~ archived since 2018 ~

#supportfemaleentrepreneurs

Skeleton_Warrior

March 29, 2020

19 upvotes

I actually saw this hashtag on the Instagram stories of an actress I follow on Instagram. Groaned the instant I saw it. Why support an entrepreneur or anyone else based on their gender? What does the person's gender have to do with their line of work? It really irritates me to no end to see this kind of blatant gender pandering. Why not also support male entrepreneurs, or is the person's genitalia more important? I have no problem supporting anybody if they're talented and want to enforce a good cause, but to support them based on gender is just wrong. I would never support anybody in their line of work based solely on gender.

I feel exactly the same way when I see similar things like "support female filmmakers" or last year when there was the all-female space walk. I've got nothing against women in any line of work, but why support or praise them based solely on gender? To me that only widens the divide and seperates people of both genders and heightens tension. It also creates more misogynistic men who get fed up and can fall into the Alt Right's ranks when falling for their propaganda.

Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	#supportfemaleentrepreneurs
Author	Skeleton_Warrior
Upvotes	19
Comments	81
Date	March 29, 2020 8:04 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/frc973/supportfemaleentrepreneurs/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/supportfemaleentrepreneurs.1063772 https://theredarchive.com/post/1063772

Comments

[–]mewacketergi 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dtyler86 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dtyler86 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dtyler86 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

As someone who's in the entrepreneurship space, and has watched my own success absolutely eclipse that of women who were smarter, worked harder, had more relevant skills - there is definitely still a "boy's club" culture to entrepreneurial networks. It's subtle, and it feels like my aggressive optimism being rewarded while women are considered "naive", or my own authoritative mode of speech being taken as reliable while women are considered "bossy", and many other examples.

If this were just once, I'd say it was luck, or me underestimating myself.

But it's not once - it's four, five, six times at this point just in my own experience, and innumerable times in the experience of other folks, and in the academic literature. Sexism to my benefit and women's detriment looks to be very much a real thing.

We're all rowing upstream, but it seems I keep getting a much larger push forward than the effort I actually put in, when compared to the women I work beside. I therefore have no issue with specifically supporting female entrepreneurs because they are being held back unfairly. Equality requires balance, and the balance of power and success is currently tipped away from them and towards me (and people like me).

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

No, I disagree. When we support "the best or most qualified" then we lock out those women who have already been held back (or equivalently have not received the same push forwards).

In the rowing upstream analogy, it is not sufficient to say "those who have rowed the furthest are the best and will receive support going forwards" when we know that women were given cracked oars.

Addressing societal problems by instating pure equality - by handing out decent oars to everyone and taking away /u/spudmix's outboard motor - does not respect the historical discrimination that has already shifted the balance. Equity is not achieved by pretending we are on a blank slate and ignoring the actual situation at hand.

If we were in fact on a blank slate, starting everyone at the same place with the same equipment, then perhaps equality would be a solution, but as it stands it is not.

[–]Strikester101 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Removal of negative discrimination and temporary positive discrimination to address the momentum of that previous negative discrimination, yes.

This is how it's already been done for decades.

It is unfair to those currently held back by negative discrimination to say "too bad you got fucked by the system, and your kids get fucked too because you have less to pass on". Positive discrimination is partially negative, yes; it's often actually worse for those who receive it. The net utility is positive, though, because the greater good at hand is a breaking down of societal stereotypes and a levelling of the playing fields on a large scale.

Systems which only remove negative discrimination do not correct the balance - only remove the undue pressure on one side - and are therefore ineffective.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skeleton_Warrior1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Juniper_Owl 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Juniper_Owl2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Juniper_Owl2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Juniper_Owl2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I haven‘t refused anything yet. If there is group based discrimination we can still identify it as such within the individual cases of discrimination. In my country there are guidelines in ensurance companies that guarantee that foreigners pay more for their car insurance. Potentially you just need to follow the trail of one person paying more than average to get this source of discrimination.

To ensure equality of opportunity we need to find and remove the discrimination. That must be the solution. Just adding a mechanism to balance existing discrimination does not lead to equality of opportunity. Getting hired because you are „privileged“ and getting hired because of „diversity“ are not the same opportunity even though it‘s impossible to distinguish them in the statistics.

Well if it doesn‘t come at the cost of anyone anywhere we should positively discriminate against everyone everywhere.

Thinking of it, the term being so vaguely defined, I‘ll pull a Peterson here and ask you „What do you mean with substantive equality“?

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By substantive equality of opportunity I mean that the average person under reasonable circumstances will experience de facto equality of opportunity. This stands in contrast to formal equality of opportunity, which limits its concerns to that of law and rules; to de jure equality of opportunity.

For example, in a town where men are strongly pressured away from teaching jobs by public ridicule, soft discrimination such as being passed over for promotions, and other such issues, but where there is no rule or law which prohibits men from becoming teachers, we would say that men receive formal but not substantive equality of opportunity.

I claim that the simple removal of negative discrimination is only sufficient to ensure formal equality of opportunity, and that formal equality is per se ethically desirable but in utilitarian terms is minor in comparison to substantive equality of opportunity.

By way of analogy, let's revisit my "rowing upstream" argument. If I, and people like me, have been given the best oars and newest boats, we will form a large statistical majority of those who succeed in rowing far upstream. If we then level the playing field by giving everyone the same oars and boats, we are left in a situation where myself and people like me have a huge head start, and momentum - we have trained on our oars without getting blisters or splinters, we have comfortable seats and dry feet - and those who are unlike me have wet, sodden feet, bruises and blisters and sprains, poor technique from fighting cracked and malformed oars, and they are already miles behind. A leveling of the playing field is insufficient to be fair to them. We require for true fairness to either restart the race (obviously not reasonable outside the analogy), or to offer positive discrimination to those left behind.

If you want to suggest a good way of identifying those individuals specifically then I'm all ears. We need those who have faced discrimination, or who's parents or grandparents faced discrimination and passed on the poor rowing technique ensured by their disadvantage, or who were refused a toy rowboat as a child, or who do not have as many onlookers on the banks cheering them on due to societal pressure against their identity, or.... you see where I'm going with this? I think an effort to address only individuals who we can prove have faced discrimination will fail due to excessive type 2 error - false negatives - and we are far better suited by a model which generalises on group identity.

[–]Juniper_Owl3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In a town where men are pressured away from teaching jobs, the problem is the pressure and not the representation. We should do social work to reduce the pressure and make sure the kids get the best teachers they can get no matter who got a head start. It would be weird to bring some kind of competition into this.

In your metaphor all people are tied up into identitarian boats where everyone has the same tools and level of success, and every boat and everyone in those boats heads toward the exact same goal and one can move forward in every way possible and its just „distance“. That doesnt do it for me. I mean its neat but its a simplification made to sell one idea.

Give Good equipment to all rowers. We need good, public education systems that leave little to no need for private schools. That solves like 50% of socioeconomic problems without any discrimination.

Inequality is unfair. But what is the point of Equality if it is even more unfair?

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Juniper_Owl3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, imagine a woman of color, let's call her Erica. Her parents were in dept as a consequence of discrimination, she wanted to become an astronaut but would get consistently worse grades than her peers just because of discrimination, because of those grades and some more discrimination she would not get into a university and she would only get an appartement in a part of her city where crime is high. She'd get sexually assaulted because of discrimination which has dire consequences on her relationships. She'd have a daughter at 35 that she loves dearly but because of a disfunctional marriage and the still ongoing discrimination her future looks just as dire as hers.

Okay, and poof, parallel reality time

Okay, imagine a woman of color, let's call her Ireca. Her parents were wealthy because in this reality discrimination never existed, she wanted to become an astronaut and because she set her mind to that she'd get consistently good grades. Because of those grades and some luck she would get into the MIT and become astronaut. She'd decite not to have a family because she wants to fully commit to this adventure. She'd have her first mission at 35 and marries a colleague at 36 who has the same outlook on the future as she does.

Okay, so now back to Erica. Poof, we remove discrimination. We need a system that erases all effects of discrimination from her life. First we need a machine that let's us see into parallel realities. Then we'd have to kill an innocent child in the name of equality, erase memories and rewrite her personality according to her alternative life. We would start a global "return to the original timeline"-plan including everyone. (without group distinction) We have to break our laws and moral code to animate the zombie of that alternate reality. Now I won't let you defend this. It's terrifying. Instead we can just dump a bunch of money on Erica. This "addresses" past discrimination but it's essentially reparations. This isn't substantive equality either. The marks of discrimination are still on her life. Now there is also the middle way of trying to "restore the original timeline within common sense as a way of compensation" which would mean putting her into an accelerated astronaut training camp while having the state take care of the daughter and then force Nasa to put her on a mission instead the poor white dude who'd have gotten that spot instead. This now has the problems of both solutions. It's still just the zombie of a parallel reality, where, despite having abolished discrimination we still need to discriminate against innocent people outside of the focus group. And then it's also not substantive equality. Having a lifetime free of discrimination is not the same as being a diversity hire just as it's not the same as a sack of gold. The past is the past. We cannot change history. We can't. We cannot address past discrimination in a constructive way. It's either causing new, institutionalized discrimination or just pays reparations in some sort that does not lead to equality of opportunity.

So no, I can't solve past discrimination. We can't change the past, we can learn from the past.

So instead, I'd just make sure that everyone can participate and use their potential in a meaningful way. A flexible and sophisticated education system where everyone can keep improving their abilities throughout their lives. A strong government supporting said system, high taxes. Very transparent, automated systems that support very transparent selection processes in hiring and education. An entire machinery to get the most out of everyone in society instead of getting everyone in society equal. And then de-coupling personal value from the capitalist elements in our system even more than it already is.

I do not have the exact solution for discrimination. When in doubt "Discrimination" is better than "Discrimination plus Institutionalized Discrimination".

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree that we cannot address past discrimination in a constructive way and I think your objection to accelerated astronaut training camp fails on the assumption that attempts must be as zero-sum as denying the rightful recipient their place in order to promote those previously discriminated against. Even if it is a zero-sum problem, then in your example, your poor white dude applicant would only have succeeded without reparations because the truly rightful applicant (Erica) was held back due to discrimination.

I therefore also do not agree that "welp you're fucked" is the best we can do for victims of past and present discrimination.

There is a further point to be made that even if your objections held - that we were, in fact, unfairly denying opportunities to the poor white dude and that those opportunities lost were of equal importance to him as the opportunities gained by Erica - that we still gain utilitarian value in the changing of societal perceptions about astronauts. It is not true that having all astronauts be white men is without consequence on public biases and perception. Representation matters, and so even if we only trade one discrimination for another of equal negative value (which you know I do not believe is the case) we are still gaining value in combating stereotypes.

[–]Juniper_Owl3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hmm, then I'd like to get an example where reparations are not a zero sum game. And what do you mean with "present discrimination"?

Yes, in Ireca's world the white dude has failed right at the application process of the university because they chose Ireca over him. Without discrimination the white dude has then started his own day care center for children, which, 10 years later, gives him a steady income.

Now, in Erica's world, group based reparations would leave him with nothing. In Erica's world discrimination has not just prevented Erica from becoming an astronaut, it has seeped into every aspect of their lives, meaning, Erica is not the best choice for the job because at the end she got a rushed education and did not lead a whole life dedicated to becoming an astronaut as Ireca did. The poor white dude on the other hand did lead that life. Even though, in Erica's world, he got into the university through discrimination, at the end of the road, he is the best choice for the job and he deserves to have the job because even though he is slightly less talented, he has invested a lifetime of training.

Another aspect of the whole thing is the technology involved in my example. In my example we could predict 100% what would happen without discrimination so we actually know how to restore justice on a case-to-case basis. Without that technology, Erica does not become an astronaut. Ruth does. But Ruth would never have become an astronaut, not even in Ireca's world. Without said technology, in most cases, we do not trade one discrimination for another, we just add another.

So if you can tell me, how we can do group based reparations without it being a zero sum game and can tell me how to make up for entire lifetimes that were changed by discrimination then I'd agree that group based reparations are a good idea and we should, as a society, immediately start pushing the development of the technology needed to see into that parallel reality.

Do you really want to add the "Representation matters" discussion to this? The positive effects of diversity are already an incentive for any company or institution. If you start add affirmative action the message changes from “Group A can do just as well than Group B” to “Group A can do just as well as Group B if somebody helps them” and representation loses a lot of its meaning. There are other ways to communicate confidence to younger generations.

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If the poor white dude banked his entire life on securing a single spot as an astronaut he's well to blame for everything falling apart when he doesn't get it. It's entirely unrealistic to suggest that someone with all the prerequisites to become an astronaut and who has benefited from discriminatory advantage as required by your analogy will lose out on life by not becoming an astronaut. Perhaps you want to choose a more mundane or realistic profession?

It seems that we both agree that a utilitarian approach should be taken to reparations, and only disagree on whether group membership is a worthwhile feature to consider when choosing how those reparations proceed. I'm happy to leave our disagreement there.

To your final paragraph, I disagree entirely that the representation loses meaning except to those who were likely to ignore or discredit it's value anyway. The child watching TV and seeing a team of astronauts with someone just like them on it is probably the most important audience to that representation, and isn't likely to be thinking "Erica only got that spot because of affirmative action".

===

Edit: I forgot to answer your question about the zero-sum game, sorry. Research suggests that those receiving affirmative action can gain significantly more than those who "miss out" lose from it. You'll have to excuse the maths and statistics-y language in there (I'm assuming you're not familiar - apologies if you are), but the relevant takeaway is that under certain parameters the outcomes of the group admitted to college benefit significantly more than those they take the place of would have - what they refer to as "efficiency" of admissions.

That paper also includes a neat quote which sums up my views well:

“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. [...] To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in – by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.” (Lyndon Johnson, 1965)

[–]Juniper_Owl3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spudmix1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That criticism exists does not mean we accept that criticism as convincing and the argument debunked.

I brought that up, as you don't seem aware that affirmative discrimination isn't seen as universally acceptable, or influential by academics as you suggest.

You never made an argument about equitable outcomes.

I'm not the one who wants to institute affirmative discrimination policies, so the burden of proof here is not on me.

I believe that formal equality of outcome is insufficient due to failing to address historical inequality, and therefore substantive equality of outcome is the next best option.

Are you familiar with the "Let's give it back Cherookees" argument for dealing with conquest ethics of the past?

If we're not bothered with both civility and respect then I'll probably just bow out.

Knock yourself out. I just wish you'd spent half as much energy on discussing ideas of the men's movement, as you did on trying to police my tone.

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal012 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YooGeOh 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is true but absolutely depends on the industry you're working in. Many industries sees women get that "push" where men will struggle. Others are devoid of women pretty much whereas others are devoid of men.

Implying that it is a very simple, basic, self evident truth that all self employed men have it easier than women purely on the basis that they are men is to show that you haven't really considered the nuance present in regards to profession, representation, etc etc.

In a global pandemic where every self employed person is taking a massive hit, I don't see how a female self employed people are the worst hit.

Male painter and decorators will be going out of business completely. There is no access to a patriarchy fund for men to tide them over, and as much as your point (I feel) will apply to them (a male painter and decorators will be taken more seriously at face value than a female one, this providing privilege), there are many other self employed women working in fields where the fact that they are women provides them an advantage.

It's just not a unilateral thing. Its lazy thinking to suggest that it is

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]YooGeOh 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link