Are Women Superior To Men? (Note: The Two Acceptable Options: (i) Men and Women Are Equal; (ii) Women Are Superior)
Link1 link2
Well, we get some pretty straight-forward SJW gibberish in both of these pieces (e.g. "gender binary," "not all men," blah blah blah...). I wonder whether this sort of thing is actually taken seriously in anthropology?
I do think that there are empirical questions in this vicinity, and it could turn out that one of the sexes is superior to the other in a majority of non-moral respects...
And I've certainly wondered whether or not females might be, on the whole, better-suited to life in the future...
So I don't want to suggest that we should get in a quasi-moral huff about this...
However, I will note that: There's an obviously asymmetry here. A book that advanced an analogous thesis about men would be dogpiled and vilified. Which, y'know, maybe it should be... But what cannot be defended is the double-standard. Either such a book should be taken seriously whichever sex it's about, or it shouldn't be taken seriously in either case.
Oh, also note the sophomoric dismissal of agency via a patently unsound argument. Man, that's really one of the things that is creepiest about the far left--they hate the idea of autonomy... The far right might try to explain it in some kooky theistic way...but at least they don't deride it...
Well, we get some pretty straight-forward SJW gibberish in both of these pieces (e.g. "gender binary," "not all men," blah blah blah...). I wonder whether this sort of thing is actually taken seriously in anthropology?
I do think that there are empirical questions in this vicinity, and it could turn out that one of the sexes is superior to the other in a majority of non-moral respects...
And I've certainly wondered whether or not females might be, on the whole, better-suited to life in the future...
So I don't want to suggest that we should get in a quasi-moral huff about this...
However, I will note that: There's an obviously asymmetry here. A book that advanced an analogous thesis about men would be dogpiled and vilified. Which, y'know, maybe it should be... But what cannot be defended is the double-standard. Either such a book should be taken seriously whichever sex it's about, or it shouldn't be taken seriously in either case.
Oh, also note the sophomoric dismissal of agency via a patently unsound argument. Man, that's really one of the things that is creepiest about the far left--they hate the idea of autonomy... The far right might try to explain it in some kooky theistic way...but at least they don't deride it...
posted by Winston Smith at
11:46 AM
2 Comments:
I've hesitated to comment on the term SJW but here goes. I really don't think there's anything wrong with being a Social Justice Warrior. Some will take it too far, of course, but that happens in everything.
As Phil Plaitt put it
"And for the other bit, people derisively calling us “social justice warriors”? They may use it as a derogatory term, thinking of SJWs as shrill and overbearing, but to me it’s a term that refers to people willing to go to bat for others who don’t have as big a soapbox. I might prefer the term “ally”, but SJW fits fine, too. This world could use a lot more social justice. I’ll be happy to fight for it when I can"
Here's the context
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/25/crash_course_an_apology_to_the_transgender_community.html
Thanks for the link Aa.
My initial inclination is to disagree...but I do think there are points there worth thinking about. I'm going to emit a post on that... I mean, I deride the SJWs mot because I deride justice, of course...but, rather, because I think that the 'J' in 'SJW' has about as much to do with actual justice as the 'D' in 'DPRK' has to do with democracy...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home