Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
The only part of your statement that I deny is the charge of misogyny. I would agree that it's sexist (it's clearly prejudicial based on gender) and I would even consent that it's harmful in at least some elements of its application.
But I just find that the misogyny accusation to be mostly empty. I view it similarly to those who are quick to raise the "racist" label is used by some in order to attempt to shout down disagreement. The repetition of the term does not count as either evidence or an argument.
How interesting. I noted before how, despite repeated queries, all the "wiggling and hoop jumping you will go through to avoid giving even the slightest form of condemnation of [the] policy". It was something that you "think it's something that's neither here nor there, that you defend not having an opinion on. Yet here Original Position comes in and immediately you are coming out agreeing the policy is harmful.
The line of defence that you have uttered and Lemonzest tacitly endorsed - that organizations
can do things and you don't care to comment on whether those things are good - is one I find to be entirely empty. There is nothing about it being an organization that prevents one from criticizing strongly its policies. But I doubt you would even consistently apply such a defence.
Imagine that instead the church restrict black people from positions of authority. When asked your view on this policy would your only utterance be "These are organizational decisions that are left to individual organizations to determine"? Imagine that instead it is a government, say the Canadian government that prevents women and/or blacks from being elected. From voting. From owning land. Are these just organizational decisions that are left to individual organizations to determine? Imagine it is Apple, that as matter of policy no woman or black person is allowed to work at Apple (and all the nondiscrimination laws didn't exist that would prevent this policy). Since we don't have any western examples outside of religion of women being restricted from positions of authority (you failed to come up with a single example despite claiming many, many examples existed), we can take the policy of women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, for all of these, you can appeal to some libertarian principle that people can organize themselves as they wish. But regardless of that idea, one can still nonetheless step in and condemn things and say no, it is wrong to restrict women from political office, and so forth down the list of examples.
Now to this bit about misogyny. You seem to have forgotten that not only did I not use the term as an argument or evidence, but I explicitly denied that I was doing this. I explained that I thought the term was the appropriate label, but that if you wanted to get all semantic about the appropriateness of the label, it was the underlying concept that I was opposing. If you don't want to call this clearly sexist and harmful policy misogynistic, well fine, but I object because of the harm it causes not because I happen to label that harm misogynistic. For both of the two terms (anachronistic being the other) we have seen how your objection to its use was an objection to something I simply wasn't doing.