Jump to content


Photo

On Sexism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
310 replies to this topic

#41 Yumi_Hikari

Yumi_Hikari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 03:15 PM

Excuse me while I solve this whole issue in a few short sentences:

Everyone should respect everyone else equally, regardless of sex.

Men are no better than women.
Women are no better than men.

now that we've got how it SHOULD be, lets all admit that we don't actually meet that standard and, instead of trying to force everyone else to treat one sex better than the other, why not try and, I dunno, love each other as ourselves?

Or is that too much to ask from a civilized society?

Edited by Yumi_Hikari, 16 November 2014 - 03:15 PM.


#42 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 03:27 PM

Excuse me while I solve this whole issue in a few short sentences:

Everyone should respect everyone else equally, regardless of sex.

Men are no better than women.
Women are no better than men.

now that we've got how it SHOULD be, lets all admit that we don't actually meet that standard and, instead of trying to force everyone else to treat one sex better than the other, why not try and, I dunno, love each other as ourselves?

Or is that too much to ask from a civilized society?

 

You solved virtually nothing.

 

Does a man wearing a shirt with beautiful women revealing themselves say that men are better than women or that women are lowly? Personally I'd say no. 

 

You also shouldn't treat everyone equally always. Give everyone the equal opportunity to show they are deserving of respect(That should give them respect initially until they either show they should be given respect or should not be). When you do that you treat people the same regardless of gender and instead treat them based on their own flaws and deficiencies. 


w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#43 Masked Rider

Masked Rider

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • LocationWhere?

Posted 16 November 2014 - 03:42 PM

Depictions of women are now as taboo as muhammad.

 

Honestly though unless we get big time coverage of how utterly absurd feminism is, the stupidity will just get worse.

 

Instead, many main media coverages are providing one sided stories.


Edited by Masked Rider, 16 November 2014 - 03:43 PM.


#44 DaEvilWithin

DaEvilWithin

    What You Need

  • Moderators
  • 12591 posts

User's Awards

3    4      

Posted 16 November 2014 - 03:55 PM

Instead, many main media coverages are providing one sided stories.

Implying they do not do that for nearly everything...?
 
As long as people are content with media reaffirming their beliefs the media will not change. Click-bait articles and the millions of top ten lists are only so prominent because people consume them.


Edited by DaEvilWithin, 16 November 2014 - 03:55 PM.

  • Fulmine and TridentPuff like this

#45 Yumi_Hikari

Yumi_Hikari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 03:58 PM

You solved virtually nothing.
 
Does a man wearing a shirt with beautiful women revealing themselves say that men are better than women or that women are lowly? Personally I'd say no. 
 
You also shouldn't treat everyone equally always. Give everyone the equal opportunity to show they are deserving of respect(That should give them respect initially until they either show they should be given respect or should not be). When you do that you treat people the same regardless of gender and instead treat them based on their own flaws and deficiencies.

Yes, actually, you should.

If you love everyone as you do yourself, the you will treat everyone with the same amount of respect that you wish to be given.

Its called "The Golden Rule" for a reason, after all.

#46 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 04:48 PM

Yes, actually, you should.

If you love everyone as you do yourself, the you will treat everyone with the same amount of respect that you wish to be given.

Its called "The Golden Rule" for a reason, after all.

 

Good to know you only read the first sentence of that paragraph.

 

The golden rule is made up BS for children. It cannot be followed to the letter. It simply won't happen. It's also foolish. Treat those with love and respect that are deserving of it. Yes that means those that have done nothing deserve that respect as well.


  • Masked Rider likes this

w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#47 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15482 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 05:15 PM

Good to know you only read the first sentence of that paragraph.

 

The golden rule is made up BS for children. It cannot be followed to the letter. It simply won't happen. It's also foolish. Treat those with love and respect that are deserving of it. Yes that means those that have done nothing deserve that respect as well.

 

I thought it was simply, do unto other as you would have them do unto to you. That certainly doesn't mean treat everyone like kings regardless of what they do.

 

Ontopic: Who here feels that the sexual objectification of women (ex: wanting to see or instant imagining of a women scantily-clad) a form of sexism? Or is it something else entirely?


Edited by DarkNemesis, 16 November 2014 - 05:15 PM.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#48 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 07:43 PM

I thought it was simply, do unto other as you would have them do unto to you. That certainly doesn't mean treat everyone like kings regardless of what they do.

 

Ontopic: Who here feels that the sexual objectification of women (ex: wanting to see or instant imagining of a women scantily-clad) a form of sexism? Or is it something else entirely?

 

Then, truthfully, it holds no real meaning. If I treated everyone as I wished to be treated nothing would change from what I posted. So again just some BS fancy talk for kids, IMO.

 

Only if the sexual objectification of anyone of a particular race is racist against that race. Of course these could fall under the ambivalent/benevolent categories.


w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#49 NGEFan

NGEFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 11:49 PM

Why I am a feminist - 

Version for people who are only willing to give 1 minute of their time - http://youtu.be/Dd_0hjHuDMo?t=25m20s



#50 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 12:01 AM

Why I am a feminist - 

Version for people who are only willing to give 1 minute of their time - http://youtu.be/Dd_0hjHuDMo?t=25m20s

 

 

His not-a-feminist-means-you're-a-sexist shtick is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The idea of "not with us means you're against us" is the most absurd bullshit any group tries to force. You turn people away with such an ideology. Not advocating != opposing.


  • Masked Rider likes this

w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#51 Fulmine

Fulmine

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19023 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 02:18 AM

I have zero idea why that shirt is a problem if talk about feminism or sexism...heck, even if it's about ''it's a scientific celebratory event, not a bar'' I also see nothing to make a fuss over...also zero idea why whether wife or female friend makes that matters...

 

 


If sexism is the deliberate belittling of a certain sex's characteristics and person, then incidentally, shouldn't a man adoring a woman's body the reverse of such?

:kakashi:


  • Masked Rider and YoWid like this

Spoiler Favorite battle shounen's male characters

#52 NGEFan

NGEFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 03:08 AM

His not-a-feminist-means-you're-a-sexist shtick is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The idea of "not with us means you're against us" is the most absurd bullshit any group tries to force. You turn people away with such an ideology. Not advocating != opposing.

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  If inequality exists, then thinking nothing of it supports inequality.  It's not a dichotomy though.  You can advocate something to a degree and not advocate it to a degree, but it is impossible to neither advocate nor not advocate anything.


Edited by NGEFan, 17 November 2014 - 03:15 AM.


#53 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 09:26 AM

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  If inequality exists, then thinking nothing of it supports inequality.  It's not a dichotomy though.  You can advocate something to a degree and not advocate it to a degree, but it is impossible to neither advocate nor not advocate anything.

 

 

Good and evil are arbitrary, intangible, non-universal words that have little meaning. You also quoting him from the video almost verbatim doesn't make it any more true. Again trying to force that the idea that it is impossible not to advocate nor oppose is simply ridiculous. He also doesn't give a proper definition of sexism(And thus a sexist) in his speech. From http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/sexism:

 

 

 

sex·ism  noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\

: unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially: unfair treatment of women

 

 

Not someone who allows it to exist or does nothing to stop it. Using the definition he used is changing the meaning of those words to fit what it is he wanted to achieve. It's sickening. There are plenty of reasons to get people to legitimately join the cause of true feminism and he's doing just as much harm as those man-hating women that proclaim to be feminists. When you force people to join or oppose you have already fucked yourself over. It never works for any length of time.


  • YoWid likes this

w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#54 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15482 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 09:30 AM


...also zero idea why whether wife or female friend makes that matters...

 

One, there were two conflicting accounts, so I wanted to know which was correct. You know because facts are important when debating, even if someone else finds them insignificant. Two, there's a difference between: a man seeing woman as just sexual organs, your female friend telling you to wear a shirt, and your wife greenlighting a potentially controversial shirt. At least on a personal level. Now on the grand, general level, no. But for this guy in particular in this discussion, his motivation and intent is being questioned. So those details are relevant on some level.

 

This is the second or third time I've explained this. Hopefully, I won't have to again.


  • YoWid likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#55 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7608 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 17 November 2014 - 09:31 AM

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  If inequality exists, then thinking nothing of it supports inequality.  It's not a dichotomy though.  You can advocate something to a degree and not advocate it to a degree, but it is impossible to neither advocate nor not advocate anything.

the if you are not with us you are against us gains you more enemies then supporters. People despise being forced into something by someone, and more than that they despise people attacking them for an inaction when they do not have all the points. Inaction is not the same as supporting the enemy. Inaction is usually caused by uncertainty. You want people to join the cause for feminism, to stop sexism as much as possible? Then educate those that do not know exactly what sexism is. If all you can do is attack, then all you will gain are enemies.


  • TridentPuff and YoWid like this

                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

 

 

Vote for dis person plox


#56 Fulmine

Fulmine

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19023 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 10:59 AM


One, there were two conflicting accounts, so I wanted to know which was correct.

???

 

 


You know because facts are important when debating, even if someone else finds them insignificant.

What kind of facts, related or non-related to the topic at hand? I don't see how ''who made it'' is a factor here which makes it the latter type which means, fact or not, it's irrelevant.

 

 


Two, there's a difference between: a man seeing woman as just sexual organs, your female friend telling you to wear a shirt, and your wife greenlighting a potentially controversial shirt. At least on a personal level. Now on the grand, general level, no. But for this guy in particular in this discussion, his motivation and intent is being questioned. So those details are relevant on some level.

But personal level does not matter here...


Spoiler Favorite battle shounen's male characters

#57 NGEFan

NGEFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 10:15 PM

Good and evil are arbitrary, intangible, non-universal words that have little meaning. You also quoting him from the video almost verbatim doesn't make it any more true. Again trying to force that the idea that it is impossible not to advocate nor oppose is simply ridiculous. He also doesn't give a proper definition of sexism(And thus a sexist) in his speech. From http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/sexism:

 

 

 

Not someone who allows it to exist or does nothing to stop it. Using the definition he used is changing the meaning of those words to fit what it is he wanted to achieve. It's sickening. There are plenty of reasons to get people to legitimately join the cause of true feminism and he's doing just as much harm as those man-hating women that proclaim to be feminists. When you force people to join or oppose you have already fucked yourself over. It never works for any length of time.

 

From your online definition "unfair (read: synonymous with unequal) treatment of people because of their sex" "prejudice or discrimination (read: the implementation of policy based on inequality) based on sex especially :  discrimination against women" These definitions fit what is being said to a t.  As for your disagreement with Edmund Burke's quote, I can only say that I think you should consider his work and how it has been interpreted through history much more strongly before dismissing it so easily and if you continue to disagree then we have reached a fundamental disagreement.

the if you are not with us you are against us gains you more enemies then supporters. People despise being forced into something by someone, and more than that they despise people attacking them for an inaction when they do not have all the points. Inaction is not the same as supporting the enemy. Inaction is usually caused by uncertainty. You want people to join the cause for feminism, to stop sexism as much as possible? Then educate those that do not know exactly what sexism is. If all you can do is attack, then all you will gain are enemies.

 

Those words were only meant to point out the ideological implications.  I don't really care if my words repulse people more than they draw them in.    I just want to let my position be known and discuss it if anyone wants to.  I'm not calling anyone to arms, just calling it how I see it.  Not having the facts is fine so long as you don't remain ignorant forever.  If you ultimately did remain ignorant, then your inaction would ultimately be equivalent to support for the enemy.  "You want people to join the cause for feminism, to stop sexism as much as possible?"  That's actually not the case because that would involve a lot of work.  If that's what YOU want though, then I'd be very curious to hear how you would go about it other than just using a much more savvy way of saying it.


Edited by NGEFan, 17 November 2014 - 10:29 PM.


#58 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 10:45 PM

From your online definition "unfair (read: synonymous with unequal) treatment of people because of their sex" "prejudice or discrimination (read: the implementation of policy based on inequality) based on sex especially :  discrimination against women" These definitions fit what is being said to a t.  As for your disagreement with Edmund Burke's quote, I can only say that I think you should consider his work and how it has been interpreted through history much more strongly before dismissing it so easily and if you continue to disagree then we have reached a fundamental disagreement.

 

Wrong. He tried using the negative definition of a feminist as the definition of sexist. It's not. Never will be. The definition of sexism is not someone who "does not advocate womens rights" it is someone who specifically does not treat people equally because of their sex. Not advocating womens rights does not treat them unequal it is being indifferent to the matter altogether. His work means nothing to me if his ideology is as it is in the video. Whatever he's done with that ideology will only cause harm in the long run. The fundamental disagreement is you preferring to accept a made-up definition of a word as fact. The definition is not an opinion. It's not up for debate or interpretation. His definition is akin to media. Willfully ignorant of reality in order to suit their own causes. 


Edited by Hoff, 17 November 2014 - 10:46 PM.

w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#59 NGEFan

NGEFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 11:04 PM

Wrong. He tried using the negative definition of a feminist as the definition of sexist. It's not. Never will be. The definition of sexism is not someone who "does not advocate womens rights" it is someone who specifically does not treat people equally because of their sex. Not advocating womens rights does not treat them unequal it is being indifferent to the matter altogether. His work means nothing to me if his ideology is as it is in the video. Whatever he's done with that ideology will only cause harm in the long run. The fundamental disagreement is you preferring to accept a made-up definition of a word as fact. The definition is not an opinion. It's not up for debate or interpretation. His definition is akin to media. Willfully ignorant of reality in order to suit their own causes. 

 

In order to understand the definition of sexism, lets look at the similar word racism.  "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/racism

Notice it is absolutely possible to never say anything bad about any other races nor to treat them unequally in any way and still be a racist.  What matters is what you believe.  Understanding this, look back at the definition of sexism you posted.  It specifically mentions prejudice and even less ambiguously simply having "attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex".  This is elaborated on in larger definitions of sexism such as here http://www.britannic...c/537055/sexism

There is no neutral position between equal and unequal.  It is either one or the other by definition.

 

Also, the person in the video is not Edmund Burke.  Edmund Burke is an influential writer and philosopher from the 18th century who gave us the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.".


Edited by NGEFan, 17 November 2014 - 11:11 PM.


#60 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1355 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 11:44 PM

I'm not compelled to continue this any further. There will never be an understanding between us. I can never begin to imagine how you, or the person in the video, ended up thinking the way you do.

 

 

Makes little difference. Good and evil are subjective ideas that possess no tangible meaning. Who is "good" and who is "evil" is decided(largely) by those in power over the masses.


w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users