1
2

[∆(s) from OP]CMV:To say that feminists want equality is highly misleading. (self.changemyview)

wecl0me124∆ が 投稿

More precisely, I think that the word "equality" should not be used to describe the thing that (most) feminists want.

I will also mention that this is about people who actually identify as feminists in real life, not the abstract concept of feminism. I understand that feminism is very diverse, and that my arguments will not apply to feminism as a whole, however, the vast majority of feminists hold beliefs that are not implied by the definition of feminism, and I will consider those beliefs to be part of feminism for the purposes of this discussion. I understand this is a vague statement, but I hope you understand what I mean.

The biggest reason is that on the surface, it appears to be just like the other kind of equality - mathematical equality, but is actually very different. This is the only other context that equality comes up in that is familiar to most people. In mathematics, equality is sameness - two things that are equal in math are literally the same thing. To say that 2+3 = 5 means that the expressions "2+3" and "5" refer to the same mathematical object.

Social equality, on the other hand, appears to be like this, at first. If men were paid $20/hr for a job and women were paid $10, would that not be unequal? Equality is achieved when men and women are paid the same amount. If white people were sentenced to 5 years in prison for a certain crime, and black people were sentenced 10 years, that would be considered an inequality - because the sentencings are not the same.

At first glance, it seems, that social equality is just like mathematical equality, but once one goes deeper, it is not. The differences between social and mathematical equality are clear: the [substitution property] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)#Some_basic_logical_properties_of_equality of equality is violated all the time, it is explicitly not sameness, and violates the axiom of extensionality

As such, feminists claim to be supportive of equality, give examples of inequalities like the ones above, creating an expectation of sorts that social equality is just like mathematical equality, and then reveals that social equality is nothing like that. I imagine something like this:

Feminist: hey /u/wecl0me12, do you believe in gender and racial equality?

Me (thinking): I believe that people should be treated the same regardless of gender or race, and I also believe that equality captures this notion of sameness because of the substitution property and it being an equivalence relation

Me: Yes, I do.

Feminist: Then you believe that black people can say the n-word, but it's racist for white people to do so. You must also believe that it's ok for us to write articles generalizing the male gender in a negative way, but if you do it to the female gender you're sexist! and also you believe that it's impossible to be racist against white people or sexist against men, because racism/sexism is prejudice plus power!

Me: Hold on... I disagree with some of that stuff you say there. That violates the substitution property of equality.

Feminist: That's mathematical equality! Social equality doesn't work like that!

Me: I appear to be mistaken on what equality is. I don't think I believe in equality anymore

Feminist: So you think it's OK to treat women and racial minorities unfairly? You're racist and sexist!

This kind of thing is what I mean here. Feminism is all about equality, yet social equality is so different from mathematical equality, yet the differences are so subtle, that it creates misunderstandings and causes confusion, not something that is desirable.

TL: DR: It's misleading because social equality seems just like mathematical equality when it's actually very different.

EDIT: awarded a delta here : https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5kidx6/cmvto_say_that_feminists_want_equality_is_highly/dbp0bfw/?context=8

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

全 94 件のコメント
並べ替え:
Q&A (提案されたアイデア)
ベストトップ新着論争中古い順

[–]Queso_Gatame 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

While you're right that there's a great deal of controversy about what kind of social equality justice requires, I think your suggestion that social equality is naturally understood as mathematical equality is a bit silly. To demand that two different social groups become mathematically equal is to demand that they become one and the same group. Most demands for gender equality quite obviously are not demands that there cease to be multiple genders, so understanding them in these terms is not reasonable.

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The impression that feminists give, at least to me, was that while the groups themselves are not equal in the mathematical sense, the rights and societal attitudes towards them should be equal, and in an ideal society, would be equal in a mathematical sense.

The axiom of extensionality forbids men and women to be equal in the mathematical sense (as the /r/badmathematics post shows), but it does not forbid the rights, opportunities, and social status to be equal in the mathematical sense.

EDIT: for example, look at how many people say things like "switch the genders" - they might not realize it, but "switch the genders" is an argument that relies on the substitution property to work.

[–]Queso_Gatame 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As I see it, there are two major questions here.

The first, as we've already seen, is the question of just what we want to make equal. Rights and social attitudes are plausible candidates here, though there are complications associated with both. (Example: It's easy to imagine situations in which two groups have the "same rights" in some abstract sense, but are treated in manifestly unfair ways.)

The second question is, once we have in hand a set of egalitarian ideals, what implications do these have for the world as it really exists? The answer really isn't obvious. Take the case of slurs. It might well be that, in an ideal world, there would be no words that are taboo for one group and not another. But that doesn't entail that white folks should start using the n-word -- this isn't an ideal world, and the ways in which it's non-ideal generate reasons for members of different groups to be treated differently in this regard.

[–]completely-ineffable2∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

(as the /r/badmathematics post shows)

It's really bold to link to an /r/badmathematics thread making fun of someone misapplying maths as support for that exact same misapplication of maths.

[–]Love_Shaq_Baby17∆ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (22子コメント)

What examples do you have of feminists not wanting equality? The Everyday Feminism article you link to is pretty aggressive, but it's based on real science, most notably Genderlect Theory, which is a communication theory that observes the differences in communication between men and women. The fact is that men do have a tendency to dominate public spaces. The article isn't criticism of a gender, it's criticism of a behavior for the purposes of promoting gender equality. This is an example of promoting gender equality rather than inequality.

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

What examples do you have of feminists not wanting equality?

Before I answer this question, I want you to clarify: mathematical or social equality? or a different kind of equality altogether?

[–]Love_Shaq_Baby17∆ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Mathematical

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Examples:

  1. Black people can say the n-word but white people are racist if they do - this fails the substitution property of equality.

  2. Black people can have dreadlocks but it's "cultural appropriation" if white people do - again, EQsubst failure.

  3. Women must be portrayed a certain way in media (not a damsel in distress, not as decoration, not as background, not a "mary sue"), but feminists don't seem to care about how men are portrayed - again, EQsubst failure.

[–]Love_Shaq_Baby17∆ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Your first two examples are social justice issues not feminist issues. I think the n-word is complicated and cultural appropriation is a mostly bullshit concept. Your third example is an example of mathematical equality. In upwards of 90% of fictional works men are the movers and shakers of the story lines. They're the heroes and villains while women are typically relegated to roles of damsel or love interest and even when women occupy main roles, they often operate as the token female. Feminists want women to be portrayed the same way that men are, as well rounded 3 dimensional characters. You might say that men also occupy background roles, but background roles will always exist in fiction and in most stories men occupy both main roles and background roles while women mostly occupy only background roles. If you don't believe me, look up the Bechdel test and see how many of your favorite works actually pass it.

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Your first two examples are social justice issues not feminist issues.

I was referring to intersectional feminism, where feminists focus on other social issues, such as racism.

Feminists want women to be portrayed the same way that men are, as well rounded 3 dimensional characters.

Men are portrayed in all kinds of roles - main roles, background roles, people needing to be rescued, etc. In a (mathematically) equal society, women will also get placed in those roles, but that is not what feminists want. Feminists do not want women portrayed as people needing rescue.

[–]Love_Shaq_Baby17∆ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well I am an actual feminist and not a strawman and I am telling you that feminists do want women in all of those roles. There's more focus on main roles because those are the roles women aren't being placed in. Feminists complain about the damsel in distress role not because women should never ever be in that role, but because every time that role exists, it's almost always women who are occupying it. It wouldn't be an issue if women were mathematically equal to men in fiction and were occupying a diverse array of roles. In the current situation however women are confined to a few roles and criticism of writers putting women in these roles is meant to encourage writers to use female characters diversely.

As for the n-word, this is also a case of mathematical equality. The reason why people don't like white people using the word nigger is because white people use the word differently than black people do. Black people often use nigger in a humanizing way. It can be a term of endearment or a term of personification. However white people like in the case of Paula Deen, often use the word in a dehumanizing way. So while the word is the same, the intent is different. It's why people are apprehensive about white people using it and why white people have to prove they're using it in a humanizing way. A white person can't just call a random black guy a nigger because the intent can easily be interpreted as dehumanizing, even if the intent was to be endearing. In a close group of friends a white person may be able to call their black friends niggers because they have built a friendship that proves that the white person does not intend to dehumanize. If white people used nigger in the same way black people did this problem wouldn't exist. There is a great bit from Donald Glover that explains this phenomenon

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

A white person can't just call a random black guy a nigger because the intent can easily be interpreted as dehumanizing, even if the intent was to be endearing.

This seems like an inequality here - White people and black people are viewed differently for doing the same thing. In the mathematical sense, that is inequality! but that's exactly what feminists want.

In a close group of friends a white person may be able to call their black friends niggers because they have built a friendship

This is considered to be wrong as well, even with friends, white people will be criticized for saying it to black people.

[–]shinodakitty [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To take this conversation into a more widely 'feminist' context, replace the n-word with 'slut'. At its core, it's a slur used against women who 'sleep around'. If I am around someone I don't know, I would take offense to them calling me or any woman a slut. If I knew them (or they seemed like a feminist), however, I would know that they know that it currently used in a derogatory sense and don't intend it that way. Read more about 're-appropriation' to better understand how it applies to terms groups can use within their groups but people outside that group cannot. In this sense, because the word is inherently derogatory towards a group, it is inappropriate to use that word until the negative connotation has been removed. Further, it is used to label women who have sex with multiple partners, but not men who sleep around. Until 'slut' and 'manslut' are interchangeable, it will be inherently sexist and generally not appropriate for men to call women that, even though feminism is about 'equality'.

tl;dr In order for a word to be used by ANYONE regardless of privilege, the word can't inherently show that privilege gap. e.g. the n-word is used to assert that black people were once seen as worth less than their white counterparts. Thus, non-black people using that word is offensive because it is showing power over another. The mathematical equality does not apply here, as both sides aren't equal to begin with.

[–]Love_Shaq_Baby17∆ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

They aren't doing the same thing though. As I said previously one group uses the word to humanize, the other uses it to dehumanize. Just like how the word "like" can mean different things depending on the context and who is saying it. I like you could be platonic or romantic and people will have very different reactions depending on the perceived meaning. That's just how language works.

It's only considered to be wrong by outsiders who haven't participated in the same social agreement. Not all opinions are equally valid.

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If a white person says the n-word to a black person in a way meant to be endearing, that can still be seen as racist. I believe that I have already said this.

[–]z3r0shade43∆ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

In a (mathematically) equal society, women will also get placed in those roles, but that is not what feminists want. Feminists do not want women portrayed as people needing rescue.

Not quite. In a (mathematically) equal (ideal) society, those who identify as feminists would have no problem with women being portrayed as needing rescue because women would also be portrayed as people doing the rescuing, and all other roles just as often as men are. The backlash to women being to be rescued is due to the current social context where that's the primary role female characters are relegated to. If the problem of the lack of variety in roles didn't exist, the backlash against that particular role for women wouldn't exist

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

In a (mathematically) equal (ideal) society, those who identify as feminists would have no problem with women being portrayed as needing rescue

In a mathematically equal society, yes, that would be true.

But I'm talking about the real world here, where equality is not achieved in both the mathematical and social sense.

[–]z3r0shade43∆ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You explicitly said you were talking about mathematical equality, and I explained how one of your base premises were incorrect. You are assuming that the "mathematically equal" position, given our current society, should be that feminists have no problem with women being given the same roles in media as men in any media, but that ignores the current social context

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "current social context". I am going by your post here : https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5kidx6/cmvto_say_that_feminists_want_equality_is_highly/dbp0hzf/?context=3

which made me very confused.

[–]z3r0shade43∆ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

All of these depend on which specific thing you are saying should be equal.

  1. Black people can say the n-word but white people are racist if they do - this fails the substitution property of equality.

Only if you are referring to "equality" in terms of the action of saying the n-word, rather than equality in terms of everyone being equal in not having racial slurs used against them in the context of our society. ie. It is equal and fair for white people to be rebuked for using the n-word but not black people because of the current societal context. Or mathematically: E=N(r) where N is saying the n-word and r is the race of the person speaking and E is the social effect. You're assuming that N(white) = N(black), but what people are saying is that those aren't equal due to variable C, social context and history.

So the mathematical equality is defined as !N(white) + C = N(black) + C not N(white = black)

The same issue exists in your other examples, you're assuming that mathematical equality means that the total effect should be equal solely based on being able to substitute the race, but you're ignoring the current societal context as a variable.

Another way to put this: P(x+c(x) = y+c(y)) is the equality, with predicate P, races x and y, and social context function c.

[–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is very confusing. Firstly, you have that "saying the n-word" is a function that takes races as the domain, what's the range of the function?

Then you have the line

!N(white) + C

So the range of the N-function can be added to social contexts, and can be negated. Now, !x (meaning not x) only makes sense if x is a boolean term, but you can't add boolean terms to social contexts.

[–]z3r0shade43∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Eh, sorry. I was using the '+' symbol as short hand for a boolean 'AND' operation. Though a more appropriate usage might be a union as social context is probably more accurately seen as a set. Ultimately the issue is that there's really no direct analogue between mathematical equations and social interaction. It's pretty much the limit of the metaphor and I figured I'd be able to get the metaphor across but you took it more literally than I expected haha.

Basically, the current social context needs to factor into the equality, but you are only looking at the raw base action and saying that if the action is the same, equality says that the result shouldn't depend on race instead of factoring the race in with the societal context of the actions

コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

    [–]yyzjertl15∆ 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (21子コメント)

    Feminists want equality. Formally, we can let W denote want, let x and y denote particular groups of people (e.g. genders), and say that feminists believe W(x = y).

    Feminists don't believe that society is currently equal. That is, feminists don't believe x = y.

    Saying that these claims violate the substitution property of equality would be inconsistent if feminists believed x = y. But, they don't: and wanting equality, W(x = y), doesn't satisfy the substitution property or extensionality. For example, I can want my bank account balance to be $1,000,000 and also want it to be $2,000,000, and that doesn't mean that I think $1,000,000 = $2,000,000 or that I want this to be the case. (Formally, we can write this as "W(x = y) and W(x = z) does not entail W(y = z)" — this shows that wanting equality doesn't even satisfy transitivity!)

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (20子コメント)

    Ok, suppose that the "feminist utopia" has been achieved, and feminists have finally succeeded in their goal to achieve equality. TO represent this, we add an axiom schema: let P be any sentence describing the state of the world: W(P) <-> P.

    In this ideal society, it's wrong for white people to say the n-word to black people, but it's OK the other way around. Treating women as disposable in video games will be seen as wrong, but it would be OK to treat men as disposable.

    Feminists do not want equality in the mathematical sense of the term - I do not believe feminists satisfy the formula W(x = y).

    EDIT: For example, look at this thread - there are a lot of things on this list that are fail the substitution property. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/tii9c/how_do_we_know_when_equality_has_been_achieved/c4nama7/

    For example: women are never told they're overemotional, but there is no equivalent for men.

    [–]Salanmander13∆ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    In this ideal society, it's wrong for white people to say the n-word to black people, but it's OK the other way around. Treating women as disposable in video games will be seen as wrong, but it would be OK to treat men as disposable.

    I'm not sure that either of those things is true in the ideal society. I feel like in the ideal society either the n-word would cease to be used (nobody says it to anyone) or it would have lost its negative association (anyone can say it to anyone). The reason for the current asymmetrical standards of behavior is a current asymmetrical situation.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    I would award a ∆ for this, because you have shown me how, in an ideal feminist society, there would be mathematical equality in the treatment of different races and genders for matters unrelated to such.

    The discussion is not over, though. I still feel that feminists are not advocating for mathematical equality, even if that's their end goal.

    [–]yyzjertl15∆ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    In this ideal society, it's wrong for white people to say the n-word to black people, but it's OK the other way around. Treating women as disposable in video games will be seen as wrong, but it would be OK to treat men as disposable.

    Why do you think this is the case? I would think that, in an equal society, no one would use the n-word, and it would be equally bad to treat people of different genders as disposable in videogames.

    Feminists do not want equality in the mathematical sense of the term - I do not believe feminists satisfy the formula W(x = y).

    Why not?

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Why do you think this is the case?

    Because there is no equivalent of Anita Sarkeesian, or the like, for men. Even though men have been treated as disposable in video games as well.

    Why not?

    I believe that I have listed out why in my post above.

    [–]yyzjertl15∆ 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Because there is no equivalent of Anita Sarkeesian, or the like, for men. Even though men have been treated as disposable in video games as well.

    What does Anita Sarkeesian have to do with what would be wrong to do in an ideal society? Our society is not ideal (not equal).

    Do you agree with the following statement: you can want different things for different genders (or other groups of people), while still wanting and working towards equality?

    Would you answer change if it was about mathematical equality? Do you think it's possible to want p(x), not p(y), and x = y (for some proposition p)?

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    What does Anita Sarkeesian have to do with what would be wrong to do in an ideal society?

    A lot. She is speaking about how things should be. In an ideal society, that's how things would be.

    She's saying a lot about what she wants - she's giving a lot of statements of the form W(x). In an ideal society, where the axiom schema W(x) <-> x holds, x would hold in an ideal society.

    you can want different things for different genders (or other groups of people), while still wanting and working towards equality?

    p(x), not p(y), and x = y?

    Mathematical equality? no. Social equality? yes.

    [–]yyzjertl15∆ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    A lot. She is speaking about how things should be. In an ideal society, that's how things would be. She's saying a lot about what she wants - she's giving a lot of statements of the form W(x). In an ideal society, where the axiom schema W(x) <-> x holds, x would hold in an ideal society.

    I think either your axiom schema is incorrect, or I don't understand it properly. Just because you say you want something, doesn't mean you think it should happen in an ideal society. For example, I could say I want the government to give free food to the poor. That doesn't mean that I think the government should give free food to the poor in an ideal society — because such a society wouldn't have "the poor" to give food to in the first place. Why doesn't this contradict your axiom?

    Mathematical equality? no. Social equality? yes.

    Consider the following example. Suppose that mathematicians are about to calculate, say, the billionth digit of pi. Suppose that I bet on the value of this digit (let's call it x), such that I will win $10 if x = 3. Suppose that I also bet on the value of the subsequent digit of pi (let's call it y), such that I will win $1 if y ≠ 3. Finally, suppose that I enter a third bet, where I win $20 if x = y.

    Would it not be fair to say that W(x = 3), W(y ≠ 3), and W(x = y)?

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Why doesn't this contradict your axiom?

    It doesn't. What you have there is "vacuous truth". There are no poor people, so every poor person receives free food from the government. There is no contradiction there.

    Would it not be fair to say that W(x = 3), W(y ≠ 3), and W(x = y)?

    What you want is x = y and (y = 3 if x = 3, y != 3 otherwise). If x is 3, then I don't know why you would ever want y != 3, unless you value $1 more than $20.

    [–]yyzjertl15∆ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    It doesn't. What you have there is "vacuous truth". There are no poor people, so every poor person receives free food from the government. There is no contradiction there.

    Suppose that I change my statement to "I want there to be a government bureaucracy, with budget at least $20B, dedicated to giving food to the poor"? Then the statement would not be vacuous, and it would contradict your axiom.

    What you want is x = y and (y = 3 if x = 3, y != 3 otherwise). If x is 3, then I don't know why you would ever want y != 3, unless you value $1 more than $20.

    This is a really strict conception of what it means to "want" something. Just because you say you want something, doesn't mean you want it in all possible scenarios. In particular, I don't think this is what feminists mean when they say they "want" equality, and if this is what you think it means to "want" something, then I understand why you don't think feminists want equality.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    it would contradict your axiom.

    how so?

    [–]sailorbrendan11∆ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    For example: women are never told they're overemotional, but there is no equivalent for men.

    Sure there was. There was the comment about boys not being told they're not allowed to cry.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Not allowed to cry is not the same as being told they're overemotional.

    I know they're similar, but similarity is not enough for mathematical equality. They must be exactly the same.

    [–]sailorbrendan11∆ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    They're about as equal as you're going to see in the social sciences.

    Expecting one to one comparisons doesn't work because we are facing different problems.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Expecting one to one comparisons doesn't work because we are facing different problems.

    That is more or less exactly my point. Mathematical equality seems to work, and thus people explore the ideas of feminism with mathematical equality in mind, but it doesn't work, and when they find out, there is misunderstandings and confusion, hence misleading.

    [–]Generic_On_Reddit35∆ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    But why would anyone want mathematical equality? How would it even work when mathematical equality doesn't take things like context or differing States and circumstances into account? It's not really realistic, thus not significant, in my opinion.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    In the example with sentencing above, when white people and black people are sentenced to different times for the same crime, that is inequality in both the mathematical and social sense. This shows that people do want mathematical equality.

    [–]Generic_On_Reddit35∆ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Perhaps my question should have been clearer, why do we want mathematical equality in all scenarios? Of course we'd want it in places where race shouldn't even be a factor in the equation, but as I said before, context does exist. Saying something to one race or gender is not the same as saying it to another. The equation will not be the same for every individual. Wanting equality in the eyes of systems, such as business, law, government, treatment, is what people want and different from universal mathematical equality, which has no way of determining context as far as I can see.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    why do we want mathematical equality in all scenarios?

    In all scenarios where race/gender is otherwise irrelevant, yes.

    Obviously I don't think it's possible to ignore biological differences between men and women.

    But there is no biological reason why a black person must be offended when a white person says the n-word to them, the reason is purely social.

    I would want mathematical equality to hold in this case.

    [–]sailorbrendan11∆ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't think anyone is actually arguing for mathematical equality because, well, that doesn't make a lot of sense

    [–]sguntun2∆ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    You're conflating two separate issues. The first issue is whether equality between men and women should be understood in terms of mathematical (numeric) identity or in other terms. And the answer is obviously that it should be understood in other terms. No one who says that men are equal to women means that the set of men is identical to the set of women, or that any one man is identical to any one woman. So what you're calling "mathematical equality" just doesn't come into play here. When we say that men and women are equal, we mean that they have (some of) the same qualities, not that they're the same things. Specifically, we probably mean that men and women have all the same qualities relevant to their moral status, or something like that. (Or maybe we mean to say that the property of being a man has all the same morally relevant qualities as the property of being a woman. We probably don't need to be that precise)

    The second issue is whether treating women differently than men in some ways--for instance, thinking it's okay to criticize men for dominating space, but not okay to criticize women or dominating space--is consistent with the sort of moral equality described above. The only reason you've given to think that this kind of differential treatment is inconsistent with equality is that it's inconsistent with what you call "mathematical equality." But as pointed out in the above paragraph, no one interprets the claim that men and women are equal as meaning that they're numerically identical. So we need some stronger reason to think that this kind of differential treatment is always inconsistent with the relevant kind of equality between men and women, and you haven't provided any such reason.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

    Specifically, we probably mean that men and women have all the same qualities relevant to their moral status

    Would you then say that men's moral status and women's moral status are equal? In the mathematical sense? so the substitution property holds?

    no one interprets the claim that men and women are equal as meaning that they're numerically identical.

    I don't see how this justifies treating men and women differently being called equality.

    "dominating space is wrong" seems like a statement related solely to one's moral status, and by the paragraph you just wrote, they are equal between men and women. Why do you think the substitution property cannot be applied here?

    [–]sguntun2∆ [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    Would you then say that men's moral status and women's moral status are equal?

    You'd have to provide some way of making our talk of moral status precise before I have any answer to this question.

    no one interprets the claim that men and women are equal as meaning that they're numerically identical.

    I don't see how this justifies treating men and women differently being called equality.

    I'm not trying to argue that equality (in the relevant sense) is consistent with treating men differently than women in some respects. I'm only trying to argue that you haven't provided any reason to think that equality (in the relevant sense) is inconsistent with such differential treatment. The only reason you provided was that differential treatment is inconsistent with numerical identity between men and women; but since no one who says that men and women are equal means that men are numerically identical to women, this reason fails.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    you haven't provided any reason to think that equality (in the relevant sense) is inconsistent with such differential treatment.

    The substitution property.

    I have not said anything about numerical identity, and I don't see how any of that stuff about numerical identity is relevant

    [–]sguntun2∆ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    I took it by "mathematical equality" you meant numerical identity. This is because you use the statement "2 + 3 = 5" as your example for mathematical equality, and (2 + 3) is numerically identical to 5; that is, the terms "2 + 3" and "5" refer to the very same object.

    The substitution property says that for any objects a and b and any expression F(x), if a = b, then Fa = Fb. In both cases these equal signs should be interpreted as expressing numerical identity. The substitution property says that if two things are numerically identical, then anything we can say about the one thing, we can say about the other thing. As soon as you stop talking about numerical identity, you've stopped talking about the substitution property.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    By "mathematical equality", I meant the relation symbol that is an equivalence relation and satisfies the substitution property.

    "numerical identity" is irrelevant, because equality exists in domains where numbers cannot be constructed.

    and I never said that men and women themselves are equal, but feminists want them to be treated equally - feminists seem to want men and women to be treated in ways such that the ways they are treated satisfy all of the properties listed on the wikipedia page, but NOPE! social equality is not mathematical equality! None of that stuff applies!

    That's why I consider it to be misleading.

    [–]sguntun2∆ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    By "mathematical equality", I meant the relation symbol that is an equivalence relation and satisfies the substitution property.

    Okay. Then obviously when feminists call men equal to women, they don't mean that in the sense of mathematical equality. This is because they recognize that (1) is true, even though (2) is false:

    (1) Men are men.
    (2) Women are men.

    If feminists meant that men were mathematically equal to women, they'd have to either accept both claims or deny both claims. It's clear that whatever feminists mean by calling men and women equal, that doesn't interfere with their accepting (1) but denying (2). So feminists don't mean that men are mathematically equal to women, and that's obvious from considering some simple cases. So you're incorrect to say that

    feminists seem to want men and women to be treated in ways such that the ways they are treated satisfy all of the properties listed on the wikipedia page [for "mathematical equality"].

    Feminists don't seem to want that, and there's no reason to think they do.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    I never said feminists believe that, I said feminists believe that the societal attitudes towards different genders and races should be equal in the social sense, although even in a mathematical sense, that would not require men to be women, because it's the social attitudes that should be equal, not men and women themselves.

    [–]ReeMotes3∆ [スコア非表示]  (31子コメント)

    You say:

    The axiom of extensionality forbids men and women to be equal in the mathematical sense

    However, this is not true. The axiom of extensionality merely states that the set of all men and the set of all women are not the same. Just like the set of all apples is not the same as the set of all oranges.

    I will give you a concrete example:

    Let A = {f(n) | f(n) = 2*(5+n)}

    Let B = {g(n) | g(n) = 2*n + 10}

    where n is a natural number.

    A and B are not equal because the definitions are not equal. However, they are extensionally equal because the two sets contain the same numbers.

    I am failing to see how you believe the axiom of extensionality is being violated, contradicted, or otherwise broken here in regards to the set of all men and the set of all women. The sets are simply not equal because they do not contain all the same members.

    There is nothing wrong with this, it's just common sense. Any two equally sized subsets of women will also not be the same because no two women are exactly the same.

    Next, you state that

    "switch the genders" is an argument that relies on the substitution property to work

    This is also false. You explicitly said in your OP that:

    I believe that people should be treated the same regardless of gender or race

    Which already shows you don't believe people are equal if their genders or races are different. Which again, is fine. But how does the substitution property apply here?

    Let's say we have a function F that maps some list of characteristics to a behaviour, action, or policy. In your example we can have:

    F((male, generalizing article)) = labelled not sexist

    F((female, generalizing article)) = labelled sexist

    You are saying this violates the substitution property, but how? The pair (male, generalizing article) != the pair (female, generalizing article) because, as I outlined above, you already conceded that men and women are not the same.

    The substitution property only says that F(a) = F(b) if a = b, which we don't have here.

    What this all boils down to is that you're attempting to imply feminists are acting on the principle that the set of all men is equal to the set of all women (which they aren't) and in doing so, are violating the substitution property.

    However, people that believe in equality do not consider that equality. People that believe in equality are attempting to do exactly as you said, disregarding gender and race and treating people the same after that. In other words,

    If z = (z1, z2, z3, ..., zi, ..., zn) is some list of characteristics where z1 = gender, z2 = race, z3 = sexual orientation, etc. up to zi for whatever characteristics you want to consider, then they want

    F(x) = F((x1, x2, x3, ..., xi, ..., xn)) = F((y1, y2, y3, ..., yi, ..., yn)) = F(y)

    if xj = yj for j = i+1, i+2, ..., n

    That is the equality people are talking about. Once any one of those characteristics is different the substitution property cannot apply because x != y.

    Your argument about whether

    F((male, generalizing article)) = labelled not sexist

    F((female, generalizing article)) = labelled sexist

    is equality or not is a completely separate point to the discussion about "mathematical equality" and "social equality."

    I believe this is the real issue you have with feminism and that's okay, but your entire argument is hinging on the belief that the "feminists" who hold this view are using "mathematical equality" incorrectly but you have not provided any examples where these feminists have declared that men and women are the same, that maleness and femaleness are the same. All the examples you provided show that men and women should be treated the same, not that they are the same. You are simply using mathematical concepts to argue against a few cherry-picked examples of "feminism" where it is not warranted.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (29子コメント)

    All the examples you provided show that men and women should be treated the same, not that they are the same.

    I never said that men and women are the same.

    Feminists do want them to be treated equally - the way that men and women are treated in an ideal feminist society would be equal, and thus the substitution property holds.

    [–]ReeMotes3∆ [スコア非表示]  (28子コメント)

    thus the substitution property holds

    How? You are not explaining how it holds, you are just saying that it does.

    The substitution property says that if a = b then F(a) = F(b), for some a and b and expression F. Here you seem to be arguing that a = b means men and women are the same. If that is not what you mean, then your argument against the substitution property not holding is invalid because you need a = b to use the substitution property.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (27子コメント)

    I'll start with a caveat that I'm only talking about situations where biological differences are inevitable. Feminists don't deny biological differences between men and women, but they still want social equality.

    Men and women should be treated equally in terms of the law and social attitudes. That's what feminists want.

    Obviously men and women are not the same, but feminists believe that they should be treated the same.

    The way society views men = the way society views women

    If men are payed $10/hr for a job, women should be paid $10/hr.

    The way society treats men = the way society treats women.

    That's the equality we have here, and that's how the substitution property holds.

    [–]ReeMotes3∆ [スコア非表示]  (26子コメント)

    Okay, so if a and b are the societal views of men and women, F is some treatment or behaviour, then you want

    F(a) = F(b) since a = b. Great! That makes sense. (Not that I agree that societal views of men and women will ever be the same because men and women are not the same. It will be viewed that they are equally valuable and capable regardless of gender, not that the views will be the same.)

    But as you said in your OP, the substitution property is being "violated all the time." You gave the example about an article generalizing men in a negative way. However, this directly contradicts your argument that it violates the substitution property because the views on the treatment of men and women are different (i.e., generalizing men is okay, but generalizing women is sexist) so the societal views of men != societal views of women. So, the substitution property does not apply. Equality is needed before the treatment for the substitution property to apply.

    You even explicitly state this in your other example:

    because racism/sexism is prejudice plus power

    Which implies that one group has power while the other doesn't. How can the societal views of these groups be the same if this is true?

    I understand the point you're trying to make. You're saying that certain feminists are espousing the view that men and women should be viewed as equal (in capability and value) and then turning around and treating them differently (such as the sexist article). This is a case of hypocrisy, not of a violation of the substitution property.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (25子コメント)

    so the societal views of men != societal views of women.

    Equality is needed before the treatment for the substitution property to apply.

    How can the societal views of these groups be the same if this is true?

    This is exactly my point - they're not equal, and feminists don't want them to be equal in the mathematical sense. This is exactly why they should stop calling it equality!

    [–]ReeMotes3∆ [スコア非表示]  (24子コメント)

    Except you're arguing against a strawman because that is not what feminists really want. See my first reply about F(x) = F(y).

    You are merely saying that is what feminists want, arguing they are doing something they aren't (viewing men and women as mathematically equal) and applying a mathematical concept that doesn't apply (the substitution property) to show they are wrong.

    The examples you gave are wrong, but not because of the reasons you state. Nor does your argument apply to feminism more generally, just the cherry-picked examples you gave.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (23子コメント)

    that is not what feminists really want.

    feminists don't want equality?

    arguing they are doing something they aren't (viewing men and women as mathematically equal)

    A large portion of my view is that they are explicitly not doing that.

    To quote from my post:

    feminists claim to be supportive of equality, give examples of inequalities like the ones above, creating an expectation of sorts that social equality is just like mathematical equality, and then reveals that social equality is nothing like that.

    hence, explicitly stating that feminists do not view men and women as mathematically equal.

    applying a mathematical concept that doesn't apply (the substitution property) to show they are wrong.

    We are talking about equality here. Why is it that the substitution property does not apply?

    [–]ReeMotes3∆ [スコア非表示]  (22子コメント)

    feminists don't want equality?

    They don't want equality as you have defined it. See the part of my reply about F(x) = F(y). That is equality.

    None of the examples you gave fit into that, because F(x) != F(y). i.e., labeling an article as sexist if it's about women, but labeling it as not sexist if it's about men. That is not equality, but you are saying this is what feminists want.

    We are talking about equality here. Why is it that the substitution property does not apply?

    Because you are not using it properly. The two objects (a and b) being compared before applying the treatment (F) must be equal (a = b) for the treatment to be applied equally (F(a) = F(b)).

    If feminists do not view men and women as mathematically equal, as you say, then the fact that they do not treat them the same is not a violation of the substitution property, because if a != b then F(a) doesn't have to equal F(b). The substitution property only applies if a = b first.

    [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (21子コメント)

    The two objects (a and b) being compared before applying the treatment (F) must be equal (a = b) for the treatment to be applied equally (F(a) = F(b)).

    is not a violation of the substitution property, because if a != b then F(a) doesn't have to equal F(b). The substitution property only applies if a = b first.

    This does not contradict my view, in fact, it supports it. The relation that feminists mean when they say "equality" does not satisfy the substitution property, hence it should not be called equality.

    The substitution property only applies if a = b first.

    a=b is what feminists (seem to) want, so we can speak about feminists wanting a=b, but not wanting P(a) = P(b), which is a violation of the substitution property.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]videoninja4∆ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      I've never seen anyone argue that mathematical equality be the standard of social equality.

      I think you are reading into the statistics differently than I would.

      Difference in wages among gender and different sentencing outcomes for black people when contextualized with how our society has functioned and the prejudices we acknowledge to exist in society show a problem. The problem isn't the statistics themselves, they are just symptomatic of the problem at large which is social attitudes.

      In your example you are saying you should treat everyone the same but that assumes you look at everyone the same. I don't know you so I don't know if that's inherently true of you but generally everyone makes assumptions and carry prejudices across almost societies.

      Social equality seeks to mitigate the negative effects of those prejudices. Most people I know acknowledge that we'll never truly get rid of prejudice as we'll always shift targets on what to say about whom but fostering understanding among individuals across all spectrums of life is the ultimate goal. We probably nowhere near that right now.

      [–]wecl0me124∆[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      I've never seen anyone argue that mathematical equality be the standard of social equality.

      so with the example of sentencing differences then, why would that be (social) inequality? You may not use the substitution property or any variant of it, because that does not apply to social equality.

      [–]videoninja4∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Right. I'm saying that equality in the social context takes on a different meaning than objective valuations in mathematics. So in the example of sentencing differences, it is a symptom of social inequality but not the whole of social inequality.

      With corroborating evidence that statistic gains meaning because it is not necessarily natural that black people are genetically pre-disposed to criminality. Rather it may be there are pernicious social attitudes that galvanize law enforcement to scrutinize black communities moreso than white communities. Consequently black communities are more harshly punished than white communities for similar crimes.

      That can be backed up with historical context, stratifying for other factors, observing social attitudes, etc.

      Mathematical equations don't take that kind of contextualization into account.

      So ultimately due to the limitations of language, equality has two different specific meanings in two different contexts but the definitions remain similar. Think of the words such a hypothesis and how that is used colloquially versus in scientific fields.

      [–]AutoModerator∞∆[M] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.

      Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

      I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.