"I’m saying that it’s very difficult to offend somebody over a trait they’re proud of."
Or at least not ashamed of being, anyway. I don't get 'skin pride'. I get 'black pride' from the 1970s when black people were beginning to feel and make their growing power known, and challenging white racism. But I think it's an idea, like the 'don't …
"I’m saying that it’s very difficult to offend somebody over a trait they’re proud of."
Or at least not ashamed of being, anyway. I don't get 'skin pride'. I get 'black pride' from the 1970s when black people were beginning to feel and make their growing power known, and challenging white racism. But I think it's an idea, like the 'don't blame the victim' mantra for feminism, that's past its prime. Fact is, there's nothing to be 'proud' about with skin colour. It's an accident of birth (your soul, personality, consciousness, whatever) was born into this body or that body, and also genetics (my parents are Western European, so I lack the natural sun protection others have, but they're not 'better' than me). The 'white pride' movement struck me as equally stupid...'Pride' comes from something you've ACCOMPLISHED. I'm proud to be a good writer. I'm proud to have stopped picking so many political fights on Facebook. I'm proud of having had the labia to move to Canada, to uproot my entire life away from my family (who had nothing to do with my decision) and start a new life in a new country, albeit a next-door neighbour. I'm not 'proud' to be white, or female, or French (although I was a bit of a French nationalist in college, but it was a silly kid identity thing and I grew out of it). I am, however, proud that I've begun learning French again.
Skin colour really is a stupid thing to hierarchize, because there are *literally no significant differences* between anyone apart from a few evolutionary mutations to adapt to new environments. As opposed to say (Warning: Heretical statement alert!) males and females, between which there are demonstrable differences in body size, strength, and, to a lesser extent cognitive traits - neither gender is intellectually superior to the other, but there are brain differences that appear to partially account for the way we process information and what we're good at. Women have more developed language and emotional expression, men are better at visualizing spatial possibiltiies and math, but that doesn't mean one gender can't learn what the other is better at. Frankly, I think there'd be a much closer parity if men spent more time learning about emotions and how to communicate, and women spent more time on math and science. It's not *all* how we're socialized, and the left is positively phobic about biological differences. My feeling is let's all do what we're best at and stop applying value labels to which work is more important. That's where a lot of the prejudice comes from - males deciding that their work, and their skills, and their talents are more valuable than women's.
I'm with you on the emotion behind the 'n' word and I'd add the 'c' word for women. The c-word is the WORST POSSIBLE WORD EVER, arguably worse than the n-word because you can't even joke with it like black comedians can do with the n-word. No female comedian that I know of uses it, the only male I can think of who uses it is Ricky Gervais, whom I love, but he's cringey sometimes and I'm not keen on the c-word use.
But, for blacks and also women, you make a good point, one that I've thought about too, about how much power we grant words. I know I have more resilience than younger women when it comes to alleged misogyny....I don't lose my shit if a guy tells me I'm pretty (thank you, it's on purpose, so it would be insane of me to object) or says something rude. Ever since you wrote an article a few years ago about the Macedonian kid who called you the n-word and you chased him down, laughed, and challenged him on it, (rather than beating the snot out of him, lol) I thought, "Could I do that if someone called me the c-word? What kind of example would it set if other women, about to go nuclear, watched me laugh and ask him why he thinks that's an insult? After all, George Carlin claimed - and I agree with him! - that's it's actually a very friendly, inviting-sounding word - it's all warm and cuddly and cozy. Probably something the offender has spent a lifetime trying to get into :)
Both these words would cease to hurt if we stopped giving them, and their wielders, so much power.
I'm responding to the section about bio-psychological differences between the sexes. I'm not disagreeing, just augmenting.
The nuance I'd like to add is making explicit is that it appears today that males and females do differ somewhat psychologically ON AVERAGE, for partly innate reasons (not 100% cultural as I used to believe) - however that broad average doesn't tell us anything much about an individual's proclivities or abilities, so sex should never in itself be relevant to, say, hiring. Each person should be evaluated individually, not assumed to be typical of their population group and judged thereby. However, because of those differences at the aggregate statistical level, disparities in proportions do not *automatically* imply discrimination or an unlevel playing field (though of course those remain potential causes, partial or total). So I would not a priori assume that if 51% of Google programmers are not women, that in itself proves sex discrimination. (Nor does it excuse actual discrimination).
We can potentially create a society which is relatively equal and fair to individuals of all population groups (equal opportunity for individuals); or we could seek a society which enforces equal aggregate statistics across population groups (equal outcomes for groups). We cannot have both, tho, so long as population groups differ in the way they convert opportunities to outcomes, for various reasons. If a culture elevates chess playing or basketball or music, they will tend to have disproportionate success in those areas, given anywhere near equal opportunity. That's part of accepting diversity. And this can go for sex as well, whether the statistical level differences in ability or interest derive from biology or culture.
Evaluating individually is exactly what I'm arguing. You're doing what most people on the left do when I bring this up; react with arguments against compartmentalizing anyone based on sex. Which I'm in total agreement with. I'm simply saying let's not ignore facts and let's challenge the VALUES and assumptions behind them rather than pretend they don't exist (which is what's led us to the regressive left's denial that sex is even a thing, and that a woman is anyone who says he is). I'm arguing we acknowledge these differences with, "Well, that's interesting, but this woman does this allegedly male thing very well and these guys over here do these allegedly female things really well, so who cares in the long run." With two exceptions: Sperm donor and surrogate mother.
I NEVER argue or suggest we should pigeonhole people based on sex generalities, yet people always react to caution as if I did ;)
"I’m saying that it’s very difficult to offend somebody over a trait they’re proud of."
Or at least not ashamed of being, anyway. I don't get 'skin pride'. I get 'black pride' from the 1970s when black people were beginning to feel and make their growing power known, and challenging white racism. But I think it's an idea, like the 'don't blame the victim' mantra for feminism, that's past its prime. Fact is, there's nothing to be 'proud' about with skin colour. It's an accident of birth (your soul, personality, consciousness, whatever) was born into this body or that body, and also genetics (my parents are Western European, so I lack the natural sun protection others have, but they're not 'better' than me). The 'white pride' movement struck me as equally stupid...'Pride' comes from something you've ACCOMPLISHED. I'm proud to be a good writer. I'm proud to have stopped picking so many political fights on Facebook. I'm proud of having had the labia to move to Canada, to uproot my entire life away from my family (who had nothing to do with my decision) and start a new life in a new country, albeit a next-door neighbour. I'm not 'proud' to be white, or female, or French (although I was a bit of a French nationalist in college, but it was a silly kid identity thing and I grew out of it). I am, however, proud that I've begun learning French again.
Skin colour really is a stupid thing to hierarchize, because there are *literally no significant differences* between anyone apart from a few evolutionary mutations to adapt to new environments. As opposed to say (Warning: Heretical statement alert!) males and females, between which there are demonstrable differences in body size, strength, and, to a lesser extent cognitive traits - neither gender is intellectually superior to the other, but there are brain differences that appear to partially account for the way we process information and what we're good at. Women have more developed language and emotional expression, men are better at visualizing spatial possibiltiies and math, but that doesn't mean one gender can't learn what the other is better at. Frankly, I think there'd be a much closer parity if men spent more time learning about emotions and how to communicate, and women spent more time on math and science. It's not *all* how we're socialized, and the left is positively phobic about biological differences. My feeling is let's all do what we're best at and stop applying value labels to which work is more important. That's where a lot of the prejudice comes from - males deciding that their work, and their skills, and their talents are more valuable than women's.
I'm with you on the emotion behind the 'n' word and I'd add the 'c' word for women. The c-word is the WORST POSSIBLE WORD EVER, arguably worse than the n-word because you can't even joke with it like black comedians can do with the n-word. No female comedian that I know of uses it, the only male I can think of who uses it is Ricky Gervais, whom I love, but he's cringey sometimes and I'm not keen on the c-word use.
But, for blacks and also women, you make a good point, one that I've thought about too, about how much power we grant words. I know I have more resilience than younger women when it comes to alleged misogyny....I don't lose my shit if a guy tells me I'm pretty (thank you, it's on purpose, so it would be insane of me to object) or says something rude. Ever since you wrote an article a few years ago about the Macedonian kid who called you the n-word and you chased him down, laughed, and challenged him on it, (rather than beating the snot out of him, lol) I thought, "Could I do that if someone called me the c-word? What kind of example would it set if other women, about to go nuclear, watched me laugh and ask him why he thinks that's an insult? After all, George Carlin claimed - and I agree with him! - that's it's actually a very friendly, inviting-sounding word - it's all warm and cuddly and cozy. Probably something the offender has spent a lifetime trying to get into :)
Both these words would cease to hurt if we stopped giving them, and their wielders, so much power.
I'm responding to the section about bio-psychological differences between the sexes. I'm not disagreeing, just augmenting.
The nuance I'd like to add is making explicit is that it appears today that males and females do differ somewhat psychologically ON AVERAGE, for partly innate reasons (not 100% cultural as I used to believe) - however that broad average doesn't tell us anything much about an individual's proclivities or abilities, so sex should never in itself be relevant to, say, hiring. Each person should be evaluated individually, not assumed to be typical of their population group and judged thereby. However, because of those differences at the aggregate statistical level, disparities in proportions do not *automatically* imply discrimination or an unlevel playing field (though of course those remain potential causes, partial or total). So I would not a priori assume that if 51% of Google programmers are not women, that in itself proves sex discrimination. (Nor does it excuse actual discrimination).
We can potentially create a society which is relatively equal and fair to individuals of all population groups (equal opportunity for individuals); or we could seek a society which enforces equal aggregate statistics across population groups (equal outcomes for groups). We cannot have both, tho, so long as population groups differ in the way they convert opportunities to outcomes, for various reasons. If a culture elevates chess playing or basketball or music, they will tend to have disproportionate success in those areas, given anywhere near equal opportunity. That's part of accepting diversity. And this can go for sex as well, whether the statistical level differences in ability or interest derive from biology or culture.
Evaluating individually is exactly what I'm arguing. You're doing what most people on the left do when I bring this up; react with arguments against compartmentalizing anyone based on sex. Which I'm in total agreement with. I'm simply saying let's not ignore facts and let's challenge the VALUES and assumptions behind them rather than pretend they don't exist (which is what's led us to the regressive left's denial that sex is even a thing, and that a woman is anyone who says he is). I'm arguing we acknowledge these differences with, "Well, that's interesting, but this woman does this allegedly male thing very well and these guys over here do these allegedly female things really well, so who cares in the long run." With two exceptions: Sperm donor and surrogate mother.
I NEVER argue or suggest we should pigeonhole people based on sex generalities, yet people always react to caution as if I did ;)