Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:05 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(30-07-2013 01:59 PM)nach_in Wrote:  That's simply not true, seriously it's nothing like that. At some point the theories do fall into the idea that the issues the authors analyse require attention, but not necessarily more than a racism scholar says racism should be addressed.

You have a false preconception of feminism, and I strongly recommend you to read some feminsit book, at least an introductory one, so you can have an actual taste of what feminists talk about, because they do NOT advocate for special treatment of women or women's rights. They just focus on the issue.

Try to read this article (with nice eyes, the author is particularly complex so the abstracts are slightly out of context) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler
I know it's TL/DR but she's close to the vanguard of feminism today, and in the "publications" section you'll see how she also ventures into politics, linguistics and religion...

seriously man, you have a prejudice on the word "feminist". You're right about some points, but overall you're wrong about feminism.

Sorry if I sounded patronizing, not my intention.

There is no true definition of what feminism is. There is a different definition to everyone, much like there are denominations of denominations in religion. This is the side of feminism that I have encountered. Don't try and tell me what the exact objective of feminism it man, everyone has different objectives and ambitions.

That's true, but if feminism has so many meanings, then how can you be so sure it's as bad as you say? aren't you just generalizing from one arbitrary definition? are you sure you know and understand other people's definition of feminism?

If there's no single definition of feminism, then we have to work with multiple definitions and make each as distinct from the others as possible. You seem to define feminism as a misandryc, one sided, militant movement. It is true that it exists.

I use another definition of feminism, but are you willing to understand my definition? or are you going to dismiss it by equating it to your definition without any analysis?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
Quote:fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

You are a fool if you are going to argue about the purpose of feminism.

Some feminists think that men are misogynist pigs and should be dealt with. Some think that women should have more rights than men. Not all people use that definition whilst they still call themselves feminists.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:16 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(30-07-2013 02:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You are a fool if you are going to argue about the purpose of feminism.

Some feminists think that men are misogynist pigs and should be dealt with. Some think that women should have more rights than men. Not all people use that definition whilst they still call themselves feminists.

(28-07-2013 11:30 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  No, you're wrong. I do not define things as I please, I tend to use a dictionary.

Make up your mind dude.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
30-07-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I know that feminism is the notion that women's rights need more attention which I don't like. Why would I want to read about that? Also please don't patronize me I am not in the mood to be talked down upon for the simple fact that you don't think I know enough.

I'll reiterate: a focus on specific issues is how things get done. If one's primary focus is helping those who are worse off first, then that does not imply that they care only about those people's situations.

I am not trying to be patronizing. I am not denigrating your ability to reason. I am pointing out that your conclusions are based on false premises.

Feminism is not the notion that women's rights need more attention.

Feminism is the notion that fewer of women's rights than men's rights are generally recognized.

"Women's rights" and "men's rights" are not separate concepts. They merely refer to universal human rights as pertaining to different demographics.

That is the distinction you don't seem to be able to realize or accept. 'Feminism' is not something you define. That's why you should read about it. To see what it actually is.

I feel as though that should be sufficient. But what the heck...

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
Quote:Except no, because discrimination of employees based on anything other than competence is unethical and illegal.

It has and always will happen no matter the laws.

That does not change either observation. Do you agree that it is bad? Because I would hope you would then agree that it is a valid realm for advocacy. (And no humanist should be opposed to advocating equality).

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
Quote:So a woman can be a bad boss. So what? The statistics bear out the unequal treatment of women in the workplace.

So a man can be a bad boss. So what? You don't need to stage a mass movement against it.

An anecdote is not statistics. If unequal treatment of employees were endemic (protip: it is) then I'd say that's absolutely grounds for a mass movement. (I reiterate that no humanist should be opposed to advocating equality).

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Also statistics can be made to show anything and either way they are a gross generalization.

That is not how statistics work. I don't want to have to say this to you, but frankly it's true: you don't know what you're talking about. I joke about the reliability of statistics myself on occasion, but fortunately for all of us they actually are meaningful, consistently and demonstrably so.

Data show that women are paid less in equivalent positions and are less likely to attain higher qualifications and positions.

This disparity has decreased in recent years, which is progress. The related disparity in attaining qualifications has also decreased in recent years, which is progress. There is not yet equality; progress remains to be made. (I reiterate that no humanist should be opposed to advocating equality).

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  African-americans were being treated 100 times worse than women in this country. There were laws that specifically segregated them from the white population. Using that comparison to women today (in the US) is totally inaccurate.

Then it is a difference in degree, not in kind. All right; you have now tacitly admitted that a specific focus of advocacy can be necessary. Presumably there is then a threshold of disparity beyond which such specific focus is unnecessary; on that we may well amicably disagree.

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  No it isn't. The fact that you don't think there is a strong group advocating the "radical" feminism is ridiculous.

There isn't. Deal with it. Find me serious academic output to that effect. Find me major advocacy groups to that effect. There aren't any. Are there crackpot blogs? Yes. So what?

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  No it isn't because the Westboro Baptist Church speaks obviously for racist bigotry.

And anyone espousing gender inequality speaks obviously for sexist bigotry. There are very, very few such people.

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Modern feminists want equality for women, while they should be supporting overall human rights. Please don't twist my words around and make false analogies.

Supporting gender equality is supporting overall human rights. There can be no overall human rights without such equality. This is not a dichotomy.

I am not twisting your words. Anyone who espouses gender inequality is precisely as representative of mainstream feminism and gender theory as the Westboro Baptists are representative of mainstream Christianity; that is to say, not at all.

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  We clearly have a difference in opinion and I think we should leave it at that. I respect your opinion but I frankly don't feel like arguing over nothing so I will read your response if you send one but will not reply. I will forever be in the humanist camp while you are free to choose whatever side you like.

You are painting a ludicrous false dilemma. I'm not sure why you don't see that. A characterization of 'camps' and 'sides' is petulant and inaccurate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-07-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:16 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Some feminists think that men are misogynist pigs and should be dealt with. Some think that women should have more rights than men. Not all people use that definition whilst they still call themselves feminists.

And you know what? That isn't the definition of feminism. Believing women are superior to men is MISANDRY, not feminism. Try again, honey.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:13 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(30-07-2013 02:05 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  There is no true definition of what feminism is. There is a different definition to everyone, much like there are denominations of denominations in religion. This is the side of feminism that I have encountered. Don't try and tell me what the exact objective of feminism it man, everyone has different objectives and ambitions.

That's true, but if feminism has so many meanings, then how can you be so sure it's as bad as you say? aren't you just generalizing from one arbitrary definition? are you sure you know and understand other people's definition of feminism?

If there's no single definition of feminism, then we have to work with multiple definitions and make each as distinct from the others as possible. You seem to define feminism as a misandryc, one sided, militant movement. It is true that it exists.

I use another definition of feminism, but are you willing to understand my definition? or are you going to dismiss it by equating it to your definition without any analysis?

I can only argue about the feminists that live around me and spout their crap. I suppose that if I lived around feminists like the one in that video, whilst I still disagree about the merits of the movement, my opinion would probably change drastically but around me it has become crazy. The problem is that feminists range as far from thoughtful woman to crazy bitch. In my area the crazy ones are winning by a landslide.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:21 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I can only argue about the feminists that live around me and spout their crap. I suppose that if I lived around feminists like the one in that video, whilst I still disagree about the merits of the movement, my opinion would probably change drastically but around me it has become crazy. The problem is that feminists range as far from thoughtful woman to crazy bitch. In my area the crazy ones are winning by a landslide.

Wow, your anecdotal evidence is so compelling. Not. And what aspect of the movement do you disagree with? The whole equality thing, or?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:21 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(30-07-2013 02:13 PM)nach_in Wrote:  That's true, but if feminism has so many meanings, then how can you be so sure it's as bad as you say? aren't you just generalizing from one arbitrary definition? are you sure you know and understand other people's definition of feminism?

If there's no single definition of feminism, then we have to work with multiple definitions and make each as distinct from the others as possible. You seem to define feminism as a misandryc, one sided, militant movement. It is true that it exists.

I use another definition of feminism, but are you willing to understand my definition? or are you going to dismiss it by equating it to your definition without any analysis?

I can only argue about the feminists that live around me and spout their crap. I suppose that if I lived around feminists like the one in that video, whilst I still disagree about the merits of the movement, my opinion would probably change drastically but around me it has become crazy. The problem is that feminists range as far from thoughtful woman to crazy bitch. In my area the crazy ones are winning by a landslide.

So you're not talking about Feminism, you're talking about the group of so-called feminist in your area.

You base all your ideas on the few feminists you've encountered. And from that anecdotal data, you've made a gross generalization of ALL feminists. But you insist that you can't be bothered to read a book of any feminist, have you even googled "feminist academic book" or some query to that effect? Have you bothered to see if there's anything to feminism outside what you've encountered?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
30-07-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
(30-07-2013 02:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I know that feminism is the notion that women's rights need more attention which I don't like. Why would I want to read about that? Also please don't patronize me I am not in the mood to be talked down upon for the simple fact that you don't think I know enough.

I'll reiterate: a focus on specific issues is how things get done. If one's primary focus is helping those who are worse off first, then that does not imply that they care only about those people's situations.

I am not trying to be patronizing. I am not denigrating your ability to reason. I am pointing out that your conclusions are based on false premises.

Feminism is not the notion that women's rights need more attention.

Feminism is the notion that fewer of women's rights than men's rights are generally recognized.

"Women's rights" and "men's rights" are not separate concepts. They merely refer to universal human rights as pertaining to different demographics.

That is the distinction you don't seem to be able to realize or accept. 'Feminism' is not something you define. That's why you should read about it. To see what it actually is.

I feel as though that should be sufficient. But what the heck...

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  It has and always will happen no matter the laws.

That does not change either observation. Do you agree that it is bad? Because I would hope you would then agree that it is a valid realm for advocacy. (And no humanist should be opposed to advocating equality).

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  So a man can be a bad boss. So what? You don't need to stage a mass movement against it.

An anecdote is not statistics. If unequal treatment of employees were endemic (protip: it is) then I'd say that's absolutely grounds for a mass movement. (I reiterate that no humanist should be opposed to advocating equality).

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Also statistics can be made to show anything and either way they are a gross generalization.

That is not how statistics work. I don't want to have to say this to you, but frankly it's true: you don't know what you're talking about. I joke about the reliability of statistics myself on occasion, but fortunately for all of us they actually are meaningful, consistently and demonstrably so.

Data show that women are paid less in equivalent positions and are less likely to attain higher qualifications and positions.

This disparity has decreased in recent years, which is progress. The related disparity in attaining qualifications has also decreased in recent years, which is progress. There is not yet equality; progress remains to be made. (I reiterate that no humanist should be opposed to advocating equality).

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  African-americans were being treated 100 times worse than women in this country. There were laws that specifically segregated them from the white population. Using that comparison to women today (in the US) is totally inaccurate.

Then it is a difference in degree, not in kind. All right; you have now tacitly admitted that a specific focus of advocacy can be necessary. Presumably there is then a threshold of disparity beyond which such specific focus is unnecessary; on that we may well amicably disagree.

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  No it isn't. The fact that you don't think there is a strong group advocating the "radical" feminism is ridiculous.

There isn't. Deal with it. Find me serious academic output to that effect. Find me major advocacy groups to that effect. There aren't any. Are there crackpot blogs? Yes. So what?

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  No it isn't because the Westboro Baptist Church speaks obviously for racist bigotry.

And anyone espousing gender inequality speaks obviously for sexist bigotry. There are very, very few such people.

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Modern feminists want equality for women, while they should be supporting overall human rights. Please don't twist my words around and make false analogies.

Supporting gender equality is supporting overall human rights. There can be no overall human rights without such equality. This is not a dichotomy.

I am not twisting your words. Anyone who espouses gender inequality is precisely as representative of mainstream feminism and gender theory as the Westboro Baptists are representative of mainstream Christianity; that is to say, not at all.

(30-07-2013 01:35 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  We clearly have a difference in opinion and I think we should leave it at that. I respect your opinion but I frankly don't feel like arguing over nothing so I will read your response if you send one but will not reply. I will forever be in the humanist camp while you are free to choose whatever side you like.

You are painting a ludicrous false dilemma. I'm not sure why you don't see that. A characterization of 'camps' and 'sides' is petulant and inaccurate.

Quote: 'Feminism' is not something you define. That's why you should read about it. To see what it actually is.

Yes it is. Every feminist has a different definition and ambitions for the movement.

Quote:There isn't. Deal with it.

That's completely wrong. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

Those feminists are singlehandedly leading the movement these days. Have fun with that.

Give me a refutation on this using your superior feminist skills and understanding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlSh6wBXePM Especially look at the segment where he talks about the pay situation that starts at 9:17. Although watch the whole video please. Thumbsup

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Why Not Just Advocate Human Rights?
And by any chance do you seriously think that every humanist share the same goals and ambitions? seriously?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: