@SC said:
Do you disagree with the notion that there is relativity with generalized groups, meaning some are more focused than others, and as far as identifying and solving real problems is the ability to identify and focus on problems and then possible solutions not helped with focus?
No and as I recall I never said I did. What I was saying is that generalized groups know their groups alleged problems and they seek to address them. However, most of them don’t take the potential damages of other generalized groups into account that may result in them allegedly addressing their own.
For example over here in the States we often hear feminists gripe about how women are not equally represented in fields such as engineers and so on. Also, how women are underrepresented in those post undergraduate schools. However, a quick look at virtually any university’s data and you’ll see that men are well unrepresented in undergraduate enrollments across the country. So feminists want to use affirmative action to take up the already limited seats in graduate programs, but they seemingly couldn’t care less about the fact that they are taking an opportunity away from certain college educated minorities by doing so. Thus they are gaining what they want at the expense of others.
Then what groups can't fall victim to treating other groups as expendable to their own benefit?
Which is why I said I don’t ally myself with any generalized groups movement as they all can be potentially be guilty of this if they don’t collaborate with other groups, or take the actual concerns of other groups into consideration when addressing their own. Since feminism has been academically unchallenged in this regard, they are the most prominent offender of making another group expendable.
I mean when it comes to conflict between two groups often a problem that arises within a group is how to get the other group to "convert" so to speak. Do you be patient and passive or aggressive and confrontational? (those things as far as information and education as opposed to physical actions)
When it comes to conflict you negotiate and sometimes concessions have to be made on both sides, you can’t just expect get your way outright when it negatively impacts the other group. As I previously stated, for the majority of its existence feminism has been running unopposed academically as a worldview. They have never made a concession in this regard.
If realistically getting to a point where "everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, et al to be treated as equals in so far as it realistically possible" is best reached by accurately identifying and understanding some of the people in aforementioned in groups are objectively treated worse, unfairly than others, and addressing that inequality first has benefits for all those people in those groups faster? What does that mean?
Honestly I should have asked this initially, but what do you mean by equality/inequality? Also what does what mean?
I’ll try to answer this Q, but I’ll better be able to answer them after you answer mine. In the US, First wave feminism it was to address clear inequalities they saw between the sexes, such as the right to vote. After the first wave feminism has become geared towards women’s interest, not necessarily rights. There is no issue with that if another school of thought/worldview was being used as a balance. That wasn’t the case. Gaining rights does not expend another’s rights. When blacks and women were given the right to vote it did not take anything away from another group. Well it meant that the other groups were not the only people allowed to determine an election. However it did not undermine their right or ability to vote. Does it make slightly less significant? Sure, but not in a way that a sudden increase in that groups voting population wouldn’t have.
My issue is that special interests groups like feminists, which this thread is about, try to benefit their group without taking into account or caring how another group can and are affected by their actions. If a level headed feminist, men’s rights activists, and others came together to work towards actual social justice and realistic equality, then everyone’s problem’s could be solved. One group lobbying for their desires without taking other groups into account does not.
Log in to comment