This would only be relevant if some of them were directed specifically at women while less or none were directed specifically at other criteria.
I do have a high prior that this is the case, and would like to see data either way. Though I don’t think any of this is relevant to the main point: Are there other ways we can improve or fix the situation?
This would only be relevant if some of them were directed specifically at women while less or none were directed specifically at other criteria.
No, it only requires that there be some directed at women. Winning at oppression olympics is not a precondition for being oppressed in a given context.
The preferred interpretation is that focus on women is misplaced if women are not being particularly targeted by atrocities—instead, the whole atrocities (preferably their source) should be tackled on directly in most cases. Singling out anything that “happens to also oppress women” seems to me like an even worse knee-jerk response that will only aggravate the MAN VERSUS WOMAN cultural and memetic superconflict. I’m told this is all basic Feminism 101 stuff.
The preferred interpretation is that focus on women is misplaced if women are not being particularly targeted by atrocities
“Ones particularly targeting women” is not an empty set, so that takes care of that, surely?
instead, the whole atrocities (preferably their source) should be tackled on directly in most cases.
Except in the real world, existing groups and their situations are exploited to get those atrocities a pass; most of these incidents (I’m tabooing “atrocities” here as the effect of repeated reference seems to be to make my words sound more emotionally-laden than is the case) happen in the first place because ofexisting attitudes on the part of the perpetrators, and majority/marginalized power imbalances etween them and the target population.
When a senior surgeon at their own clinic a wealthy area with a mostly-majority, mostly-wealthy clientele starts sterilizing people who come in for other procedures, it’s a bunch of lawsuits and a media frenzy just waiting to explode—malpractice charges are the best-case scenario. When it’s a bunch of doctors in Indian Health Service hospitals on reservations all over the country doing it to Native American women, basically nobody outside those women and their families ever hears about it or takes it seriously. It may take decades to get a public acknowledgement from any of the relevant parties that it happened at all.
Yeah, it’s worse than that—many consent forms were often filed under duress (claims that benefits would be withheld, or handing the papers to a patient in under emergency conditions and having them sign, sometimes while under anaesthesia, claiming they were papers for other, often lifesaving procedures.
Heh, now that you’ve spelled it out like this, I think it was mostly an interpretation problem. What I was referring to was, suppose a particular group of Mad Doctors is performing retroviral experiments in secret:
25% of them target LGBT people¹ 25% of them target low-IQ people² 25% of them target public figure individuals³ 25% of them target women.
In such a case, I don’t see why everyone should focus on the women-targeting and only or specifically or specially or with more effort try to get rid of the ones targeting women. Exactly 25% of the effort should be on the ones that target women, ceteris paribus. In other words, the efforts should be directed at the group and all the bad things they’re doing, not freezing in place at the word women.
Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what some “Feminists” are doing wrong, and the popular media is obviously going to get a lot of stuff wrong anyway (for any cause in almost any situation—I’m still disgusted by the articles on SIAI). That’s why I was saying that the fact that they also target women is only relevant if there’s some particular, additional reason to care about them specifically—if the above toy group were 75% targeting women, now I’d say yeah there’s good reason to worry about those in particular. Or if the women were somehow suffering a hell of a lot more, or if there was higher utility in saving the women than the other groups.
Also, the footnote “reasons” are there as illustration that there may be some mundane reason why women were targeted, such as genetics or maybe 25% of those Mad experimenters just happen to be gynecologists. I really wouldn’t be surprised if some Mad Gynecologists were to target women practically exclusively. What would surprise me is if it turned out that nearly all the people prone to become Mad Experimenters all for some reason decided to become gynecologists, to experiment on women.
====
Possibly because they work in an “LGBT reform clinic” in Africa or the Middle-East, e.g. Lesbian Rape Camps… which is very horrible anyway in its own right.
Possibly because as part of their functions they treat or test people with mental deficiencies or somesuch.
Possibly because they’re insane and subconsciously try to give themselves an excuse for failing, because really, who the hell would be that stupid? You’re doing secret experiments! Heh.
Ahh. Yeah, I’m thinking about real cases rather than a thought experiment here. I don’t know of any such group of Mad Doctors who divvy up their brutality in nice, even fractions purely for the lulz, but I do know of rather a lot of perfectly ordinary doctors who focus their brutality on specific populations, and may be enabled to varying degrees by outside parties or ideas.
Note that (assuming the threshold for “low-IQ” is less than 100) the last target group is the largest, in terms of population. (I’m not sure this should matter, but it’s not obvious to me that it shouldn’t.)
It’s 25% of the Doctors, not of the population of potential victims. If the Doctors at each group take victims at the same frequency and quantity, the number of victims will be the same. Actually, depending on what kind of social impact you think about, maybe the largest group suffers the least.
I was thinking about the fact that, if doctors are known to target members of $group, all members of $group might feel worried. (I’m using “worry” to mean ‘psychological discomfort’.) Of course ceteris paribus the probability that a given member of $group will be targeted will be inversely proportional to the size of $group; but since humans are biased, I guess the amount of worry an individual will experience won’t be directly proportional to the probability of being targeted, so the total amount of worry will increase with the size of $group.
This would only be relevant if some of them were directed specifically at women while less or none were directed specifically at other criteria.
I do have a high prior that this is the case, and would like to see data either way. Though I don’t think any of this is relevant to the main point: Are there other ways we can improve or fix the situation?
No, it only requires that there be some directed at women. Winning at oppression olympics is not a precondition for being oppressed in a given context.
The preferred interpretation is that focus on women is misplaced if women are not being particularly targeted by atrocities—instead, the whole atrocities (preferably their source) should be tackled on directly in most cases. Singling out anything that “happens to also oppress women” seems to me like an even worse knee-jerk response that will only aggravate the MAN VERSUS WOMAN cultural and memetic superconflict. I’m told this is all basic Feminism 101 stuff.
“Ones particularly targeting women” is not an empty set, so that takes care of that, surely?
Except in the real world, existing groups and their situations are exploited to get those atrocities a pass; most of these incidents (I’m tabooing “atrocities” here as the effect of repeated reference seems to be to make my words sound more emotionally-laden than is the case) happen in the first place because ofexisting attitudes on the part of the perpetrators, and majority/marginalized power imbalances etween them and the target population.
When a senior surgeon at their own clinic a wealthy area with a mostly-majority, mostly-wealthy clientele starts sterilizing people who come in for other procedures, it’s a bunch of lawsuits and a media frenzy just waiting to explode—malpractice charges are the best-case scenario. When it’s a bunch of doctors in Indian Health Service hospitals on reservations all over the country doing it to Native American women, basically nobody outside those women and their families ever hears about it or takes it seriously. It may take decades to get a public acknowledgement from any of the relevant parties that it happened at all.
Please, tell me you’re making this up.
[googles for
native american sterilization]OMG OMG OMG OMG...
Yeah, it’s worse than that—many consent forms were often filed under duress (claims that benefits would be withheld, or handing the papers to a patient in under emergency conditions and having them sign, sometimes while under anaesthesia, claiming they were papers for other, often lifesaving procedures.
Heh, now that you’ve spelled it out like this, I think it was mostly an interpretation problem. What I was referring to was, suppose a particular group of Mad Doctors is performing retroviral experiments in secret:
25% of them target LGBT people¹
25% of them target low-IQ people²
25% of them target public figure individuals³
25% of them target women.
In such a case, I don’t see why everyone should focus on the women-targeting and only or specifically or specially or with more effort try to get rid of the ones targeting women. Exactly 25% of the effort should be on the ones that target women, ceteris paribus. In other words, the efforts should be directed at the group and all the bad things they’re doing, not freezing in place at the word women.
Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what some “Feminists” are doing wrong, and the popular media is obviously going to get a lot of stuff wrong anyway (for any cause in almost any situation—I’m still disgusted by the articles on SIAI). That’s why I was saying that the fact that they also target women is only relevant if there’s some particular, additional reason to care about them specifically—if the above toy group were 75% targeting women, now I’d say yeah there’s good reason to worry about those in particular. Or if the women were somehow suffering a hell of a lot more, or if there was higher utility in saving the women than the other groups.
Also, the footnote “reasons” are there as illustration that there may be some mundane reason why women were targeted, such as genetics or maybe 25% of those Mad experimenters just happen to be gynecologists. I really wouldn’t be surprised if some Mad Gynecologists were to target women practically exclusively. What would surprise me is if it turned out that nearly all the people prone to become Mad Experimenters all for some reason decided to become gynecologists, to experiment on women.
====
Possibly because they work in an “LGBT reform clinic” in Africa or the Middle-East, e.g. Lesbian Rape Camps… which is very horrible anyway in its own right.
Possibly because as part of their functions they treat or test people with mental deficiencies or somesuch.
Possibly because they’re insane and subconsciously try to give themselves an excuse for failing, because really, who the hell would be that stupid? You’re doing secret experiments! Heh.
Ahh. Yeah, I’m thinking about real cases rather than a thought experiment here. I don’t know of any such group of Mad Doctors who divvy up their brutality in nice, even fractions purely for the lulz, but I do know of rather a lot of perfectly ordinary doctors who focus their brutality on specific populations, and may be enabled to varying degrees by outside parties or ideas.
Note that (assuming the threshold for “low-IQ” is less than 100) the last target group is the largest, in terms of population. (I’m not sure this should matter, but it’s not obvious to me that it shouldn’t.)
It’s 25% of the Doctors, not of the population of potential victims. If the Doctors at each group take victims at the same frequency and quantity, the number of victims will be the same. Actually, depending on what kind of social impact you think about, maybe the largest group suffers the least.
I was thinking about the fact that, if doctors are known to target members of $group, all members of $group might feel worried. (I’m using “worry” to mean ‘psychological discomfort’.) Of course ceteris paribus the probability that a given member of $group will be targeted will be inversely proportional to the size of $group; but since humans are biased, I guess the amount of worry an individual will experience won’t be directly proportional to the probability of being targeted, so the total amount of worry will increase with the size of $group.
I see your point. Agreed.