their evolution over time and the massive divergence from these in the world in and of itself is proof that this is not the case. There's no such thing as a politically neutral upbringing, and there's plenty of data to show that exposure to difference is a key element in fostering empathy, understanding and happiness on all sides.
There is such a thing as a gender-neutral upbringing - or at least an attempt at it - and it's definitely not the current status quo. The key is letting children choose for themselves rather than parents forcing their beliefs on their children. Also, the idea that children encountering whatever group you want - drag queens, homosexuals, trans people, immigrants, people of different religions, whatever - is somehow going to throw them into an existential crisis due to there suddenly being too many variables for them to figure out their own identity is ... well, kind of silly. Claiming that they're "effectively mak[ing] choices for them" is downright false - when is presenting an alternative the same as making a choice? And aren't parent's making choices for their children by
not exposing them to this as well? Ultimately, what harm would it do if their identities ended up as more complex and less stereotypical as is currently most common? Would that hurt anyone? I don't think so.
The whole point of exposing children to varied cultural expressions is to allow them to form their own opinions and personalities over time, by giving them the broadest possible experience and the means to process these experiences. Processing complex questions of identity is what most of our childhood and teenage years is all about (and a lot of adult life, really). The only thing this changes is the breadth and availability of experiences.
Also, saying "kids dont even know much, if anything, about sex" doesn't actually apply here. What does meeting drag queens - even if they are gay - have to do with sex? This is about encountering varied cultural expressions and identities. As for barely caring about gender - they often don't, you're right there, but their parents sure do. Particularly for boys. The amount of shaming, violence and threats of violence, and general strict policing of gender identity and expression that boys are subjected to by their parents (not just fathers) is quite extreme. This ranges from "effeminate" boys being beaten (either by family, peers or strangers) to "toughen them up" to being told to "man up" when we show emotion or that were not "man enough" if we don't adhere to a silly, unrealistic ideal of men as stoic, borderline emotionless, self-centered workhorses who don't "complain" (read: talk about our feelings or situation) as it's not "manly" enough. Heck, a lot of parents get angry or worried if a boy child wants to play with dolls! How does that make sense? Are boys somehow not allowed to care about other people? Children are exposed to extreme amounts of gender policing from a very, very early age, in ways both big and small, explicit and implicit. Children, fundamentally, do not care about gender. Parents care
a lot about gender (as they've been taught to do), and in particular about imposing what they see as acceptable gender norms and identities on their children. The exact same goes for love, if not sex: children are taught to idealize a rather specific form of heterosexual marriage from a very, very young age. What's the harm in adding some nuance to this, and teaching them that there isn't such as a "right way" to love someone?
As for "trans kids" and similar expressions of identity in children - what's the harm in letting them grow up as they like? Shouldn't they be allowed to be who they want to be? In most cases, the alternative is forcing them to internalize feelings of difference and otherness, leading to self-hate, suicide, and a whole host of other maladies. While I personally hope we'll one day reach a world where the term 'trans' won't be necessary - as widening accepted gender expressions and weakening the idea of a link between what is between your legs and what you're allowed to say/do/wear/act like would make this mostly unnecessary - for now it's very real and very necessary. Forcing people to comply to the strict and narrow understandings of gender that exist in society today is inhumane, fundamentally opposed to any belief in individual freedom, and only serves to appease
adults who struggle to adapt to these ideas, not the children. If the argument is that it'll protect them from bullying (which it often is), then place that blame - and the effort to change things - where it belongs: with the bullies. And if our current "normal" gender identities and roles are somehow "natural" or biologically determined, what on earth would be the harm in letting people be different? Wouldn't that then imply a biological difference in them? Regardless of ones belief in where this comes from, arguing against letting people become who they want to be doesn't make sense.
Well... I had a point to make here but it became a total rant about attitude and personal accountability. Oh well. Stuff like this gets me down. It's not even about whatever the issue at hand is. It's the whole attitude we have towards ourselves and other people that quite frankly sucks a whole bag of dicks. I struggle to see the meaning in it all.
[snip]
While I agree with some of your sentiments initially, your post was incredibly difficult to read for me as it's based on a single, very common, very significant misunderstanding at the core of it: the creation of words to denominate and describe social structures does not create social structures. The root of the divisions you describe is not and has never been the people naming them. They are named so that we are able to discuss them, and thus ultimately change them. Without useful and functional words, there is absolutely zero we can do to change these things, as it would be impossible to discuss them in any meaningful way. As such, please stop placing the responsibility for polarization on the people naming it - the polarization already existed long before it was named (otherwise there would be no need for the words to begin with). I entirely agree that the ultimate goal is universal equality and liberty, but this is entirely impossible if we can't name and discuss the obstacles standing in the way of it.
After this, you sadly veer off into various misconceptions - from the utopian possibility of people ignoring or removing themselves from discrimination to drawing up a completely false equivalence between various kinds of disadvantages and discriminations. While some of what you say is true ("everyone is disadvantaged in one way or another"), generalizing like this is nothing more than a meaningless platitude that entirely fails to account for the simple fact that "disadvantage" can mean wildly different things.
Please stop acting like all disadvantages are equal. You say that "If you dig deep enough, you will ALWAYS find someone or something that's out to get you." While that is again superficially true, there are massive differences in how deep people need to dig, and what they'll find. Some don't have to dig at all, but have it shoveled onto them by others through no fault of their own. The way you're writing, you're creating a false equivalence that quite frankly is deeply offensive - even to someone like me who's grown up in a very privileged position. Sure, I could point out ways that some people have it better than me, and have had it better than me. It's also ridiculously easy to point out far, far more ways that some people have had (and still do) it far worse than me. These things are not equal. Stop pretending that they are.
In the end, your entire rant as I read it seems to boil down to a belief that everything would be okay if people stopped complaining - I really hope you can see how silly an argument this is. The only people who gain from disadvantaged people not complaining are those who
aren't disadvantaged. Shutting up doesn't make anything better, doesn't foster understanding, and doesn't fight discrimination. And a lot of people see no other option for achieving happiness than changing the world - or see that it's not really possible for them at all as the world is today, but will work so that others like them might have a better life. Isn't this a worthy goal? The ability to change the world isn't some sort of gift or talent given to only a few.
I'm not going to address every point I could in your post, as that would require a wall of text even longer than this already is. But I'll say this: everything you say speaks of you being in a relatively privileged position. You seem to have had control over your life and circumstances in a way that's entirely impossible to a lot of people - and not for a lack of them trying. Of course, this might be wrong, and you might just possess some sort of fortitude that's helped you achieve this. If so: don't expect others to match it. If not: please take some time to reflect on how others might not be able to change and control their circumstances in the way you describe. The person who "singles you out or puts you in a disadvantaged position" might be your employer in the only job you're able to get to feed yourself and your family. Or a horrible neighbor that you can't afford to move away from, and who won't leave you alone no matter what. Or nobody in particular, but society in general. The circumstances of life are, to most people, not interchangeable or optional, for myriad reasons. Don't underestimate that.
Nothing in this accounts for the role of socialization on how gendered responses to these conditions actually play out. There's no evidence of a fundamental causal relationship like you describe in the studies on testosterone and violence - it's just as likely that people socialized into violent behaviour and in violent cultures adapt physically into producing more testosterone as this being the other way around. Again: correlation does not imply causality.
Activism: a one way street. Activists attempt to change minds through disruption. It never works.
Really? What about women's voting rights? US civil rights? Environmental protection? Claiming that protests, marches, sit-ins, letter-writing campaigns and so on has had no positive effect on the development in these cases is entirely ahistorical and false.
Case in point: segregation was ended by the Brown v. Board of Education ruling which was brought forward by 13 parents and their 20 kids. You never heard about Oliver Brown et. al. because they weren't political activists. They were people harmed by the government and went through the proper legal channels to the Supreme Court which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (a Civil War reconstruction ruling) unanimously.
People never heard of this case? Really? I live several thousand miles outside of the US, and I know of this case. Also, please stop acting like the world around this case didn't matter. As if the civil rights movement outside of this had no effect on how this ruling played out, or its acceptance into the SC at all? You're quite a bit off here.
Pray tell what "bias" that would be. Peer review studies? Facts on legal precedent? Stating the obvious?
At least this one is easy:
your sample bias in the sources and research you look at, not bias in
their methods - the sample bias being that you (seem to) specifically look for science discussing biological effects and little to nothing else. For example,
socioeconomic background has a significant impact on a child's risk of being diagnosed with ADHD.
As someone who grew up mixed race myself, I'm going to say "NAH." We generally grow up juggling and struggling with identity and figuring out how to wade through the B.S. before we're 10. It's the rest that have a harder time it seems. But for some reason, all of them seem to know better.. they preach and shout about race from the rooftops. Especially all of the "woke" white millennial college kids.
While you're not wrong, internalization of institutionalized or systematic societal discrimination and hatred is both well-documented and abundant in disadvantaged demographic groups. Of course this is extremely complex, but it still can't be denied. Still, it's no surprise that a lot of/most people growing up dealing with this have far more nuanced and developed stances than "woke" people from a privileged background who have suddenly discovered [insert social malaise of your choice] - years or decades dealing with it tends to do that. Lack of humility and an excessive belief in your own righteousness and right to proclaim this is a clear and obvious sign of privilege. I'm quite guilty of this myself - I'm both loud, can come off as brash, and can get confrontational rather quickly when I feel I'm clearly right or that the other party is fundamentally wrong. I try my best to temper this, particularly by listening intently even to people I vehemently disagree with, but it's difficult to fight how I've been taught to argue. Change takes time.
I think mostly people of a monolithic upbringing can be potentially racist, but I think being mixed race does a number on you...makes you learn about confronting multiple worlds/races early on, from a very personal standpoint. I suppose if you hated one side of your family, you could easily be racist and hate parts of yourself.. but I think that's the exception. I think the majority of kids like that want to find things in themselves they love. They experience shame sometimes from one side, but they fight to make sense of it all. Else they could never make sense of their own being. Not making sense of it is suicide really. Not an option
edit: Ahem! That said, I think a lot of people aren't very culturally monolithic either. So there's just less racism in general these days. A lot of us are growing up juggling multiple worlds now. Not necessarily on the level I mentioned above, but it still somewhat applies.
Thank you for concisely and coherently summing up the entire argument for exposure to diversity of any and all kinds.
This is why we need people to interact, talk to each other, or more importantly:
listen to each other. Exposure to different experiences fosters understanding; exposure to the complexities of society fosters complex and nuanced understandings of how these things work. This is exactly what we need. I hope you can apply the same thinking to how you see exposure to different gender expressions and sexualities too.
