8 Bit Philosophy: What is Woman? (de Beauvoir + Metroid)
- Thread starter 8-Bit Philosophy
- Start date
Wanted to post a post about how she does the same thing as male philosophers, asserting things without looking for evidence, but then it would only lead to misunderstanding.
Just ... men are not the only one who stamp gender roles on people. Not at all.
Just ... men are not the only one who stamp gender roles on people. Not at all.
Such philosophers, if their intention was to seriously provide evidence, would refer to stories found in books and other media. One could easily believe that people in media are the same as people in general, but media usually portray people whose actions have major consequences upon other people who hardly act at all. For example, just as Homer often spoke of battles and Shakespeare wrote of betrayal, news media report on violence of all sorts. In reality, everyone makes decisions that have major consequences on their own lives. People cannot just be classified as either "heroes/villains" or "side characters".the silence said:
To sum it up, the philosophers quoted here are ill-informed.
Huh? Didn't you post this a year or so ago as one of your very first videos?
Or did I see it on your YouTube? Anyway, keep up the good work!!!
Or did I see it on your YouTube? Anyway, keep up the good work!!!
I think it's time we re-evaluate the concepts of gender and sex in general. For me, I don't identify sexual role of reproduction to a person's individual value or even identity.
Who a person is, and whether or not I am attracted to them, as well as on what basis I am attracted to them are entirely different matters what so ever.
If a woman (or any gender in the spectrum) chooses to appeal to the base primal form of sexuality, some societal concept of gender norms, some sort of ideal or even in defiance of said norms, or simply an open exploration of self actualization are entirely their right to do so and nobody should judge their worth on anything but a subjective attraction level for it.
That said, they are also equally free to express what they find attractive, which includes depiction of fantasy - those idealized or even objectified avatars in which seems to have caused such heated discussions of late. Such ideals can be criticized and subjectively rejected, but to harp upon those fantasies, those ideals of attraction are no less a societal pressure than those that have traditionally, for years been forced upon women and anyone of the feminine leanings.
It is a dangerous discussion, trying to fight for equality and freedom by attempting to suppress freedom of thought. We must be cautious in our discourse not to overcompensate for our societal errors and simply trade one form of oppression for another.
To which I conclude as personal philosophy:
A person who depicts and identifies themselves as a gender has the right to assume such. Sex, being our physical body's role in the reproduction cycle, is not as easily changed, but is still malleable. We are free to depict our own, and agree or disagree with other's chosen representation, as well as their own ideals for a mate, but should respect artistic depictions of each so long as it falls within the correct side of the law of the land.
Beyond the realm of personal exploration, identification and opinion? It's nobody's business until they make it yours.
Great video. It's worth exploring these subjects respectfully, always.
Who a person is, and whether or not I am attracted to them, as well as on what basis I am attracted to them are entirely different matters what so ever.
If a woman (or any gender in the spectrum) chooses to appeal to the base primal form of sexuality, some societal concept of gender norms, some sort of ideal or even in defiance of said norms, or simply an open exploration of self actualization are entirely their right to do so and nobody should judge their worth on anything but a subjective attraction level for it.
That said, they are also equally free to express what they find attractive, which includes depiction of fantasy - those idealized or even objectified avatars in which seems to have caused such heated discussions of late. Such ideals can be criticized and subjectively rejected, but to harp upon those fantasies, those ideals of attraction are no less a societal pressure than those that have traditionally, for years been forced upon women and anyone of the feminine leanings.
It is a dangerous discussion, trying to fight for equality and freedom by attempting to suppress freedom of thought. We must be cautious in our discourse not to overcompensate for our societal errors and simply trade one form of oppression for another.
To which I conclude as personal philosophy:
A person who depicts and identifies themselves as a gender has the right to assume such. Sex, being our physical body's role in the reproduction cycle, is not as easily changed, but is still malleable. We are free to depict our own, and agree or disagree with other's chosen representation, as well as their own ideals for a mate, but should respect artistic depictions of each so long as it falls within the correct side of the law of the land.
Beyond the realm of personal exploration, identification and opinion? It's nobody's business until they make it yours.
Great video. It's worth exploring these subjects respectfully, always.
I have a feeling the comments for this episode on the YouTube posting are... not something I care to view.