Philosophical Vegan Forum

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:I apologize for sparking debate about this topic...

Don't apologize, this forum is full of debate.

That's like apologizing for baking cookies.

brimstoneSalad wrote: I'm surprised at you, you should know better than to make this comparison.

It's not at all like that, unless you're suggesting that doctors and lawyers are paid more as a profession (including women) because doctors and lawyers are mostly men, and waiting tables is paid less as a profession (including men) because that profession is dominated by women.
That would be insane.

What are you saying?
an absurd conspiracy theory that society just decided to pay lawyers more because they're associated with men, and waiters less, because that's associated with a women's job?

The answer is not to mandate that doctors and lawyers be paid the same as waiters.

The fact is that the pay gap for the same work is very very small, or even non-existent (what are the margins of error here?

Ya that wasn't what I was saying at all and ofcourse it makes little to no sense. What you later described is the crux of the problem and what I was referring to.

brimstoneSalad wrote: the main issue is that there are differences in jobs -- which is what Corelich said.

The main "problem" is that there are fewer women in these higher paying jobs.
The reason for that is more complicated, and something we need more research on,

Yes this IS the issue and what I was referring to. It is what I was trying to get at with the cholesterol comparison wherein some studies intrinsically controlled for cholesterol levels and then showed no health effect, similar to here where when you control for profession, the differences in pay disappear from the 20-25% to much lower levels 5-7% or similar.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Part of it is certainly women not liking those jobs as much (due to social conditioning, and maybe other factors). That's a very different issue, with a very different solution (STEM programs for girls, for example), if you consider it a problem.

Ya exactly. This is the issue and what I was trying to get at with the caste comparison.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

garrethdsouza wrote:Subjugation of groups has been through employment opportunities just like it exists in Hindu's caste system.

First, women are not a caste.
The West doesn't have the same degree of prejudice based on caste,

I was making a comparison rather than an equation, sure that is obvious. The comparison what I meant is how the basis for bigotry has always been - arbitrary and specifically in the caste comparison, economical.
I.e. individuals who are born into a particular group (eg women or lower caste) are deprived of rights/freedoms, in this case the right to certain employment opportunities for the very arbitrary reason that they belong to said group rather than depending on their abilities etc.
This isn't necessarily a very direct thing, its not literally the ancient case system or slavery but its manifestation is more subtle, as you have identified one of its ways is social conditioning. The perpetuation of notions like there are biological bases that mean women are more suited to certain professions, although there is no actual basis for it. It's a watered down version of woman are naturally best for household chores, taking care of kids etc except this isn't the 1800s so the situation has improved to women aren't suited for stem jobs etc. There can also be issues during hiring or even the way individuals of different sexes interact, what are called microaggtessions that some individuals often unknowingly do.

brimstoneSalad wrote: And insisting that fewer women being in these higher paid professions means something to veganism is very troubling.

Nope I never said it, that wasn't what I was referring to in intersectionality.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Anyway, as I said, I do not even necessarily see this as a problem.

There are low paying jobs, and high paying jobs. I don't care if all of the women are in low paying jobs and all of the men are in high paying jobs, or if all of the women are in high paying jobs and all of them men are in low paying jobs. It's a thing that bothers me not at all, because all I see is equal humans working jobs, some of which are shitty but all of which are part of the total pool of jobs, and the overall state of the economy.

It's the same reason I don't care if Americans have the jobs, or the jobs are sent overseas to China. We're talking about human beings, in either case, being employed or unemployed.

I don't care if the Brahmins have all of the high paying jobs and the Sudras have all of the low paying jobs, or the Sudras have all of the high paying jobs and the Brahmins have all of the low paying jobs. They're all just people. And I don't care much if they're mostly locked into those jobs either (why does this matter? This is an asinine issue of "rights" and "fairness", not of consequential ethics). All I see is human beings doing human jobs, and filling economic niches. Low paying jobs suck, no matter who does it, and I'm not obsessed with some meaningless concept of fairness when it does nothing for overall socioeconomic well being.

You first need to prove why it matters if most of the low paying jobs are occupied by people who happen to be women, or Sudra, or black, or whatever. I just see a society with an economy that provides shitty and good jobs, and people filling those jobs (as needs be). I don't care what they look like, or what genitalia they have, they're all just people.

That's daylight bigotry, pretty much dictionary definition.


Bigotry be it sexism, racism etc has always been wherein one group merely because of their skin color or genitalia or birth family (caste), a very very arbitrary and wholly unrelated criteria to their actual abilities, are forced via social conditioning or through penalty/bodily harm or both into particular low economic classes and employment opportunities, irrespective of the criteria that actually matters, their ability and want to do a job.

Its like saying you are OK with the days when all women were forced to be housewives or blacks to very low paying jobs whereas all those opportunities were reserved for white men! Gender and race as the basis for discrimination is the thing that's intrinsically arbitrary, that should be obvious to anyone.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Arbitrarily choosing to bring what you see as "women" up by swapping out some positions and bringing some "men" down is meaningless to me.
If you're not bringing everybody up, you're not helping anybody on the net.

This is the same bs rhetoric that has always been prevalent. Like when women were first allowed to work or blacks given similar opportunities the same arguments were made. That providing women/blacks opportunities that have previously been unjustly reserved for men is bringing men down. Lol that is absolutely asinine and risible.

That's what egalitarianism is about. If genitalia and race are arbitrary bases in terms of employment or abilities then you should see a similar/proportionate representation of groups in the population and in jobs because we are all just people. The only reason men have been in occupancy of certain jobs has always been some kind of sexism, whether explicit in the haydays of the 1800s or covert/even unconscious as is today.

So having a proportion of woman in high paying jobs similar to their representation in the population ie around 50% isn't arbitrary, what's preventing them from these opportunities is the arbitrary basis, gender based segregation whether by social conditioning or explicit sexism.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I am concerned with legal equality, since that has serious social ramifications (civil unrest), and it's just nicer to live somewhere where everybody is equal before the law (it's good practice), but I don't see the point in all of this other rabble rousing and conspiracy theorizing.

It's not just nicer to live for everyone, its also more efficient and better. Many societal issues have been resolved with more gender parity.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:I apologize for sparking debate about this topic...

Since one of your favourite books is on feminism, care to shed some perspective on the subject? It's a relevant topic that more people should be aware of so if anything, thanks for starting it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

garrethdsouza wrote: Feminism isn't in any sense sexist nor is it against men's rights, its not much of an adversarial system.

It is by definition, but that's OK. Each side in an issue needs advocacy. If some people who define themselves as feminists aren't being adversarial on contentious issues, they're doing it wrong.

Nope its very definition is for equal rights and that is in fact what the overwhelming majority of the movement is pushing for. It's not for more rights for women or for depriving rights of men.

"If they're not adversarial they're doing it wrong" is just incorrect. If its about equality of rights then there is only one objective that is arrived at rationally so it cannot be adversarial. only gender supremacists aka sexists would be the adversaries because they would want to deprive the other group of rights and would oppose any pro equality reforms, which feminism in the whole overwhelmingly doesn't do.

if there are instances where women enjoy more rights than men that are not being actively opposed then those people are being sexist.

brimstoneSalad wrote: It's really just social justice warriors trying to hijack various movements and make it about everything they care about, and attempting to convince other people that they have to do that too. All it does is cause divisiveness where people could otherwise agree and work together on a SINGLE common cause.

It's not about people concerned about social justice issues trying to make movements about other things. It's about such concerned people criticising bigots wirhin a movement and trying to form a space that is more inclusive for all and tackles peoples intersectional issues (like how TVA, a privileged vegan and others have criticised irrational bigoted vegan youtubers).

Eg problems that a fat Muslim trans woman would have going vegan, wherein they aren't at the same level of freedoms as others and if the movement's prominent leaders are muslimphobic, fat shaming or transphobic it would be more difficult for such a person to find a space or community. Also how it has become normalized to describe people concerned about social justice issues as sjws in a pejorative sense itself speaks volumes about the problems with movements.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Using a message people will relate to, and helping people solve their problems with going vegan (and only that) is just regular effective vegan advocacy, nothing special. You don't have to solve every problem people have (or think they have) in life to get to veganism.

Except that's not what happens a lot of the time. For instance some individuals in feminism are only concerned about white women or about women from their own class (aka non intersectional feminists). That other women may have legitimate problems is something that they don't care about or are against providing a platform for discussing, so technically they do not actually care about gender equality for all. This is also in rationalist circles, for instance someone who Dawkins has talked about, Germaine Greer is a transphobe and is a trans exclusionary feminist afaik.

Similar case for veganism, where people aren't concerned about dismantling animal rights issues in another person's context. Such folks when given a platform can harm the movement. Like the fat shaming vegans (eg freelee), racist/rape apologiststs (yourovsky) .

brimstoneSalad wrote:People can be sexist, racist, poor, minority vegans. That's fine. Those are issues for other social justice movements, the membership of which may not even be vegan.

People being sexist/racist isn't fine at all and such people shouldn't be given a platform alone (even a debate is perhaps questionable) or at least be actively criticized by anyone who isn't sexist/racist. The whole umbrella that is Egalitarians shouldn't actively endorse/promote such people.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Feminism as a word is inherently gynocentric, and implies that male issues don't matter or are unimportant relative to women's issues. Not all people who happen to call themselves feminists think that way, but words and definitions matter quite a bit, and by talking about equalism instead you probably do more toward the ends you want to see.

Of course it's gynocentric doesn't imply its anti men or that men's issues don't matter. Non sequitur fallacy. Lgbt activism is queer centric doesn't mean its anti heterosexual! Animal rights is animal centeic, doesnt mean human rights dont matter. It's a false dichotomy that you are either anti one or the other. And a non sequitur that if a movement is gyno/lgbt/animal centric that implies men's/heterosexual/human rights don't matter at all.

This is the same kind of bs rhetoric that is everywhere that strawpersons feminism and feminists as anti mens issues/ anti men. You literally just did it based not on the actual evidence, not on what the overwhelming majority of people actually in the feminist movement believe and practice.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM - STRAWPERSONING

By talking about equalism and objecting to the label of feminism you falsely perpetuate the feminism strawperson made by the anti-feminists. You could say you're for all sexualities so better say you're an equalist, that identifying as an GLBT activist means saying heterosexuality doesn't matter so better not give people the wrong impression. It's the same logic.

brimstoneSalad wrote: If you don't personally care what you're called, then I strongly encourage you to call yourself an equalist instead of a feminist, because if you call yourself a feminist it will risk giving others the wrong impression of what you believe and support.

Thats again reinforcing the strawperson that there's something wrong with being labeled a feminist for the sake of what people who have been misinformed about feminism will think about you as being anti men.

Its like saying freelee is fat shaming and yourovsky is a rape apologist/racist/ misanthrope/anti human rights, Pretty mainstream folks! Plus so much woo in the vegan movement. so better not label yourself a vegan, dont want to give other people the wrong idea.

Sure there may be some issues among some vegan community members but there's nothing intrinsically wrong about being a vegan nor is it what most vegans are like similar to how its not what most feminists are like.

I'd advocate for the exact opposite, labeling yourself a feminist. The strawperson that majority of feminists are inherently anti men is part of the anti feminist toolbox. It helps people who are actually sexist perpetuate sexism as a whole because by buying in to this strawperson, otherwise rational people now distance themselves from the movement and all its legitimate issues

Even if youre too afraid of labels at this point, the least you can do is actually joining online rational feminist groups and seeing for yourself the issues discussed. I had recommended women without religion a relatively rational godless group on fb. The site everydayfeminism.com is also pretty informative. That way at least you'll know for yourself whats going on in rationalist feminist circles etc rather than relying on majoritarian confusionism and Chinese whispers.

brimstoneSalad wrote: That said, I support modern feminism and MRA as adversarial, and I think that by arguing with each other (as in a court, with the prosecution and defense) may be the best way to educate people on these complicated issues and ultimately reach compromises that perhaps nobody likes but everybody can live with and are generally seen as fair. In this case, feminists have to advocate for women and against men, and MRA have to do the opposite.

That's not how it works IRL. Feminists don't advocate against men. And the MRA movement as it is currently structured is anti feminist in its rhetoric rather than being actually concerned with men's rights. I'm assuming it's a new movement and it will take time to for it to sort out its issues. I'd advocate similarly to join such mra groups and see for yourself whats going on. Meanwhile there are other groups like the good men, a men's project etc. that are actually concerned with men's rights rather than being openly anti feminist and sexist organisations. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

The perpetuation of notions like there are biological bases that mean women are more suited to certain professions, although there is no actual basis for it

Why wouldn't biology be a factor? There are structural differences between the male and female brains, as well as hormonal differences. In the context of completely liberal society, biology seems to me a very plausible explanation for these things.

knot wrote:

The perpetuation of notions like there are biological bases that mean women are more suited to certain professions, although there is no actual basis for it

Why wouldn't biology be a factor? There are structural differences between the male and female brains, as well as hormonal differences. In the context of completely liberal society, biology seems to me a very plausible explanation for these things.

There's no actual evidence scientifically for such issues, definitely not at the current disproportionate gender segregation occupation wise. The same thing was said before that women are more suited for household chores, its a watered down version on that.

Oh there's plenty evidence, for example: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Rel ... /12/verma/

These differences are not insignificant, and they mean that (on average!) there will be jobs that one sex is better at than the other.

The same thing was said before that women are more suited for household chores, its a watered down version on that.

Pretty sure those aren't my words .. I'd say it like this:

Women are more suited for social sciences, like psychology, and men are more suited for the natural sciences, like physics.

garrethdsouza wrote:

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:I apologize for sparking debate about this topic...

Since one of your favourite books is on feminism, care to shed some perspective on the subject? It's a relevant topic that more people should be aware of so if anything, thanks for starting it.

I believe in, what would probably be best defined, as Equality Feminism. In First World Countries like the USA, there are indeed still issues that many women face due to their gender, be it from the many attacks on Abortion legality to whether or not we should be able to walk around shirtless. But in the USA, in England, etc, I don't believe that women suffer from a "patriarchal" system. However, many women, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Malala Yousafsai, two of my favorite feminists of all time, do indeed come from a patriarchal society that needs to be abolished.

But in the USA, women's issues are no more severe than that of men's issues, as men are seen as disposable in our society, they can be forcibly drafted into war, they are the only ones who take up the high paying yet severely dangerous jobs, and they are the only sex in the developed world with no reproductive rights at all. They have no say in genital mutilation at birth, they have no say in whether or not they are even going to father children. Young boys, 12 years of age, are not even seen as victims of rape if an older woman forces themselves on them, and in some cases, the rape victim has to pay his rapist child support. So in terms of gender equality, it would behoove us as feminists to not ignore these, and other, issues that men face as well. Up to, and including the male school drop out rate, the male educational decline, and the male suicide rate.

But like I said before, modern feminism seems to be crazy with their inclusion of "Manspreading" and "Mansplaining" and the belief that books can trigger some kind of severe psychotic break in a sufferer of RTS. And we, a feminists, need to DROP the wage gap. All studies show that the wage gap, when all factors are taken into consideration, narrow to the point of vanishing. I personally don't think that huge companies would openly pay female workers less than their male workers, and be able to just get away with it. And with this the same goes for race, I don't see how nobody would notice a company paying a black or hispanic woman in the same position with the same experience HALF of what they pay a white guy, because that's been highly illegal since the Equal Rights Act of 1963.

I am all for feminism, but not this current male-bashing anti-white, "Gay people are racist because they behave like black women", hate group masquerading as feminists, who believe they are the Prolateriot fighting against the evil white male Bourgeoisie.

Which is also why I dislike Intersectional Veganism, it's racist, and sexist, and trivializing. They claim that women earn less than men, but women make up about 80% of Vegans, which we all know can be really expensive if you add in organics, or meat substitutes. Or it claims that people of color somehow can't be vegan because... reasons? Despite people like Fully Raw Kristina, Brown Vegan, Cheap Lazy Vegan, Vegan Gains, Happy Healthy Vegan, and Bite Sized Vegan, all popular non-white vegans, existing. Nothing is stopping people of all backgrounds, colors, creeds, or genders from joining Veganism.

My biggest issue at all is when they claim that meat plants are racist because they hurt low income areas, forgetting that low-income areas are some of the most diverse areas in the world and include whites, and that the issue is with Rich v. Poor, not with race.

We will be better off if we all, as feminists, or as vegans, were not separatist, elitist, segregationist, arseholes, and dealt with the fact that it's 2015 and there is little to no systematic sexism/racism going on. The only systematic anything that is going on is a global systematic genocide of animals for consumption and use. Let's focus on that

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote: I believe in, what would probably be best defined, as Equality Feminism.

Your post was very well said, and definitely in other countries where women are legally oppressed (and not equal before the law), feminism is very relevant and CAN just be for legal equality.

However, that's impossible in countries where legal equality (in terms of rights) has been established already to the extent it can be (due to biological differences, and social factors that are irrelevant to law). I think in this context, calling oneself Feminist when one is only for equality is liable to mislead people, or give people the wrong impression. It's better to stick with the term "equalist" in those cases.

knot wrote:These differences are not insignificant, and they mean that (on average!) there will be jobs that one sex is better at than the other.

Also, sexual differences like the need for maternity leave. It can be very damaging to a small company to have crucial female workers get pregnant and go on leave.
These are hard problems to fix, and it's not always just because of prejudice that a company may choose an equally or even less qualified man over a woman.

This becomes an issue of the RIGHT of an employer or company owner to hire who he or she wishes, v.s. the RIGHT of people not to be discriminated against. It's not unanimously clear which one is more important. All rights are trade offs.

garrethdsouza wrote: Ya that wasn't what I was saying at all and ofcourse it makes little to no sense. What you later described is the crux of the problem and what I was referring to.

I see. So, it was just a bad analogy to make (the cholesterol one). I understand the issue you're referring to, but that was actually included in what he said.

If you control for profession it's the same, which clearly means that there are more men in higher paying professions.
The argument was against the pay gap framed in terms of "equal pay for equal work" which is the deceptive mantra of many feminists.

Equal work does get equal pay. Women just don't always get equal work.

This difference in jobs, however, is largely down to choice, and is something fewer people see as a big problem (I don't see it as one), since it comes largely down to "choice".

And that is an argument about "free will".
Are women socially conditioned into making choices that land them in lower paying jobs? Maybe. Does that mean it's not a choice?

I don't care about this stuff very much, because I don't see it as meaningful to veganism or overall human quality of life.

garrethdsouza wrote: Yes this IS the issue and what I was referring to. It is what I was trying to get at with the cholesterol comparison wherein some studies intrinsically controlled for cholesterol levels and then showed no health effect, similar to here where when you control for profession, the differences in pay disappear from the 20-25% to much lower levels 5-7% or similar.

It's a bad analogy. I explained why. These are totally different arguments.

One is saying saturated fat is not bad (the thing being studied), the other is saying there is equal pay for equal work (the thing being criticized).
The gender pay gap response of controlling for professions is saying only that. It is not making a false claim that women and men have equal work, only that within those there is equal pay.

You're conflating two different issues. I understand how the profession issue is important to you, but for most people they consider that a matter of choice, and only care about equal pay for equal work. So by using an analogy like this to criticize an honest response to that, you're being deceptive.

garrethdsouza wrote: Ya exactly. This is the issue and what I was trying to get at with the caste comparison.

I think the caste comparison was better than the cholesterol analogy, since the cholesterol one just comes off as deceptive, while the caste thing is more of an exaggeration but may have some merit.

I can respect trying to give women and minorities more work opportunities to level the playing field if that's your hobby, but I don't believe this has any substantial moral value (due to the lack of strong economic value), so it's not a charity. As far as activism goes, it's probably ineffective activism, since it's a minor issue that requires inordinate amounts of resources, whereas there are much larger issues at hand.

It's not part of veganism, and shouldn't be.

garrethdsouza wrote:The comparison what I meant is how the basis for bigotry has always been - arbitrary and specifically in the caste comparison, economical.

I can agree with that, in that most of it is arbitrary, particularly when it comes to race, but also to a degree when it comes to sex (although less of a degree).

garrethdsouza wrote:I.e. individuals who are born into a particular group (eg women or lower caste) are deprived of rights/freedoms, in this case the right to certain employment opportunities for the very arbitrary reason that they belong to said group rather than depending on their abilities etc.

This is deontological entitlement. Nobody, not you, not me, not anybody has an inherent "right" to a job.
If I want to hire somebody to do a job for me, I'm going to hire whoever the hell I want to do it. That's MY right.

If you want to argue differently from the capitalistic default, you have the burden of proof there.

In the first world, nobody is deprived of actually equal legal rights and freedoms based on sex or race. Those are the rights I care about.

If all the white people want to hire other white people for their small companies, and keep the black man down without breaking any laws by just not hiring them, that's a dick thing to do (and I probably won't patronize their businesses if they do that, because I don't personally like that kind of racist behavior), but I don't see it as my business to force them, as an outsider or as the government, and tell them they HAVE TO hire more black people, and give them some kind of quota to fill.
Ever try to force children to get along, or to be friends with somebody they don't like? The outcome may not be what you want.

People who are socially downtrodden through no fault of their own need to work harder, make their own companies, and then hire others in the same position. Is it fair? No. It sucks donky balls. But them's the breaks.
I don't see "fairness" as an inherent magical deontological virtue we should all aspire to for no reason.

You need to PROVE to me, with solid evidence, why forcing people to be fair has favorable consequences in terms of alleviating total suffering on Earth, and also PROVE to me that it's a comparatively cost effective means of doing so.

Do that, and I'll agree with you.

Otherwise, you have no basis to make these claims, or criticize me for rejecting them without evidence.
All these faith based assertions do is create divisive conflict within a movement when reasonable people disagree over them.

Keep veganism about the animals, and those things that are proven with evidence to work in favor of those goals in a resource effective manner.