egern
Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: egern
quote:
ORIGINAL: slavekate80
The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem.
As is pointed out in the article (sorry about the link, it is there now) it is not a localized problem. it exists in several parts of the world, and with growing fundamentalism it is likely to get worse.
But even if it were localized, I cannot see why it should not matter?quote:
In certain parts of the world, white people are targeted for violence - that doesn't translate to a need for special white rights' groups (especially in places where they're already dominant), it just means that laws and enforcement are not always fair and some people are guilty of human rights violations. That can be addressed without wild claims that any particular race (or gender) should be singled out for attention and special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people.
First, in a lot of cases it is practical to target the specific problems directly. That is why there was a civil rights movement in US in the 60's, for example, and an abolitionist movement earlier on.
Secondly, to attack human right violations you'd have to have a society that recognized all its citizens as citizens, and which had accepted the idea of human rights.
And two clarifying questions to you: I am curious as to why you think that reports of stoning are 'wild claims'? What would constitute 'unwild claims' in your opinion?
And why do you feel that the right not to be stoned to death can be considered attention and "special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people." I do not understand your reasoning - I dare say we would all want to avoid being stoned to death.
I don't think you see what slavekate was saying. I don't think she was saying that stoning to death is an acceptable punishment. I think she was saying that it's not a feminist issue, but rather, a human rights (no gender assignment) issue. That is, it's not a fight that just feminists should be fighting, but all of humanity should be fighting.
And, I think the "wild claims" weren't the reports of stoning, but that it's a "feminist" issue.
Many times, a one-gender or one-race solution doesn't necessarily promote equality, but the advancement of that gender/race to the detriment of other genders/races. Affirmative Action was a way to make sure there would be minorities represented in employee ranks. If a minority wasn't as good a candidate as a white guy, but got the job because of AA practices, that is an example of racism against that white guy.
Every race and gender should be held as equal. Having different rules for people based on gender and/or race is discrimination, and each gender and race should be in support of reducing that discrimination. The Rev.'s Sharpton and Jackson get tons of criticism because the only time they are vocal and in front of an issue is when it's a black person that has been discriminated against. While it's great that they are willing to stand up for their beliefs, it's racist if they don't do the same when it's a black person doing the discriminating. I don't have to be black to be able to call out white supremacist fucktards. I don't have to be a woman to want equal treatment for women.
I'm not a feminist. I'm not a male-chauvinist. I'm a racist in that I believe thehuman race to be superior to all other races on Earth.
I get your point. However, it is rare that people who are humanists and believe in human rights on a general basis can manage to get interested in all the many places and ways that human rights are stomped, and we tend to put our interest in what is closest to our own situation.
Thus black people work for black people, women work for women, men work for men, handicapped people work for handicapped people and so on.
I would ask what on earth is wrong with that? It is only natural, and surprising that it should attract such anger from some.
If I read you right, your answer is that focusing on what is closest to your own situation automatically means some sort of supremacy ideas or fundamentalism or exaggeration.
And while I agree that this can happen, it is always a small but loud group who is like that, and the only one the press gives space to or people hear.
But without the specific orientated groups nothing would be done! Women would not have the vote, neither would black people, handicaps would not be accepted and so on.
Humanism is too broad and diffuse. For results you need to focus, and I cannot see that as a wrong. It certainly does not mean that you think less of other people's rights, normally.
|
Why feminism is still nessecary - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread