One thing I learned the hard way that today in these topics logic and rational thinking carry no water. Feelings trump logic. This makes these discussions so painful because even if you're opponent is logically fully cornered and checkmate, she will indignantly leave the table convinced that I proved her right. Robin DiAngelo's Kafka tra…
One thing I learned the hard way that today in these topics logic and rational thinking carry no water. Feelings trump logic. This makes these discussions so painful because even if you're opponent is logically fully cornered and checkmate, she will indignantly leave the table convinced that I proved her right. Robin DiAngelo's Kafka trap is a shining example.
Somehow in the past decades we lost our color blindness, Hippocrates' foremost do not harm, as well as our shame of being illogical. And I think it is killing our institutions.
So yes, I think your definition that feminism thinks men are treated more fairly than women is good and defensible, it even gently goes out of its way to not offend. But, you know, feelings. It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!
"It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!"
Is a wonderful phrase.
In general every forced government redistribution racket has two phases.
1) Establish some unfairness that needs to be rectified
2) Enforce rectification
Many generous and good hearted people are often talked into #1, then are surprised when #2 seems to violate important rights, be ineffective at its objective, or some other failing. They then spend a lot of time arguing over #2 as if they have some shot once they have given up #1.
The point is to fight #1 from the start. Don't be understanding and generous. Don't give an inch. That they are not yet talking about what #2s they want to implement is not important, there will be #2s once you give up #1.
One of my main insights in the past decades is that empathy does not scale. Feminists often talk about toxic masculinity but they fail to see that empathy at scale becomes toxic as well.
We've taught boys very well to handle their potentially dangerous strengths. However, we never teach girls that their abundant empathy also becomes toxic when it is not bounded to a small private context. Empathy is a spotlight and spotlights work by obscuring anything outside its cone of light. A person in thrall of empathy is impossible to reason with because the need of the victim is all encompassing and not open for compromise or trade offs. You can't reason with a mama bear when it concerns her child and that is great. However, when she applies that empathy to societal problems, well, then we are where we are today.
The historical solution was that women didn't have the power to turn their empathy into force. This lack of power meant that they could be empathetic without it becoming toxic at the societal scale. Under that context most people considered it a virtue, but that context has passed. With great power comes great responsibility.
One thing I learned the hard way that today in these topics logic and rational thinking carry no water. Feelings trump logic. This makes these discussions so painful because even if you're opponent is logically fully cornered and checkmate, she will indignantly leave the table convinced that I proved her right. Robin DiAngelo's Kafka trap is a shining example.
Somehow in the past decades we lost our color blindness, Hippocrates' foremost do not harm, as well as our shame of being illogical. And I think it is killing our institutions.
So yes, I think your definition that feminism thinks men are treated more fairly than women is good and defensible, it even gently goes out of its way to not offend. But, you know, feelings. It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!
"It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!"
Is a wonderful phrase.
In general every forced government redistribution racket has two phases.
1) Establish some unfairness that needs to be rectified
2) Enforce rectification
Many generous and good hearted people are often talked into #1, then are surprised when #2 seems to violate important rights, be ineffective at its objective, or some other failing. They then spend a lot of time arguing over #2 as if they have some shot once they have given up #1.
The point is to fight #1 from the start. Don't be understanding and generous. Don't give an inch. That they are not yet talking about what #2s they want to implement is not important, there will be #2s once you give up #1.
One of my main insights in the past decades is that empathy does not scale. Feminists often talk about toxic masculinity but they fail to see that empathy at scale becomes toxic as well.
We've taught boys very well to handle their potentially dangerous strengths. However, we never teach girls that their abundant empathy also becomes toxic when it is not bounded to a small private context. Empathy is a spotlight and spotlights work by obscuring anything outside its cone of light. A person in thrall of empathy is impossible to reason with because the need of the victim is all encompassing and not open for compromise or trade offs. You can't reason with a mama bear when it concerns her child and that is great. However, when she applies that empathy to societal problems, well, then we are where we are today.
The historical solution was that women didn't have the power to turn their empathy into force. This lack of power meant that they could be empathetic without it becoming toxic at the societal scale. Under that context most people considered it a virtue, but that context has passed. With great power comes great responsibility.