If there is a single unfair systematic disadvantage suffered by a group of people, then it is morally unobjectionable to have a group of people come together to try and rectify this state of affairs by concerted action.
Yes, I agree. But the onus is on defining it as SYSTEMATIC, something which you seem to continue to avoid discussing the merits or definition of, simply saying that systematic disadvantages exist by pointing to non-systematic examples. A perfect case in point is your “legitimate” example below:
there are also systematic disadvantages suffered by groups that are legitimate, for example, the disadvantage that people of low general intelligence can’t be neurosurgeons, or the disadvantage that men can’t be surrogate mothers.
These may be legitimate but they are not SYSTEMATIC, because they are not part of any cultural system, but plain jane divided-from-culture reality. If someone can’t wrap their head around neurosurgery, or men can’t produce breast milk, those are not limitations imposed by a cultural system. Perhaps the culture putting up barriers on getting licensed to be a neurosurgeon is a legitimate (proper) systematic disadvantage, but the person’s inability to successfully practice neurosurgery even unlicensed/uncertified is not. That’s an organic disadvantage of nature. Neurosurgery is hard because it is, not because we make it so as a culture. No one fights for anyone’s right to practice neurosurgery unqualified because you could kill people doing that. Hence the legitimacy. But that’s a key distinction as to which part is systematic and which is not, and why. Disadvantages that exist via reality, and are not imposed purely or at least largely by culture, are not systematic. There’s nothing within culture to fight to CHANGE to make it better.
I concede that any morally unobjectionable pattern of behavior may be part of a larger, morally objectionable pattern (e.g., when I systematically only form activist groups to change disadvantages suffered by one group and actively oppose all other such attempts)
There’s a little more to it than that. What Men’s Rights groups oppose (the “morally unobjectionable pattern of behavior”) has never been proven as a pattern. Ever. But what they “actively oppose” has been proven, historically, and consistently, again and again. Therefore they champion something that isn’t systematic at the expense of something that is. That’s two wrongs, no right.
- I believe there is at least one unfair systematic disadvantage suffered by men.
Then name ONE, for effs sake. Just one. If you can’t, then you need to drop this argument, as it is disingenuous to continue basing your entire foundation on it when you can’t even put a single example into words. The onus is on proving the pattern exists, not on us proving it doesn’t, just like every other disadvantaged group had to do in order to be taken seriously. (EDIT: Ah, I just read further, see below)
If I’m correct so far, I can see two reasons for our disagreement:
A) Our definition of “unfair systematic disadvantage” is different
I think just the “systematic” part.
If you are with me so far, and if we are interested in following through with this discussion, we need to commit at this point to intellectual honesty and promise to refrain from flip-flopping on definitions or engaging in special pleading, and to change our minds if we find out we are wrong.
Agreed. Though as always, because it’s necessary and human, the ability to refine or extrapolate on definitions and/or explain paraphrases (people seem super sensitive to using certain terms interchangeably, but it’s hard not to, especially over the course of a long conversation) should be allowed. So long as were not flip-flopping, as you say, though even that can boil down to a matter of perspective and opinion. But we can try, in all honestly.
Note that my argument only requires showing an existential statement: There must be one single instance of a systematic disadvantage suffered by men.
Well, there can’t be one single INSTANCE of anything that can effectively be called systematic. Are you with me on that or no? I’m thinking this could be the crux of our terminology issue at this time. There can be a single kind of disadvantage that can be shown to be systematic but it must happen (much) more than once to be systematic.
If you are willing to play, here are the rules I suggest:
I) You come up with a definition of “unfair systematic disadvantage” that is reasonable close to common meaning of the phrase (e.g., dictionary definitions) and reasonably unambiguous.
First off, let’s switch the word “systematic” to the one we really want - “systemic”. I’ve been using systematic because it was the word originally used and it was close enough for gov’t work, we knew what we meant. But since we’re going to get all challenge-y about it, let’s make it proper.
So how’s this for a definition on “unfair systemic disadvantage”. Anything to fall under this rubric would require that it was:
- engrained/prevalent to the point of being arguably embedded,
- culturally/socially imposed, not just naturally imposed.
- must be shown that it isn’t simply an obstacle or limitation, but a distinct DISadvantage as compared to another group’s or groups’ advantage.
- it should not be “legitimate” as you said above, or in other words something that doesn’t make perfect sense that cultural restrictions are applied, such as with getting licensed to practice neurosurgery. The disadvantage must be shown to not be harmful if removed, harm that is obviously outweighed by any benefits that might be achieved by said removal (i.e. lots of people now get to practice neurosurgery! But lots of people also die. Harm obviously outweighs the benefit).
To further define #1, “engrained”, it must be a disadvantage from which the most effective solution is to change the culture, because tackling the individual cases is both too daunting due to sheer numbers and difficult due to cultural acceptance of the behavior, conscious or unconscious.
An example of #2, culturally imposed vs. naturally imposed, male violence against women is a great example of something that is both. There is the natural greater aggression of males, the natural physical superiority (on balance) of men vs. women, and also the cultural lasseiz-faire attitude of looking the other way and giving men the benefit of the doubt and seeing women as hysterical or deserving of the violence. Plenty of evidence exists to call this culturally imposed/engrained even though it is also a natural disadvantage in certain ways. And obviously the benefits of getting rid of violence far outweigh the lesser freedom for men to impose violence.
For #3, the obvious argument here is that that I want to nip in the bud in advance, is that men might have a disadvantage now that civil rights movements have created advantages for other groups that don’t include men. For any example wherein: to correct a disadvantage steps were taken and now the disadvantaged can be called advantaged and the originally advantaged can be called disadvantaged, the onus will be on you to show how the originally disadvantaged are actually advantaged beyond the originally advantaged group (men). So taking a racial example, if you want to argue that affirmative action has disadvantaged white people, you’ll have to argue - not just how white people are worse off now than before affirmative action - but also how they’re disadvantaged beyond where the non-white groups now lie. If they’re not MORE disadvantaged than the other groups, then they’re still not disadvantaged (that requires to be lesser compared to some other group), even if their lot is somewhat less advantaged than before. Redistribution of wealth will make rich people less rich, but they’ll likely still be in the top 1%, the gap will just be lesser. Does that make sense?
Let me know what you think, and when we’re cool with it, let’s explore.
The studies I see most often compare the set of all working women vs the set of all working men, and they simply show the totals and say see women make less money without ever looking at the number of individuals in each set, which I find kind of disingenuous. I’m hoping to find a source that uses a more rigorous, scholarly approach to their statistics.
the classic is men and women of the corporation by rosabeth moss kanter: 