[leereeves]

Why did it annoy you when I said that "Women can have anything they choose, and, in aggregate, they choose different things than men”?

Do you disagree with that factually, or were you annoyed because you don't like the choices people make?

Would you, if you could, change other people’s choices by changing social pressures to fit your agenda?

[pron]

> Do you disagree with that factually, or were you annoyed because you don't like the choices people make?

I don't disagree with that factually, but I strongly disagree with the implied sentiment that this is due to some law of nature, whereas research so far indicates that all human choices, and in particular "aggregate" or statistical choices made by groups are very, very strongly influenced by social pressure.

> Would you, if you could, change other people’s choices by changing social pressures to fit your agenda?

Thing is, research shows that any choice is made under external influences, they shift constantly, and so far those influences result in a very skewed balance of power. The thing we feminists care about is this distribution of power. Our agenda is to reduce the strong social pressures that actively maintain power inequality so that they maintain it less strongly. Opposing this agenda means you're in favor of keeping the social pressures as they are, i.e. continuing the ongoing practice of actively maintaining inequality.

[leereeves]

> all human choices, and in particular "aggregate" or statistical choices made by groups are very, very strongly influenced by social pressure

Influenced, perhaps, yet recent history is full of people defying immense social pressure and even the law in order to do things they want to do. Subtle social pressure is clearly not the only, nor the strongest, influence.

> The thing we feminists care about is this distribution of power.

And so you try to influence other people, and in particular other women, to do what you want them to do.

That’s certainly common enough in both business and politics.

But it is advertising. Not science, not especially noble, nor a moral imperative.

> Opposing this agenda means you're in favor of keeping the social pressures as they are, i.e. continuing the ongoing practice of actively maintaining inequality.

No, I’m in favor of allowing, and helping, all people to do what they want to do (as long as it doesn’t harm others). I’m against controlling people to advance any agenda.

[pron]

> And so you try to influence other people, and in particular other women, to do what you want them to do.

No, we try to influence you so that you wouldn't influence women to do what you want them to do, even though you may be doing this subconsciously.

> Not science

The science part is that we've uncovered the current influences, their origin, their development and their mechanisms and they turn out to be quite onerous.

> No, I’m in favor of allowing, and helping, all people to do what they want to do (as long as it doesn’t harm others). I’m against controlling people to advance any agenda.

So are we! Except, we are interested in how the world actually works, so we've spent a very long time studying it, and it turns out that society is not allowing (and certainly not helping) people do what they want to do, partly by making them want things that they wouldn't otherwise want. So we actually want the same thing, but we know more about the world than you do, hence our course of action to achieving that goal is radically different.

At this point, however, it is clear to me that there is no difference in values between us, but what separates us is a vast knowledge gap (I spent some years in graduate school studying certain aspects of this issue). I only hope that, one day, if you are truly sincere about your professed ideology, you will care about it enough and be blessed by intellectual curiosity to stop and ask yourself, "a lot of educated people who have spent years studying human society are saying that we are actively limiting women's choices (perhaps subconsciously) in a way that reduces their power; could they possibly be right?" and then you’d Google for it, read an article or two, and realize that you have been very, very wrong.

I’ll end with this Rebecca West quote: "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

[leereeves]

> "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

There's a vast difference in values between us. I'm happy to let you do anything you want to do - even try to convince others that they should do what you want.

You accuse people who don't agree with you of being uneducated automatons who want women to be doormats.

[pron]

> I'm happy to let you do anything you want to do

But the fact is that society really doesn't. So you're happy to let anyone do whatever they want only as long as it doesn't require society to change... And you'll go to great lengths not to learn the facts that would show you you're wrong just so that you could keep things the same.

> You accuse people

I don't accuse anyone of anything. I am stating the obvious fact that anyone who denies that society is actively limiting women's choices is simply ignorant of what we know on the subject. Just like anyone who thinks electrons couldn't possibly behave so strangely is simply uneducated of the facts. Not an automaton, just unfamiliar with the findings. It's not an accusation, either, but a simple statement of fact.

[mark_integerdsv]

Just chiming in here, but it seems that your version of the feminist agenda puts little or no responsibility on women to actually choose.

It's all everyone else's fault.

Life isn't easy and difficult choices are a part of growing up, but, going against the grain brings with it a certain exhilaration. There is satisfaction and growth in proving ones worth for ones self.

I'm not saying it's fair but then again, fairness is pretty rare and that is a truth that touches everyone.

[leereeves]

> a simple statement of fact

But it's not. It's an (incorrect) assumption.

I have, in fact, read the research you're talking about. I'm familiar with the ideas you're advocating.

There's some truth to it. And a lot of problems. And a lot of research that invalidates your conclusions.

But there's an agenda at work, driving people who don't fall in line with that agenda out of academia. And having some familiarity with the ways "science" can be manipulated to suit an agenda, I'm not blinded or silenced when you say "research".

In the physical sciences, if research doesn't agree with theory, the theory is updated.

In the social "sciences", if research doesn't agree with theory, the researcher is discredited and the research ignored.