If you are prone to dismissing women’s complaints of gender-related problems as the women being whiny, emotionally unstable girls who see sexism where there is none, this post is unlikely to interest you.
The above does not apply to me per se, … The poster of this article certainly looks like an immature feminist who is incapable of separating rational inquiry and the asking of hard questions, when they get close to her value system.
Seriously? It would be helpful if you could re-read those two fragments, and resolve the tension.
The resolution of tension is in the following. I do empathize with complaints related to sexual harassment in the workplace, them being under pressure due to “unreasonable” norms etc.
I however absolutely detest lying or soft peddling the truth or refraining from asking hard and important questions, simply because they affect some people’s political sensibilities. I have little regard for such political sensibilities that subvert the quest for the truth.
So yes, a woman who complains of sexual harassment in the workplace is not one I would characterize as whiny; a woman who claims that Larry Summers’s talk was sexist is certainly one I would characterize as whiny and finding sexism where there is none.
The resolution of tension is in the following. I do empathize with complaints related to sexual harassment in the workplace, them being under pressure due to “unreasonable” norms etc.
I however absolutely detest lying or soft peddling the truth or refraining from asking hard and important questions, simply because they affect some people's political sensibilities. I have little regard for such political sensibilities that subvert the quest for the truth.
So yes, a woman who complains of sexual harassment in the workplace is not one I would characterize as whiny; a woman who claims that Larry Summers's talk was sexist is certainly one I would characterize as whiny and finding sexism where there is none.
I hope I've made my point clear.
I originally wrote a rant against PUA culture and then a summation of that rant to post here, but I realized that most, if not all, of my objections to what I perceive to be negative in the PUA community and practice are derived from my biases [and insecurities] rather than a truly rational foundation.
I can object to the PUA sub-culture out of personal distaste, and maybe from a weak ethical point of view, but besides parts of the body of PUA doctrine and rhetoric, there is really nothing irrational about them that I can see.
These men have taken empirical observations and social engineering experiments and created a pragmatic system to utilize for their desired goal in a legal and relatively non-detrimental manner.
So the greater argument seems to be, at least insomuch that the PUA community and their practices are relevant to the original post in this thread, a question of which person-of-interest and group irrationalities/biases are to be sanctioned here for the sake of making certain posters more comfortable.
Seriously? It would be helpful if you could re-read those two fragments, and resolve the tension.
The resolution of tension is in the following. I do empathize with complaints related to sexual harassment in the workplace, them being under pressure due to “unreasonable” norms etc.
I however absolutely detest lying or soft peddling the truth or refraining from asking hard and important questions, simply because they affect some people’s political sensibilities. I have little regard for such political sensibilities that subvert the quest for the truth.
So yes, a woman who complains of sexual harassment in the workplace is not one I would characterize as whiny; a woman who claims that Larry Summers’s talk was sexist is certainly one I would characterize as whiny and finding sexism where there is none.
I hope I’ve made my point clear.
The resolution of tension is in the following. I do empathize with complaints related to sexual harassment in the workplace, them being under pressure due to “unreasonable” norms etc.
Hello all,
New rationalist/reader/commenter here.
I originally wrote a rant against PUA culture and then a summation of that rant to post here, but I realized that most, if not all, of my objections to what I perceive to be negative in the PUA community and practice are derived from my biases [and insecurities] rather than a truly rational foundation.
I can object to the PUA sub-culture out of personal distaste, and maybe from a weak ethical point of view, but besides parts of the body of PUA doctrine and rhetoric, there is really nothing irrational about them that I can see.
These men have taken empirical observations and social engineering experiments and created a pragmatic system to utilize for their desired goal in a legal and relatively non-detrimental manner.
So the greater argument seems to be, at least insomuch that the PUA community and their practices are relevant to the original post in this thread, a question of which person-of-interest and group irrationalities/biases are to be sanctioned here for the sake of making certain posters more comfortable.
It seems like this comment was misplaced—it does not seem to be a reply to its parent.
Apologies.
My previous comment was moved to a more appropriate place in the thread.
[I am still trying to get used to this site’s non-linear commenting system.]