Yep, knew I was gonna regret jumping into this thread
Al, why the heck did you quote my whole post in full , if you only really wanted to refer to precisely five words of the thing? And then you had to re-quote them didn't you, ( misquoting three
) cos they were lost in the wall of text . I'm sure nobody wanted to read the whole argument over again. and even if they did, they only needed to scroll up a little way . Is there something wrong with your "delete"" button?
The reason why the last section makes sense ...
after reading further, I've changed my mind about it making sense. . I admit, I wasn't reading it that closely, and -for whatever reason- failed to grasp that it was just another diatribe against Feminism.
....is because of the context of the early arguments. If I convinced you that men COLLECTIVELY were oppressing you and trying to raise themselves up at your expense and that you were a victim of this gendered tyranny, do you think this would still fall under equality and inclusiveness and tolerance? Do you think you would easily accept the concept of Patriarchy? Privilege? Mansplaining, Manspreading, Bro-terruptions, Manslamming? Do you think that when faced with the reality that men and women on average earn a different year income? Would you readily endorse that as oppression without considering that not only do women choose (on average) lower paid work than men do on average and are less likely to do STEM degrees, specialised degrees, or work with a remote allowance, danger money or excessive overtime. IF they do this then on average they will get paid less BUT if you were convinced this was injustice due to male oppression and Patriarchy, right?
If you were thinking these things as a natural extension of this oppressor/oppressed polarised gender model, did this come out of.....Humanism which is about equality of everyone or egalitarianism with is about everyone being equal? Was it perhaps coming out of Feminism? Being that these concept are not only derived from Feminist ideology but is ingrained in Feminist theory and academia, it is hardly surprising that this motivates people to operate out of a righteous indignation of the oppressed. A male does not need to do anything to be "Part of the Patriarchy" or to be considered to have "privilege" or be "Oppressive". This is an original sin. A taint ascribed to him by virtue not of what he has said or done by because of his genital and/or chromosomes. Yet the people who will devalue if not demonise men thusly are often believing doing this is benefiting women and society. They believe this is in the name of equality and inclusiveness and tolerance. All whilst doing this shit.
These ""I"'s and "" yous" are pretty damned confusing here, Al. Took me several readings to suss that it's
not supposed to bear any relation to what I think (up until which point , i felt really offended) nor even is it about what you think , but rather what "they" think , in
your view.
I've already told you what i think of those who think that moralising and demonising one another is in any sense progressive.
Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human so-called evildoers is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.
which observation is meant to include all such idiots , not just the two named varieties, as I (mistakenly) thought would be obvious. I specified Christianity rather than Feminism because the case for the moraliser/ demonisers being poor representatives of whatever philosophy they claim to represent is more debatable in the case of Feminism... especially when talking to yourself
Before tackling that , i wanted to make it very clear that I'm not in agreement with any such people, nevermind what they call themselves;
Heck, If I judged all belief systems by their loudest , most morally righteous re[resentatives, then I would have to become a Nihilist. And I gathered (maybe wrongly) that these are the people that you're really taking to task, when you slam into Feminism.
So you will forgive me if I do not meekly submit to the whole Feminism is simply the want of equality of the genders bullshit and that the crazy Feminists are the only ones who submit to the crazed notions about Patriarchy et al. Soundbyte definitions are not worth shit.
I don't expect you you meelky submit to anything , Al. I'll be more than happy if you can manage to grasp other people's POV, then have an open-minded discussion about it, But the moment someone says a word like Patriarchy, you see red and project all sorts of shit at them, then attack that same shit.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about
Patriarchy:Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage
Such social systems certainly do exist, and there's a neutral sort of definition for you. Acknowledging their existence doesn't make someone a rabid feminist (nor a rabid anything at all, just a realist) , nor does speculating to what extent it influence people's psyches when they grow up in that kind of culture. But hey! I just recalled a thread where you blew up at everybody else, just because we were trying to discuss that.
Specifical;ly, you wouldn't have it that rape might have anything to do with cultural influences (such as Patriarchy, obviously ) it had to be committed by inherently evil people. End of.
The reason why we have the rape culture, pay gap, safe space, privilege, manspreading, hate speech, outrage culture bullshit is due to the Progressives. Only precisely NONE of that is Progressive nor inclusive nor equalising.
Ah yeah. here we go again. Can't have a rape culture. Well, let's re-phrase that : we
can have a rape culture, unfortunately, but we can't have a word for it. because AL believes that very phrase is prejudicial and inherently demonises men. But
then you had a go at the rest of us for making excuses for rapists , as you saw it. So ...were we demonising those men, or were we being too kind to them? which? and why should anyone care? becvause i think it's all-too-clear that your emotion gets the better of your brain on that subject.
As for the pay-gap, well, that too actually exists, for all sorts of reasons that might or might not have anything to do with prejudice against women. . I'm sure you'd argue it has nothing to do with prejudice, nor with gender stereotyping. But if you want to write that phrase out of the dictionary , then tough , you can't take part in attempting to explain it away can you?
I really don't llike it when people want to write words out of the dictionary just because those words act like red rags to
them ; just because those words
can be used in some ugly prejudicial way, if some ugly prejudiced person uses them. I don't like it when Feminists take that attitude, and guess what? i don't like it when you do either, Al. I see no reason on earth to make a special exception for you.
In respect to the "only loud voices", what you mean the....?
Thats a near-total misquote, but nvm, I meant the sort of so-called feminist who snaps "check your privilege "at any man who ventures an opinion. Ugh. But if you're tarring all feminsts sts with the same brush , then I guess that makes you no better. Some feminists are prjudiced against all men and some men are prjudiced all feminists. So it goes. Everybody's prejudiced in one way or another. It's the people who get
self-righteous with it who really get up my nose.
As to your comments about religion? I do not much care about religion either. If you wanted to make the point about ideology and zealots and such, yes, it is in religion too. Ideological conformity and Authoritarianism and the like does exist in religion and religious practice as does the concept of original sin and the righteous conviction and want of some to display to all their righteous purity.
I am actually not a fan of religion and wonder if that is a point you wanted me to agree to or not.
No, you missed the point entirely , even given three guesses. My thinking ran thus: Al doesn''t know jack shit about Marxism , but he surely knows a bit about Christianity, so if I draw a parallel here, then he'll more easily grasp what Im trying to say. Epic fail on my part, evidently.
My point was that holier-than-thou moralising isn't worth shit, and does nothing to whatsoever to reduce the evil in the world . never mind what phiosophy you purport to follow: Feminist, Marxist, Christianity, Conservative , whatever. Marxism isn't about Holier-than-thou moralising, it's about looking at the bigger picture. As is Christianity, though not all so-called Christians see it that way , do they? And same goes for Feminism, to the best of my knowlege, come to that. So judging Marxism on the basis of the ravings of holier-than-thou
Feminists is
doubly unfair to Marxism was what i was getting at there.
Pick any -ism yopu like, then you always get the divisive holier-than-thous making the loudest noise about it ,and totally misrepresenting it (in most cases). That's a basic law of human nature.
It would be nice if you agreed with my POV above, but I'll settle for you understanding it. F ailing that, I'll settle for getting the hell out of this thread. cos it's getting to be too much like hard work already
