What's wrong with Progressivism?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I wouldn't claim to know why male nurses and teachers have a higher salary than their female counterparts, but frankly it sounds like a fair enough exchange for how much more serious an accusation a sexual relationship with a student / patient would be depending on the sexes thereof, and in turn, the leverage those invoking this as an accusation would have against male teachers compared to against female teaches.

Does this mean that all male nurses should be paid more than all female nurses, throughout their career, because a few of each might be accused of sexual misconduct and some of the accused might be innocent, but the male ones would be more likely to suffer consequences? That's some insurance package!  Teachers have always been both male and female, though not not necessarily both in the same culture at the same time. But you still think all male teachers and no female teachers deserve that same sexual misconduct risk bonus?  

 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

And yet, it is the plurality of voters, half of them female, who chose to exclude them from "positions of power." Do they not have that right in their capacity as voters?

Voters can only choose from the candidates they're offered. They do not exclude groups; the party nomination and candidate selection procedures do the excluding before voters have any say at all. Since our current systems of government were all exclusively masculine domains until a century ago, it has been necessary for all-male and then predominantly male legislatures to change the rules and allow female participation. It has been a very slow process, but there are progressives in every generation.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Does this mean that all male nurses should be paid more than all female nurses, throughout their career, because a few of each might be accused of sexual misconduct and some of the accused might be innocent, but the male ones would be more likely to suffer consequences? That's some insurance package!  Teachers have always been both male and female, though not not necessarily both in the same culture at the same time. But you still think all male teachers and no female teachers deserve that same sexual misconduct risk bonus?  

Also it ignores the rather well-established and common higher demand for female teachers on all levels. I mostly see it in university, obviously, but papers have described it for other levels as well. Typically, there is a higher expectation that female teachers spend more time with students, are more accomodating and are more harshly evaluated if they do not fulfil these demands, compared their male peers. But obviously regular day-to-day demand does not factor in this line of thinking. Following that line of logic it seems that higher salary for men is always justified, but better career prospects for women is considered progressive overreach. 

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Following that line of logic it seems that higher salary for men is always justified, but better career prospects for women is considered progressive overreach. 

Politics, too. Well, if men are who the voters want running their government, who are we to select women candidates? Works out quite neatly.

[MigL]

Seems simple enough to me ...
Have half of the males running the Government say they identify as females.
Problem solved, and 'progressives' are happy.
( 🙂 😃 😆 I'm joking; don't go losing it, Peterkin )

[ScienceNostalgia101]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Voters can only choose from the candidates they're offered. They do not exclude groups; the party nomination and candidate selection procedures do the excluding before voters have any say at all.

The same applies; do they not select based on who they think is more likely to win them an election? It's in the interest of everyone in a particular party for them to be the ones in power, and the more of their candidates win, the more power the party has.

 

What any politician who embraces gender quotas; if it's done out of sincerity and not just pandering; is effectively saying, is "I do not trust my own judgment in who to appoint to cabinet, as even among the candidates a plurality of male and female voters combined picked, from among candidates my own party picked specifically to appeal to that plurality of men and women combined, I myself think my own bias in favour of men in politics, shared in common with the constituents who put my party into power, would cloud my own judgment in who to assign to what role."

 

If that's what they're arguing, fine. But they shouldn't then fire them for publicly dissenting against any of their other ideas.

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

"I do not trust my own judgment in who to appoint to cabinet, as even among the candidates a plurality of male and female voters combined picked, from among candidates my own party picked specifically to appeal to that plurality of men and women combined, I myself think my own bias in favour of men in politics, shared in common with the constituents who put my party into power, would cloud my own judgment in who to assign to what role."

What you refer to you here is called implicit bias. And it has some impact on modern hiring practices because of the overwhelming evidence that it exist. In the past, leadership has been overwhelmingly white and male. Thus, if you think in terms of fit for a leadership role, you intuitively picture a white male (often a bit on the older side). Studies have shown repeatedly male white applicants with exactly the same CV are routinely evaluated higher than female counterparts or with non-European names.

As you said, we can appeal and utilize this implicit bias and thereby exclude certain segments of the population from power (and there are parties who do that  at various times with various success). But that clashes with the ideal of fairness within society. There are therefore progressive attempts to provide more equal conditions, with varying degree of success. If we, as society don't want that, I would at least wish for some honesty from those folks. Too often folks who honestly believe that men should hold power and women should be excluded are lamenting about accusations of misogyny. Yet you cannot reasonably desire an unequal system but complain about being unfair. Instead there are this mental contortions in which folks who want to maintain power imbalance in their favour are also somehow the victims of unequal treatment.

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm joking; don't go losing it, Peterkin

No worries - What have I ever lost to you?

11 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The same applies; do they not select based on who they think is more likely to win them an election?

Who they think is more likely. And they are often wrong. When they are right, they take credit; when they are wrong, they shift blame.

 

13 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

if it's done out of sincerity and not just pandering;

I had to lift this out, because I wonder what 'pandering' means in this context. If they're not pandering to voters, then to whom? And if it doesn't win them votes or power, then why?

15 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

What any politician who embraces gender quotas; if it's done out of sincerity and not just pandering; is effectively saying, is "I do not trust my own judgment in who to appoint to cabinet, as even among the candidates a plurality of male and female voters combined picked, from among candidates my own party picked specifically to appeal to that plurality of men and women combined, I myself think my own bias in favour of men in politics, shared in common with the constituents who put my party into power, would cloud my own judgment in who to assign to what role."

If that's what they're saying, nobody will understand them, and many of their fans will think it's too deep and/or profound for lesser men to understand.

 

17 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

But they shouldn't then fire them for publicly dissenting against any of their other ideas.

That's too profound for anyone to understand.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yet you cannot reasonably desire an unequal system but complain about being unfair. Instead there are this mental contortions in which folks who want to maintain power imbalance in their favour are also somehow the victims of unequal treatment.

"Equal" is undefinable, so the point is moot. Each sex faces different and unique struggles to which what one would consider the opposite sex "equivalent" is inherently a matter of opinion.

[CharonY]

This seems like obfuscation to me. There are a lot of parameters with which we can measure equality. For example, if you put a female name on a CV and then switch to a male one. Would you consider it an equal treatment if the latter gets a higher evaluation?

 

[MigL]

I have a problemwith any system that requires equality of outcome, CharonY, and maybe you can explain it better to me.

So called 'progressives' are always clamoring that gender make-up of Government positions, or hiring, should reflect the gender distribution of the society.
Always saying black males make up a disproportionate percentage of incarcerated population compared to the make-up of society.
ETC.

This is then used to indicate gender and racial biases, as well as systemic discriminationwithin positions of power/hiring and the justice system.

Yet the American incarceration rates are 93% male and 7% female, from a society which is 50 (+/-1) % equal. Obviously the make-up of inmates does not reflect the make-up of the general population, and we should not expect equality of outcome in male/female incarceration rates, as one group, the males, displays qualities which are more anti-social, and deserving of higher incarceration rates.

why then, is this ideology of 'equality of outcome' applied to such things as hiring for psitions of power, or 'racial' discrimination, when we see that there are other factors involved.

[Peterkin]

36 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

"Equal" is undefinable, so the point is moot.

Why invent a word everyone understands and yet has no definition? In fact, it is defined in ever bill and charter of rights. It means that nobody can legally be deprived of opportunity, political franchise or freedom of speech and action based on their race, creed, colour or gender. While it's certainly open to debate in its ramifications, the concept is solidly embedded in the democratic ideology.

Oddly enough, nobody brings this up when it's a question of two white men being unequal: nobody seems to think the dumb blond middle-aged one should have different rights from the smart red-haired old one. Or that a short man ought to be paid more than a tall man.

 

36 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Each sex faces different and unique struggles to which what one would consider the opposite sex "equivalent" is inherently a matter of opinion.

Not in the voting booth. No struggle: just make an unequivocal X against a name.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So called 'progressives' are always clamoring that gender make-up of Government positions, or hiring, should reflect the gender distribution of the society.

I am not sure whether that is really the goal. What I have seen is more from the other side, i.e. the issue that women are underrepresented in positions of power, decision-making and so on, and the issues that arises from there. The idea is not necessarily a perfect reflection, but at minimum sufficient representation.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Always saying black males make up a disproportionate percentage of incarcerated population compared to the make-up of society.
ETC.

This is then used to indicate gender and racial biases, as well as systemic discriminationwithin positions of power/hiring and the justice system.

Yet the American incarceration rates are 93% male and 7% female, from a society which is 50 (+/-1) % equal. Obviously the make-up of inmates does not reflect the make-up of the general population, and we should not expect equality of outcome in male/female incarceration rates, as one group, the males, displays qualities which are more anti-social, and deserving of higher incarceration rates.

As before, but more strongly so, there is no expectation of equal outcome in all matters. However, when disparities exist, the question is why and whether that is a matter of the system and if so, is there a way to fix or at least improve it. The latter part is where the progressive idea comes in. I.e. that we as society can change outcome rather than taking things as a god-given reality. So for example, you could ask why black folks are overrepresented and is there something that could change that (social programs come to mind). Similar questions could be asked for female leadership. Is it really something inherent to women? Or is it because in highly competitive jobs women have some disadvantages? Is it biases? We can try to address those. Is it child-bearing (which in academia is a significant element of the leaky pipeline situation)? Can we address that?

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

why then, is this ideology of 'equality of outcome' applied to such things as hiring for psitions of power, or 'racial' discrimination, when we see that there are other factors involved.

Again, it is not blindly adjusting the outcome, but rather playing around the system and see whether it affects outcome in a way that we may consider more fair or equal. It is possible that some imbalances may persist, but that is why we want data (and studies) to see what and how much we can fix. Perhaps we cannot fix the gender gap in imprisonment, but perhaps we can bring imprisonment down in a way that we get overall better outcomes (e.g. focus on rehabilitation or enact social policies that cuts down on criminality rates). However, we can also look at societal biases- there is good reason to believe that men get longer sentences for similar crimes as women, so perhaps that is something we want to address.

The issue with the countermovement is that it assumes that the system we got is the best we can have and therefore any change is somehow bad. In my mind society is an ongoing experiment. Everything we do is made up to a certain degree and as an experimental scientist the idea of poking at bits and pieces to see how the system reacts is very close to my heart. It is not about achieving perfection, but looking at whether the system does something that overall is a detriment to certain folks (which is harder to notice than something that harms everyone equally) and try to adjust it. 

[MigL]

But you failed to address the 'data' that does not fit the narrative.

The incarceration rate is 13.7 times higher for men, than it is for women.
While the percentage of black males in prison is 38% out of a population that is 13% black, is a large discrepancy, it is nowhere near 13.7 times higher.

The choices are clear, you either jail more women so as to be more inclusive, or jail less men. 
But I don't hear any 'progressives' making that argument.

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

The choices are clear, you either jail more women so as to be more inclusive, or jail less men. 
But I don't hear any 'progressives' making that argument.

Shouldn't we wait until they commit crimes, the way we waited 4000 years for them to prove intelligence and competence and adulthood to the satisfaction of men?

Edited June 5, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

But you failed to address the 'data' that does not fit the narrative.

The incarceration rate is 13.7 times higher for men, than it is for women.
While the percentage of black males in prison is 38% out of a population that is 13% black, is a large discrepancy, it is nowhere near 13.7 times higher.

The choices are clear, you either jail more women so as to be more inclusive, or jail less men. 
But I don't hear any 'progressives' making that argument.

You missed the part about the system. It is not about forcing the numbers to become similar, but to understand what causes the discrepancies and whether there is a way to add it. One part of the discrepancies I mentioned is the longer sentencing of men (if men are on average in prison longer, that affects the prison population). This is certainly also something that I see in "progressive" arguments, though the argument is often to reduce sentencing to similar levels, rather than about increasing it.

Now as I also mentioned there are likely issues at play that will prevent a disproportionate lowering of male incarceration (without a massive overhaul of society), but as to why you would need to ask someone who is more knowledgeable in that area.

One issue is of course that violent actions are more common and more severe in men. Now in feminist literature you do see arguments for a different view on traditional masculinity, that would de-emphasize violence has a positive male behaviour. I am not sure how well that is received, but there are anti-violence programs that seek to address this issue.

Another aspect is the war on drugs, which also disproportionately address men. So the progressive attempt of decriminalizing drugs could lower male incarceration to some degree. 

There are also other issues which are perhaps even more difficult to tackle. For example men are more likely to be part of criminal organizations. That certainly requires a complex set of strategies to address. One of the reasons why there are no great answer is probably because no one has found any good solutions yet.

Perhaps you could provide some answers here, why do you think are men more likely to be incarcerated. Is it really because men have a higher tendency to be criminal? And if so, why is it? Should we rethink criminality, or should we just accept that men are worse? (And as a sidenote: if that is the conclusion , why do we trust folks who are more likely to be criminals to become leaders?)

I am ultimately not sure where the argument really goes, though. As I mentioned, the idea is not to randomly look at the numbers and try to make everything equal. Rather it is about looking at the system and see how it affects folks differently. 

[Peterkin]

Wouldn't the parallel work better if you compared black man vs. black women and white men vs. white women? Cose, guess what! There are a lot fewer black women than white women, but a lot more of them are locked up. The male-female ratio is about same in both races --- which just might reflect the relative incidence of criminal behaviour in men and women of both races, while the discrepancy between the incarceration of black men and white men is indicative of some other factor(s) in the system. 

 

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Wouldn't the parallel work better if you compared black man vs. black women and white men vs. white women? Cose, guess what! There are a lot fewer black women than white women, but a lot more of them are locked up. The male-female ratio is about same in both races --- which just might reflect the relative incidence of criminal behaviour in men and women of both races, while the discrepancy between the incarceration of black men and white men is indicative of some other factor(s) in the system. 

 

That would take the gender gap into account, certainly. In all of these cases the question (from a progressive view) is really how much of the situation we see here is caused by the system and which are those. After identification of such issues the next is really asking whether there another system that could be fairer.

In a way one could think of it as any other scientific question. I.e. the null could be that there are no differences. Once we find them, we then try to figure out why. The main difference is that in contrast to nature, our society is our creation so there is quite a bit that we can change (the equivalent in my mind are experimental systems where we control the environment in order to investigate their impact on our biological system).

[MigL]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

One issue is of course that violent actions are more common and more severe in men.

Yes, I mentioned that in my other post.

But it is OK to attribute the disparity between men and women in the prison population, to increased violence amongst men.
And, of course, the statistics prove that.

Yet if I say the increased incidence of black males in jail is because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime, every 'progressive' will label me a 'racist'.
And any provided crime statistics are because of the discriminatory system.
If I say women are underrepresented in 'power' occupations because they are not aggressive enough to deal with the stressful situations as men are, every 'progressive' will label me a 'misogynist'.
And any provided hiring/representation statistics are because of the discriminatory system.

Seems 'progressives' have an endearing label for anyone who disagrees with their 'conclusions', and only use statistics to buttress that view.

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet if I say the increased incidence of black males in jail is because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime, every 'progressive' will label me a 'racist'.

It's quite possible, given hormonal and societal gender differences, that men commit 6+ times as many crimes as women, but is it equally possible that black people - both male and female -  really commit 25 times as many crimes as white people? If proportions are that far out of the probability zone, and in the absence of any significant physiological or psychological difference, it's worth checking other factors.  

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I say women are underrepresented in 'power' occupations because they are not aggressive enough to deal with the stressful situations as men are, every 'progressive' will label me a 'misogynist'

...Maybe. Or they might point to all the women, past and present, who aggressed their way to the top of a power structure that was against them, who disprove your claim. 

 

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

And any provided hiring/representation statistics are because of the discriminatory system.

Well, yes. As has been repeatedly proved by the achievements of women who did finally get into university, medical school, law school, the space program, real estate, robotics, finance, etc.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Peterkin

[MigL]

You don't seem to understand that the 'argument' is presented by the whole post, not snippets, taken out of context, and intended todemonstrate the hypocrisy of the situation.

Is it any wonder that even though you have twice as many posts on this subject as CharonY, he is taken much more seriously?

 

 

Further examples of 'progressivism' run amok.

Rex Murphy: The not-so-magical erasure of J.K. Rowling (msn.com)

I should say misguided, or misnamed, progressivism.

How is this 'progressing' the human condition ?

Edited June 5, 2022 by MigL

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But it is OK to attribute the disparity between men and women in the prison population, to increased violence amongst men.
And, of course, the statistics prove that.

The question though is how much. Is it really that men are so much more violent? As I mentioned before, there are also other issues at play. Why it is still likely that a gap may persist, it does not mean that the system has not impact on the outcome.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Yet if I say the increased incidence of black males in jail is because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime, every 'progressive' will label me a 'racist'.

That depends on the context. Because the next question is why are they more implicated in crime. If your answer is because black males are by nature more criminal, then yes, the racist label is likely going to be used. If you state that you genuinely don't know, then folks will typically provide information regarding overpolicing and poverty. What you do with that knowledge might or might not indicate race-based attitudes.

Quote

If I say women are underrepresented in 'power' occupations because they are not aggressive enough to deal with the stressful situations as men are, every 'progressive' will label me a 'misogynist'.

Here you make a couple of assumptions, including the fact that power occupations require aggression and also that they require it in a form that is uniquely male. You would need to show a lot of data to back that up and also demonstrate that female leaders cannot deal with stress. I am confident that this is going to be challenging. If, on the other hand you assert your assumptions of these connections as fact, then again, you basically highlight your viewpoint, but do not show that they are indeed connected to reality and therefore cause the imbalance we are seeing.

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

How is this 'progressing' the human condition ?

Well, they HAVE given you someone to look down upon and feel holier than, so I suppose there’s that.

Life’s so much easier when we can dismiss entire humans with simple monolithic 1-dimensional labels and ignore the actual being they truly are. Having a simple life is nice, so I suppose there’s that, too.

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

You don't seem to understand that the 'argument' is presented by the whole post, not snippets, taken out of context, and intended todemonstrate the hypocrisy of the situation.

I understand it and it's still bogus.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You don't seem to understand that the 'argument' is presented by the whole post, not snippets, taken out of context, and intended todemonstrate the hypocrisy of the situation.

Is it any wonder that even though you have twice as many posts on this subject as CharonY, he is taken much more seriously?

 

 

Further examples of 'progressivism' run amok.

Rex Murphy: The not-so-magical erasure of J.K. Rowling (msn.com)

I should say misguided, or misnamed, progressivism.

How is this 'progressing' the human condition ?

The article you link mentions about faddism, it's only faddist (or woke) if it disappears over time. If it becomes the integrated norm then it's progressive. I don't think the subject of Rowling's pique is going to go a way. That would make her a 21st century Luddite. I think this is the case but only time will tell.

Edited June 5, 2022 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

Looking at Rowling's travails, I do see that hyperreactivity is one of the flaws of some progressives (and overreacting, as we've learned, is amplified by social media).  Her comments seem pretty anodyne compared to the trans bashing that goes on this side of the pond.  

It seems unfortunate when societies can't have a calm conversation about something that almost no one had heard of twenty years ago.  (in vast swathes of my country anyway).  Maybe less preaching, less smug superiority, less demonization, and we wouldn't have had to have a culture war where the Jim Jordans and Louis Gohmerts declare that Democrats want to castrate our children.  Or maybe it was inevitable, given some of the theological roots in this country.  There are many RWE Christians and other groups here who will always believe that we are "as God made us," and simply won't hear of any exceptions.

(Though one wonders how they square that with heart surgery where a pig valve replaces the God-given one)