Taylor Swift Is A Whining Feminist Man-Basher In Latest Music Video ‘The Man’.

[Nahm]

@Ibn Sina “Taylor Swift Is A Whining Feminist Man-Basher In Latest Music Video ‘The Man’.” - The “Judge”. 

[Lento]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Billionaires quieting dissent of workers by saying “yes, there are dysfunctions of capitalism, yet we will hold ourselves accountable because we genuinely care about everyone in society” serves to the status quo. And it works to some extent.

Exactly!

[Parththakkar12]

@Serotoninluv Okay. Do you believe that becoming conscious of the dysfunctions in the movement can be helpful for the movement to get results? Do you believe that the oppressed party can benefit from this?

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

@Serotoninluv Okay. Do you believe that becoming conscious of the dysfunctions in the movement can be helpful for the movement to get results? Do you believe that the oppressed party can benefit from this?

It depends on one’s orientation and agenda. 

For example, Jordan Peterson calling out dysfunctions of LGBTQ is not beneficial due to his agenda. He is not an advocate for LGBTQ, he wants to maintain the status quo in this area. 

[Parththakkar12]

Can you give me a counter-example, i.e. when would it not benefit the oppressed party? I'm open to the possibility that our definitions of the word 'dysfunction' or 'shadow' may be different.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Can you give me a counter-example, i.e. when would it not benefit the oppressed party?

I just did. JP calling out dysfunctions of LGBTQ is not beneficial to that group due to his agenda. 

Another example would be Bloomberg calling out dysfunctions of worker unions because he “genuinely cares” about workers and wants to help them. This is not beneficial due to structural power dynamics and his desire to maintain the status quo.

As well, Bloomberg calling out dysfunctions of plutocracy and saying plutocrats will deal with it and hold themselves accountable benefits plutocrats since it serves to maintain the status quo. 

A roomful of men deciding the dysfunctions of patriarchy and feminism - and what we should do about it - maintains the status quo. 

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Can you give me a counter-example, i.e. when would it not benefit the oppressed party?

I just did. JP calling out dysfunctions of LGBTQ is not beneficial to that group due to his agenda. 

Another example would be Bloomberg calling out dysfunctions of worker unions because he “genuinely cares” about workers and wants to help them. This is not beneficial due to structural power dynamics and his desire to maintain the status quo.

As well, Bloomberg calling out dysfunctions of plutocracy and saying plutocrats will deal with it and hold themselves accountable benefits plutocrats since it serves to maintain the status quo. 

As an example, women are asking for equal representation in areas like corporate boards and politics in which major structural policies are decided. This seems reasonable to me and very healthy. Yet to men with a status quo mindset, equal representation looks like a power grab and unfair to men.

Fir example, an advocate for equal equal gender representation may point out some things that are counter-productive toward this goal. We might help them with a more efficient path toward attaining equal representation. For example, perhaps we notice female candidates are putting 90% of their finances in TV ads. We may point out the importance of having a good ground presence. We could help them set up local offices, phonebanking and door-to-doir volunteers. This is a very different orientation than someone who wants to maintain the status wuo. 

[Parththakkar12]

Someone who's not on your side actually can't see your dysfunctions! They're resisting you, so they're not aware of you, so they can't see your dysfunctions. So I wouldn't worry about people for the status-quo trying to gaslight progressives into believing their versions of 'dysfunctions' or 'resolutions to dysfunctions'. The fact that you have dysfunctions doesn't mean in any way that you shouldn't have power or successful change! That's a gaslight status-quo people could use.

If someone points out my dysfunctions, I don't believe them if I don't see them. I'm open to them, but that's different from blindly believing them. However, if you do really see the dysfunctions, would resolving them help the movement or hurt it according to you?

I'm talking about major core and fundamental dysfunctions, like being hateful and resentful towards men and acting out on it so as to close off support from men who would otherwise be all for gender equality. Like teaching boys that being a male is bad cuz they're oppressive by nature. Feminists will say that 'We've been through this for centuries!! We have our revenge now' All of this is understandable. Whether or not these are dysfunctions is context-dependent.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[SOUL]

The people who have a problem with the message of this music video and are critical of the artist for making it are against free speech and they hate freedom. Haha.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

However, if you do really see the dysfunctions, would resolving them help the movement or hurt it according to you?

As I wrote above, it depends on one’s orientation, self bias and agenda. 

A room full of men deciding the what the dysfunctions of those pesky feminists are will have male-biased orientation and agenda. A room of 50% female and 50% male advocates oriented toward gender equality is a very different dynamic.

I have served on policy committees regarding equality policies at a large institution (including gender policies such as pay, promotions, sexual harassment etc.) . I’ve worked on committees that were about 90% male and committees about 50% male / 50% female. Both committees discussed dysfunctions at the institution, yet the dynamics were clearly completely different. The male-dominated committees were heavily skewed toward  male-centric perspectives and solutions. There was only one woman who kept silent and went along with the male-dominated group. From a female perspective, it was a very intimidating environment. . . . I’m currently on a committee with equal representation of men, women and minorities that are advocates toward equal and fair workplace policies.. The dynamics are completely different. The men don’t dominate, talk over, correct and mansplain to the women. Everyone has a voice and we are able to reach consensus that is much more fair and equal than the male-dominated committee. The problem with male-dominated status quo environments is that equality appears as oppression. 

[Derek White]

26 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

JP calling out dysfunctions of LGBTQ is not beneficial to that group due to his agenda. 

Pretty sure he supports LGBT rights, just not the things he deems-unfair. 

29 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Another example would be Bloomberg calling out dysfunctions of worker unions

That’s a false equivalency. Men don’t have that much power.

33 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

women are asking for equal representation in areas like corporate boards and politics in which major structural policies are decided.

I hope you don’t mean equality of outcome. The best people should get the job period.

[Parththakkar12]

If you're able to expand your Self-Love, you can take the perspective of women as part of your own. In that case, male bias won't be an issue! Now most men aren't capable of this, but are you capable of it given your level of consciousness? Your perception will then include the perception of everyone involved! Your perception of what's good or bad for the movement will become clearer. Everything I say comes after taking the movement as part of myself and from a space of concern for the movement.

[wk197]

15 minutes ago, SOUL said:

The people who have a problem with the message of this music video and are critical of the artist for making it are against free speech and they hate freedom. Haha.

Can you say that in proper english? I'm not against free speech or are you talking about someone else?

[remember]

3 minutes ago, Derek White said:

I hope you don’t mean equality of outcome. The best people should get the job period.

that would also mean that there is a definitition about what the best people are - and who defines that. you see there is no real competition as in many cases that is already a preset assumption. because our value system is streamlined with a hyrarchical system which is more challenge oriented than coworking oriented.

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Derek White said:

I hope you don’t mean equality of outcome. The best people should get the job period.

I mean equality of representation. For example in politics and hiring committees. 

I was on an all-male hiring committee. Guess which candidates had an advantage as being the “best person for the job?”. The male candidates of course. The men made lots of comments like “she is too motherly”, “she is too emotional”, “her skin is too thin” etc. Three men on the committee said one of the female finalists was unqualified and they didn’t even show up to her job presentation!! 

I’ve also been on a hiring committee that was half male and half female - that type of sexism didn't fly and there was a very different lens for who was “the best candidate”

In some contexts the idea of “the best person should get the job” is highly biased toward men. Why should a committee of 10 men decide “who is best?”. 

[remember]

8 minutes ago, wk197 said:

Can you say that in proper english? I'm not against free speech or are you talking about someone else?

i can try to translate, if yo can say that in at least two other languages without using google translator.

[Lynnel]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

In some contexts the idea of “the best person should get the job” is highly biased toward men. Why should a committee of 10 men decide @who is best?”. 

You're gonna resonate with this since you're in academia : there was a TT position in Canada which was open only to women/minorities/handicaped people.

I'm strictly against that : comittees should be balanced sure, but they shouldn't be aware of the gender of the candidate and only consider him based on his/her/their prior academic achievements.

Giving someone a job they're less qualified for because of their gender or because you need to look like a progressive university is a no-no in my book.

[Lento]

36 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

If you're able to expand your Self-Love, you can take the perspective of women as part of your own. In that case, male bias won't be an issue! Now most men aren't capable of this, but are you capable of it given your level of consciousness? Your perception will then include the perception of everyone involved! Your perception of what's good or bad for the movement will become clearer. Everything I say comes after taking the movement as part of myself and from a space of concern for the movement.

In theory, yes. But in practice, it's very very difficult. A male is still a male, and a female is still a female. Each is biased towards their own gender. Plus, perspectives change, so that makes it harder to keep in touch with both perspectives.

I don't get your point though, it seems male-centric. If you truly fully accept women as part of your identity, then why do you seem to prefer isolating them and exchanging their perspective for highly conscious mens' perspective? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Parththakkar12]

4 minutes ago, Lento said:

In theory, yes. But in practice, it's very very difficult. A male is still a male, and a female is still a female. Each is biased towards their own gender. Plus, perspectives change, so that makes it harder to keep in touch with both perspectives.

I don't get your point though, it seems male-centric. If you truly fully accept women as part of your identity, then why do you seem to prefer isolating them and exchanging their perspective for highly conscious mens' perspective? It just doesn't make sense to me.

It's not a highly conscious men's perspective! It's the perspective of the Infinite which includes that of my ego and their egos. Therefore it's not preferential towards a particular perspective as it sees that all of them are your perspectives. This is different from consensus-based conceptualization, as there all perspectives would get equal weight, however unconscious they may be. Rather, I value taking the biggest-picture perspective based on direct experience of emotional dynamics.

Now of course due process would be needed for action based on equal representation on committee so that's a completely different and specific situation. This is more of a meta perspective on the whole attitude towards the movement.

[Lento]

7 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

It's not a highly conscious men's perspective! It's the perspective of the Infinite which includes that of my ego and their egos. Therefore it's not preferential towards a particular perspective as it sees that all of them are your perspectives. This is different from consensus-based conceptualization, as there all perspectives would get equal weight, however unconscious they may be. Rather, I value taking the biggest-picture perspective based on direct experience of emotional dynamics.

But this is not realistic at all. How would we determine which perspective is the most comprehensive? Are there any objective measures for this? See, at least with gender equality, we can know who is a man and who is a woman. I'm not sure but I still sense a bit of denial of the female perspective.