I’m confused. What are you trying to say here? You linked a proposal to prioritize violence against women and girls as an EA cause area (which I assume you don’t object to?) and a tweet by some person unknown to me saying that critics of EA hold it to a standard they don’t apply to feminism (which probably depends a lot on what kind of critics, and on their political background in particular). What do you expect the readers to learn from this or do about it?
The link to the post on VAWG was my mistake—I intended to link to the comments specifically, which got noticeably heated after someone followed up what I thought was an incredibly well-researched and persuasive post with “but what about men’s rights.” What I thought were pretty charitable responses explaining how that’s not actually relevant to the discussion got downvoted beyond belief. In my (limited, yet colorful) experience, EA seems to have a recurring problem allowing gender issues to be prioritized.
I’m confused. What are you trying to say here? You linked a proposal to prioritize violence against women and girls as an EA cause area (which I assume you don’t object to?) and a tweet by some person unknown to me saying that critics of EA hold it to a standard they don’t apply to feminism (which probably depends a lot on what kind of critics, and on their political background in particular). What do you expect the readers to learn from this or do about it?
The link to the post on VAWG was my mistake—I intended to link to the comments specifically, which got noticeably heated after someone followed up what I thought was an incredibly well-researched and persuasive post with “but what about men’s rights.” What I thought were pretty charitable responses explaining how that’s not actually relevant to the discussion got downvoted beyond belief. In my (limited, yet colorful) experience, EA seems to have a recurring problem allowing gender issues to be prioritized.
Thanks for this clarification—I had the same response to the comments on that post.