CharonY

Not an American, but it seems to me that it is in part the success of long-developed identity-based campaigning. And by that I do not mean policies that would benefit certain folks (perhaps other than tax exemptions for the rich), but rather in terms of a belief system. It was always a bit that being WASPY was considered the norm. But over time, several aspects that were part of the GOP sometimes on the fringe, sometime more centered have become almost a religious belief system (e.g. from anti-evolution to full on anti-science, from being pro-gun as choice to being a core identity of sort, and now increasingly making fringe beliefs such as white nationalism and conspiracy theories accepted parts). A lot of what are considered now by them as extremist progressive attacks were at least under discussion by the reasonable wing of the party, which apparently has lost their voice (and backbone) entirely. So why are they elected? In part because some areas will vote for the GOP no matter what. Then there are folks who feel threatened by made-up bogeyman (white displacement, homosexual mafia, female potato heads, transgender-I-dunno-kids-?) so they will be energized by such bills and depending where you are there is also a nice chunk of voter suppression and gerrymandering going on. The thing though is that the US has a huge cultural influence over the Western world so that is certainly something to look forward to.

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?

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.

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.

I think that this a very US-conservative view, though. While it is exported increasingly (Canada gets a fair bit of it) and others have high similarity in other aspects of it (who the deserving ones are, for example), gun attitudes are special in the US.

I actually was thinking of (isolated) news reports where in some areas actual mugshots or photos of black men were used. But I do recall that some also criticized black silhouette targets, but I don't think I have seen any studies whether that has any impact.

That is a big part of it, certainly (though again, the overall rate of physical abuse is a bit higher for women as victims). Also there seems to be a difference in how violence is expressed. Women are way more likely to be shaken, pushed or thrown, as well as beaten, which requires strength and has high injury potential. They are also more likely to be choked. Getting hit or bitten is much closer (still statistically significantly higher for women). The main category where there are no significant differences between gender of the victim is slapping (lower overall injury potential but still strength dependent). The inherent violent aspect is almost its own discussion. One could ask whether men are learned to become more violent and/or how much biology is behind it that might facilitate violent behaviour. While seemingly trivial, getting enough information to separate these aspects (as almost all nature vs nurture debates) is often very difficult (especially if one wants to avoid speculation and/or extrapolations).

Unfortunately there are a bunch of studies out there showing that police officers are more likely and faster to shoot black folks. This is not only happening in the field, but also during tests when black or white targets are presented. Racial bias is also not uncommon among law enforcement. There was also the issue that in somec areas during training officers were presented with black targets to shoot at.

Also, at this point I would not be surprised if the guard was black. Under stress racial biases (and training) take over the rational part exacerbating such errors.

I also recall a case where an armed guard subdued a shooter and then got shot by the arriving police.

Indeed, more than half of the women who were victims of psychological abuse also encountered physical abuse, in men the rate is just shy of 50%. Another gender difference is the frequency. I do not quite remember the precise numbers, but I believe women are roughly twice as likely to be repeatedly abused (IIRC indicated as 10 or more incidences of abuse). Not sure whether that might mean that men are more likely to get away from abusive relationships, though.

Not quite. As mentioned, for sexual abuse we find the largest gender differences. Looking at StatCan data it is at about 2% for men and 12% for women. Note that this also includes same-sex partners. When it comes to physical violence of any sorts, it is a bit closer, 23% of women vs 17% of men). So victims of physical abuse are not only women, but if we look at severe injuries the numbers skew towards women again. Emotional abuse was even more common but women again were more commonly victims (43%) compared to men (35%). So while there differences, they may be smaller than often expected. Edit: crossposted with Peterkin

I think this thread illustrates why discussing population wide-problems using celebrities might not be ideal. The personality of either of these persons has no impact om the reality of the situation, which requires statistical data. And the data suggests that the life-time risk of women to face abuse from intimate partners is just a bit higher than for men (~40% vs ~30%), though typically women are (for obvious reasons) at higher risk of severe injury and are much more common to be victims of sexual abuse. So clearly there is something that needs to be done for the victims. However, changing traditional views is contentious (we now get into the progressive part of things). Clearly, the data demonstrates that reality does not align with the thinking that because men are stronger, they cannot be abused. Likewise seeking help for men is heavily stigmatized. At the same time some folks like to deal with it like a zero-sum game. I.e. if we help one group it is assumed to be at the cost for another. As such, we need to re-think the issue in a more holistic way to provide enduring solutions.

On a more general level, a big issue are gender stereotypes. Traditional views of men being strong and dominant in a relationship and as such conventional wisdom assumes that men cannot be abused by women. This obviously also ignores mental abuse, as traditionally men are just supposed to suck it up. In other words, society needs to rethink traditional view of feminity and masculinity and arrive at a more integrative view that accepts and helps abused men more broadly.

That is exactly the point though. We mostly unconsciously get into our gender roles. I don't think anyone needed to be explained how to be a boy/girl nor did one need to examine one's own genitals in much detail to figure out how to feel about it. However if it is mostly a passive process, it does follow that there must be a biological mechanism associated to how we feel about it. We do know that many factors are involve in sex differentiation including parts of the brain. While the work is very preliminary, some studies suggest an association between gender incongruence with certain differences in estrogen receptors. So it is less about the person being (mentally) confused, but in a way the biological programs (which, typically work in various continua and not in neat categories) just did not align (or potentially ended up in a less defined zone between the extremes). I.e. in the same way that you and I were clear about how our gender is, so are transgender kids. The issue really is that parts of their body disagree.

Yes, if you think men are not suited or should not be teachers or nurses, it is clearly discriminatory (and society clearly does not see it that way, male nurses and teachers have on average a higher salary than their female counterparts). And this is even worse as we are talking about positions of power. Excluding groups from access to power can lead to pretty bad and discriminatory policies, of which we have plenty of examples. Many of these have been explored in various threads, so I am not digging them up again. I did not mean to imply that there are not alternatives. However, it seemed to me that progressives seem to need to fulfill a way higher standard than folks apply to conservative views. As a matter of fact, I do not see a lot of nuance in any group. Where do we see moderates distancing themselves from anti-immigrant sentiments and associated implicit assumptions regarding foreigners? We can ask those questions all day long, but the truth is that if oversimplify groups (does not really matter which leaning) we are going to criticize a caricature which adds little substance. One also could ask who in your mind is a progressive vs non-progressive? Ultimately attitudes overlap in various segments of the population. You complained about folks associating anti-abortion sentiments with misogyny, I provided evidence that there is at least some overlap. So depending on where you stand you could agree more or less how important it is, but dismissing it, is at this point not supported by evidence.

Going through the thread I think the common theme is that we need to provide options. This might include opportunities to contact or non-contact sports and potentially (there might some disagreement here) less inhibition in terms of what kids choose to play. I think to a certain degree one can apply common sense without necessary planning for every possible contingency here. Especially on the recreational level participants together with coaches could figure out how "hard" they want to go into. From my experience at least it worked reasonably well. For example, we had one boy who was developing much faster than the rest of us but was asked to hold back a bit when playing against girls (and I wished he had held back against me, too).

When I was in school there was a bit like that. Essentially at some grade folks could choose among different sports (volleyball, basketball, gymnastics etc.). So for those not wanting to get into contact sports they could essentially opt out. I.e. they were not sorted in or or excluded from the sport that way (and as far as I am of there were no regulations in that regard, just some level of common sense, I guess). Self-sorting vs regulated sorting, if you will. Agreed. I think kids are more resilient than they get credit for and I do think that certain GenX/Millenial parents are too obsessed in providing their kids with the perfect of optimal childhood, which seems (at best) to make them more anxious than they should be (and social media does the rest).

I think I disagree on that one. In Germany school sports is much less competitive, but we often played in mixed teams until graduation. But even in clubs (where the real competition is) kids are sorted according to skill (where eventually boys will be on top) but the most talented girls will play with boys until age 17 (to foster abilities as much as possible). I have not found anything suggesting higher injuries.

Huh, didn't actually know that. Cheers.

Where does it say that Kissinger was banned from the Ukraine. The article seems only to mention that Russia was banned from the event.

Why do you think that they need to do that? Do you expect conservatives to line up when and decry every lack of nuance they their folks bring up? And this point is not defamatory as such either. After all, there are a range of studies that have shown that indicators of sexism (and racism) were the strongest predictors of Trump voters (i.e. we are looking a sizeable proportion of folks). Likewise, surveys have shown that anti-abortion voters are those most opposed to measures of equality. Looking at folks who want abortion to be illegal in all or most cases for example, we find that 54% of them think that men are generally better political leaders, and only 47% think that the same number of women as men should be in positions of power. Note that women were oversampled in this survey https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1647-supermajority-survey-on-women/429aa78e37ebdf2fe686/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 Likewise studies looking at left-right divides in matters of abortion to be associated with sexism (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.044). So instead of the right decrying sexism in their group, you think progressives should be more nuanced and perhaps state that up to 50% of anti-abortionists are sexists? Sorry I still am unclear what this means. Are "they" the progressives? Who is faking what? Not trying to be obtuse, but I find it difficult to figure out who is doing what in your sentence.

Eh, seems that we were saying the same thing, then. I also doubt that offending folks is really an issue if in the end it maximizes profit (but again I think there are easier ways to do that than weighing folks). Thinking a bit more about existing policies, I think the current rule is that if folks cannot sit with the armrest down, they cannot fly, unless the seat next to them is available (and/or they bought a second seat). I suspect that especially for some budget airlines, buying two seats is unavoidable for certain overweight folks.

I think the issue here is that it is a fairly one-dimensional view. There are many different reasons why folks are against abortion, and conversely, there are plenty of folks who acknowledge but disagree these notions and do not simply break it down to misogyny. Saying that all pro-choice folks think about it in terms of misogyny is a clear oversimplification and at best. I am not sure what that means, though. You oppose folks that oppose abortion because they oppose stem cell research? Wouldn't it better to be for or against these ethical problems not because what certain folks think about it or whether they are hypocritical about it, but rather think about the issue based on, well the issues themselves? Like in case of abortion the right of the unborn vs that of the mother? Doesn't basing ones own value system based on whether you like what or how someone thinks about something seem a bit backwards?

Well, they have to take it into account for sure. But it is unclear to me whether weighing folks would help their business model. OldChemE has mentioned some aspects. Also if folks universally are getting heavier and obese folks are become the norm, then it might be that everyone just gets charged more. Or if there a niche developing, some airlines might cater specifically to the heavy/light segment, but only if the market is worth it.