Skip to main content

V Day: The good, the bad and the ugly

Feb 14th was of course V day, an awareness day for plight of women suffering from violence.

The good:
  • Anything which helps to reduce human suffering is a very good thing.
  • Women are still disadvantaged far too often, and society has been too slow in redressing this.
  • Women suffer terribly from violence.
  • In many types of violence, particularly sexual violence, the suffering of women is far greater than that of men, in terms of both quantity and severity.
  • Some types of violence, when divided into type, culture and region, are genuinely single-gender.
  • Many types of violence, including violence against women, are underreported, and it’s a good thing to raise awareness of this so we can do something about it.
  • Violence against all people of any race, colour, creed or gender is unacceptable.
  • Feminists do a tremendous amount of good in helping women, and this is rarely to the detriment of men.
The bad:
  • Violence overall affects men and women in roughly equal measure, but differently. So picking a gender is largely arbitrary.
  • Very few subcategories of violence are single gender. For example Google “male war rape” (no, really do), and rapes against men (perpetrated by males, obviously) are estimated at 1 in 8.
  • Outrages are committed against both genders. Women get raped in war, but men get killed.
  • There is the danger of perpetuating unhelpful and untrue stereotypes about which genders suffer from which types of violence.
  • Treating cross-gender issues as single gender may not actually be that helpful. But I should respect the fact that many people do find it helpful.
  • It discriminates against victims based on their gender. This is known as sexism. I feel compassion for all victims, regardless of their gender.
  • Victims who are the “wrong gender” for a crime feel particularly helpless that they are not even recognised.
  • An issue which is 10% male, 90% female, is not a single gender issue.
  • Even stereotypes about perpetrators are an approximation. For example I read quite recently about a woman who had CS-gas sprayed into her by a female police interrogator in Egypt.
  • Breaking things down by gender is too simplistic.
The ugly:
  • Unhelpful and untrue gender stereotypes are indeed held and perpetuated by the feminists I know, judging by recent and past comments.
  • Feminists show a distinct lack of compassion when a victim is male, even for the same crime.
  • I would feel outrage at any situation where someone is discriminated against. I’m not convinced that this is true of all feminists. In short, many feminists are sexists.
  • Feminists are not engaged in men’s issues. They fail to recognise that men suffer too (just look at the suicide rates), both from the same issues as women, but also different issues and different forms of violence.
  • Feminism does not really seem to be about gender equality. In practice, it’s about making things better for just one gender.
  • After 15 years of being a feminist, I have stopped being one. The main reason for this is the duplicitous nature in which many feminists (rightly) demand sympathy and action when females are victims, yet sneer, dismiss, discount, play down, ignore, poo-poo and generally applaud situations where males are disadvantaged. It has to be a two-way street. I feel very sad and betrayed by this.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...
3 comments
Read more

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel...
3 comments
Read more