Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Global minimum wage is impossible for a lot of reasons, most of them being political reasons.

Minimum wage in general is a bad idea. It's a terrible idea to enforce your political views on companies. You don't tickle the bear. Introducing minimum wages sounds awesome to people who aren't familiar with how companies work...and who really is in charge. In Germany, introducing minimum wage has been introduced recently. Sounds good at first, to people who like it, yet what happened? The companies simply fired people to make up for the loss. If you take something from us, we will take it back, tis guaranteed.

Anyway, that's rather OT Feel free to open a new thread if it's interesting enough!

 dogma wrote:

It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system.

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read.

10% men, hah we'd still rule, because now we'd all be Spartacus raging killing machines.
Besides what are they going to do when a mouse comes around?

Just a random thought: how on earth would you even *make* people, mostly men, agree to that motion?

 Orlanth wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Good lord, and you taught undergrads!

The only thing that comes close is the girl that spent an entire semester trying to defend her proposal for a global minimum wage. I wish I still had copies of her papers, they were comedy gold.

In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....

However a global gynocracy that castrates most men, places the remainder into special camps and selectively aborts future generations of males so women can run the planet is not really similar at all.
Cosmic joke or not this sort of gak should not be laughed at but taken with the same serious condemnation as holocaust denial. What she proposes is essentially a male holocaust and feminists have yet to tell her to shut up, or call her comments offensive. This woman deserves serious sanction, not from any danger of her policies catching on, but because she is indistinguishable from any other hate agenda extremist and might be unstable enough to try to rectify the 'problem' one male at a time. Sure she has free speech rights, but she should be monitored, and ordered to visit a psychiatrist for a safety assessment.

Orlanth has the way of it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just a random thought: how on earth would you even *make* people, mostly men, agree to that motion?

same way they got people to agree to the purge.

Plot contrivance?

I don't think this goes far enough. Let's say this individual is right, and that a gynecocracy is the answer and will solve all conflicts. And we still have 10% of men who are fertile and contribute to a global sperm bank that any woman can easily access and choose to have children, designer babies, and everyone is selfless enough to communally raise children and choose to have a male when necessary.

In the short term there will be a population slowdown or drop, but we'll still eventually have all the ills of a world rapidly filling up. Oil and natural gas will still run out, arable land will still be used up and pollution and global warming will continue, if not increase, as the gynecocracy will undoubtedly make things more fair.

It's much better that both genders take the hit. We should mass sterilise 90% of the entire population, male and female, and only then can we redress the balance.

 dogma wrote:


Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.

Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 dogma wrote:


Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.

Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.

This. Men are more aggressive than women by nature. What is made out of this is different in regards to socialization etc.

Now that premise presents an interesting quandary- would a naturally peaceful society be more stable, as they hope- or would it be more vulnerable to the aberrants, the hyper aggressive females who for whatever reason become bent on world domination?

We know that in a patriarchal society we have people willing to bust skulls, burn buildings, and riot over the results of soccer games. This requires tyrants to oppose the inevitable rebellions- America particularly is just waiting for its government to step out of line.

Would the matriarchal America truly be safer- or would it at some point descend into North Korean style oppression under a power mad grand Empress?

 Gitzbitah wrote:

We know that in a patriarchal society we have people willing to bust skulls, burn buildings, and riot over the results of soccer games. This requires tyrants to oppose the inevitable rebellions- America particularly is just waiting for its government to step out of line.

I'm assuming that you're talking about pre-modern America as post-modern America isn't a patriarchy anymore. No civilized Western country is.

The definition of a Patriarchy as used by most feminists (in my experience), is a society where the majority of its leaders are Men and the society is shaped in such a way that Men enjoy a number of privileges that are disproportionate to the privileges owned by women.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The definition of a Patriarchy as used by most feminists (in my experience), is a society where the majority of its leaders are Men and the society is shaped in such a way that Men enjoy a number of privileges that are disproportionate to the privileges owned by women.

Correct. I prefer unbiased definitions

Word.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.

A few years ago I read a study which tied testosterone production to epigenetic factors, particularly psychological responses related to possession and authority. As such I expect that, in world where women are the primary arbiters of conflict, we would see a general increase in testosterone production across the whole of the female population and no appreciable decline in violence.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.

But does that only cover impulsive violence like punching someone for saying something offensive, or does it include calculated violence like deciding to invade another country and take their land and resources? I can believe that men (and, by extension, male-dominated societies) would be more aggressive in terms of violence motivated by emotion, but that doesn't mean that women aren't capable of recognizing a situation where violence is a useful tool. So this hypothetical female-dominated society might have fewer wars over "honor" or whatever, but it would probably have a similar level of wars over conflicting national interests.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct. I prefer unbiased definitions

You mean "literal dictionary definitions". The concept of a patriarchy involving distribution of power and privilege is a useful and relevant one, even if you want to nitpick the exact word used to refer to it. Complaining that the "feminist" concept of a patriarchy doesn't perfectly match the strictest interpretation of the dictionary definition is a useless argument that completely avoids the substance of any of the issues.

 Peregrine wrote:


But does that only cover impulsive violence like punching someone for saying something offensive, or does it include calculated violence like deciding to invade another country and take their land and resources? I can believe that men (and, by extension, male-dominated societies) would be more aggressive in terms of violence motivated by emotion, but that doesn't mean that women aren't capable of recognizing a situation where violence is a useful tool. So this hypothetical female-dominated society might have fewer wars over "honor" or whatever, but it would probably have a similar level of wars over conflicting national interests.

This is certainly possible. Women can be just as ruthless as men. But

Men: Violence from emotion + calculated violence

Women: Less violence from emotion + equivalent calculated violence

Still makes less wars for the latter category. I doubt women would cause much more 'calculated' violence than men already do, so the net result should be a decrease.

I am still firmly against killing off the majority of the male population. Men make good video games, so it would be a more boring world without them. So it's okay, you can live.

As with food production, adding increased levels of artificial aid into the reproductive cycle makes it significantly more prone to interruption, error and control by outside agencies.

Whilst I agree that there are quite a numbet of problems with society in general and with male/female relationships within society, the proposed solution in the OP is sadly lacking and as discussed earlier seems to be spurred more as some kind of revenge fantasy than anything else.

And having worked in very female heavy jobs before, I have to say that females are no less violent than males; psychological violence is violence none the less and often significantly more damaging and vicious than physical violence, often conducted over a much greater period of time as well...

 Peregrine wrote:


You mean "literal dictionary definitions". The concept of a patriarchy involving distribution of power and privilege is a useful and relevant one, even if you want to nitpick the exact word used to refer to it. Complaining that the "feminist" concept of a patriarchy doesn't perfectly match the strictest interpretation of the dictionary definition is a useless argument that completely avoids the substance of any of the issues.

No, I meant "unbiased definitions". You might prefer biased definitions, which is fine, but highly unsuitable for any discussion that involves more than one party, given that your very definitions are already influenced by your own opinion and are therefore inferior to neutral ones.

Biased definitions are flawed because they aren't definitions on their own, but are already influenced by a certain party's opinion. Neutral, or unbiased, definitions aren't influenced by any party and can be used by anyone to talk about an issue and then, on top of that, add in your own ideas about an issue.

 Sigvatr wrote:


No, I meant "unbiased definitions". You might prefer biased definitions, which is fine, but highly unsuitable for any discussion that involves more than one party, given that your very definitions are already influenced by your own opinion and are therefore inferior to neutral ones.

Biased definitions are flawed because they aren't definitions on their own, but are already influenced by a certain party's opinion. Neutral, or unbiased, definitions aren't influenced by any party and can be used by anyone to talk about an issue and then, on top of that, add in your own ideas about an issue.

The 'bias' of a definition is meaningless in discussion. All that matters is that the definition being used is understood by both parties so they're not talking past each other. Saying "your definition is wrong" is a pointless statement that avoids at all dealing with the discussion at hand by dismissing its basis. You don't want to discuss the topic, you want to ignore it completely or twist the discussion to serve a specific purpose by denying any definition unsuitable to you.

i.e. your demand for an unbiased definition is itself biased

One wonders if you've ever actually engaged in formal academic debate

 LordofHats wrote:

The 'bias' of a definition is meaningless in discussion.

Incorrect. If several parties use the very same term with a different definition each, you're bound for trouble.

All that matters is that the definition being used is understood by both parties so they're not talking past each other.

What about a discussion about a definition?

Saying "your definition is wrong" is a pointless statement that avoids at all dealing with the discussion at hand by dismissing its basis.

Phew, glad I never did that!

i.e. your demand for an unbiased definition is itself biased

I'll let you think about that sentence for a while

One wonders if you've ever actually engaged in formal academic debate

More often than I could have ever wished for. You jumping to conclusions made on false assumptions, however, does startle me and raises an urge to wonder about the same thing in regards to yourself

i.e. your demand for an unbiased definition is itself biased

..I had to look at this quote twice myself just to comprehend how that even works, and it doesn't.

I just want to point this out, since no one else had yet. The woman explicitly states that she is NOT a Feminist on her website (despite the name).

Here: http://www.femitheist.net/p/important-disclaimer-read.html (took a whole 10 seconds to find)

Furthermore, she then goes on to establish that she basically holds none of the usual tenets or beliefs of 'mainstream' Feminism. Hell, from the looks of it she seems to have more in common with the typical MRA loon than most people who define themselves as feminists.

 Sigvatr wrote:


What about a discussion about a definition?

Then the obvious course would be to attack the substance of the definition rather than dismiss it out of hand.

More often than I could have ever wished for.

It's a wonder then that this needs explaining and that you still don't get it.

I'll let you think about that sentence for a while

Let me know when you catch up.

I had to look at this quote twice myself just to comprehend how that even works, and it doesn't.

I accused him of dismissing the definition for no reason other than it doesn't suit his personal opinions. His call for 'unbiased definitions' is just a veiled dismissal of any idea that conflicts with his own. I.E. A bias masquerading as objectivity.

 LordofHats wrote:

It's a wonder then that this needs explaining and that you still don't get it.

I'm used to having those with people also interested in an actual discussion and not outright dismissing others to shove their personal opinion onto them

i.e. your demand for an unbiased definition is itself biased

It's biased to demand that people use the English language correctly instead of twisting and inventing the definitions of words to suit their agenda?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


It's biased to demand that people use the English language correctly instead of twisting and inventing the definitions of words to suit their agenda?

I accused him of dismissing the definition for no reason other than it doesn't suit his personal opinions. His call for 'unbiased definitions' is just a veiled dismissal of any idea that conflicts with his own. I.E. A bias masquerading as objectivity.

Words have more than one definition, and a dictionary is not the end of meaning especially not for complex words like patriarchy. Further, the definition used by feminists was not invented by feminists it was invented by Anthropologists to help them define the role of the sexes in a society. The only contribution feminists had to that was to take it and apply it to sociology.

Go look up the myriad of different ways the word 'racism' is used in various fields sometime. All words and definitions in the English language were invented by someone, so attacking a definition as 'invented' is completely moot. Language wasn't written on a stone tablet by God and handed to Geoffry Chaucer and Noah Webster so they could teach the rest of us the proper way to use it.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only contribution feminists had to that was to take it and apply it to sociology.

...because taking a term and slapping it on a quite different area is a proper way to use terms!

Oh, and next time you burn some strawmen, make sure to check wind direction, the smoke's blowing straight back at your face.

And to add to the educational factor of DakkaDakka:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/patriarchy

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The only contribution feminists had to that was to take it and apply it to sociology.

...because taking a term and slapping it on a quite different area is a proper way to use terms!

It happens all the time and in this case isn't shocking, since Anthropology is a sub-field of Sociology and deals with a lot of same content. All Anthropology does is throw in some Biology for flavor, but that doesn't really have much effect on how Anthropology structures the sex relationships of societies.

...and we're supposed to take your word for it being valid in this case?

Anyway, long story short:

I prefer using unbiased, standard English terms in order to establish a well-rounded discussion and use terms that do not benefit either side.

You prefer using biased terms that fit your own agenda. Which is fine, for yourself, but don't expect others, including me, to meet you at eye level if going in such discussions when even your use of basic terms already shows a strong bias.