Looking for all the non-sexists to join in
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
MoreFeasts
Member
OB What is wrong with being sexist? Real question. Also, don't You think women are sexist too?
But that's the very issue that I'm talking about. Different notions of individual rights and responsibilities that come from where? We are still framing such questions as "what did the founding fathers intend?" or "where does one's freedom end?" and so on. That approach clearly goes against any understanding of the methods of acquiring useful knowledge. Physicists don't worry about projecting Newton's possible opinion on quantum entanglement before they describe its workings. Chemists don't care if studying a certain mechanism devalues the essence of what it means to be human. The debates between liberals and conservatives seem to skip right past any attempt to provide a solution to a problem through objective causal means. It is about running a society in a way that fits with whatever cultural ideology they adopted. What I'm saying is that there are no rights sculpted into the clouds for us to discover and understand. They have absolutely no meaning outside of whatever definition we give them. I think humanity has come a long way in the past few hundred years, but every bit of progress had to plow through jungles of entrenched religiosity. If we are to be guided by rigid ideologies of rights and responsibilities, then nothing can be accomplished by any debate, unless both parties already share the same perspective.
But how can we remedy a problem if the problem is strengthened by our acknowledgement of it? Racism exists because society insists on sticking with the category of race. There is no objective reason why "race" is a meaningful concept at all. I did not grow up in the West, and I did not know about the idea of a race until my early teens. Before then, I simply understood that environmental adaptation and relative isolation causes people in different places to develop distinct features. If you insist on maintaining the category of race, then you'll always be saying "yes, people ARE inherently different, but you must try and look past those differences". Which is a lot harder than simply discarding an archaic concept and treating such variations like we do height differences or hair curliness (people will still display prejudice, but I haven't heard of a short people concentration camp). Similarly, fixing sexism must be seen as fixing a social problem affecting everyone. While it is true that a woman being paid less than a man has a more direct impact on the woman, it still has significant impact on the rest of society. Most simplistically, it discourages a large percentage of the population from seeking productive employment, which in turn reinforces the idea that they're incapable of being as productive as those who are paid more. It goes far deeper than that, but I'd like to keep my response readable.
Not really. It is perfectly "natural" to consume more than you need when food is available. That has clearly created a health problem in a world of abundance. That statement must be evaluated and responded to with the tools of logic and rationality that have proved to be effective wherever they were applied. The statement is invalid for many reasons. First, what is the evidence for that? Secondly, how is happiness measured? Third, who put you in charge of the task of spreading happiness? Forth, why is achieving happiness a valid measure of morality? And so on. Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentiment. How can forcing yourself to be with someone you're not attracted to better than being with the person you want to be with? But the "natural" argument validates all the nonsensical assumptions made in the original statement. If someone does indeed show studies where homosexual men married to women report being happier, does that make homosexuality wrong? Only if we agree than amount of happiness dictates moral acceptability.
Fair enough. That's perfectly reasonable and practical. It does little to combat sexism tho. Civility and actual progress aren't the same thing. Either way, I feel like we're getting hung up on this point. So I concede that there is nothing wrong with pointing sexist comments out.
Lynching existed in American society until mid-20th century. Look who we have for a president now. In fact, just look at the battles society is waging now. Gay marriage is a hot social issue! Not long ago, people were tortured to death for expressing an unusual perspective on one holy book or another (and they still do in some parts of the world). Progress is being made every day. The developed world has achieved remarkable advancement in almost every area in as little as 300 years. You think sexism will be a cutting edge issue if we survive another 500 years? How about 5 million? Don't be trapped into thinking the way things are is the same way they've always been or the same way they will always be.
Just like recovering alcoholics see, smell, and feel alcohol when it is near... you can see, smell, and feel sexism when it is near.
So, how long you been free of sexism? Sexism free since 2001 or something, or do you still visit the sexism "pub" so to speak on weekends?
I question your motives here so I can increase my post count.
Is it better to question somebody's motives or repeatedly tell people what they believe, when you have been told otherwise because you are the smartest person in the world, and in your opinion if there was a God you would know about it because you would be sitting on that throne?
Obviously I'm going the motives route because I'm not nearly as smart as you. If I was I would have to champion the cause of textile workers in France because I know what's best for them, if I had the time after my posting here.
Do you feel the sarcasm dripping from this post? If not, you may want to reevaluate your observational skills.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I disagree, even if people respected the people doing the rebuking, there are still plenty of contrarians.
It's inherently unfair. Yes, many women buy into the same sexism that men do, and a very, very small number of men and women are misandristic.
Yesterday, in this thread or the other, I actually described that I am in a process of working on this. I don't think I will ever free myself from the sexism I was raised in, but I can try to recognize and fight it.
You should question my motives. However, my motives are not relevant to the accuracy of my arguments.
It has been my personal experience that I didn't always realize the implications of what they believe, the messages that get included by cultural reinforcement. I have read many people describing the same phenomena. I'm not trying to tell you what you believe, just open you eyes to some of the consequences and interactions that belief has with other cultural phenomena. As I just said in the previous thread, I think you are a genuinely well-intentioned person. People with the best of intentions can still cause pain.
Hence decrease, as opposed to disappear.
With regard to the abortion debate in particular, what grounds do you see as resolvable through objective, causal means? On what objective fact do liberals and conservatives disagree?
However, I don't share your position that currently rigid ideologies can't be changed. The issue is that such ideologies are not adopted by appeal to the objective. Something which was not believed for objective reasons, and is not an objective statement, will not be abandoned for objective reasons. I agree there are no rights sculpted in the clouds. They are, however, sculpted in our emotions and habits. When we get people to change their emotions and habits, the change to right will follow.
I agree with everything you cay about the condition of racism. It is at its root a cultural, not biological, construct. However, cultural constructs possess their own inertia. If you do not actively fight that inertia, they will continue to roll (and if some people push them along, they grow stronger). You only stop that movement by actively fighting the inertia. Yes, this requires racism to be acknowledged as a phenomenon, but turning a blind eye to a weed will not stop it from growing. While there are more biological difference upon which people defending sexism claim to rely, the same basically holds true there.
As you point out earlier, there will be no moral principles written in the clouds awaiting discovery. They have to come from our us.
That said, 1) saying a person should be able to marry a person they find fits a general category of sexual desirability affects more about them than their happiness level (whatever that would be), 2) even if a individuals happiness level is not an end goal, it can be supportive goal towards other ends, and 3) just as the argument saying 'homosexual marriage is wrong' does not occur in a vacuum, but as a part of a general climate towards homosexuals, the response that their feelings are natural is not a response to a single, isolated argument, but to the general climate toward homosexuals.
Lynching didn't go away until it was actively opposed. Opinion on gay marriage started to sway when activists for it became more open in their activism. Similarly, I do think sexism will fade and may well be almost gone in 500 years, but it won't happen from people pretending it does not exist today.
Nor will it disappear from people laying false accusations laft and right.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
My views on this thread are that I think the OP has the same mindset as NASA with regards to space exploration, which is: "even though this will probably amount to nothing, at least it looks like we're trying"
MoreFeasts
Member
I don't know what you are talking about. The comment you are up in arms about was a bit rude and vulgar, so I can see objecting on those grounds, but you are off in another direction that is lost on me, seriously. I don't know what you even mean by sexist, i guess, let alone what is unfair about it. I don't think that women are disadvantaged in our society at all, if anything it is just the opposite. If we were talking about some other country I could see your point.
MoreFeasts
Member
Sort of on topic, are you aware that there is a new website , open only to women, the sole prupose of which is for women to gossip about men? Every stupid one sided dating criticism will now be on your permanent record for 3 billion woman to distort and dwell on for eternity! Now this seems sexist and wrong! Get on it man!
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I think it would increase because of the large amount of trollage.
Trollage>Seriousness
I'm not sure I can give a short response to this question, and I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate. But to put it plainly, the pro-life side is tainted by religious sentiment, which seriously weakens any argument, and the pro-choice movement doesn't seem to address the moral concerns at all. Despite our conversation, I still don't see how "my body my choice" is anything more than "I'll do what I want and I'd like to see you stop me". Before we can even begin to debate objectively, we must agree on what we're debating. There are two issues here. First, we have the issue of dependence, and whether it justifies killing a person. Secondly, we have the question of what exactly defines personhood. Right now, the pro-lifers mostly debate the second issue, while the choicers are more concerned with the first. So they're not even debating the same thing. All of this, of course, assumes agreement on what morality is by both groups. I think this is close to being true, but not entirely. So the debate should probably begin with objective definition of the moral standards we're pursuing.
Yes. No disagreement here. It's a stretch to call what you (and me) are describing "ideology" though. The public seems to associate ideology with close-minded obedience to an unchangeable set of principles. I think this is partly due to society's holding the disastrous idea of faith in such high regard. Recently, one of the most vocal anti-GM foods activists indicated that his review of the evidence and arguments for and against GMOs is forcing him to switch. He did what everyone is supposed to do. He molded his worldview to fit with the best available evidence. And he received so much **** for it. Now he's weak minded. Or bought out by big agriculture. Another example is philosopher Antony Flew's movement from atheism to deism. I was very active in Utah's atheist community back then, and I don't think I've met a single atheist who accepted that maybe he changed his mind because he does believe deism makes a stronger case. They were all convinced, without knowing anything about his thought or even who this man is, that he is just afraid of death because of his advanced age. People are trained to believe what appeals to them emotionally, and they will adopt and discard evidence as they see fit. This applies to the most devout Christian and the most secular atheist (generally, obviously a lot of people see the trouble). That's the main problem we're facing, not just some bafflingly backward mentalities here and there.
Again, I have no problems with that. I simply question the approach. Attacking racism, or sexism, must begin by attacking the basis for their existence. It is not enough to simply tell people not to say the n-word (I don't self censor, but I believe the word would be bleeped). Fixing the main problem that is the acceptance of logically indefensible, emotionally based, subjective opinions is a step in fixing a vast array of problems. What I'm saying actually does seem to trickle down to cultural consciousness (people understand the parallels between sexism and racism). However, trying to remedy the situation one issue at a time, while ignoring the underlying cause for all of them is just busywork. We're simply covering one problem with enough bandages that we won't see the wound anymore, and then we move on to the next wound. But it would be easier, and far more effective, if we can just restrain the knife wielding maniac.
Morality must follow the same objective principles that should govern all other aspects of problem solving. And I'm going to define morality as the set of rules that draw the accepted boundaries in the various realms of human experience (I don't like leaving anything open to interpretation). That is another major failing of contemporary culture. Let's say that we agree than morality should serve as the best possible model to advance the well-being of as many things that well-being applies to as possible (this seems like a workable first principle). We would have to agree of the definition of well-being of course, and to what it applies. But keeping it simple, let's say well-being primary revolves around aversion to harm, and it includes other concepts like happiness, comfort, self-determination, and so on. Gay marriage seems to logically be a moral position given our definition. It harms nobody in any readily apparent way, and it is what gay people want. I see no moral reason to deny them that act. Since I'm making no unverified positive statements, the burden of proof falls on the opposition. If you say it is harmful to the individual and/or society, then you must provide the mechanism for that harm and the proof. That automatically takes out "god's wrath" and all similar ideas, as they are not falsifiable or verifiable.
It seems like we're reaching a point of convergence in our opinion on the matter. And I love how the argument barely relates to sexism anymore.
The research into the issue indicates that they are disadvantaged, oftentimes in many small, subtle ways, as well as the more overt ones.
Safe spaces are a necessary evil. I look forward to the day when women won't feel the need the need for them, but I doubt I (or even my kids) will live to see it.
Hahahahahahaha. Good stuff.
Since definitions and moral standards are created, not discovered, they can be agreed upon, but can not be objective. Other than that, it seems we largely agree here.
Munchausen's trilemma applies; at some point, we will have to get down to logically indefensible, emotionally based, subjective opinions. Hence, removing the acceptability of saying something is an effective tactic, because there will be an association between not being allowed to say something and not thinking that something. I agree that this is not enough, however, the relationship of language and thought makes it an effective tool.
Humans are not fundamentally rational. Our societal problems will never be addressed with purely rational solutions.
I see this as, in part, a category error. I don't have any problem with your definition of morality, just with the notion that the various realms of human experience can be expressed objective principles subject to rational problem solving.
It's so appropriate that you laugh at other people's melancholy.