Women on this board

Anything that isn't Star Control. Mind your manners!

Moderator: ZFP Peacekeepers

User avatar
Angelfish
Slylandro gasbags
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Women on this board

Post by Angelfish » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:43 pm

Yes, it was short enough. Thanks for your short message and you stay safe too.

User avatar
Ogo3142
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:36 pm

Re: Women on this board

Post by Ogo3142 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:48 pm

Lukipela wrote:Regarding risk, I think you are tripping yourself up on the fact that whether or not a consequence is negative or not is not an absolute but defined. That's the difference between my examples. If you don't want to cut your hand and consider this a negative consequence, then it is a risk regardless of the probability. But if you don't care and cutting your hand isn't a negative to you, then it is not a risk any more, because it is not a negative consequence. In a similar fashion, no production industry I've ever visited considers anything but negative consequences risks. Consequences that aren't optimal but that can be lived with are not risks. We can go round and round this as many times as you like, but I'm not sure if I can spell it out any clearer.
But losing 10% of materials because the manufacturing process isn't perfect is a negative consequence. Accidentally using the wrong gender to refer to someone is a negative consequence.

Maybe there's some difference in how this works in Finnish, but being negative doesn't mean it's really bad. If you consider how good or bad something is on a scale of -100 to 100, -0.005 isn't all that bad, but it's still negative. The same goes in the opposite direction. A consequence doesn't have to be really great to be positive.
Lukipela wrote:My point remains trivial and I've yet not seen you refute it, only lose yourself into further nitpicking over details as I attempt to explain.
The only point I've seen you make regarding this matter is a semantic one (whether or not accidental wrong pronoun use is "intentional"). If you have made some other point, I haven't seen it.
Lukipela wrote:The same holds true concerning language. You've not explained in any way how you define a "past" society language in a manner that is totally divorced from "current" society influence. Following your cue to use loaded language, it seems to me that you now arbitrarily define unmentioned set limits where some elements of language are heritages from the past and in no way connected to modern society despite our usage of them. It seems very simplistic to say "He versus she is a speech pattern" without stopping to consider why that is, where it comes from, and why it endures. Yes, a rock is hard. Water is wet. If that's as far as you want to go, a speech pattern exists. But that brings no insight or understanding to the discussion.
You don't need to "totally divorce" the past from the present to recognize that some things have changed. The point is that regardless of the origin of a speech pattern, sometimes they stick around after that origin is obsolete, and even forgotten.
Lukipela wrote:And regarding my physical fights, if you want to class Finnish skinheads as "social justice warriors", that's your right of course. But I disagree and they would probably too. Again, it seems your go to conclusion reveals a strong bias.
Who said anything about skinheads?
Lukipela wrote:Then we come to the crux I think, which is that for some reason you feel that no two people can be compared in a meaningful fashion. If you had come out and outright stated this, we could have saved us a lot of debate. No two white men on the street can be compared in a meaningful way. A white man and a black man can't be compared. Logically, a white woman and a white man cannot be compared either?
No, I don't think you can't make comparisons between people. That would be absurd.

But you can't make sweeping generalizations about people based on groups they're in. Or rather, you can, but they're not going to actually apply to everyone in the group.
Lukipela wrote:I told you specifically that I can't tell you what privileges you get since I don't know who you are.
This is exactly the point. You need to know me personally to know what my actual advantages and disadvantages are.
Lukipela wrote: The question was what privileges you get, not what you have gotten. It doesn't matter if you don't use medicine, go to bars or have had an heart attack already. Unless you can predict the future accurately enough to know none of these instances will ever happen.
Let me explain this with a fictional scenario:

Suppose two people have heart attacks. One is a man who understands he's having a heart attack, and one is a woman who doesn't. Based on this information, you would assume that the man is in an advantageous position. But you'd be wrong, because the man is out in the wilderness, alone, with no way to contact anyone else, while the woman is in a fully staffed hospital. The man almost certainly will die. The woman has a good chance of living, and in fact is in the best position possible for someone having a heart attack.

I think this hypothetical scenario clearly demonstrates the point: sweeping generalizations don't work. You can say that I have a "privilege" because if I some day have a heart attack, I might have a better chance at recognizing it when it happens. But you and I don't know whether I will actually have a heart attack, and if I do, whether that advantage will actually be able to benefit me.
Lukipela wrote:There's a further troubling aspect here I think. As you refuse to extend any information on your life so that I can fulfill your request, you also doubt my word when it comes to things I've witnessed in my life. Can you explain why I should then extend you the courtesy to believe that you haven't in fact had a heart attack and use pills every day? Trust is a two way street in that matter I think.
I find it puzzling that you consider skepticism to be "troubling". I don't. If you're skeptical of what I say about my life, that's fine by me.

In fact, something I've said about myself, it turns out, is untrue. Not because I was lying, but because I made a personal discovery recently. (Nothing that's actually important for the purpose of this discussion, mind.)
Lukipela wrote:Also, queues to the restroom generally aren't caused by menstruation. Where ever did you pick that up?
What are you talking about, then? I can't think of any other real, substantial difference between the sexes that would cause women to need to go to the restroom more.
Lukipela wrote:Your statistics use also makes me somewhat confused. You don't want any statistics saying that men have it easier in any way. But you are perfectly happy using statistics saying that women are less likely to become homeless. How do you reconcile that? Isn't that a sweeping generalization about several individuals? As is the idea that chivalry prevents homelessness?
No, all sweeping generalizations are bad ways to judge an individual's advantages and disadvantages. I even specifically said that the statistics don't mean a homeless woman is better off than a homeless man. My point in bringing up facts about women and homelessness is that average trends of advantages don't only favor straight, white, cis-gendered men.

User avatar
The Troglodyte
Slylandro gasbags
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:16 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Women on this board

Post by The Troglodyte » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:35 pm

Ogo3142 wrote:
Lukipela wrote:Regarding risk, I think you are tripping yourself up on the fact that whether or not a consequence is negative or not is not an absolute but defined. That's the difference between my examples. If you don't want to cut your hand and consider this a negative consequence, then it is a risk regardless of the probability. But if you don't care and cutting your hand isn't a negative to you, then it is not a risk any more, because it is not a negative consequence. In a similar fashion, no production industry I've ever visited considers anything but negative consequences risks. Consequences that aren't optimal but that can be lived with are not risks. We can go round and round this as many times as you like, but I'm not sure if I can spell it out any clearer.
But losing 10% of materials because the manufacturing process isn't perfect is a negative consequence. Accidentally using the wrong gender to refer to someone is a negative consequence.
I have to agree with Ogo’s point here, because to me it is a negative consequence, even though it’s an incredibly minor one. Since my desire is to not misgender, doing so is an undesired outcome, so the way I feel about may be the only negative consequence, even if nobody else really cares that a misgendering may have just occurred, but I do. I can’t really explain why I don’t want to see the phrase “By the way Trog, I’m a girl.”, but I don’t nonetheless. Please note that I say may have occurred, meaning that I’m also considering it to be misgendering even if my word usage resulted in the appropriate pronoun for that given individual. All things considered, the word “misgendering” is a relatively new term, and my word documents still consider it a misspelling.
Lukipela wrote:So in the original example,Trog thinks that misgendering is an acceptable consequence as there are no good alternatives in the English language that he is aware of. It's not a great outcome, but he doesn't (as I understand it) define it as a negative outcome, just a fact of life to be considered. But whether he uses he or she, he accepts that the outcome may be misgendering and this is acceptable. Thus it is not a risk like cutting yourself, it is a consequence, but not a negative one. He'll avoid it within reason but he will live with it anyhow.
I understand what you’re saying here, and while much of it does indeed have truth behind it, my entire position is not represented unilaterally. That is to say, if I am writing something and during the times that I’m fully aware that I’m coming to that “fork in the road” where a decision must be made how to write, you are absolutely correct in saying that a conscious and intentional decision is certainly being made. In these cases I am accepting the outcome and while there’s a small risk I may be wrong in my gender assumption, but I accept the possibility of it being incorrect as inoffensive, so I live with it.

However, I must insist this is not always the case, because I’m so often in a situation of dialogue where I’m unable to imagine the faces of people and their respective genders, sometimes the ambiguity of it all causes me to make incorrect assumptions, whereas in any case where somebody’s gender is still a general unknown, I still feel inclined out of personal preference to not assign them one, or even make an educated guess.
Lukipela wrote:Regardless of whether "he" or "she" is your first instinct to write on the page, posting with either gender while aware of that it may result in misgendering is equally intentional.
How about a different approach? I’d like to use the cutting bread scenario, but I’d like to incorporate some of Luki’s and Ogo’s examples but with a different application and perspective to help define the differences between risk, consequences, subconscious behavior, and, of course, the dreaded issue of intentionality:

In the cutting bread scenario, you are only focused on one thing, that being cutting bread with a knife. If I were writing just one word, then this would apply as intentional, since the action being taken is clear. But perhaps we should add a few things into the mix, since writing is the compilation of many words, so the analogy should reflect this, so let’s just say that you are also being required to cut tomatoes, mushrooms, peppers, lettuce, etc., and you are motivated to accomplish the task as quickly as possible because you will receive a reward upon completion. Furthermore, only when cutting the bread specifically, you are required to do so with your left hand instead of your right, or you’ll have to wash a few dishes to make up for the oversight. Sounds weird but bear with me.

So, once you begin getting busy on cutting all of the different foods, you have the bread in your mind and acknowledge that it’s the exception, but after a while, upon following hours of endless cutting and chopping, more fresh produce items have arrived, and because much of your focus shifts to the newly added potatoes, radishes and onions, you may slip up and forget to switch hands and cut the bread with your right hand, simply because cutting the bread with your right hand was more natural, and you failed to stop yourself. Uh-oh! Oops. The bread passed right in front of your eyes, it was felt by your hands, but so much of your attention was preoccupied more on getting the job done that you forgot that one, very simple thing…and now there’s a few dishes waiting on you.

What’s the risk? “Risk” in its simplest form is only the undesired possibility of using your right hand, the same as it were with being the chance of cutting yourself, since risk is never any of the actions or results, only the actual chance of occurrence. I prefer to think about risk having its own object, so I apply accordingly in terms of “risk of” as opposed to “risk is." Risk is not tangible, it’s not loss of production, or defective bolts, or even driving while drunk. It’s merely the possibility of something bad happening. The reason I don’t drive drunk is because it’s risky (and utterly stupid,) but driving completely sober is also risky, just considerably much less. Even if the risk is near or at 100%, it never truly becomes the object of the risk itself. If you touch a wire that has 500 volts flowing through it, the risk is not electrocution because electrocution is the end result; however, the risk of electrocution is extremely high.

A quick aside for Lukipela: I can understand why you may relate the term ‘risk’ more directly to give it an application as it relates to your job description. If somebody asked me if something has shipped yet, I’d probably reply ‘Yes’, even if the box ready to be shipped was still sitting in our shipping area and hadn’t actually left the building yet, since I understand what they are really asking me.

What’s the consequence? Dishes, or blood…whichever comes first.

What’s the subconscious behavior in terms of negative consequence? Accidentally forgetting to switch hands.

And where is the intentionality? For all intent and purpose, at least as it pertains to right-handed bread-cutting, it’s nowhere to be found. The only thing that was done intentionally as it relates to risk and consequence, is the actual cutting of the bread. In other words, you deliberately cut the bread with the intention to accomplish that task, but unintentionally did so without switching hands. Every time you had done so with your left hand was indeed intentional, because you were making a conscious effort to do so, and even though the decision-making process had become the norm after many intervals of bread-cutting, that doesn’t mean that the mind won’t revert back to what seems more natural. Therefore, cutting the bread with your right-hand in this scenario is unintentional.
Lukipela wrote:@Trog
I think we're pretty far in agreement on many things. The discussion above is becoming fruitless I fear, because it has devolved into a fair amount of nitpicking where the original points have mostly been obscured. I also think my codebater is revealing a interesting set of biases which in all likelihood means we're not getting much further.

Hmmm…speech patterns vs. society, fringe vs. in-groups, black men vs. white homeless women, privileged skinheads vs. female menstruation? Have I missed anything?

Without going into a details and attempting to dissect the cross-examinations, I think the main problem is that much of the recent debate has become saturated with subtopical viewpoints, whereas there’s been generalized suggestions and vague counter-arguments and an overall ‘mincing of words’ that can be easily met with responses like “Not necessarily.” or “I disagree.” This has resulted in anybody following along being forced to navigate their way through mountains that were formerly mole-hills.

I’ve discovered that statistics and generalizations are poor choices for reinforcing a viewpoint, since they can be subjective, skewed, or even inaccurate, due to their ability to change. I’d recommend both parties to focus moreso on using facts and finding common ground, which I believe a concerted effort has often occurred from both sides, but let’s let the rest float down the gutter.

For example:
Ogo3142 wrote:
Lukipela wrote:Or for a lark, have you been to a bar lately? Did you ever notice how there's always a long queue outside the women's restroom? Why is that again? I'll give you a hint. It's not because it's a biological fact that men can pee easier. And it's not because they're all doing makeup in there either.
I'm well aware of the menstrual cycle. In fact, I mentioned this, as well. But this is a disadvantage women have. It's not an advantage for me.
Ogo3142 wrote:
Lukipela wrote:Also, queues to the restroom generally aren't caused by menstruation. Where ever did you pick that up?
What are you talking about, then? I can't think of any other real, substantial difference between the sexes that would cause women to need to go to the restroom more.
Uh, is it because women are generally known for having weak bladders? I give up. Uh-oh, I just used a generalization - I’m in for it now! :lol:
“He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him! I’ll chase him ’round the moons of Nibia and ’round the Antares maelstrom and ’round Perdition’s flames before I give him up!” ― Khan Noonien Singh

User avatar
Death 999
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:07 pm

Re: Women on this board

Post by Death 999 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:59 pm

Women do, however, take longer to use the restroom when urinating, primarily because men generally do not need to wipe up afterwards.

User avatar
The Troglodyte
Slylandro gasbags
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:16 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Women on this board

Post by The Troglodyte » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:07 pm

Death 999 wrote:Women do, however, take longer to use the restroom when urinating, primarily because men generally do not need to wipe up afterwards.
Well, at least we've cleared that mystery up, but for some strange reason though, I don't feel much better about it.
“He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him! I’ll chase him ’round the moons of Nibia and ’round the Antares maelstrom and ’round Perdition’s flames before I give him up!” ― Khan Noonien Singh

Post Reply