Hacker News Reader

Comment by erentz | Hacker News Reader

> and neither feminism nor men’s-rights-activists seem to ascribe to those

I’m not that old yet but feminism to me growing up was always that men and women should have the same opportunities and treatment, but never that they were the same. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s more of a recent phenomenon which claimed for itself the title of feminism - I doubt the original feminists would agree with it, but I don’t know. (I find it sad because to me it’s turned a serious movement for which very brave women had to fight hard into a joke.)

View on HN

The conundrum for modern feminists is that we are becoming more aware that we are becoming more aware of the power of genetic outcomes. So when equality of treatment and opportunity doesn't get all the way to equality of outcome, then more radical ideas become tempting, and science can get tossed out the window.

If some differences are caused by biological reasons, and some differences are caused by social reasons, then by removing the social reasons for inequality we achieve two things at the same time:

1) men and women become more equal;

2) the remaining reasons for inequality become predominantly biological (because the social ones are reduced, while the biological ones remain).

But it is easy to make a completely opposite conclusion, such as: "if some differences are social, then all differences have to be social". And then, when trying harder does not change things anymore, it is only a proof that we need to try even harder.

The history has informed our intuitions here. Many things used to be described as biological that we now suspect are social. And those things have been used to prevent people from doing things they wanted to do.

My take is: don't describe things as biological unless you are damn well sure that they are. We (as a society) have been wrong too many times before.

The opposite extreme -- belief in "tabula rasa", and how biology doesn't matter for the New Soviet Man -- was also used in the history, also with bad results.

(And similarly, this doesn't prove that everything is genetic. You can't get science by merely doing the opposite of other people's prejudices.)

The belief that nothing is genetic can also be used to oppress people. For example, you can dismiss highly intelligent people from poor families by insisting that high intelligence doesn't really exist and everything comes from universities, and then pointing out how poor people usually don't come from the best universities.

Any kind of incorrect belief can be strategically used to hurt someone.

I would add that truth can be used to harm as well, because even entirely rational arguments with the best intentions can lead to grave atrocities (e.g. utilitarianism).

feminism to me growing up was always that men and women should have the same opportunities and treatment, but never that they were the same

This is still true today, to a certain extent (never is a heavy word). It's important to understand that Feminism isn't some authoritarian philosophy with a single set of ideas that you must subscribe to consider yourself a Feminist. Sure, some Feminists challenge gender essentialism in one way or another, but that doesn't mean all do or that it is a critical part of Feminism. The best way to learn is to talk to some local political groups.

"(I find it sad because to me it’s turned a serious movement for which very brave women had to fight hard into a joke.)"

What you're seeing there is an effect of the internet, not an effect of shifts in feminist movements. The internet gives everyone a place to speak which is great but the loudest/most astonishing/most disruptive voices are the ones that come out on top. Not the majority, not the thoughtful, not the ones who take action, not the voices who would like to have a conversation. If you dive past the surface I don't think you'd find modern feminism a joke and think that it has grown and matured. But I'm just one opinion

you're describing second wave feminism. It was about equal opportunities for women, regardless of any (supposed) intrinsic differences between the sexes.

What we're looking at here is a bit more complicated; the modern situation (not just feminism but a number of different position groups) wants to downplay the existence of actual differences between the sexes. This seems partly motivated by existing, bad/biased science, and partly by the worry that if women and men are physically different, that people will use that as a basis for discrimination. I do see a bit of what appears to be science denialism amongst the "there is no male brain or female brain" crowd, which I find worrisome. Ultimately, I am with the second-wave feminists: people deserve equal opportunities regardless of their differences.

I think it's important to recognize the issues directly pertaining to equal treatment that are dominating much of the conversation about sex and gender today.

The right not to be grabbed or groped or touched without consenting, to be evaluated on ability to do the work and not on appearance, to have supervisors and coworkers focused on working together and not on how to date you.

These are all issues disproportionately impacting women, that are not requests for "equality of outcome" or that men and women are the same, and very much critical to addressing "equality of opportunity".

>These are all issues disproportionately impacting women

That men are raised with the social expectation to not find problem and to not let something impact them is not to say that women are impacted more by it. With reference to non-consensual encounters, there is a great deal of bias that refuses to see men as victims and even encourages them to see being the victim as a beneficial event for them.

Yes, men are sometimes subject to unwanted physical contact, and are probably not taken as seriously if they complain about it.

But I would be very surprised if the overall number of men experiencing non-consensual touching was greater than the number of women.

It would not surprise me given the pervasiveness of the double standard. I've seen a old woman directly sexually assault a young boy in public and no one call her out on it. It was treated as a joke and even I took a few moments to realize just how differently I reacted compared to if we reversed the genders. The boy played it off as a joke because that is what he was conditioned to do, and it was another incident that will never be reported in any sort of reporting.

There are also numerous self reports by bouncers in bars that point out how bad it gets and the extent of the double standard.

Or consider the case of celebrities openly admitting to such crimes of recent and the vast difference in social reaction based on the gender of the celebrity.

I would very much like to see some evidence to your claim, other than anecdotal.

You have unstated assumptions here. Are you aware that most statistics of victimization intentionally discard data from people who are incarcerated?

A non charitable reading of my quickly formulated comment may have given the impression I believe that the need for real feminism is over. I'm lamenting the appropriation of the word by those that are cheapening it with nonsense.

On the one hand we have women in Iran facing real dangers to take off their veils. Then on the other we have this strange group that deny science and demand we believe men and women are identical. I also reject this pattern where women should measure and compare themselves to men, and shape themselves into men. Which seems very anti-feminist. You're fine to do it, but to label that feminist is (I believe) wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com