• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Female Bassist Threads

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because there often seems to be no context or relevance to a poster announcing the gender of a band mate, I’ve never known how to interpret it outside of being perhaps some weird point of pride, as if there’s some hidden social scale brownie points one earns by proclaiming their participation in a mixed gender band. When I talk about my BL/vocalist/guitarist, I don’t say female BL/vocalist/guitarist. Why would I? Why would anyone?

i can't exactly answer that unless sometimes having a sexy singer is a draw.

but years ago i was part of the formation of a hard punk/alt band. a few months in, the drummer announced it was the only time he had been in a "chick band", but that it wasn't as bad as he'd expected. apparently two or three men can't define a band as much as one woman can make a band a chick band to some people.

so maybe there's some of that in why they announce band mate gender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petrus61
Female bass player? I am thinking of Carol Kaye.
She's an extraordinary musician (understatement) and she's done a lot to educate the bass playing community. Her books, video and classes will have a lasting footprint. She kind of reminds me of my own mother (in a good way), she calls it as she sees it, politically correct or not.
I hope she continues to inspire many generations of female and male bass players.



I think of Carol Kaye as bass player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LBS-bass and pcake
this thread brought back a memory for me. years ago, in the mid-'90s, i was buying my first bass combo. it was the first time i went into carvin (guess sending me years of catalogs paid off), and i went in, picked up a 100 watt combo, decided it was a decent weight. i didn't even try it. a sales guy came over (i still remember his name was mike). he said it was cool that i was there, and where was the guy i was buying the combo for. he really really asked me that! i guess he hadn't heard of carol kaye.

the next day, i came back with cash and told the manager (who became a friend) about that, telling him i wouldn't buy the combo from mike and didn't want him to get the commission. the manager was very nice about it, and he also told me the guy had been fired the day before, right after i had come in. apparently he had some other personality features that had offended other customers, as well.



ageism is a big deal for me, these days. when my elderly mother was in her last days, people would talk to her like she was a cute child instead of an experienced adult. i find that is often pointed at me IF i haven't dyed my hair recently or am wearing it off my face, as i look older that way. and how invisible i've become as a person unless my clothes seem too young to someone, and then they seem sort of offended.

have we made progress? well, sort of, soft of not. when i was a kid, unless you were poor it was very rare that wives worked at all - a working wife was a sign that the husband couldn't support his family well. now women can work in all sorts of professions beside teacher, waiter and nurse, and that's a good thing.

as far as wearing her own eyelashes, remember in the '60s even thing women wore girdles. many moms i knew wore makeup at home - god forbid a woman wasn't glamourous while she vaccuumed and washed the dishes. my mom never wore girdles or makeup, and my parents raised me to truly believe i could do anything - they raised me with the singing science records, read my sister and i a chapter of a book before bed every night, and let us read comic books.

when i was 6, i wanted a toy machine gun (who knows why?), and my mom and dad bought me one. at the store, the sales woman asked how old the boy was it was for, and when hearing it was for a girl, made a big push to make them buy me a doll (i hated dolls, btw). she was, i was told, even less happy when my folks bought me a science kit. the best gift i ever received in my life was the same year - it was a ventriloquist dummy. i had wanted it all year, more possibly than i've ever wanted anything, and instead of buying me toy cookware or a doll, my parents came through. i even got it early so i could enjoy it through vacation. every other girl i knew got dolls and accessories, toy cookware and like that. then they practiced being a wife and mother all year round. i got to sing in shows at school and practice to be a scientist, ventriloguist and whatever i wanted.

btw, i've spent years varying my wardrobe to suit myself. i've worn micro minis, men's work clothes, tiny bikinis, baggy jeans and oversized tees, babydoll dresses and baggy cargo shorts with hoodies. okay, no bikinis at my age, because i don't want to see me in them, but when i was younger, i felt like every day could mean a new costume party. i still feel that way sometimes. btw, when all the girls i knew dressed as princesses for halloween, i got a better (scarier) skeleton costume every year :)





i was born in '57, but the reason i graciously (smile and thanks) let men open doors for me is that in many cases, they seem to mean well. some women in their 20s and 30s i know choose to take it as a mortal insult. "does he think i can't open my own doors?" well, of course he knows you can open your own doors - he's being polite. i give points for anyone of any age or gender who's truly being polite.

and i understand why some people adopt a siege mentality - being a woman for almost 62 years has been hard, and has often been traumatic in the most literal sense - but i wish people would would calm down. take a minute to see if they know the intent behind the action or comment. every one of us is a product of our environment, so we aren't all coming from the same place. a guy who opens a door for you probably isn't sending a message that he thinks you're an incapable princess, and since we can't read minds, even if he was thinking that, it's not like i would ever know it.

i try to take people at face value. lots of people who aren't up to current standards mean no harm. i think that meaning no harm is an important thing - in fact, i suspect it's one of the most important things. if someone is offensive, mostly i just go away, although i have been known to reply, but never around my son or husband, as some rude and more aggressive men in my experience will then try and pick a physical fight with whatever male i'm with.
this thread brought back a memory for me. years ago, in the mid-'90s, i was buying my first bass combo. it was the first time i went into carvin (guess sending me years of catalogs paid off), and i went in, picked up a 100 watt combo, decided it was a decent weight. i didn't even try it. a sales guy came over (i still remember his name was mike). he said it was cool that i was there, and where was the guy i was buying the combo for. he really really asked me that! i guess he hadn't heard of carol kaye.

the next day, i came back with cash and told the manager (who became a friend) about that, telling him i wouldn't buy the combo from mike and didn't want him to get the commission. the manager was very nice about it, and he also told me the guy had been fired the day before, right after i had come in. apparently he had some other personality features that had offended other customers, as well.



ageism is a big deal for me, these days. when my elderly mother was in her last days, people would talk to her like she was a cute child instead of an experienced adult. i find that is often pointed at me IF i haven't dyed my hair recently or am wearing it off my face, as i look older that way. and how invisible i've become as a person unless my clothes seem too young to someone, and then they seem sort of offended.

have we made progress? well, sort of, soft of not. when i was a kid, unless you were poor it was very rare that wives worked at all - a working wife was a sign that the husband couldn't support his family well. now women can work in all sorts of professions beside teacher, waiter and nurse, and that's a good thing.

as far as wearing her own eyelashes, remember in the '60s even thing women wore girdles. many moms i knew wore makeup at home - god forbid a woman wasn't glamourous while she vaccuumed and washed the dishes. my mom never wore girdles or makeup, and my parents raised me to truly believe i could do anything - they raised me with the singing science records, read my sister and i a chapter of a book before bed every night, and let us read comic books.

when i was 6, i wanted a toy machine gun (who knows why?), and my mom and dad bought me one. at the store, the sales woman asked how old the boy was it was for, and when hearing it was for a girl, made a big push to make them buy me a doll (i hated dolls, btw). she was, i was told, even less happy when my folks bought me a science kit. the best gift i ever received in my life was the same year - it was a ventriloquist dummy. i had wanted it all year, more possibly than i've ever wanted anything, and instead of buying me toy cookware or a doll, my parents came through. i even got it early so i could enjoy it through vacation. every other girl i knew got dolls and accessories, toy cookware and like that. then they practiced being a wife and mother all year round. i got to sing in shows at school and practice to be a scientist, ventriloguist and whatever i wanted.

btw, i've spent years varying my wardrobe to suit myself. i've worn micro minis, men's work clothes, tiny bikinis, baggy jeans and oversized tees, babydoll dresses and baggy cargo shorts with hoodies. okay, no bikinis at my age, because i don't want to see me in them, but when i was younger, i felt like every day could mean a new costume party. i still feel that way sometimes. btw, when all the girls i knew dressed as princesses for halloween, i got a better (scarier) skeleton costume every year :)





i was born in '57, but the reason i graciously (smile and thanks) let men open doors for me is that in many cases, they seem to mean well. some women in their 20s and 30s i know choose to take it as a mortal insult. "does he think i can't open my own doors?" well, of course he knows you can open your own doors - he's being polite. i give points for anyone of any age or gender who's truly being polite.

and i understand why some people adopt a siege mentality - being a woman for almost 62 years has been hard, and has often been traumatic in the most literal sense - but i wish people would would calm down. take a minute to see if they know the intent behind the action or comment. every one of us is a product of our environment, so we aren't all coming from the same place. a guy who opens a door for you probably isn't sending a message that he thinks you're an incapable princess, and since we can't read minds, even if he was thinking that, it's not like i would ever know it.

i try to take people at face value. lots of people who aren't up to current standards mean no harm. i think that meaning no harm is an important thing - in fact, i suspect it's one of the most important things. if someone is offensive, mostly i just go away, although i have been known to reply, but never around my son or husband, as some rude and more aggressive men in my experience will then try and pick a physical fight with whatever male i'm with.



I'm just tired.

Tired, because apparently I didn't receive the latest memo on what is politically correct as opposed to me just being polite.

I've had my *ss handed to me by a library volunteer because I didn't respond with the proper pronoun that is for their gender, apparently there are a lot more genders than I ever realized and they all have a specific pronoun. I was informed of this.

I barely remember the 70 plus prepositions and now there are 130 new words?

I'm tired!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just tired.

Tired, because apparently I didn't receive the latest memo on what is politically correct as opposed to me just being polite.

I've had my *ss handed to me by a library volunteer because I didn't respond with the proper pronoun that is for their gender, apparently there are a lot more genders than I ever realized and they all have a specific pronoun. I was informed of this.

I barely remember the 70 plus prepositions and now there are 130 new words?

I'm thinking that most old people aren't deaf, or out of it, they just don't want to put up with this crap.

I'm tired!

tired, indeed!

it can get complicated. i used to have several friends who were FTM trans, yet i found myself defending myself against a 22 year old idealist who had never actually met a trans person at all, yet supported them in a very PC way that didn't seem to take into account that we were talking about living, breathing people who didn't all have the same needs, wants or situations. we disagreed on rights protection; my opinion was based on people i actually knew and what they wanted/needed while hers was based on theory. she was very... er... vigorous in her defense of her opinions, so i disengaged and moved on.

i just didn't have it in me to do battle over it with her.

"they" is a safer pronoun these days, as it is no longer just used as a plural. imo the best pronoun is the one that fits the person's identified gender, but when a non-binary gender, "they" is the one to go with. btw, if it helps, a "cis" man or woman is someone who was born to that gender and continues to identify with it.
 
A good deal of it is ingrained in the culture. However the motivations behind certain actions aren’t as one dimensional as they sometimes appear.

I was born in ‘55. In my female dominated family (my mom was one of four sisters in a house with a strong mother and father who operated as an equal partnership) and they all cartied that upbringing into their own marriages and families.

I (sole male with two sisters) was brought up to be respectful and considerate (as the times defined it) towards women. You don’t hit a girl ever - even if she hits you first. You don’t tease the girls. You keep your hands to yourself. You hold the door for a woman. You stand when a woman enters the room. If you see a woman doing something physical, you make yourself useful and offer to help her without being asked first. If she picks up a cigarette you light it for her. You watch your language and what you say when you're in the company of women. You may compliment but never criticize. If a woman’s words or behavior truly annoys you, you don’t argue or become rude. You just walk away. This was the accepted mores of the times and part of the education a young male in any “good family” received with the goal he ”behave like a gentleman.”

Deep conditioning you receive in your early childhood can be difficult to overcome. But over the years I’ve had some success in that I’ve stopped doing much of that. I’ve frankly become very tired of having the intent behind actions and words misinterpreted. And being arrogantly told that the reasons I may think I’m doing or saying something aren’t the “real reasons” behind why I’m doing it.

My mom didn’t raise any stupid children. When you find yourself in a game with constantly shifting situational rules, you’re in a no-win situation. And the best strategy with a game like that is not to play at all. So I’ve since taken Gandalf's advice to Pippin to heart when he said: “It’s better if you don’t speak at all Peregrin Took.” I no longer compliment. I no longer stand. I no longer hold doors. I no longer offer help unless I’m directly asked. And I’ve become moderately wary whenever I’m speaking to or in the company of a woman I don’t know very well.

And I don’t believe the world has become a better place now that everything has become so highly emotional and politicized and so many people are adopting a siege mentality when it comes to interpersonal relations.

But maybe that’s just me. And I’m just the bass player. So what do I know. :wacky:

:) Being raised as a "gentleman" and being considerate towards women in the ways you mentioned are not the same as doing what is fair and what is equitable. I'm *not* saying you are a bad person, so please try to not be offended by what I'm saying here. *People* shouldn't hit *people*, not just men shouldn't hit women. If a woman hits you, she should be held accountable just the same as if a man hits a woman or another man - under the law. Don't tease *people*, not just don't tease the girls. Physically weaker boys/men or men who like to date men also apply to this rule, as do your totally straight and muscular bros who might be struggling with a heavy load, a wardrobe choice, or a mental health issue. Leaping in to help women with lighting cigarettes, standing up when they enter the room, or carrying heavy boxes for them is exactly what perpetuates the idea that women are victims, weaker, and need to be coddled and cared for by men, which is exactly the opposite of what feminism has been trying to achieve. It's about people treating people like they are people, period. Not a different standard for women than for men or vice versa. One standard, for all people. If you are kind in these ways to all people, then continue to do so. If you're doing it because they are women, that is what feminism is about getting people to stop.

Your intentions have been kind, and kind intentions matter. I truly hope I have not offended you. I know it seems difficult and even sometimes perilous to navigate, we are all entrenched in our upbringing to varying degrees, but it really isn't complicated - it may be difficult, but it isn't nearly as complicated as it is often made out to be.
 
A good deal of it is ingrained in the culture. However the motivations behind certain actions aren’t as one dimensional as they sometimes appear.

I was born in ‘55. In my female dominated family (my mom was one of four sisters in a house with a strong mother and father who operated as an equal partnership) and they all cartied that upbringing into their own marriages and families.

I (sole male with two sisters) was brought up to be respectful and considerate (as the times defined it) towards women. You don’t hit a girl ever - even if she hits you first. You don’t tease the girls. You keep your hands to yourself. You hold the door for a woman. You stand when a woman enters the room. If you see a woman doing something physical, you make yourself useful and offer to help her without being asked first. If she picks up a cigarette you light it for her. You watch your language and what you say when you're in the company of women. You may compliment but never criticize. If a woman’s words or behavior truly annoys you, you don’t argue or become rude. You just walk away. This was the accepted mores of the times and part of the education a young male in any “good family” received with the goal he ”behave like a gentleman.”

Deep conditioning you receive in your early childhood can be difficult to overcome. But over the years I’ve had some success in that I’ve stopped doing much of that. I’ve frankly become very tired of having the intent behind actions and words misinterpreted. And being arrogantly told that the reasons I may think I’m doing or saying something aren’t the “real reasons” behind why I’m doing it.

My mom didn’t raise any stupid children. When you find yourself in a game with constantly shifting situational rules, you’re in a no-win situation. And the best strategy with a game like that is not to play at all. So I’ve since taken Gandalf's advice to Pippin to heart when he said: “It’s better if you don’t speak at all Peregrin Took.” I no longer compliment. I no longer stand. I no longer hold doors. I no longer offer help unless I’m directly asked. And I’ve become moderately wary whenever I’m speaking to or in the company of a woman I don’t know very well.

And I don’t believe the world has become a better place now that everything has become so highly emotional and politicized and so many people are adopting a siege mentality when it comes to interpersonal relations.

But maybe that’s just me. And I’m just the bass player. So what do I know. :wacky:

I agree with much of this. And it dovetails with what I said in my post; we're from a similar era; I am only a few years younger. Maybe the reason things didn't seem worse for me back in the day had something to do with the kinds of things you were taught. There's a level of respect there that seems to be missing in some of the 40- and 50-somethings I work with nowadays. Maybe that's part of why men were more willing to hang back with a "let's see" attitude then, and not jump in immediately with the unnecessary advice like they seem to do today. I don't know. We can only speculate.

For the record, I do appreciate it when *anyone* offers to carry my cabinet for me, even though it only weighs 35 lbs and I can carry it myself. So please, DO offer. It's not an insult. I'll happily carry something lighter for you, too, and save you a trip to your car.

One thing I've also noted is that, in recent years, it has become fashionable to be a wisea$$. That also wasn't the case 40 years ago. People were much less quick to insult each other for sport, at least they were where I grew up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcake
so maybe there's some of that in why they announce band mate gender.

Part of it may also be motivated by a desire on their part to show they’re down with having women in the band? Might be a preemptive defense. Might be a simple marketing maneuver. Who really knows?

It’s hard to know precisely where people are coming from based purely on observation. There was a long established volunteer fire station around where I live that bowed to some pressure to admit women to the engine teams. There was one person (male) in the organization who adamantly opposed it and pushed very hard not to let it happen. It wasn’t because he had an issue with women firefighters. But his wife did big time, and told him if there were women allowed on the teams then she insisted he quit. Her position was that he wasn’t spending time away from home hanging out with “other women” if she wasn’t there too. So his opposition was being driven by the need to deal with his home situation. And since he felt his situation was purely a family matter, and something he didn’t want to air in public, he didn’t offer it has his reason because he didn’t want to drag his wife into it. He just wanted to continue to be a volunteer fireman. And allowing women into the company was threatening his ability to remain a member. Didn’t stop people he knew from denouncing him as a misogynistic bigot.

Had similar situations crop up in three separate bands I was in over the years where one or more SOs had serious issues with the bands becoming mixed ensembles and nixed it. Only met one guy (a drummer) in the 40+ years I’ve been playing who was opposed to women in rock bands on general principle.

From this I’ve concluded it’s risky to think we always know “the real reason” why somebody acts a certain way or espouses a particular position.

We’re complex creatures who live complex lives in a complex social network. Very little is “just” anything. Most human behaviors emerge from a complex mix of reasons once you go beyond the baseline fight/flight/freeze response.
 
Last edited:
Part of it may also be motivated by a desire on their part to show they’re down with having women in the band? Might be a preemptive defense. Might be a simple marketing maneuver. Who really knows?

It’s hard to know precisely where people are coming from based purely on observation. There was a long established volunteer fire station around where I live that bowed to some pressure to admit women to the engine teams. There was one person (male) in the organization who adamantly opposed it and pushed very hard not to let it happen. It wasn’t because he had an issue with women firefighters. But his wife did big time, and told him if there were women allowed on the teams then she insisted he quit. Her position was that he wasn’t spending time away from home hanging out with “other women” if she wasn’t there too. So his opposition was being driven by the need to deal with his home situation. And since he felt his situation was purely a family matter, and something he didn’t want to air in public, he didn’t offer it has his reason because he didn’t want to drag his wife into it. He just wanted to continue to be a volunteer fireman. And allowing women into the company was threatening his ability to remain a member. Didn’t stop people he knew from denouncing him as a misogynistic bigot.

Had similar situations crop up in three separate bands I was in over the years where one or more SOs had serious issues with the bands becoming mixed ensembles and nixed it. Only met one guy (a drummer) in the 40+ years I’ve been playing who was opposed to women in rock bands on general principle.

From this I’ve concluded it’s risky to think we always know “the real reason” why somebody acts a certain way or espouses a particular position.

We’re complex creatures who live complex lives in a complex social network. Very little is “just” anything. Most human behaviors emerge from a complex mix of reasons once you go beyond the baseline fight/flight/freeze response.

the guy with the jealous wife was willing to keep women out of a position and to keep the company from diversifying as would help them with the community to make the wife feel more secure and him to support her. do the reasons why matter unless you're her or her husband? she felt like she would become a victim, so she was willing to victimize pretty much everyone else.

and yeah, people are complicated.

but sometimes i'd say that reasons why don't matter. sometimes what counts is the results and how they affect others, particularly if you're one of the others who is directly affected.
 
It's about people treating people like they are people, period. Not a different standard for women than for men or vice versa. One standard, for all people.

I’m not sure how “treating people like equals” works when we’re (as a society) simultaneously attempting to address individual priorities and also carve out exceptions for special needs. Beyond the fundamental basics (re: Maslow) our “commonality of interests” are nowhere near as universally shared as we might hope. If they were we might have made far more progress on the social front than we’ve made in the last 6000 or so years since the Sumerians.

You could make the old Soviet collective argument and simply ignore or dismiss any inconvenient differences in needs or opinions and progress on the basis that we are all the same even if the reality is we aren’t. And we all saw what an enlightened and humanistic society that produced during its short run.

Or you could go with the New Age assertion that we humans could peacefully live together if we could all just start acting less like human beings act. Good luck with that one too.

Alternatively you could propose seeking win-win outcomes while ignore the fact that even with win-win one side generally comes out better. Maybe it’s no longer a zero sum game. But it’s very seldom if ever a neat 50-50 split as far as the prize is concerned. And that tends to lead to further problems down the road. Because people have long memories when it comes to “unfair” outcomes - be they real or imagined.

So sure, it’s about “treating people like people.” But I’m not sure what that means since there seems to be such a widespread disagreement about what “treating people like people” actually entails - or how it would best be implemented - in a real world as opposed to academic or purely philosophical context. Because the devil is in the details and the implementation. Not the ideal itself.

If history is anything to go by I think I’d prefer not being treated like a “people” most times considering how horrendous that treatment often is.

I strongly suspect that beneath inequality and injustice and all our other social ills there’s a deeper problem on a core species level that’s driving it all. And I think until we get to the bottom of that one, and figure out how to address it, we’re never going to achieve anything other than temporary periods of relative societal improvement. As (I forget who) put it: human history is the ongoing saga of humanity attempting to free itself from the nightmare of human history.

Something to think about anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ross W. Lovell
the guy with the jealous wife was willing to keep women out of a position and to keep the company from diversifying as would help them with the community to make the wife feel more secure and him to support her.

Having met her I seriously doubt that was in the cards. See saw disagreements with her as conspiracies or people “ganging up” on her.

do the reasons why matter unless you're her or her husband? she felt like she would become a victim, so she was willing to victimize pretty much everyone else.

Only insofar as it illustrates that:

yeah, people are complicated.

but sometimes i'd say that reasons why don't matter. sometimes what counts is the results and how they affect others, particularly if you're one of the others who is directly affected.

Precisely. Which is why pushback almost inevitably occurs.

I agree with you 100%. I don’t like being on the receiving end either. I do whatever I can to mitigate a raw deal when I’m handed one, and learn to live with it for the time being when I can’t do anything about it just like everyone else. But I still want to understand the reasonings behind whatever went down, if for no other reason than identifying a potential point of leverage I can employ down the road. “Know your opponent” is a useful strategy. “Know thyself” is an even more powerful one. ;)
 
If I am putting an ad up to find work as a bass player I don't specify that I'm female. Frankly, if that matters to you one way or the other I don't want your job.

As a vocalist, it's important due to range and repertoire, so if I'm advertising that, I do mention it.

^ As far as I'm concerned this says it all...Like and +1 on this

I also think that's what the OP is getting at as well, where there isn't a distinction necessary don't create one. Since vocal ranges tend to vary with women and men commonly occupying different ones, an ad or something of that nature would seem to merit a distinction like LBS said.

If someone is a fun person to write, perform, and hang out with then who gives a crap? I also can cite that having been in several bands with female members and it has never ended up being an issue in the least. I'm sure YMMV, but speaking from my experience it's never been a problem for the entire group. Maybe it's just the people I hang out with, idk :meh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LBS-bass
ageism is a big deal for me, these days. when my elderly mother was in her last days, people would talk to her like she was a cute child instead of an experienced adult. i find that is often pointed at me IF i haven't dyed my hair recently or am wearing it off my face, as i look older that way. and how invisible i've become as a person unless my clothes seem too young to someone, and then they seem sort of offended.

<snip>

as far as wearing her own eyelashes, remember in the '60s even thing women wore girdles. many moms i knew wore makeup at home - god forbid a woman wasn't glamourous while she vaccuumed and washed the dishes. my mom never wore girdles or makeup, and my parents raised me to truly believe i could do anything - they raised me with the singing science records, read my sister and i a chapter of a book before bed every night, and let us read comic books.

It's an old trope that women don't age as well as men in entertainment, but there's a lot of truth to it. My YouTube channel is called Granny's Got Chops for a reason; it's because of all the funny looks I get when I walk into an audition and the way people's faces change when they realize I can lock in like a pitbull and not let go of the groove. I do feel invisible unless I'm all dolled-up now, which sort of suits me fine. I hate that I have to spend so much time getting ready for a show. It's time no one else builds into their schedule and on gig days I have to magically find that extra hour for hair and makeup that the guys don't need or ever even think about. Oh, well. It's part of the job.

As for girdles, they all wear Spanx nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcake
I’m not sure how “treating people like equals” works when we’re (as a society) simultaneously attempting to address individual priorities and also carve out exceptions for special needs. Beyond the fundamental basics (re: Maslow) our “commonality of interests” are nowhere near as universally shared as we might hope. If they were we might have made far more progress on the social front than we’ve made in the last 6000 or so years since the Sumerians.

Well... treating people like equals relates to interpersonal interactions like the kinds you brought up, opening doors, and not teasing people. Creating a just society, where equal opportunities exist, that is an entirely different prospect, and definitely falls into the domain of government and corporate policy. In cases like that, when you see a group to which you don't belong getting some kind of advantage delivered to them to remediate years of unfairness, it's usually most just to simply adapt a policy of "none of my business" if you can't muster a "good for them". What bothers me about government spending in Western countries is the trillions that go to "defence" spending and prisons, and that most of our wealth is lost from the economy due to a near total lack of taxation on the extremely wealthy, so spending a few million or billion here and there for groups of which I am not a member is far less concerning for me than the hoarding of wealth or spending trillions on killing foreigners or locking up the poor and desperate. The extremely wealthy do not have equal opportunities to what you and I have. They have many, many more, and are usually born into them. They also don't fight in wars and they don't go to prison, ever.

You could make the old Soviet collective argument and simply ignore or dismiss any inconvenient differences in needs or opinions and progress on the basis that we are all the same even if the reality is we aren’t. And we all saw what an enlightened and humanistic society that produced during its short run.

We don't even have to do that. We can just take a look at our own society and see where it is also not working for the good of humanity and do better. We definitely need to stop slapping our own backs for not being Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Or you could go with the New Age assertion that we humans could peacefully live together if we could all just start acting less like human beings act. Good luck with that one too.

Human beings commit atrocities. Human beings also perform daily acts of beauty and kindness. I'm good with humans being humans, but just behaving better and not hurting other humans.

Alternatively you could propose seeking win-win outcomes while ignore the fact that even with win-win one side generally comes out better. Maybe it’s no longer a zero sum game. But it’s very seldom if ever a neat 50-50 split as far as the prize is concerned. And that tends to lead to further problems down the road. Because people have long memories when it comes to “unfair” outcomes - be they real or imagined.

Is this about the Civil War? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. That was never supposed to be win-win, the South lost, progress won.

So sure, it’s about “treating people like people.” But I’m not sure what that means since there seems to be such a widespread disagreement about what “treating people like people” actually entails - or how it would best be implemented - in a real world as opposed to academic or purely philosophical context. Because the devil is in the details and the implementation. Not the ideal itself.

Again - I don't think it is complicated. How do you want to be treated? If you can imagine for a moment living in a society where other people had privileges that they weren't even aware of, vehemently denied that they had privileges, all the while getting angry about your having some obstacles removed, how would you want to be treated by those angry people? Doesn't everybody deserve respect, until they lose it?

I strongly suspect that beneath inequality and injustice and all our other social ills there’s a deeper problem on a core species level that’s driving it all. And I think until we get to the bottom of that one, and figure out how to address it, we’re never going to achieve anything other than temporary periods of relative societal improvement. As (I forget who) put it: human history is the ongoing saga of humanity attempting to free itself from the nightmare of human history.

In my opinion, what is at the essence of what's "driving it all" is the old supply-demand thing, except that with modern marketing and media, artificial need and artificial scarcity are created and leveraged in every facet of our existence, so we end up constantly hungry for something we can never articulate or find, and everything gets boiled down to a scarcity argument where we feel like something is being taken away from us when somebody else gets something we weren't given. Even if we never needed it. But it is possible to rise above this, and recognize that these artificial needs and scarcities are external to us, we don't own them, and we can reject them. There are real ones we can pay attention to. Food for thought - unless somebody steals it!
 
upload_2019-5-13_13-31-16.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dasgre0g
some kind of advantage delivered to them to remediate years of unfairness, it's usually most just to simply adapt a policy of "none of my business" if you can't muster a "good for them"

We can’t go back in time. You don’t “remediate” past wrongs. You can’t change the past or what’s been done in it. You can’t prevent pain that’s already been experienced. Which is why victims often continue to experience trauma long after the threat and pain they experienced is removed and they’re fully protected from it going forward. Nightmares can have a long half life. And the burden of getting beyond that lands squarely on the shoulders of those experiencing it and nobody else. It’s a journey nobody can walk but them alone regardless of the “best wishes,” support, counseling, or medication that may be offered to assist.

You can offer an apology of sorts for past wrongs via some sort of “compensation” which usually takes the form of some special inequality (i.e. protection or privilege) under law. But that has everything to do with assuaging a sense of public guilt and nothing to do with establishing “equality.”

The best you can hope to do is to change things so that old problems stop reoccurring. But that’s in the present and for the future. It does nothing to remediate what’s already been done. People need to be more careful with the words they use when it leads them to delude themselves into thinking they can do something they can’t nor ever will.

“Equality” is equality, plain and simple. Difficult to engineer and frequently unpleasant to live with on those rare occasions when it is achieved. Because equality completely negates the individual person. Most people (I think) would rather shoot for “just enough” equality. One that guarantees a fairly level playing field while still giving due consideration to our own individual needs and uniqueness.

I distrust abstracts and absolutes.


———

And with that I think I’m going to leave this thread. It’s interesting topic that’s well worth exploring. But discussing something like this via text is very time consuming and prone to misinterpretation. And I’m spending way too much time here and neglecting other things. So I’m out. Thx for all who contributed such candid posts. I learned a few things and gained some new perspectives courtesy of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts