RE: I am a feminist. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

ShaktiSama -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 9:38:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Your line of reasoning with regard to killing being an acceptable way to go about creating change,


Sorry.

I'm going to have to stop you RIGHT there.

Because no such "reasoning" has ever been forwarded by me, or to my knowledge, by any feminist, as a valid means of creating social change.

But if this is the kind of thing that men like you hear, when change is discussed--"we are all going to be killed"--I can certainly see why you are frightened.  Or perhaps you are simply saying you would rather die than grant women equality?

If you really have nothing to offer but bogeymen, and irrational mischaracterization, and plain-and-simple character assassination...then I'm afraid that responding to your posts has once again proven to be a waste of time.

I'm a little sick of posts that equate feminism with murder and Nazism, so I believe I'll be ignoring you in the future.  I would heartily recommend that other women do the same.  You are clearly out of your mind.



Owner59 -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 9:41:49 PM)

 
Well put.



Stephann -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 10:03:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitttty

quote:

No. My problem was that you said you would force them to do what you think they should do even if they don't want to and you would take their husbands away from them even if they don't want you to.


The don't want their husbands gone because they've been brainwashed every day of their lives to believe that they are inferior and neccesarily dependent on men for everything. They have no access to free information even if they can read and they have no skills to support themselves because they have been denied the right to even look out the window. But I bet they all would choose differently if they could.

I am sure that many do not want their husbands taken away from them but putting their husbands away is justice because their husbands are perpetrators of all kinds of human rights abuses.



Hi kitttty,

I quote you because your post exemplifies what I find most disturbing about this debate.  The suggestion that women should be yanked out of their ignorance whether they like it or not is no different from a culture that expects any other form of forced 'enlightenment.'  I agree, there are societal structures in place that perpetuate conduct that we find repugnant or repulsive.  Frankly, in some part of the world, large groups of people are always being discriminated against, and no person is safe in every part of the world. 

In Western society, when a person reaches the age of majority, they are responsible for themselves.  They are entitled to believe what they wish, for their own reasons, and to accept or refuse the assistance of others so long as they are mentally fit to do so.  Disagreeing with your positions, no matter how well founded you believe your position to be, is not grounds to remove their right -no, the responsibility- to decide what they believe is right or wrong.

My slave's mother hates the choice she has made to be in a relationship with me.  She can't possibly fathom why charlotte would desire a relationship with 'someone like me' and assumes that she must be sick or damaged to want to be with me.  If her mother were to have the power to do with me as you would wish upon the 'ignorant beaten women' it's a good bet I'd be in prison. 

The reality is that attitudes in the Western world are changing (and rather quickly by social standards.)  The fact that the younger posters indicate how 'foolish' older posters seem in their positions, stems not from a lack of concern for their current situation, but by a simple reflection of current trends towards equality.  This is evidence that people, in general, seek more opportunities for themselves and their fellow man, when they are younger and less weathered.  It's a good sign that three decades from now, we will likely have had a female black president - possibly with a white husband.  Gay men and women serving in politics will number along the lines of their constituency, and their lifestyles will carry little sensational value to the media.  Equality won't happen today.  No amount of 'shove it down their throat!' will speed it up.  Real equality comes when all interested parties sit at the table and discuss issues rationally and respectfully.  Don't attack the son, for the father's ignorance.

Shakti,

You mentioned abortion 'rights' as part of the feminist movement.  Briefly, I'd like to mention my own personal views on abortion have nothing to do with equality for access to medical care.  It is the inequality for the child when aborted after it's brain has formed, that I have an issue with.  Your opinions on Quixotic laws carry little value beyond the shock; a person who would advocates a position they don't actually believe in has little credibility.  You mention you believe women had a better life following Prohibition.  How many of those women do you believe had better lives when their husbands were shot down by smugglers, and the crime syndicates that sprang from bootleggers when there was money being made hand over fist in the booze trade?  It's an example of why laws that infringe on peoples personal rights and opportunity to pursue any activity they wish (so long as it doesn't infringe on the actual rights of others) will always cause more harm than good.  Our current failed 'war on drugs' has done more to fuel the terrorists in Afghanistan and violent insurgents in Latin American than any amount of money our government spends on bombs or tanks.  If I were a drug lord, I would be sure to personally invest millions of dollars a year to the campaign funds of politicians who perpetuate this war; in the end, that's where I profit from.

Stephan



CuriousLord -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 10:20:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

But if this is the kind of thing that men like you hear, when change is discussed--"we are all going to be killed"--I can certainly see why you are frightened.  Or perhaps you are simply saying you would rather die than grant women equality?


It seems Aswad may've used the ad absurdum argument a little far without explaining his justification.

But with "you are simply saying you would rather die than grant women equality?", you've more than returned the favor.

Perhaps it's a good thing that bed's calling has caused a break for the night, as this was getting a little silly.



kitttty -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 10:28:55 PM)

quote:


In Western society, when a person reaches the age of majority, they are responsible for themselves. They are entitled to believe what they wish, for their own reasons, and to accept or refuse the assistance of others so long as they are mentally fit to do so. Disagreeing with your positions, no matter how well founded you believe your position to be, is not grounds to remove their right -no, the responsibility- to decide what they believe is right or wrong.



This makes no sense. They do not have the right to decide what to do or really even to formulate their own beliefs about what is right or wrong. i advocate that they should have those rights.

As it is, they have no right to go to school if their family forbids it, to change religions, to read texts considered blasphemous (which is a lot of texts), to date or marry as they choose.

What you seem to be advocating is that the cultural structure in place should be allowed to dictate that people continue to be denied basic rights of self actualization.

Nothing stops a person from chosing to let their parents arrange a marriage for them to someone they have never met. Plenty of immigrants in America do just that. Nothing also stops me from advocating against such decision making.


There is nothing wrong with me saying that someone who is only allowed to read one ideological 3rd grade level translation of the Quran cannot be as equipped to make choices as one who can read billions of things. Should the person who can read billions of things decide that the 3rd grade level translation of the Quran is the thing to live by, that is a completely different situation than the one of a person who has no options in life believing in that book.

If living under opression and institutionalized ignorance resulted in people generally being just as morally sensible as those living in freedom, then freedom would have no point. It does have a point and it is better and the reason basic freedom is better is because the people living in a free world in fact become better people.



CuriousLord -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 11:18:00 PM)

You know, I've spent most of the night shirking my studies to read up on this subject.  Never knew how much of it there was to say.  It seemed so simple; I still think it can be.

In my reading, the one thing I've gained an appreciation for is that many of the writers see men and women as fundamentally different creatures.  That men and women both happen to be human, but before being human, they're more a man, or more a woman.. that their gender role trumps their human identity.

This seems to lead to the notion that women must be made equal to men; that, as seperate halves, they must be assembled and put together as one.  That women's rights must be won as they can't just be inherient.. that the inherient rights were made for men, and as such, belong to men until explicitly given to women.  Rights such as voting, being allowed to have speicfic jobs, etc.

In some respect, I can appreciation that there must be experiences leading to such views; that this is how many must've seen it for a long time.  And I can even understand why such people use "feminism", for, again, women are different from men and need to be made equal.


However, to feminists, I would like to propose humanism instead.  The notion that, before being man or woman, an individual is human; that gender is less fundamental and more arbitrary.  That rights do not belong to either gender but to humans; that there isn't such a huge difference between men and women.



JulieorSarah -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/3/2008 11:25:34 PM)

as a late comer to this forum, am stuck by the reality of Curious Lord's comments.  They can be applied to all oppressed.  It should not matter where geographically you are or come from, what gender, who you choose to share your body with, which god/diety you worship or dont, these inherent rights should be for all.
inherent:  existing in [for] someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
I added the [for].



seeksfemslave -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 2:15:35 AM)

Haven't read the whole thread but its certainly generated a lot of varied responses.
I find it difficult to believe that in todays western world women can claim to be oppressed in any way.
Loads of opportunities are there and in many cases preferentially given.

For example when Blair first became Prime Minister he was accompanied by lots of young women MPs many of whom I would guess were preferentially selected. The hours that parliament sat were actually changed to suit....women. It has been generally agreed that this female intake known as Blair's Babes didnt achieve much .
The Tory party at the moment is toying with the idea of quotas for.....women. Opposed paradoxically by some women and me lol

The social affairs side of the BBC is awash in oestregen...... from tea ladies to programme producers

Speaking of the everyday world, as a student I rented rooms in other peoples homes and was astonished to notice that in many cases the woman clearly was the boss.

The argument that many men treat women badly is no more relevant than that many women treat men badly.
So stop making it !



meatcleaver -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 2:27:15 AM)

The Blairettes have been totally and utterly underachievers and have had everything skewed in their favour. However, the women in this parliament that have achieved most are the old fashioned Labour women that can dig coal with the best of them.

Actually I'll start taking feminists seriously when they stop whinging and asking for the best of both worlds and stop hiding behind their sex when the going gets tough.



Aswad -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 6:22:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

Because no such "reasoning" has ever been forwarded by me, or to my knowledge, by any feminist, as a valid means of creating social change.


Apparently, I misinterpreted you.

You noted that the prohibition had feminist goals in mind, and I read you to say that the loss of life was acceptable. Because of that, I asked you whether you really consider the cost (lives and the cementing of organized crime) was an acceptable price to extract for such social change. The answer you gave did not address that question directly, but again seemed to imply the same thing.

Am I reading you correctly this time, then, that the loss of lives is indeed an unacceptable price to commit others to paying?

quote:

But if this is the kind of thing that men like you hear, when change is discussed--"we are all going to be killed"--I can certainly see why you are frightened.


You are saying, and implying, a few things here that are not in evidence; as I apparently misread you, I'll just point out two:
  • "men like you" - What exactly are men like me?
  • "why you are frightened" - Where do you get the mistaken impression that I am frightened?
quote:

Or perhaps you are simply saying you would rather die than grant women equality?


No. I am not saying that. I have treated men and women equitably throughout the entirety of my life, and intend to keep doing so.

The battle against discrimination, intolerance and prejudice is very close to my heart, as it has always been.

quote:

If you really have nothing to offer but bogeymen, and irrational mischaracterization, and plain-and-simple character assassination...then I'm afraid that responding to your posts has once again proven to be a waste of time.


Perhaps you have some strong assumptions in mind while reading my posts?

Put quite simply: if you encountered a man who treated all people, regardless of race, religion, gender and other such factors, in a manner that was entirely dependent on individual merit, and with a rational and unbiased angle, would you recognize this?

I will not claim to be perfect in that regard, but I will claim to be a closer approximation to it than any other man I have encountered, something others have also attested to, including women; yet you appear to be reading my posts from the assumption that I must be a misogynist or antifeminist, which is a prejudice that is far from the truth. Would you please be so kind as to consider for a moment that your perception of me may be colored by previous experiences with men who were misogynistic or antifeministic?

quote:

I'm a little sick of posts that equate feminism with murder and Nazism, so I believe I'll be ignoring you in the future.  I would heartily recommend that other women do the same.  You are clearly out of your mind.


With all due respect, your conclusion is not substantiated by fact; I have not equated feminism with murder, nor with nazism.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 6:55:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitttty

There is nothing wrong with me saying that someone who is only allowed to read one ideological 3rd grade level translation of the Quran cannot be as equipped to make choices as one who can read billions of things.


Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with that assertion.

It also readily generalizes to the point that those who know the most, and have the best faculties for processing and applying what they know, are best equipped to make choices for everyone. From this follows the notion that, if who is best able to make the choice is to decide who gets to make the choice, then men like Chomsky, along with women like vos Savant, should decide for us all how we are going to live our lives. And their advice, which would be their decision under such circumstances, is that we should get to choose what we wish, regardless of the fact that we do not have their level of knowledge and their level of intelligence. That the elite doesn't decide.

There is a reason for this, which is substantiated by research: those who know most, are usually most aware of how much more there is to know hat they have not yet learned. And they know that there is no objective point at which the line between brainwashing and child rearing can be drawn. We all inherit ideas that limit our perspectives, unless we choose to strip ourselves of them (a hard task for anyone). And we all live together with others who may be even more limited in their perspectives, and may thus make decisions as a group that we as individuals find objectionable or even unacceptable. That is democracy: two wolves and a sheep, deciding what's for dinner.

Now, it's clearly sad that it is so. The women who believe things should be as they are in fundamentalist countries in the Middle East, for instance, are more numerous than those who believe things should be more like they are in the West. And I deem that to be bad taste on their part. But I still respect that stripping the majority of the right to choose, in favor of the minority, is nothing but another form of oppression, regardless of how well-intentioned it is. If one wants to do so, fine. Conquer. Rule. But don't call it liberation.

You hold it to be good to impose your will on others; I hold that to be the definition of oppression.

I fight for the right to choose, regardless of qualifications, including education.

quote:

If living under opression and institutionalized ignorance resulted in people generally being just as morally sensible as those living in freedom, then freedom would have no point. It does have a point and it is better and the reason basic freedom is better is because the people living in a free world in fact become better people.


As I see it, freedom is the point.

It is in itself a sufficient goal, important enough to have found expression alongside the early words like family, home, sex, food, man, woman, life, death, and so forth. Without freedom, our choices are meaningless. And morals are a choice. The universe does not have any other morals than what we ascribe to it via our subjective perceptions; we are, in fact, the creators of values. Absent freedom, the values we create are worthless, along with our morals; the notion of "better" people becomes superfluous at best without freedom.

I would posit that if you do not see freedom as a goal in its own right, it has no value to you.

By my views, one can inherently only be free when freedom has value.

Health,
al-Aswad.

P.S.: Are you familiar with Ayn Rand and the Objectivist school of thought?



Aswad -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 7:03:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

You know, I've spent most of the night shirking my studies to read up on this subject.


Sounds familiar. Is your forehead hurting, too? [:D]

quote:

It seemed so simple; I still think it can be.


It is simple. Until it becomes a "thing" in its own right, and people create such notions as you mentioned: the idea that we aren't really equal, so we have to pretend.  For me (as it appears to be for you, at least here), it is simple: pretending is a waste of time, because the realization that we are individuals- rather than support systems for penii and vaginae- subsumes the whole issue. As you say, we are humans. Gender doesn't matter. This isn't about introducing equality, but about removing a false notion of inequality.

quote:

However, to feminists, I would like to propose humanism instead. The notion that, before being man or woman, an individual is human; that gender is less fundamental and more arbitrary. That rights do not belong to either gender but to humans; that there isn't such a huge difference between men and women.


Very well said, and probably the best expression of equality that I have heard so far. Namaste.

Health,
al-Aswad.



LadyEllen -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 7:29:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
It is simple. Until it becomes a "thing" in its own right, and people create such notions as you mentioned: the idea that we aren't really equal, so we have to pretend.  For me (as it appears to be for you, at least here), it is simple: pretending is a waste of time, because the realization that we are individuals- rather than support systems for penii and vaginae- subsumes the whole issue. As you say, we are humans. Gender doesn't matter. This isn't about introducing equality, but about removing a false notion of inequality.




Very interesting. This is alike as I see it, to where I am now with our particular model of multi-culturalism, which tends to rely as I see it on the same sort of pretence that we arent really equal and we must therefore take steps to make us equal - that there is a "right and natural" supremacy of white culture which defines other cultures in shades of "wrongness" that must be gotten around by all manner of means. Its as if the system is set up from the start and thence perpetuated on the premise that other cultures are not as good - in the same way that in gender terms the system is set up with the premise that males hold "right and natural" supremacy which females must struggle to achieve or be helped to achieve.

When really, as said, society should be aiming at removing the idea of inequality.

E



Alumbrado -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 7:55:37 AM)

quote:

This sort of logic is nonsense--but it's a pretty common way of threatening people who try to advocate positive social change.  The truth is that misogynists are responsible for their own hatefulness, just as racists and homophobes and other bigots are responsible for their hatefulness.

Bigots are not created by their victims, and challenging the powerful and the privileged does not justify their retaliation or their scorn.

Their hatred and contempt are pre-existing conditions.


Exactly so.



gorgeous1 -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 9:43:12 AM)

IN RESPONSE TO EVERYONE....


Whoa....wait a minute....I'm not attacking dual income families that do it because they need two incomes. My best friend works because she has to. My sister in law works because she has to. In other words, one income is just not enough to pay all the bills- it just isn't enough. Period. Neither of them want to be away from their kids, so they have found ways to work from home. I'm not saying that every working mother can find ways to work from home- some have no choice but to work out of the home.

I AM COMMENTING ABOUT WOMEN WHO ARE SAYING BULLSHIT.

I am talking about women who SAY "I'd stay home IF I COULD, but we can't afford it" yet I KNOW that they could probably do it if they stopped buying the designer clothes for the family, stopped taking out of the country vacations twice a year, traded the $60k leased SUV in for a used mini van, bought a more modest home, took off the acrylic nails...

Please understand I am NOT attacking them for their choices, I am calling them on their BULLSHIT. They could live off of one income, but they choose not to, but then hide behind "I'd stay home if I could." Why not just be honest and say, "I'd stay at home if one income was enough to provide for everything that we want." There's no shame in that, and nobody has the right to judge anyone else for deciding what they are willing to live with or without. Just don't say you can't stay home when the math says you could.

My husband doesn't make a ton of money. We make barely enough to scrape by. It's a choice we have made. My oldest son turns 7 this month. This is what we have done so I could do it:

1.We sold one car. I had no car for 3 1/2 years. 3 1/2 years ago, we bought a 13 year old van for $1,800, and the person was kind enough to let us pay them $100 a month. I drove until it died. When it died last year we had no choice but to purchase another vehicle because my son is now in school, so I had to have a car. We bought a 5 year old van, and the payments are $150 a month. To pay for the car, I babysit a child once a week, and it adds up to $160 a month.

2.We rented an apartment. We just bought our first home 2 years ago.

3.We eat out maybe 6 times a year. I even bake our bread from scratch. I don't buy pre-packaged foods, everything is made from scratch because it cuts our grocery bill in half.

4. My kids wear mostly hand-me-downs and so do I, or I sew my own clothes.

5. There were many years where my husband and I did not buy each other Christmas or Birthday gifts.

6. We don't take vacations unless we get help from family. (Both my sister-in-laws got married last year, and we're still paying off the plane tickets- it killed us!)

7. I have had ONE professional hair cut in 7 years. I took off my acrylic nails the week before my son was born. I don't get massages, waxes, pedicures, facials, etc. My husband cuts his own hair and cuts the kid's hair.

8. Almost every piece of furniture in my house is hand-me-down, or I pulled it out of the trash and repainted, repaired or refinished it myself.

9. We wash our own cars, do our own gardening, do all repairs, etc., that we are capable of doing or learning how to do, clean our own house- basically anything we can do ourselves we do instead of pay somebody else.

10. Anything we have, we use it until it dies- that goes for cars, TVs, computers, appliances, clothes, furniture...we don't replace things until we have to, not because there's something out there that is better.

11. Our kids don't participate in expensive sports, play groups, tutoring programs, etc.

I could continue, but I think you get the picture. I'm not looking for sympathy here- we have made our own choices, and they are choices that work for us. It doesn't mean we are "above" everyone else, selflessly forsaking ourselves the pleasures of the material world. My husband lusts after a plasma screen TV just as much as the next guy. OF COURSE I would love to have a pair of Jimmy Choos and get a massage! There are times where I think I can't stand another night of cooking dinner- I HATE cooking!

All I am trying to say is that there are parents out there that I know who really could cut tens of thousands of dollars out of their budget and make it off of one income. It's a fact that cannot be disputed. I know how much the mom makes. I'm not judging them, and I would NEVER tell them that I think they could make sacrifices to do it. I keep my mouth shut.

I also know other moms who stay home, and they are doing what I'm doing. I know some moms who stay home and can still drive nice cars, have a showcase home, and take fabulous vacations. Lots of moms I know whose youngest kids finally hit school age went out and got a job ASAP and have said they put many things off for as long as they could to just make it through the pre-school years and now it's time to play catch-up with their bank account.

We're in the same boat. We have survived off of one income for as long as we could, and we are at the point where we HAVE to bring in some more income. Fortunately, I will be taking in the child I have been babysitting once a week 5 days a week, because her day care doesn't take new-borns, and she is about to have a new sibling. I'll be bringing in just under $20,000 a year by doing this, and it will help us take care of the things we've put off for as long as we could, like root canals, stopping the termites from devouring our garage, car repairs, and pay off some credit cards that we had to use to help us out in a pinch.

I hope maybe this has explained a few things. Many people assume I have an easy life and I have as much as they do, and that I'm just one of the "lucky ones" who can stay home and still "have it all". I don't. I have what I need. I'm not immune to wanting things, I just wanted to stay home with my kids more than I wanted anything else, even a car or a house. It doesn't make me better than anyone else.

I'm not judging anyone else for their choices, I just wish people would be honest when they say, "Oooooh, you're so lucky- I'd stay home too if we could afford it," yet the reality is they probably could stay home if they took stock of their lifestyle and did the math.

Also, we have made a choice. We could have a much more comfortable life if we chose to live elsewhere, but we chose to stay here in Southern Orange County and pay $3,500 a month for our mortgage and pay $8,000 a year in property taxes. We have out of state family members who constantly tell us, "You know, you could take a lot of stress off of yourselves if you owned a home here instead of Orange County." Well, we made a choice, so I'm not going to BULLSHIT them and say, "Ooooooh, you're so lucky that you get to go to the Bahamas for Christmas. We totally would if we could, but we can't afford it." The truth is, we could, if we made some sacrifices, but we're not willing to cut the mortgage in half. We like living here. I like being 5 miles from the beach, and close to my family. It's our choice.

I did not mean to flame this thread, or try to come off as a judgmental asshole. I posted that comment about some older women treating me with disdain because they have actually ridiculed me for my choices! They have said things like, Honey, you're throwing away your best years! You had a great job, and you threw it away, and for what? So you could wear old track pants and change poopy diapers?

I have also had women treat me like an idiot just because I stay at home. They assume I stay home because I am not skilled or lack an education. I have been at parties or functions where women have said, "What do you do?" and when I tell them I stay at home with my kids, I can see the change come over them- they rule me out as an interesting person who can keep up with them in a conversation. It's as if they think I'm some primitive being who lives in a cave and I have nothing worthy to contribute, or they think I must have my head up my ass and be a total doormat because I "allow" myself to be wedged into a constricting and antiquated role. That really hurts. Why can't I be a woman and a house wife and a stay at home mom and STILL be intelligent, confident, sexy, in control of my future...and HAPPY?



ShaktiSama -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 11:11:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann
Your opinions on Quixotic laws carry little value beyond the shock; a person who would advocates a position they don't actually believe in has little credibility. 

 
You've misunderstood the point.  I don't advocate a position I don't believe in:  I simply acknowledge that some laws cannot be enforced.  This is a practical consideration, not a moral one.  I do not have to believe a law is enforecable to believe that it represents a moral ideal.
 
As for the extended false analogy being constructed--I agree, the negative effects of Prohibition are well-documented, and the violence surrounding prohibited entertainments in a society--drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, etc.--are well-documented.  Nevertheless societies continue to pass laws that restrict access or directly forbid certain social passtimes.  For example, the raping of children, which some people find terribly entertaining--a very large industry of production and smuggling exists to serve this appetite.
 
Shall we make it legal, do you think, just to clear up the paperwork and reduce the inconvenience to law enforcement officials?  Or is there a moral position--namely, compassion for the suffering of sexually exploited children--which makes the passage and attempted enforcement of this essentially Quixotic law worthwhile?
 
After all, no law we pass can eliminate the pathological appetites of child molesters, nor the pathological sadism and greed of the people who kidnap children to be sold as sexual slaves or raped and molested in the production of child pornography.
 
Are you beginning to get the picture?  I hope so.  Because pursuing this example has already spoiled my next meal or two.
 
I am essentially a Libertarian at heart, as I've said.  Nonetheless, there are some moral absolutes which I recognize should be codified by law, and I recognize that the pressure to enforce them, even if it can never eliminate the criminal behavior, is useful to stigmatize rather than naturalize certain acts.
 
I think the man who comes home blind drunk to beat his woman deserves to be stigmatized rather than naturalized.  I think the same is true of the child molester.  And so far as I am concerned, the jury is most definitely still out, on the porn industry's impact on the psychology of men and the lives of women.  There is a lot of evidence that the industry-as-it-exists now is doing a lot of damage.
 
I think these effects may be negative enough that some attempted regulation might represent a very healthy assertion of certain moral values.  I don't have to be "sex-negative" or even particularly "anti-porn" to be willing to entertain these ideas.  This is not a binary situation, where the industry has to be allowed EVERY excess and be completely uncontrolled, or be banned completely. 
 
There are already a number of laws the govern the production and distribution of this product.  And given that the porn industry is having its greatest impact on people during the formative years of human sexuality--the statistics say that the majority of consumption-per-day is being performed by people in an age range of 12-17 years--I think it might be useful to force more egalitarian values and themes on the industry before it permanently instills sexist values that are harmful to both men and women.
 
If porn is essentially going to serve as a tool of sexual education--I would suggest we make it more educational.

 
 
 
 
 
 



ShaktiSama -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 12:07:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Apparently, I misinterpreted you.

You noted that the prohibition had feminist goals in mind, and I read you to say that the loss of life was acceptable.


Nope.  I was simply pointing out a historical curiosity about the intended and unintended consequences of Prohibition.  No cost-benefit analysis of the final results was attempted.  I suspect that if a realistic estimate of violent loss-of-life had been presented to the leaders of the Temperance movement prior to passage of that law, they might have had second thoughts and tried some other tactic to achieve their ends.  Then again, they might not!  Revolutionaries of either sex can be quite ruthless.

These women are long dead, and I have not seen any historical documentation of their willingness to "break a few eggs", so this would be an open question until more evidence emerges.

quote:

Put quite simply: if you encountered a man who treated all people, regardless of race, religion, gender and other such factors, in a manner that was entirely dependent on individual merit, and with a rational and unbiased angle, would you recognize this?


If I met such a man, I might be somewhat put off by the sense of entitlement that underlies his notion that any one person has the right to judge the "merits" of all other human beings, and assign to each a status based on this personal judgment.  Especially if he did so without recognizing that his own perspective was by nature limited and inevitably skewed by his personal preferences.

I'm a cultural relativist in this respect.  I find it easier to assume that most human beings have roughly equal merit in the scheme of things, barring the commission of some specific crime that proves otherwise.  But I also recognize that individuals may be more or less valued by me based entirely on my quirky individual perspective--and that this individual perspective may also color my view of their worth, and by extension the attractiveness of their ideology, opinions, and behavior.

As an example:  personally, speaking for myself?  I have a preference for submissive rather than dominant behavior in men.  On an abstract level, I regard men and women as equals in all respects, and recognize that the distribution of certain tendencies will be roughly equal between both sexes:  the tendency to be violent or passive, to be dominant or submissive, to be criminal or law-abiding, capable or incapable, articulate or athletic, etc.. 

Nevertheless, when a man behaves in a dominant fashion in my presence or in public, I will have a tendency to find it repulsive.  I will automatically have a tendency to reject his thoughts or statements, however right he may be, if his behavior strikes me as "too" aggressive--based entirely on my subjective experience.  By the same token, if a man appears to evince more submissive qualities--he seems calm, gentle, open, compassionate, etc.--I will always find whatever he says more appealing and find myself more drawn to him or approving of his statements.

This is a completely irrational tendency on my part.  I am sure it is obvious that this is simply a weakness of mine, a tendency to be taken into account before I pass hasty judgment.  It can have nothing to do with the real merits of any particular man's arguments or character.  What's more, other men and women can have the opposite reaction to mine, and find a man who is more aggressive or dominant automatically more persuasive and appealing, based on their own nature as emergent from personal character and upbringing.

So, returning to your original point, with this phenomemon in mind?  I would suggest that a similar tendency may account for the societal hostility that is directed at many feminists, and toward feminist ideology by extension.  Especially when this hostility comes from dominant men and submissive women (or anyone who finds strength, passion or forcefulness repulsive in the female of the human species).

Many people, male and female, find strong and challenging women to be unattractive and threatening.  This tendency, the sense of threat and "ugliness" that is overlaid onto feminists and feminism, says FAR FAR MORE about those who make such judgments than it does about the women or the movement being judged.  By any objective and rational measure, whether a woman crawls ingratiatingly toward equality on her belly or strides toward it forcefully in a more aggressive fashion can make no difference whatsoever.  The goal is the same, the changes that must be made are the same, the underlying values are the same.

But to the eye of the beholder, the one route and one "style" of achieving feminists goals may seem much more "right" and morally correct than the other.  ;)

And so I return to these "misogynists" that you said were magically "created" by exposure to feminists or feminism.  Again, I would argue that this misogyny is not "created" by any feminist, or by feminist ideology at all.  It is simply a pre-existing condition, which emerges upon exposure to people and arguments that make patriarchal males uncomfortable.



Aswad -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 12:12:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

When really, as said, society should be aiming at removing the idea of inequality.


Bingo. Or, rather... it's the only idea they should generalize. We're all unequal. But as individuals. Not as groups.
A group can show a trend, but interpreting statistics is something most people perform abysmally at.
Inferring something about an individual from the group, rarely, if ever, makes any sense.
Let those merits that apply to the situation be the sole deciding factors in it.

Health,
al-Aswad.



meatcleaver -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 12:17:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

As I see it, freedom is the point.



But what is feedom? It is different things to different people. In today's world, the western capitalist world has usurped the term freedom and uses it as a licence to exploit the weak. The weak respond and the capitalist west justifies its retaliation as 'fighting for freedom'.

Freedom, is a meaningless word. I have to admit I tend to yawn when people talk about freedom, it has become a term of convenience for money grubbing, corrupt politicians that are in the pay of international corporations.



Aswad -> RE: I am a feminist. (2/4/2008 1:04:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

Nope.


Then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

quote:

If I met such a man, I might be somewhat put off by the sense of entitlement that underlies his notion that any one person has the right to judge the "merits" of all other human beings, and assign to each a status based on this personal judgment.  Especially if he did so without recognizing that his own perspective was by nature limited and inevitably skewed by his personal preferences.


You misread me... you express my intent in the following:

quote:

But I also recognize that individuals may be more or less valued by me based entirely on my quirky individual perspective--and that this individual perspective may also color my view of their worth, and by extension the attractiveness of their ideology, opinions, and behavior.


I see the notion of value as anything other than a subjective thing (what you say: "valued by me") as somewhat fruitless.
Instead, I'm dealing with the idiosyncracies, qualities, traits, or whatever you want to call them.
The things that are factual about a person, insofar as I can observe.
From those, I assign subjective value.

quote:

This is a completely irrational tendency on my part.


I'm glad you point that out; it was a significant part of our failure to communicate in another thread, as I see it.

(Another part being that I tend to, also irrationally, respond poorly to conflation of the ideas and the people forwarding them.)

quote:

Many people, male and female, find strong and challenging women to be unattractive and threatening.


That, I have observed. I have theories on it, but those aren't substantiable at this time. I would claim that I do not have that trait.

quote:

But to the eye of the beholder, the one route and one "style" of achieving feminists goals may seem much more "right" and morally correct than the other.  ;)


Not really. But some styles seem more productive, in terms of the responses to them that I see around me.

A scissor and a garden shear can both trim fingernails, but one of those seems instincively more suited to the task. [:D]

quote:

And so I return to these "misogynists" that you said were magically "created" by exposure to feminists or feminism.  Again, I would argue that this misogyny is not "created" by any feminist, or by feminist ideology at all.  It is simply a pre-existing condition, which emerges upon exposure to people and arguments that make patriarchal males uncomfortable.


We're born as blank slates. Unless you reject that, you must cede that there are formative influences that cause misogyny.

I cede that most misogynists have been raised that way, or otherwise acquired that attitude early in life or through failures in dealing with women. But I have also observed men without the tendency, who form it later in life, due to irrational association, much like we can detest a food we've liked if we've vomited once just after eating it. That's not a defense, but an explanation of a causal link.

Surely you're not saying that men are born misogynists?

Health,
al-Aswad.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625