Would equal outcomes be terrible for the average woman?

The video covers many of the areas where average men get the **** end the stick, even though even more could be added.

I watched the video but stopped when it seemed the whole thing was just going to be ways in which men and women aren't equal. I got bored with it because of course I already know that, and pretty much everyone knows that and accepts that statistics in all sorts of areas aren't equal for men and women. Whoever made that video seems to be defending a point that isn't under any particular contention. I'm not sure how much of that video you'd like debated in this thread, but I'll give my thoughts.

Men and women aren't behaviourally identical - any sane person accepts these statistical differences. What is under contention is how much these observed behavioural differences are due to biological, innate differences between genders, and how much is due to environmental and cultural influences.

The video makes a number of dubious points as well. For example, its implicit assumption that female 'circumcision' is equivalent to male circumcision, and what seemed to be the idea that women should be treated more harshly by the justice system in order to make up for the deficit in crimes committed by women and balance execution statistics, which sounds bananas so maybe I have misunderstood.

The introduction to the video also discounted (or refused to acknowledge) reasons that might explain differences in men and women's employment over history (e.g. social expectations of gender roles, prejudice, etc.) and asserted that the reason there isn't equal employment must be because women are 'not equal', which is vacuous at best and misleading at worst, since the same thing could have been said in the past (and still somewhat today) about black people: "why are there no black presidents or judges, etc.? Because they're not equal to white people." That's a completely absurd way to phrase it when yes, there are physiological differences (and possibly statistical psychological ones too - I don't know), but of course we know that the reason there weren't black presidents was because people who held power were prejudiced against them. The author of the video just glosses over all this stuff and says it's because women "aren't equal", as if that answers anyone's questions or is an intelligent input into current debate.

Liberals and feminists and so on don't believe men and women are behaviourally identical, they believe that men and women are deserving of equal opportunities. The means of securing that is what is disagreed upon (e.g. equal representation in the workplace, incentive schemes, etc.).

So, would equal outcomes be terrible for the average woman? I think it completely depends on what is meant by 'equal outcomes'. If it means people are effectively blinded to gender and people are more-or-less rewarded based on merit, I don't think it'd be bad at all. At present, there are ways in which the average woman might have it easier than the average man, and vice versa, but all those points in the video notwithstanding, I think women probably have a tougher time than men. I just have to ask myself: if I was killed and got to be born again, would I want to be born a woman? No way. That I think says it all.

Reply 2

Mankytoes

If there were equal outcomes in the areas people generally talk about, then for the average woman, yes. If it's for things people obviously don't mean like circumcision, then no.

Reply 3

Darien

Original post by miser

Liberals and feminists and so on don't believe men and women are behaviourally identical, they believe that men and women are deserving of equal opportunities. The means of securing that is what is disagreed upon (e.g. equal representation in the workplace, incentive schemes, etc.).

The equal opportunities that the Women's Liberation Movement fought for and mostly won many decades ago (before most of us were born) are accepted by most men and many women as being good and acceptable.

However, modern feminism is not about the changes brought about by the Women's Liberation Movement but is about special privileges and gaining equality of outcome wherever that benefits (white, middle-class) women.

Many people seem unaware of just what feminist organisations actually campaign for, so mistaking feminism for egalitarianism is quite common. Feminism keeps trying to indoctrinate people with the concept that men always have it good and women always have it bad. There are calls for equality of opportunity where that benefits women and calls for equality of outcome (for women only) where equality of opportunity isn't enough to secure female supremacy.

This video helps highlight issues in society where men are worse off than women: areas never addressed by feminism (putting the lie to the myth that feminism is ever about 'equality') and which if women are to continue be given special effort to gain equality of outcome, need to also be addressed.

Reply 4

miser

Original post by Darien

Can you back this up? I haven't personally been exposed to many female supremacists; the feminists I know and interact with are generally interested in equality (i.e., egalitarianism). If there are people who want statistical equality of outcomes independent of a person's individual contributions or ability (i.e., preferencing a person because of their gender), then I generally disagree with them. The exceptions would be policies aimed overcome prejudicial preference in the other direction, which I'd look at case-by-case.

Reply 5

Darien

Original post by miser

Can you back this up? I haven't personally been exposed to many female supremacists; the feminists I know and interact with are generally interested in equality (i.e., egalitarianism).

Of course "I" can back it up but that's not what is important here.

To confuse feminism with egalitarianism shows a marked lack of understanding of the two ideologies. It is impossible to be both at the same time; they even arose as words (around the middle of the 19th century) in counterpoint to one another!

Far more important is for people who think they know what feminism is, but who have never read core feminist literature, attended feminist meetings or examined the works of feminist organisations, to learn just what feminism is.

Original post by miser

If there are people who want statistical equality of outcomes independent of a person's individual contributions or ability (i.e., preferencing a person because of their gender), then I generally disagree with them. The exceptions would be policies aimed overcome prejudicial preference in the other direction, which I'd look at case-by-case.

Therein starts the very problem that society now finds itself in. It has never proven possible in any area - whether religion, skin colour, nationality or sex - to 'overcome prejudice' by introducing prejudice. The best that can be done is to ensure removal of prejudice and let matters fall where they may, even though this means that it takes time for the natural (unbiased) state of affairs to represent the natural (unbiased) choices of the various ways in which society can be subdivided.

Would equal outcomes be terrible for the average woman?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you