Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I reject this. I'm speaking about his opinions, as he expressed them here. They are, in my view, exaggerated, even extremist, and intolerant.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
your arguments are intelligent, but they end in one place...that these programs should be carefully examined, not used willy nilly.

who's denying that?

what's the fuss about? linca is not sloganeering, he's stating his opinions, very civilly considering, fwiw...

you say you're a moderate, but you sure use a lot of talking points from the right, seems to me.

if all you want is these programs to be administered less liberally, why not just say so? i don't think you've convinced anyone for all the effort, of anything they didn't already know and even agree with.

is it a straw man of your own imagination you are burning? all those damn government give-aways, maybe?

if that's the case, maybe we should think about cutting the military pork before we slash more programs that try to help the disadvantaged... most moderates would agree with that, i think, and if you were railing against that rather than what you are, you'd probably be finding an audience more in tune with your fondly held opinions, which lack originality, not that that's a blog crime, lol.

just sayin', your tone has gone 'off'...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 05:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You should have realized that common sense is the important part, not intelligence - or others' opinions on the degree of intelligence, and even less to impress you or others on that level.
If you were to be objective, you would have noted that it is not myself who made the fuss.

In what concerns me, I replied to a rather simplistic statement of InWales, statement which she explained and nuanced in what followed.
No one realized (or indeed appreciated) that this has in the end followed my own reasoning.
Everybody got interested in the tiny "activist" points - nurses are subservient, railway workers and judges have bad work conditions, christianism is a delusion and so on. I do regret mentioning them, I didn't think they will pollute the debate to such extent.

It would have been nice if you reacted when linca called me a mysoginist, an ignorant, asked me if I heard about anthropology, without proof or with sloppy arguments (subservient etc). This is less a civil, and more an extreme manner of debating, similar to those employed by the old feminists. The fact that there is extremism far more extreme, is no excuse.

As to you speaking for a group, frankly it fails to impress me. First, I wonder if 5-6 people represent the readership. Second, I never write for an audience, I've nothing to gain, or to lose. I just reacted on an idea that sounded simplistic. Third, my arguments were often not replied, but rejected (you're a mysoginist; you're an ignorant about history too!), I spent a good part of my time correcting  the numerous misreadings (I never mentioned the pay of the railway workers; the point about nurses was that the proportion of women is no proof of men being discriminated against; a Saudian society is so concerning the relations state-church and oppression of people by the church, not about treatment of other faiths etc etc.).

Finally, it's not even about dealing with social programs "less liberally". I don't even know what that means. I'm much of a classical liberal myself, and I find the term liberal as used to-day as quite far from its original meaning. I would like those programs implemented more rationally, so that they don't make collateral victims (I even gave an example, I wonder if anyone noticed it). You might have heard all this before, I assure you a newcomer won't notice it.

As to the tone, oh well. You are yourself making yet another baseless assumption (like the one where I was echoing UMP propaganda, whilst I reflected mainstream independent media). I've no straw man to burn and nothing to regret about my tone.

Eppur si muove!

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ValentinD:
In what concerns me, I replied to a rather simplistic statement of InWales, statement which she explained and nuanced in what followed.
No one realized (or indeed appreciated) that this has in the end followed my own reasoning.

No, not exactly. I was trying to demonstrate, by peeling back layer after layer that your view of our hideous left wing rhetoric was ill informed or at least your perception of what it all amounts to wasn't accurate.  I didn't change my discourse until it agreed with you, I tried to show you that the statements you were making about my view on equalities weren't accurate.  

There are still plenty of things we've not reached any agreement on - in my view mainly your belief that there are not socially constructed gender stereotypes and therefore no such thing is influencing the choices people make with their lives.  You also still don't seem to take on board that I have never once suggested that people should be made to do things they don't want to do.

I want to break down the stereotypes that cause institutional and structural discrimination in society - which does exist.  I believe that legislation is an important part of that, and education alone doesn't work -  I speak form experience there.

Besides, we don't even agree on what we should be educating people about because the gender stereotypes that I think are socially constructed and need tackling, you think amounts to 'old wisdom'.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A, a a !  You peeled back what you thought was my view. In what concerns me, I replied to your phrase about monitoring companies and if there are gender discrepancies, they need to address the causes. I replied because the causes are not always within the reach of companies' scope of action.
Further you said these programs are indeed implemented rationally and you do look for the root cause. Had you said that from the beginning, we wouldn't have had this wonderful talk and so maybe never gotten to know each other! Fate can be mischievous :)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Btw if you read back the phrase you quote, I did not say you changed, but that you nuanced your discourse. That you explained it.

I did not say there are no socieally constructed roles. I say they're not all and always mistaken, and hence not all should be deconstructed, and not in all cases.
Nuance. Tolerance. Going about it rationally, not based on theories like Bourdieu's... (I speak in general here, not criticizing you - you managed to maintain a remarkably balanced tone all through this).

Ok. Some mistaken stereotypes do exist. Do you have an example for which there is clear proof that it is not a matter of women free choice?
You mentioned the bin collecting vs cleaning, I replied that it's the physical force that made the difference in role - and in pay.
We must tackle clearly proven mistaken stereotypes. I don't think motherhood is one, and I do call both examples common sense, or old wisdom.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have just posted a long reply somewhere else in the thread which probably answers some of these.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Me too. But since I'm through with text searching 200+ posts, here's the short stuff:

To conclude, the earnings of married men and married women are determined in distinctive ways, with married men obtaining a net advantage in terms of the coefficients on the independent variables, even ignoring the intercept term.
This means that not only is there a large, unexplained, discriminatory element in the wage differential for married men and women but that the relevant variables affect earnings in different ways for each group.
The difference in the intercept term could represent discrimination, an unmeasured link between marital status and productivity, or differences in preferences or opportunity costs between sexes.

(from a statistical study published by Oxford and graciously linked in by linca)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was referring to this comment of mine

btw to me this
ValentinD:

This means that not only is there a large, unexplained, discriminatory element in the wage differential

is where I'd take research further to try to figure out what some of the so far unexplained potential discriminatory causes could be.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
24 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
112 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series