DevilWithaHalo said:
It makes perfect sense; what justification is being used to rant against opposing opinion beyond offense? Voicing my dislike for her armpit hair does NOT harm her beyond her emotional sensitivity to counter opinion.
I mean it doesnt make sense because youve assigned at entire group of people an action (Thought control) then in the same sentence damned them for it without any sort of input from the person you are talking to. Thats not fair. This is why i dispise labels. When i say "Im a feminist" or an "Elgatarian" people pigeon hole all sorts of random bullshit for me that i have no interest in associating with. Id rather explain what i personally think. It might be what 99.9999% of feminists want, but as long as i dont it isnt fair to assign it to me.
Granted, but preventing people from voicing their opinions is censorship; a common tactic utilized in many feminist circles. The suggestion inherent in the ideology is that it would be taboo to voice dissenting opinion; which is highly ironic given the focus of the ideologies efforts to counter the current governing ?patriarchy?.
Cant argue with that, if your point is that certain people want crazy laws to LEGISLATE being nice ill agree.
Care to wager on that? I?ll give you the opportunity to alter this to ?any sane and reasonable person?.
Probably wont wager on it to be honest. Ill take your definition yeah.
Because past experience has influenced by reactions to similar circumstances. I don?t have to look very far for examples on how people want to control legislation to promote their individual ideals of ethics and morality. If you are of the opinion that certain people don?t want this level of control; you need a serious reality check
Certain people dont matter to me. It isnt a majority. And even if it is it isnt really relevant in this discussion since i dont think anyone in this thread has suggested such a notion. It seemed weird to bring it up. Keep your past experiences away from me in regards to what people want, im in the present and i want something different.
No, but then again, you would make a reasonable argument. I have yet to see a reasonable argument for the censorship or control of dissenting opinion. Thus far; it has and continues to remain emotionally based. Emotional reaction is a piss poor basis for educational regulation.
No, because you are allowing for alternative perspectives; whereas the argument surrounding social support and acceptance is not. Society can provide the option for gay people to get married; but it doesn?t mean other people have to support it.
Im fine for allowing other perspectives. I just seek to use the same methods. I ENCOURAGE people to not be creationists. I ENCOURAGE people not to hate eachother. I would NEVER use legislation to do this. Ever. But if youre going to tell me im a bad person for challenging people not to hate eachother so much im not really sure what to say.
That?s why feminism is quickly becoming a meaningless term; your egalitarian perspective differs from many others who claim a feminist perspective (including me).
True. This is why i hate labels. Id rather just explain my own view and let YOU label it with whatever is appropriate to you. Ill give everyone said opportunity to frame my views in comparison to their world view rather than me presenting one that can mean wildly different things to different people.
You?ll have to give me something better to work with; considering I don?t know the last time I laughed at someone who challenged gender norms (outside crazy feminists trying to prove a point).
Fine. The point im driving home is that encouraging (NOT LEGISLATING) people not to hate or demean eachother in society cannot possibly be a bad thing as long as said encouragement is in the form of rational discussion and freedom of views. I dont really care what other people are up to in regards to achieving this goal or a similar goal, this is what i want and what i will work to achieve by talking to people.
Logic has never been a strong point in feminist discussion. Is there a logical reason someone feels oppressed because they didn?t get positive feedback for growing out their armpit hair?
There is a logical reason to feel sad about it if said person is abused and mocked for doing something totally harmless. Its irrational at best and pretty dickish at worst to verbally abuse another person about it. Again, NEVER legislate this, but talking it through and realizing that its pretty petty to do this is a nice thing in society. I dont know. Id rather people disliked people for real reasons beside who has what armpit hair. If i get the opportunity to try and convince people of that i will.
If you lived in that particular society; no. Let?s go back to Rape Culture for a second; everything about this society teaches us that rape is a terrible atrocity and punishes it accordingly as a crime against another person. Now how does one come to learn that things, such as rape, are bad? Either because of our sense of morality governed by personal instinct, or by the education of society. The two don?t always mix; there are many things society tells me that I don?t agree with. The cold war taught both societies (capitalism and communism) to hate each other and I don?t think many people thought it was weird; considering that many people still feel the same way. Doesn?t it feel weird that England still has a monarchy? Different cultures, different values.
It does. And i DO live in this particular society. Questioning societial norms is how people make progress in being happier with eachother and themselves. I think those things are weird. I see what you are getting at by saying that no one can possibly have a totally objective standpoint on cultural values but i cant see the harm in trying to remove ones that generate vitriol and unkindness JUST via discussion.
Accept against feminism right? You may not personal believe that, but my challenge to certain inaccuracies presented by feminism has labeled me a misogynist (among other choice phrases). As if pointing out the error or outright misrepresentation of information makes me hate women. I request they do the same, because you don?t see ?reasoned arguments? outside the egalitarian perspective of feminism.
No idea, i commandeered the label of feminism for this discussion and im more than happy to drop it. Use whatever arguments you want, people who vilify open and honest discussion are wrong in my view and they are certainly not me. There is a distinct lack of a hivemind here.
Depends on the circumstance really; those questions under that thought process are too open ended to properly address. One could make arguments against traditional values as equally as one could argue for traditional values.
Arguments ONLY from tradition are very weak. Because we did it before can be used to justify literally ANYTHING including hammering nails through your eye. If values can be shown to make EVERYONE happier and make the country an objectively better place by preventing undeniably HARMFUL behaviour then go for it since its no longer an argument from tradition.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the colloquialism; ?Hope for the best but prepare for the worst??
I dont subscribe to it myself and have always viewed it with distaste. Im a big boy now, i can handle a little disappointment if things turn out worse than i expect.
I would love to see both, but they are few and far between amongst ?patriarchy? and ?rape culture?.
True and i agree that its a problem.
Bullshit. I hate Twilight; my hatred does not harm anyone involved in that ridiculous movie. I hate hairy armpits; my hatred does not harm anyone who chooses to grow out their armpit hair. I hate hypocrisy and fallacious reasoning; my hatred does not harm anyone guilty of committing them (including me). Hatred is not the problem; the actions against something based on that hatred are, let?s not confuse them shall we? Crazy psychos hatred of men does not harm me, but the knife they want to plunge into my chest because I possess a penis certainly does.
Hating something is not a moral crime, nor a legal one; it is only the outward expression of that hatred that people take issue with. And so long as they do not directly harm another person in the process; all we?re doing is taking about policies emotional offense.
No policy should be made to do with offence or hate. However Twilight isnt a person. Hating a person, like properly DISPISING a person is what LEADS to the knife going through you. Its a two pronged attack. Will to do something to someone you hate and means via the knife. If the removal of hatred between men and women in society is a bad thing you can be the first to tell me. Id rather talk away as much hatred as possible between PEOPLE. Not objects. Hating a rock doesnt offend the rock. Its not legally wrong to hate. Nor in some cases morally. But i cant imagine it being a GOOD thing in many circumstances. Id rather have less hate than more is all im saying and i think discussion and removal of irrational prejudices and roles is a way to move past it.
The notions of ?ridiculous? in accord to standards are a matter of personal opinion. Let me ask you a question; who sets the standards for what is and isn?t taboo? Are you not considering that feminism merely seeks to alter the standards; therefore merely shifting the goal posts or what is and isn?t taboo?
True, id say "Standards" should have some basis in objective harm to society and other people. If they dont scrap them. Im aware that shifting the goalposts is NOT what i want in the long term. But hey baby steps right?
To what end? Change the way that people choose to segregate themselves into different clicks and groups? Are we merely attempting a feng shui in reorganizing society to better suit our current mood?
My attitude of distancing myself from labels is how i see the most progress being made. I often encourage people to do that. Perhaps some people reshuffling as you say are but honestly im not.
Just another example of how feminism attempts to co-opt meanings that are entirely autonomous of its now all too random ideologies. Just don?t call it feminism; problem solved.
Labels make everything so messy. This is why for the most part, i dont. I call it "What Chris thinks".
So you?re OK with mindful rational tradition? Traditions come and go along with the generations and cultures that spawned them. Couldn?t? gasp? feminism be creating alternative traditional values? Let?s think of the children!
Yeah. If tradition is AMONG the arguments used then sure why not. After all its "Tradition" (In the sense that we always have done it this way) to NOT stab nails into our hands on our 18th birthdays. An argument COULD be used against it like "We have never done it this way before" which is an argument from tradition. However there are MANY other arguments against such a practice being encouraged and taught as normal. Its possible for a value to be "Traditional" by coincidence while still rooted in rationality. I dont want to be murdered so murder is illegal and "Traditionally" has been for a long time.
Seems like you?re making a patriarchy argument here? opportunity has more to do with technological advancements than it does social policy. A factoid gender studies seems to omit in various discussions involving women?s lib and the like.
I dont want to make social policy so im not sure how this is relevant. I would rather use discussion like i said.
Did you buy into the notion that this was ever legal or socially acceptable? I?m amused that you suggest violence as the only means to counter censoring differing opinions.
Hitting your wife and kids, while not socially ENCOURAGED, was certainly NOT the horrific crime it is today about 150 years ago in Britain. Not so. It was a silly extreme example that i regret to be frank. It was to demonstrate my point. That progress doesnt require mind control or legislation. Perhaps just discarding outdated AND irrational values.
Because progress, at least the progress certain feminists want, is legislative in nature; which goes against the very foundations of a free society. Laws which prevent discrimination? Sure, I can accept that. Laws which prevent people from hurting other people?s feelings? Fuck off. I say this because it?s a tangible way to gauge progress and because then they would have authority in a legal sense to do something about it (not that it prevents them now in our sue happy country).
If it?s harmless, then it doesn?t matter whether or not anyone else accepts it; because it?s harmless. It?s harmless whether or not she grows out her armpit hair; but I don?t have to like it, agree with it, support her for doing it or find her attractive in any way. So why does ?feminism? (in her sense), seek to ?correct? my personal opinion? There?s no god damn reason.
I DONT equate it to legislation. If i did seek to correct your opinion it would be if your opinion drove you to hate or publicly mock this woman. I wouldnt attempt to correct it persay but i would attempt to point out why such strong feelings are not well grounded in logic. You dont have to AGREE with everything in my view. You just shouldnt be an asshole about it. And legislation isnt the way to stop that from happening nor should it ever be. Pointing out there just isnt a REASON to be an asshole about it is the way forward. If youre aware of that and do it anyway oh well. Thats fair enough for me and at least society can concede that said person is indeed an asshole for belittling another person for a stupid reason. It isnt sexist to find armpit hair unnattractive nor will it ever be. Thats stupid. It doesnt make you a bad person either. Youre only a bad person if you directly attack another person for making a choice about it or TRY and hurt their feelings about it directly. Legislation cant possibly "fix" this nor does it need to.
Hate, like PURE hate, is the thing i have issue with to be frank because it almost always leads to pretty terrible actions. If you have kinda "Meh" negative feelings toward someone and dont act on them because you understand its harmless thats fine by me. I see no reason to do anything other than think "Why would he care?" and get on with it. Its silly to demand your support in all matters and you shouldnt be expected to give it. Its reasonable to say "I think we should look down on people who are mean about trivial shit" which is the FURTHEST extent im willing to go on the issue.
EDIT: HOLY FREAKING SHIT IM AN IDIOT. I saw the first picture then scrolled down quickly and assumed that it was the same picture set i saw earlier today, with WAY more sensible views on it. No i dont agree with some of these. Especially the last one. Or the second one. The first one seems valid. So does the armpit hair one kinda. Tbh that was my fault. I was lazy and assumed id seen these before. There are a lot more much better pictures in this set.
