CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kaliko
FR
Firstly, GotSteel brought up the issue of how thinking something could affect our actions and could then do harm, even without someone knowing it. I understand and concede that point. But what keeps eating at me is why people feel like it’s okay to jump on this particular bandwagon (or racism, or any other –ism that is generally considered harmful) while ignoring that everybody – everybody – makes judgments about others – based on whatever they want to base them on.
I hear all the time that a person can choose to be with another person based on any criteria they want; that my criteria for a potential partner only has to make sense to me, and that’s all good and accepted pretty generally. Why does this same permissiveness not extend beyond the dating pool?
It seems to me that it’s okay for me to think what I want about another person as long as it falls within the parameters of what others find acceptable for me to think about them.
Secondly,…”harm.” Again, I’ll reference GotSteel’s statement. And as I said, I see your point. But, you are taking your beliefs and extrapolating from them your definition of harm. If I were a very vigilant male supremacist, I might believe that the harm is in giving women the right to vote. And I and a group of my fellow male supremacists might truly and honestly believe that to do so is harmful to all of society. And so, no, we would not be doing harm by acting in a way to restrict the opportunity of women. We would be doing harm according to your belief system. So I can’t accept the blanket notion that belief in a group’s superiority is necessarily harmful. It is harmful based on how we’ve defined harm.
I’m not thick about it. I understand. I don’t need examples of hurtful oppression throughout history and if that’s your gut reaction to my post, then you’re not getting what I’m saying. Or, I’m not explaining it well enough.
And…
Thirdly, if someone were to dismiss the opinions of someone who believes in male superiority (or call them names – the irony on this thread is fantastic), then isn’t that someone who is treating me in accordance with their beliefs? Even though I haven’t consented to be treated that way? And so it seems to me again that to do so – to treat a person a certain way based on what we think about them – is acceptable as long as the reasons for doing so line up with the opinions of the masses.
As you know, and as I haven’t done, I won’t argue my reasons for or against male supremacy. (And no, I’m not my example above. I like voting, thanks.) What I am arguing, though, is the ability to think a certain way about anyone based on any criteria I deem to be valid, without having to consider anyone else’s permission to do so. And if someone tells me I’m wrong to think that way, that’s fine. That’s a discussion about the topic. But to tell me I can’t even have those thoughts because someone else didn’t consent to me having those thoughts? That’s where it starts to get sort of creepy Orwellian Twilight Zone-ish.
Almost the thought-crime state, isn't it? And as I...And you...And others, including GotSteel's own author pointed out, what matters is being able to consciously override these thought and NOT let them be reflected in our actions when dealing with those NOT involved in our dynamic.
I would think how a potential partner thinks and feels along the same lines we do AND THEIR OWN ability to override those thoughts and feelings when dealing with others on the outside would play into our choice.
|
RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? - 
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