Feminism and why it's bad.

Patriarchy strikes again

1Auofh.jpg
 
theAE said:
Is this thread for or against feminism? Sorry, I cant really tell
Click to expand...
Both, more or less. While it started as a troll-thread to summon Sander, it's definitely possible to have some proper discussions about feminism in here.
 
Well in that case we could debate the entire notion of the West being oppressive to women; compared to other culture hot spots. The middle east. *cough* *cough*

For instance. All throughout Western Europe/U.S. we've shelters for battered women, and a minute number (Under 10 I believe.) of shelters for men. Just seems odd.
 
The main reason I personally stay out of this debate, most of the time, is that I don't like saying stuff that's gonna reward neo-fascist attitudes. Yes, some men are sometimes abused by women, this has been known since the dawn of time, except we typically tend to laugh at it, and accuse the man in question of lacking testicles.

Take the whole muslim rage lately. I'm an atheist. As an atheist, I view all muslims as mistaken. Just as mistaken as a Christian or a Buddhist. And I don't care that buddhism is often viewed as much more peaceful, they believe humanity is about sitting still for as long as possible, and to me, that's retarded.

But if I say "muslims are stupid", I'm gonna get hi-fived by pig-snouted skinheads, and it's just not worth it. In all, these past 10-15 years are annoying as hell in terms of discussing politics...
 
Oh there are militant Buddhists. And what I know about Buddhism fits inside a thimble. But it's enough to know that you really shouldn't be presuming anything monolithic about them since there are a befuddling number of sects and cultural varieties . . . not unlike say, every dominant religion in the modern world today. I mean you could go on about secular atheistic Christians down to the most hardcore millenialist fundie. If you're not in the cult in question, a lot of that information is just impossible to care about.

Muslims generally just look like much less gentrified Christians of any era. They do the same things. There's a lot of accusatory, but those guys really aren't real Scotsman. To which I think, "Who fucking cares? It's always your word versus theirs." Yes, I know, you don't think Westboro is representative of your view of Christianity and that Al Qaeda isn't your idea of a genteel Islam. I don't care. Over the long run, Islam isn't going to look much different from Christianity. Judaism is also pretty fucking awful in the way it manifests itself as Zionism.
 
zegh8578 said:
The main reason I personally stay out of this debate, most of the time, is that I don't like saying stuff that's gonna reward neo-fascist attitudes. Yes, some men are sometimes abused by women, this has been known since the dawn of time, except we typically tend to laugh at it, and accuse the man in question of lacking testicles.

Take the whole muslim rage lately. I'm an atheist. As an atheist, I view all muslims as mistaken. Just as mistaken as a Christian or a Buddhist. And I don't care that buddhism is often viewed as much more peaceful, they believe humanity is about sitting still for as long as possible, and to me, that's retarded.

But if I say "muslims are stupid", I'm gonna get hi-fived by pig-snouted skinheads, and it's just not worth it. In all, these past 10-15 years are annoying as hell in terms of discussing politics...
Click to expand...
I can understand the sentiment; believe it as well. These types of things always draw both vocal groups from both sides shouting their rhetoric. Yes there are vocal moderates but they are not sensational enough to be media worthy.

DVL said:
Oh there are militant Buddhists. And what I know about Buddhism fits inside a thimble. But it's enough to know that you really shouldn't be presuming anything monolithic about them since there are a befuddling number of sects and cultural varieties . . . not unlike say, every dominant religion in the modern world today. I mean you could go on about secular atheistic Christians down to the most hardcore millenialist fundie. If you're not in the cult in question, a lot of that information is just impossible to care about.

Muslims generally just look like much less gentrified Christians of any era. They do the same things. There's a lot of accusatory, but those guys really aren't real Scotsman. To which I think, "Who fucking cares? It's always your word versus theirs." Yes, I know, you don't think Westboro is representative of your view of Christianity and that Al Qaeda isn't your idea of a genteel Islam. I don't care. Over the long run, Islam isn't going to look much different from Christianity. Judaism is also pretty fucking awful in the way it manifests itself as Zionism.
Click to expand...
Can't agree any more. Whats that one fallacy thing called; no true Scotsman? (Don't know, never studied logic.) All groups can be pretty horrible and have gentle sides yet most seem to fall down to "Well we're not all that way." while they're core beliefs can allow for such extremism.

Main difference we're seeing now is radical nut jobs, religious and/or ideological, being taken more seriously than usual. My perspective at least.
 
No True Scotsman is a kind of categorical fallacy where somebody might pick some silly thing to disqualify somebody from inclusion into a category. Generally a group.

"No True Scotsman hates haggis."
"No True Scotsman would ever tup sheep."

And so on.
It typically comes up when you think your group is morally superior, so you naturally want to exclude everybody who doesn't fit to your narrow conception of goodness as not being the real deal. Maybe they pray the wrong way or really weren't sincere about it. But even the "good guys" don't exactly read their Bibles and freely ignore the bits of historical or scriptural precedent that bother them or just isn't a thing with their particular tradition for whatever reason.

I'm burying my face in my palms whenever somebody dismisses somebody else's deconversion by going, "Well you were never a real Christian anyway." As if the person in question never really went to the de-gaying camps and try to do everything his religious community told him would him make a better person.

If that religious tradition was a sure-fire way to make you a good person it wouldn't fail spectacularly no matter what your circumstances were. Especially if you're claiming an omnipotent god as your patron.
 
Last edited:
zegh8578 said:
The main reason I personally stay out of this debate, most of the time, is that I don't like saying stuff that's gonna reward neo-fascist attitudes. Yes, some men are sometimes abused by women, this has been known since the dawn of time, except we typically tend to laugh at it, and accuse the man in question of lacking testicles.

Take the whole muslim rage lately. I'm an atheist. As an atheist, I view all muslims as mistaken. Just as mistaken as a Christian or a Buddhist. And I don't care that buddhism is often viewed as much more peaceful, they believe humanity is about sitting still for as long as possible, and to me, that's retarded.

But if I say "muslims are stupid", I'm gonna get hi-fived by pig-snouted skinheads, and it's just not worth it. In all, these past 10-15 years are annoying as hell in terms of discussing politics...
Click to expand...

Sitting still for as long as possible is retarded, sure, but so is shying away from expressing your opinions just because you don't like the people who share them with you, if you don't mind me saying.

A big concern about the issue is the stigma of being called a fascist or a Nazi. In many places it's even illegal to be one, which I don't get either. We allow commies to be commies, despite the fact that communism killed far more people, and I don't see them taking over entire countries. Why do people think it would be any different with fascists of Nazis?
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
So, killing ten times more people is okay, so long as your basic idea is benevolent?
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is it's easier to claim that you are not bad if you are communist, not that it is necessarily true. I doubt you'll find a Neo-Nazi who isn't racist, which easily offends (and potentially scares) many.

Another theory is that Nazi's just generally get more coverage, so to speak, than the Russians or Mao. World War II movies are everywhere (keep in mind we liked the Russians at that point), Holocaust awareness is crazy (at least in the US). Communism just gets a little history lesson in school and some documentaries.
 
Eh, I'd have chipped in and been a pedant by saying that "inarguable" is a bit too much.

The people who are fascists/authoritarians tend to be the sort that think giving up a bit of freedom is worth that bit of security and public order (perceived or real).
If they're genuinely white supremacists, quite a few of them do believe that bit about "separate but equal" and a lot of Americans really do think that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. You can also argue that this is a thin excuse for exploiting other people.

Talk to the right (or wrong) sort of people and you will find plenty of argument.

The Legion's justification for slavery mirrors how we used to justify it before.
They're lazy. There's no chance of them being productive and it's for their own good. And the average Legionary really believes you really are just dissolute savages. Or profligates, which is just you pretending to be civilized. White man's burden anybody?

*cough* I'm not looking at anybody in particular here though when I say all this though.
 
DVL said:
Eh, I'd have chipped in and been a pedant by saying that "inarguable" is a bit too much.

The people who are fascists/authoritarians tend to be the sort that think giving up a bit of freedom is worth that bit of security and public order (perceived or real).
If they're genuinely white supremacists, quite a few of them do believe that bit about "separate but equal" and a lot of Americans really do think that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. You can also argue that this is a thin excuse for exploiting other people.

Talk to the right (or wrong) sort of people and you will find plenty of argument.

The Legion's justification for slavery mirrors how we used to justify it before.
They're lazy. There's no chance of them being productive and it's for their own good. And the average Legionary really believes you really are just dissolute savages. Or profligates, which is just you pretending to be civilized. White man's burden anybody?

*cough* I'm not looking at anybody in particular here though when I say all this though.
Click to expand...

The White man's burden and mission to civilize weren't excuses for slavery, as far as I know both terms became popular after the institution was long abolished. Colonial powers even went out of their way to put an end to slavery in societies that still practiced it out of the conviction that it was barbaric.

And they did raise the living standards and average lifespan in the vast majority of places they colonized (the Brits more so than others).

The reason we see colonialism as all bad is that all indigenous cultures are so romanticized. Listening to some people, one would think that the Native Americans lived in a garden of Eden style utopia before European colonization, while there were such practices as human sacrifice, ritual mutilation and torture, and slavery. In parts of India, it was traditional for a wife to throw herself onto her husband's funeral pyre until evil whitey came and put an end to this beautiful indigenous tradition. Do you think Japan would be where it is today had Perry never sailed into Tokyo bay?

People are somehow able to recognize the positive influence of Rome on its conquered provinces, yet suggesting that European colonial powers had a similar effect on the world is often construed as a racist or supremacist idea.
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
Sitting still for as long as possible is retarded, sure, but so is shying away from expressing your opinions just because you don't like the people who share them with you, if you don't mind me saying.
Click to expand...

Oh, totally! I agree

As for "white guilt" and whatnot, coming from a Norwegian - I have to state: A lot of white people, such as Norwegians, never colonized a damn inch of Africa or Asia, and the only people we enslaved were other white people, hell, Celtic people are probably the only people whiter than Scandinavians :D

In the end, I don't care about the past. It's gone. There's nobody left to blame. They're all dead.

That said, it would be an ideal world where we are prepared to not exploit places like Congo, for their vast mineral reserves, and instead pay ten times the price for a cell-phone. It would be ideal, but not very practical - and I, for one, would not own a cellphone. Which sucks.

Nature, this world, is harsh as hell, and I am enjoying the results of other peoples suffering. It's the same thing as the whole meat-vegetarian debatery: It is not possible to kill an animal painlessly, it's a myth. My meat comes with suffering, I accept it, because I really don't want to be anemic.

I have a base egocentrism, that I accept as is. I also limit it, for example, I'm never gonna buy a fur coat, or gorilla-hand ashtray. The few times I fish, I am one of those who will make damn sure that fish is really dead, before I throw it in the fish-bucket, while many others don't really care, and leave the fish suffocating slowly. I'm not gonna cry over a fish, but I want to limit suffering whenever possible, while still accepting that it will never be eliminated.

Once again, I wish to thank the Congolese people for their sacrifice, so that I can fit my phone easily in my pocket, flat and slim as it is, mmm. May stability never reach Kivu.
 

Funny and fitting, I suppose.

Also I like this quote from Perkel at the codex:
"There was Marie Curie, bisexual woman at time when people could die for it, who won nobel prize twice (first human to achieve that in history and only one i different categories), was first woman profesor at Paris university at time when women in science were laughed at, didn't give a shit what people tell about her, worked on lethal substances most of her life.

But let's focus on some women who scream opression having same rights as everyone else who achieved nothing elase aside from training vocal cords."

Rolemodels are better than public shaming, education is better than affirmitive action and positive attention is better than negative attention. Who knew?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top