Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 12:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 05:31 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Examples of sexism today you ask: only 14 countries in the world have legalized same-sex marriage, in almost every country in the world women get paid less for the same task than men, forced prostitution, "innocent" sexual abuse (men touching women in the bus), tv shows objectifying women bodies. Those are all symptoms and causes of sexisms.

Anyone get a look at Gayle? Yikes. (Sexist joke!!!)

None of those things you listed are sexism related to me. Am I taking crazy pills? Same-sex marriage is not sexism to me. The opponents aren't attacking their gender, they're attacking the act that these two equal genders are trying engage in out of fear and ignorance. True, they are attacking a change in gender roles, but homophobia and Bible scripture seem to be the main issue typically addressed. I've never found the "women are paid less" argument to hold much water because there is no standardization of salary. Men also get paid less than other men for the same job, that's just how it works. Forced prostitution is not sexist at all. There's a market for sex and the primary buyers are horny men seeking women, so women are desired product. It's just human trafficking, not gender inequality. There's also forced slavery for little boys. Some women may get groped inappropriately but it's not like society accepts it because women deserve it. If such behavior is discovered, there is immediate social backlash.

I also found the list of feminists on wikipedia, but these are just individual women. Are there no moderate feminists groups?

You don't see sexism in that stuff because it's naturalized, it's naturalized that homosexuality is a less worthy preference than heterosexuality, that's sexist (yeah, sex, gender and sexuality are all interconnected). It's not a shallow thing about the bible, the bible itself is full of sexism (selling daughters and such) and it's not surprising that it generates sexist ideas today.
I'll give you the salary arguement because I'm lazy and don't want to find the numbers right now Tongue

Forced prostitution is not sexist? It actually makes me sad to read that, you must understand that sexism is not just an act of a man against a women, it's not just a hate crime, it's a general understanding of the world and how it works.
That's why feminist use the word patriarchy, it's not that they say the tribal patriarchal families exist in this parts of the world, it means that there's a widespread and very subtle way of dividing people into categories and assigning a hierarchy to those categories (and that's precisely where these extreme feminist fail, they reproduce the same system of dominance).
At a first glance you could say that forced prostitution is just a market with a very particular demand, but ask yourself why is that? why are women viewed for all those men as bodies that can be bought? If it's just a market, why is prostitution outlawed almost everywhere? why can't willing prostitutes form unions or be protected by labour laws?
It is human trafficking, but with a vast majority of women as victims, that points to a sexist cause.

About women being touched, yeah, it's not that women deserve it, the problem is that men think they're entitled to do it. And the social backlash is a feminist victory. But lets not forget that in many case of rape the idea that "she asked for it because she was wearing sluty clothes" is still an argument used, even in court some times; I know that bringing up rape is kind of a fallacy here, but it's just the same underlying sexism, so I mention it to make it more notorious.



About the moderate feminist groups, of course there are, you probably don't see them because they're not so vocal as the extreme ones. I think it's easier to find the more moderate groups within some political movements and in the academia environment. They also tend to form NGOs to study and further they causes, but you have to look for them if you want to find them because, again, they're not scandalous.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like nach_in's post
26-04-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 10:58 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, DLJ.

1 - Don't ask leading questions.

2 - I didn't lie. I suspected Cool

3 - I mentioned Harris merely as a popular source and proponent of the ideology in question.

Quote:I was asking whether you thought that an
organisation (as opposed to an individual) has a
responsibility to address the issue of extremists
who wave the same banner?

Nope. Neither organisations nor individuals.

Also, they should not be viewed as guilty by association.

Quote:For background... I'm teaching a Governance course
and the distinction between Organisational Ethics
vs Individual Ethics is discussed.

Do tell.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

1. I wasn't leading. I have no follow up question. I was genuinely asking for your view as an expert in your field.

2. You suspected wrong, then, dintcha?

3. I know your feelings on Mr Harris's view. Others had gone there so I see why you might have thought that I was going there too. You are forgiven. Tongue

Thanks for the feedback.

I'm going to ponder for a while on what constitutes an extreme act or thought or speech.

Bombing innocent runners or flying planes into buildings are generally considered to be in that category but I am also pondering...

Pedophile priests ... pope resigned but not personally accountable;
Melamine in babies' milk ... head of the company was found to be accountable (but not responsible) and she was executed;
(Take the money) ENRON;
War crimes (crimes of the state);
2008 Financial crisis.

Different societal layers or groups have different forms of Governance (doing the right things and doing things right).
My focus on Governance is from a Business perspective and Organisational Ethics is a subset of that as per International Standard (ISO38500) but theoretically the same principles apply to any non-individual entity.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

Quote:The moderates of any ideological position do provide cover for the extremists so long as they do not denounce them.

Rubbish.

Hey, DLJ.

Your leading question wound up exactly where I thought it would Cool

You're trying to set up a special case. Within the realm of your own logic, it makes sense. Otherwise not.

The idea that if an individual or an organisation doesn't excommunicate and denounce someone who commits an act of violence that the organisation actually supports those people is asinine.

What Harris is attempting to do is reframe the argument so that EVERYONE can be blamed for the actions of a few. It allows people to be bigoted and feel justified.

"No, no, Hamas isn't the problem, PALESTINIANS are."
"No, no, the IRA isn't the problem, the IRISH are."
"No, no, the US army isn't the problem, AMERICANS are."

I have ZERO obligation to denounce Kobe Bryant, OJ Simpson or Clarence Thomas just because I'm black and to even suggest it is preposterous. But it's DEMANDED under Harris' logic.

People have often said THAT organisations have an obligation to denounce the extremists, but no one has ever explained WHY. Except Harris. His why is that moderates give cover to and are somehow responsible for extremists. That's one of the most cockamamie things I've ever heard. And yet people buy it. Such is life.

So if you're looking for Camile Paglia or Gloria Steinam to denounce red-hair lady, you're gonna be waiting a long time.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

No, Harris is saying exactly what I said. It is not rubbish. The moderates are reprehensible for not speaking out.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
Hey, Nach.

You are the first person here, other than myself, I've seen use the term naturalised. A million plus gold stars. Straight up.

Hey, DLJ.

I think the missing ingredient is CRIME.

People commit crimes. Crimes are punishable by law. Organisations are not responsible for people committing crimes.

They ARE responsible if they cover it up, aid and abet, or if they coerce them into it.

If you take suicide bombers, well, they can't exactly be tried for their crime. If someone insighted them to blow themselves up, then they are guilty of a crime and can be punished.

If officials in the Catholic church bribe people to stay quiet and cover up endemic pedophelia, then that is a crime.

If I give succor to a criminal, before or after the commission of the crime, then I have aided and abetted, which is a crime.

If you put melamine in milk in China, they gonna shoot you dead.

If executives of Enron knowingly do all the fucked up shit they did, they SHOULD be found guilty of a crime, but hey, only in America!

INDIVIDUALS are found guilty of war crimes as a result of a tribunal. Organisations are not.

There is also a problem of... how to say... culture. The vow of chastity is a problem in the Catholic church that creates all manner of problem. Watch Gael Garcia Bernal in the excellent The Crime of Padre Amaro (based on a 19th century Spanish novel). That belief is not in and of itself a crime, but it is a problem.

The idea that Dolce et decorum est pro patria mori (it is right and just to die for one's country) is not itself a crime. Neither is the twisted theology of Islamic martyrdom. But they pose problems.

So if I'm a feminist and Red-Hair Nutbag goes on a rampage, I have not covered up anything, I have not aided or abetted, nor have I insighted anything. Therefore I am not guilty of anything.

If a couple of Chechen brothers set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, they have committed a crime (unless you're at war, then they're just soldiers doing their duty, but that's a whole other argument). It would seem that the punishment for this crime is to be summarily and unlawfully shot a whole lot by angry cops (but that's another argument). If I'm a Muslim, I have not covered anything up, I have not aided or abetted and I have not insighted them to violence. Therefore I am not guilty of anything.

If I am black and some thug shoots someone in a drive by, I have not covered anything up, I have not aided or abetted, nor have I insighted them. Therefore I am not guilty of anything. And I sure as shit haven't provided them cover.

Now if I'm anything and I choose to denounce someone or their actions, or if I want to state publicly that their worldview is an extremist/perverted version of your own, then I have that right. But I have no responsibility to do so. And I cannot be considered guilty by association if I do not.

Now, some people might not consider what other people call a crime, a crime. If I'm a Palestinian and Hamas fires a rocket into a group of Israeli soldiers, perhaps I think that's justified. Thinking that IS NOT A CRIME.





I don't like that Muslim extremists blow themselves up along with anyone unlucky to be near them... But I get it. And me getting it is a million times more valuable than just chalking it up to evil and trying to smash it.

And lastly, saying that we need to discuss an issue because there are complex forces at work that have created an environment in which individuals feel that violence is their best course of action and that our only hope of preventing further tragedy is to embark on said discussion, is not a synonym for, "I support terrorists." So fuck Stephen Harper and his, "Kill em all, and let God sort them out," cowboy bullshit.

So in the end, I absolutely agree that if individuals and organisations DO speak out against violence, that it could create an environment within which it's harder for violence to germinate. But if all we ever do is denounce violence for violence sake, then we prevent ourselves from delving into the underlying reasons behind it. When we do that, we're just asking for more of the same. And if we take it another step further and denounce those who do not denounce violence, then we create an environment in which no form of dissent or deviation from the party line is tolerated. And that is about a million times more destructive than any bomb.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
26-04-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 04:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  If a couple of Chechen brothers set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, they have committed a crime (unless you're at war, then they're just soldiers doing their duty, but that's a whole other argument). It would seem that the punishment for this crime is to be summarily and unlawfully shot a whole lot by angry cops (but that's another argument). If I'm a Muslim, I have not covered anything up, I have not aided or abetted and I have not insighted them to violence. Therefore I am not guilty of anything.

The older brother was killed in a stand-up gun fight that he started, so I find your spin on it ignorant and offensive.

And, yes, all moderate Muslims share blame for not speaking out against the wacko extremism because they appear to tacitly accept it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 06:19 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 11:01 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 06:42 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  If we are talking about feminism and you say something like that.(See below) It seems like you are implying that women are a minority.

"So the fact that people who fight for equal
rights for minorities "

I was talking about racial minorities and not about 52% of the world.

Fair enough. Sorry about the misinterpretation.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 06:57 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 04:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Nach.

You are the first person here, other than myself, I've seen use the term naturalised. A million plus gold stars. Straight up.

YAY! Smartass

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 07:14 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 06:57 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 04:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Nach.

You are the first person here, other than myself, I've seen use the term naturalised. A million plus gold stars. Straight up.

YAY! Smartass

Don't be too happy.

A million plus gold stars still doesn't come close to a rep point or even a 'like' with our Ghostly friend.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 07:30 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
(26-04-2013 06:19 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:01 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I was talking about racial minorities and not about 52% of the world.

Fair enough. Sorry about the misinterpretation.

Apologizing for Logica's strawman. I am disappoint.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Angry bitch feminist and the AmazingAtheist video
Hey, Chas.

If find your position on moderates ignorant and offensive. So what, yawannafitabadit?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: