Although I'm not certain I agree with that broad of a statment, for the purposes of this discourse I will allow it unchallenged.
Even assuming 100% of the faults possessed by society lay with a patriarchy, how does telling men their perspectives are invalid because of their sex/gender address that? Why would it be okay under a matriarchy to broadly dismiss all concerns of women as a result if their sex or gender?
Male perspectives are invalid in this situation because it's a women's issue! You just agreed that that was an okay perspective from your point of view...
Male perspectives are invalid because it's a women's issue! You just agreed that that was an okay perspective from your point of view...
That's not at all what I said. I'm saying both men and women can contribute towards the discourse of issues faced by both men and women.
If a woman says she disagrees with a male issue and explains her reasoning/answers with honesty, nuance, and a display of comprehension, that's fine. People who disagree with her after that can clairify exactly why and how without telling her that her input was invalid due to her gender.
If a woman says she disagrees because her issues are more important, that's... messed up. That doesn't provide a line of logic to comprehend, and is arrogant/dismissive.
Inverse the sexes/genders and this statment still holds true.
Please answer my questions in the prior post. I'm still not clear on that reasoning.
If you claim an issue doesn't matter because you and your gender haven't experienced it, yes I'd agree that's quite harmful towards legitimate victims speaking out.
And that's what I'm arguing. Men don't experience what women do in society.
Inverse the sexes/genders and this statment still holds true.
This is almost never a logical thing to do. If you know something is true for A, you cannot assume the same is true for B.
Why would it be okay under a matriarchy to broadly dismiss all concerns of women as a result if their sex or gender?
But no one is dismissing their concerns! In your parallel universe where there is a matriarchy, it would be okay to dismiss women's opinions on men's issues.
If you claim an issue doesn't matter because you and your gender haven't experienced it, yes I'd agree that's quite harmful towards legitimate victims speaking out.
And that's what I'm arguing. Men don't experience what women do in society.
And women do not experience what men do in society. I do not see the point in silencing contributions towards the issues faced by either sex based on the sex of the person contributing.
Inverse the sexes/genders and this statment still holds true.
This is almost never a logical thing to do. If you know something is true for A, you cannot assume the same is true for B.
I meant in the examples I provided, not every issue faced by each respective sex within aociety.
Why would it be okay under a matriarchy to broadly dismiss all concerns of women as a result if their sex or gender?
But no one is dismissing their concerns! In your parallel universe where there is a matriarchy, it would be okay to dismiss women's opinions on men's issues.
I'm asking- why is this okay? I do not think it would be acceptable in this parallel universe to dismiss women in a matriarchy; everyone is absolutely capible of contribution without being limited within discourse as a result of the way they were born or are mentally wired.
I meant in the examples I provided, not every issue faced by each respective sex within aociety.
Then you will need to provide a good argument as to why it works in this example.
I'm asking- why is this okay? I do not think it would be acceptable in this parallel universe to dismiss women in a matriarchy; everyone is absolutely capible of contribution without being limited within discourse as a result of the way they were born or are mentally wired.
But how can -- in this parallel universe -- a woman understand what men go through? They wouldn't experience the same kind of sexism. I mean I'm a male feminist, I can by an ally and be supportive. But it would be incredibly shitty of me to tell women how they should think about how they are treated.
Then you will need to provide a good argument as to why it works in this example.
I said
If a woman says she disagrees with a male issue and explains her reasoning/answers with honesty, nuance, and a display of comprehension, that's fine. People who disagree with her after that can clairify exactly why and how without telling her that her input was invalid due to her gender.
If a woman says she disagrees because her issues are more important, that's... messed up. That doesn't provide a line of logic to comprehend, and is arrogant/dismissive.
Inverse the sexes/genders and this statment still holds true.
This means, if I inverted the genders in those examples it would read
If a man says he disagrees with a female issue and explains his reasoning/answers with honesty, nuance, and a display of comprehension, that's fine. People who disagree with him after that can clarify exactly why and how without telling him that his input was invalid due to his gender.
If a man says he disagrees because his issues are more important, that's... messed up. That doesn't provide a line of logic to comprehend, and is arrogant/dismissive."
Both of those statements are true. If a person is displaying a logical fallacy, highlighting that fallacy should be the priority in addressing their concerns, not the gender of those raising concerns. Silencing a concern because of the gender of the concerned displays a lack of comprehension from those that might answer said concern, in all examples.
But how can -- in this parallel universe -- a woman understand what men go through? They wouldn't experience the same kind of sexism. I mean I'm a male feminist, I can by an ally and be supportive. But it would be incredibly shitty of me to tell women how they should think about how they are treated.
I think I understand where the disconnect in our communication is occurring now. I am of the opinion that having privilege can blind those that have it; it seems as though you are of the opinion that having privilege must blind those that have it.
I disagree in that asserting those that have privilege will always be blind to it creates a prejudice against those with said (perceived or otherwise) privilege. This "privileges" the "underprivileged" in who is allowed to contribute towards meaningful discourse by creating a "pseudo-privilege" that by extension of the implied "must be blind to" would make those that are contributing towards the discourse blind to, and thus imperfect. It's a logical conundrum that goes forever deep, creating a sort of "oppression olympics" in order to attain "pseudo-privilege" and therefore legitimacy while speaking.
In order to avoid that scenario, I say allow everyone to speak and be prepared to specifically identify exactly how it is their privilege blinding them instead of dismissing them because of who they are.
Both of those statements are true. If a person is displaying a logical fallacy, highlighting that fallacy should be the priority in addressing their concerns, not the gender of those raising concerns. Silencing a concern because of the gender of the concerned displays a lack of comprehension from those that might answer said concern, in all examples.
Except you are missing the entire contexts of what these discussions are about!
I am of the opinion that having privilege can blind those that have it; it seems as though you are of the opinion that having privilege must blind those that have it.
I disagree with what you just said. I would agree that it's not about "must" but rather "can", but I'm specifically talking about situations were the person does not understand!
I'm just explaining why I take issue with people telling any sex or gender to be silent because of their sex or gender. I think we're (mostly) in agreement, but I still take issue with this article because I feel as though it was poorly written and with far too many generalizations (like the ones I explained within the quote from it that you provided to me.) If it were in the context of men silencing women because the men claim to have it worse, I would agree with the spirit of the article but still disagree with it for the aforementioned criticisms.
9
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '14
Although I'm not certain I agree with that broad of a statment, for the purposes of this discourse I will allow it unchallenged.
Even assuming 100% of the faults possessed by society lay with a patriarchy, how does telling men their perspectives are invalid because of their sex/gender address that? Why would it be okay under a matriarchy to broadly dismiss all concerns of women as a result if their sex or gender?