The questions you asked show a misunderstanding of the post, for instance the OP does not claim safety and respect are always in conflict.
So, in this case it’s kind of on you to be more concrete about what in the post you disagree with, or why the counter arguments which are already in the post do not sufficiently address your criticisms.
That is, men are more willing than women to trade off safety to earn respect and women are more willing than men to trade off respect to increase safety.
This quote in the post shows the implication. There were frankly also a lot of things to point out, but I should and will post a longer reply to the OP.
No it does not. There can be tradeoffs between things that are not inherently contradictory. For instance, houses and cars are not contradictory, but some people can only afford a house or can only afford a car, and therefore must choose, while others can afford both.
In the context of limited resources, they are contradictory with that resource. Usually only with limited resource, you need a preference/prioritization, or a need to point out that preference/prioritization, and differences between prioritizations (in this case women vs men).
Yeah, and what my point is, these two are not able to be prioritized, for the reason (roughly) “they usually are not or can not be constrained by the same resources/not in the same resource pool”
Here is the answer that I replied in DM since I wasn’t able to post, and the full history of conversation in DM upon Cole’s consent, for audience of this post and comments. @Gordon Seidoh Worley I just saw your reply too! Will reply to yours once I got a second as well; but some of the answers could also be found below. The first part is immediate response to this example Cole provided.
Seems I cannot post the reply in 20hours, but here is the reply, and I will post it to the comment in 20h.
It is fine if you disagree. I have three criticisms to the example. First I do not consider this as “respect” seeking, but “validation”/winning seeking. (See my long reply for the difference). I also don’t consider this as safety but that gets more involved into physical vs mental. Second, with the definition of winning/validation, this seems to be an out of context example with this post with weak general connection to general life. The context for this is a fighting game. Participation of the game signals a prior willing to take risks.
I think you’re mainly trying to dispute the way that the word respect is used. Yes, a basic level of respect is somewhat more about boundaries, and I would even say that at this level it is pretty closely connected to safety because it implies something like moral or legal or just agreed upon basic rights. But it seems to me that there can be greater or lesser degrees of respect, and the greater degrees look a lot like admiration / reputation for competence. Also, my reading of the post is that it is this higher degree of respect which the OP intended to talk about—or rather, the entire axis, including this higher degree. I’m not very interested in further debating the word choice.
And no, I don’t think the MMA example is too special. You could also consider mountain climbing or for many people military service. Really, any profession or pursuit that puts the self at significant physical risk (or for that matter, intense mental strain) seems to be disproportionately chosen among men. The major exception is probably pregnancy / childbirth, which is interesting (maybe that’s risk enough for many women!) but obviously this is also a risk that men cannot choose to take.
There are many cases like this. There is also “want” that I want to dispute for definition. A lot of things people ends up, or not what they “want” generally. The environmental factor, either explicitly or even implicitly, restricts on if people can get what they want.
I’m sorry, but I frankly can’t take seriously your assertion that women would be equally keen to enroll in the military if allowed. That is very clearly untrue—which is why, as far as I’m aware, there has never been any society in history with an equal number of men and women in the military. It seems very hard to believe that every society has conspired to prevent women from entering armed service. Can you produce any examples of nations which allowed women to serve, and then actually saw women enroll at similar rates to men?
Society need to adopt to the restrictions that was historically put on women, both explicit laws and discrimination/stereotypes.
Additionally, your comments does not address the want vs consequence part. Similarly, there are less female CEOs, or has less pay, but not bc they do not want to.
The idea that all of these differences are because of societal restrictions is just an assertion you are making. You attribute every difference across genders to “society.” Why do these differences then persist across all societies, across all times? That seems to beg for an explanation, and without providing one, you are only speculating, and perhaps choosing the explanation that seems most ideal to you.
Concretely, it also seems very unlikely in the case of Everest. Women (from, say, America) have about the same ability to climb (or at least, to attempt) Everest as men do, but we see much lower numbers. If this isn’t convincing to you, feel free to look into the number of attempts by sex (do you want to bet which way it will come out? I think we both already have the same guess). So there is no restriction here, but women still chose the dangerous activity less often. Do you really believe that somehow, the restrictions that were once placed on women 100 years ago are still preventing them from climbing Everest because they haven’t “adapted?” This does not seem to make any sense to me; I do not believe that.
But, even if we were to accept for a moment that women take less risks because they haven’t “adapted” to restrictions being removed—fine, that means they choose to take less risks, so the OP’s point stands. You’re simply asserting a different (and in my opinion, much less plausible) explanation.
You could look up history in examples countries to see why it persists at all times, and maybe some news.
There are less free will, and more influence from environment, and maybe some psychology books help. Women, and all people want power, and are risk taking if their env allow them to, and when the env does not, and are stereotype enforcing, that’s when people are frustrated, have protests, and push for legal reforms.
It is probably a few history/sociology sciences class as evidence, and also anecdotes that I am not comfortable sharing yet (sorry; and anecdotes to me creates more empathy than statistical evidence anyways, and may be biased which started the mess in the first place, though might be good counter examples to balance things out). I welcome you to study more of these in the future.
Finally, as I mentioned yesterday, I would be posting my reply in this dm to your comment yesterday—are you comfortable with me posting our entire history including your turns as well (I wrote this on my page but I reached out first in dm)? If not I will remove your turns in this DM and only post mine.
The questions you asked show a misunderstanding of the post, for instance the OP does not claim safety and respect are always in conflict.
So, in this case it’s kind of on you to be more concrete about what in the post you disagree with, or why the counter arguments which are already in the post do not sufficiently address your criticisms.
This quote in the post shows the implication. There were frankly also a lot of things to point out, but I should and will post a longer reply to the OP.
No it does not. There can be tradeoffs between things that are not inherently contradictory. For instance, houses and cars are not contradictory, but some people can only afford a house or can only afford a car, and therefore must choose, while others can afford both.
In the context of limited resources, they are contradictory with that resource. Usually only with limited resource, you need a preference/prioritization, or a need to point out that preference/prioritization, and differences between prioritizations (in this case women vs men).
I feel like that is what this post is doing, but in fairness it is rather implicit.
Yeah, and what my point is, these two are not able to be prioritized, for the reason (roughly) “they usually are not or can not be constrained by the same resources/not in the same resource pool”
I don’t agree with that at all.
There are many ways to seek respect that compromise your safety, for instance fighting in the UFC.
Here is the answer that I replied in DM since I wasn’t able to post, and the full history of conversation in DM upon Cole’s consent, for audience of this post and comments. @Gordon Seidoh Worley I just saw your reply too! Will reply to yours once I got a second as well; but some of the answers could also be found below. The first part is immediate response to this example Cole provided.
Seems I cannot post the reply in 20hours, but here is the reply, and I will post it to the comment in 20h.
It is fine if you disagree.
I have three criticisms to the example.
First I do not consider this as “respect” seeking, but “validation”/winning seeking. (See my long reply for the difference). I also don’t consider this as safety but that gets more involved into physical vs mental.
Second, with the definition of winning/validation, this seems to be an out of context example with this post with weak general connection to general life. The context for this is a fighting game. Participation of the game signals a prior willing to take risks.
ZY 19h
Two criticisms* (grouped one of them together)
Cole Wyeth 18h
I think you’re mainly trying to dispute the way that the word respect is used. Yes, a basic level of respect is somewhat more about boundaries, and I would even say that at this level it is pretty closely connected to safety because it implies something like moral or legal or just agreed upon basic rights. But it seems to me that there can be greater or lesser degrees of respect, and the greater degrees look a lot like admiration / reputation for competence. Also, my reading of the post is that it is this higher degree of respect which the OP intended to talk about—or rather, the entire axis, including this higher degree. I’m not very interested in further debating the word choice.
And no, I don’t think the MMA example is too special. You could also consider mountain climbing or for many people military service. Really, any profession or pursuit that puts the self at significant physical risk (or for that matter, intense mental strain) seems to be disproportionately chosen among men. The major exception is probably pregnancy / childbirth, which is interesting (maybe that’s risk enough for many women!) but obviously this is also a risk that men cannot choose to take.
ZY 18h
I don’t see mountain climbing being disproportionally “chosen” by men. Nor military service. West Point only starting to even admit women since 1970s, not bc of ability or lack of demand, but more for discrimination, either policy wise or mentally enforced. https://warontherocks.com/2020/11/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-the-u-s-military/
There are many cases like this.
There is also “want” that I want to dispute for definition. A lot of things people ends up, or not what they “want” generally. The environmental factor, either explicitly or even implicitly, restricts on if people can get what they want.
Cole Wyeth 18h
I’m sorry, but I frankly can’t take seriously your assertion that women would be equally keen to enroll in the military if allowed. That is very clearly untrue—which is why, as far as I’m aware, there has never been any society in history with an equal number of men and women in the military. It seems very hard to believe that every society has conspired to prevent women from entering armed service. Can you produce any examples of nations which allowed women to serve, and then actually saw women enroll at similar rates to men?
Cole Wyeth 17h
As for mountain climbing, see this list of people who have climbed Everest multiple times for a basic sanity check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mount_Everest_summiters_by_frequency
Cole Wyeth 17h
As you can see, the vast majority are men.
ZY 17h
Society need to adopt to the restrictions that was historically put on women, both explicit laws and discrimination/stereotypes.
Additionally, your comments does not address the want vs consequence part. Similarly, there are less female CEOs, or has less pay, but not bc they do not want to.
Cole Wyeth 6h
The idea that all of these differences are because of societal restrictions is just an assertion you are making. You attribute every difference across genders to “society.” Why do these differences then persist across all societies, across all times? That seems to beg for an explanation, and without providing one, you are only speculating, and perhaps choosing the explanation that seems most ideal to you.
Concretely, it also seems very unlikely in the case of Everest. Women (from, say, America) have about the same ability to climb (or at least, to attempt) Everest as men do, but we see much lower numbers. If this isn’t convincing to you, feel free to look into the number of attempts by sex (do you want to bet which way it will come out? I think we both already have the same guess). So there is no restriction here, but women still chose the dangerous activity less often. Do you really believe that somehow, the restrictions that were once placed on women 100 years ago are still preventing them from climbing Everest because they haven’t “adapted?” This does not seem to make any sense to me; I do not believe that.
But, even if we were to accept for a moment that women take less risks because they haven’t “adapted” to restrictions being removed—fine, that means they choose to take less risks, so the OP’s point stands. You’re simply asserting a different (and in my opinion, much less plausible) explanation.
ZY 5h
You could look up history in examples countries to see why it persists at all times, and maybe some news.
There are less free will, and more influence from environment, and maybe some psychology books help. Women, and all people want power, and are risk taking if their env allow them to, and when the env does not, and are stereotype enforcing, that’s when people are frustrated, have protests, and push for legal reforms.
ZY 5h
And by power I don’t mean power an abusive way, but to win, to take risks, and to achieve more, and to influence
Cole Wyeth 2h
You’re just saying things without any supporting evidence or arguments.
I’m not going to continue this conversation.
ZY 1h
It is probably a few history/sociology sciences class as evidence, and also anecdotes that I am not comfortable sharing yet (sorry; and anecdotes to me creates more empathy than statistical evidence anyways, and may be biased which started the mess in the first place, though might be good counter examples to balance things out). I welcome you to study more of these in the future.
For Everest: https://www.markhorrell.com/blog/2020/10-facts-about-everest-success-and-death-rates-based-on-scientific-data/ here are a lot of interesting facts; and I would also encourage you to read if you are interested. “Success”, “respect”, and “risk-taking” are all different words, and consequence does not imply intention.
Finally, as I mentioned yesterday, I would be posting my reply in this dm to your comment yesterday—are you comfortable with me posting our entire history including your turns as well (I wrote this on my page but I reached out first in dm)? If not I will remove your turns in this DM and only post mine.
Cole Wyeth 20m
Sure, you can copy paste everything, but regardless I am not going to engage on this topic further.
ZY 1m
Yeah, I understand; this is for audience of the comments/post.