RE: Maybe People Should Not Look Up To YouTube Atheist
December 12, 2013 at 11:11 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2013 at 11:16 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(December 12, 2013 at 9:47 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Adequate for what? Discussing issues of inequity? You seem to be saying that women specifically are guilty of wanting rights but not wanting the responsibilities- a condition that all human beings are occasionally prone to. You have given no example of this. Feminism is a mindset that encourages thought and activism about gender inequities. I really have no idea what you're arguing.
Adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women. After all, it's a human problem, as you said, so it'll be better addressed as tackling it as not the absurd "Man bad, women oppressed" mantra.
I'm sorry, but pointing out that people are prone to something is not an excuse for people engaging in that. And as I've said repeatedly (with you responding with constant straw men) is that I'm not talking about women specifically, but rather about the run of the mill feminist, which obviously can be men.
Given no example? Okay, are you lying. I brought up the 1940s tax evasion thing, but more importantly the situation in Afganistan with women's education and work, which thanks to Islamic law (defended and enthusiasticly accepted by men and women there alike) has some aspects of female priviledge and male responsibility, which make it detrimental for families if women do so.
Quote:So you're belittling feminism, not hating it. Gotcha.
Okay, now you're being nonsensical and dishonest. Where did I say or imply I was belittling feminism? Go on. I specifically said I was taking to task the often simplistic everyday feminist who make simplistic and flawed arguments. No need for you to throw further straw men in there.
Quote:Bold by me, because I still have no idea what "this" is. Why are the 40s relevant? Why are the Taliban relevant?
So you haven't actually been following my posts then and decided to critique what you could easily have learned by going back a page? As noted earlier, I was talking of an instance wherein women were in the workforce (because of WW2) and could vote, yet the laws were such (and no apparent feminist outcry against it) that men were still responsible legally for, say, tax evasion if the (working) woman failed to pay her taxes.
That Taliban stuff was about Afganistan which as I noted earlier had certain aspects of female privilege backfire on women in a bad way, as I detailed a bit above.
Quote:MFM, I confess I have no idea what you're saying here either. I think WHAT is the right thing to do? Report rape? Not report rape?
Please at least follow your own responses. When I brought up what I hoped was only an extremist view held by some feminists that reports of rape should assume the legal guilt of the reported man until proven innocent, to which you hand-waivingly responded that people do that with all crimes. Hence my response that you made no sense there.
Quote:Still no idea what you're talking about or why it's relevant.
Maybe if you bothered to follow the conversation...
Quote:So "some" feminists do this, therefore feminism is bad? Since I'm pretty sure you don't think that, what's the point? As I said in an earlier post, there are assholes everywhere, and I hardly think women, or feminists, are the only ones assuming guilt for rapists. Here in Texas, the good ol' boys (who are assuredly not feminists) will string your ass up if their little sisters accuse you of rape. It's NOT a feminist mindset or a female mindset. It's human nature. It doesn't make it right to assume guilt before it's proven, but it has nothing to do with feminism. Hear me on this.
So you'll just conveniently ignore the several posts in this thread where I specifically noted I was arguing against the nonsensical arguments put forth by some feminists, gotcha. My point was that such is unfortunately a ridiculous position that mainstream feminism seems to have little trouble accomodating to a fair extent.
Quote:WHAT extremist view? Assuming guilt before it's proven- which human beings tend to do? No, I don't see how that's feminists trying to have it both ways, since you haven't proven that feminists do this as a matter of course, or that it's related to the ideals of feminism in any way. You have stated- accurately- that SOME PEOPLE do this. That is neither here nor there with feminism, the majority of feminists, or me personally. It's a BS argument, as I said before.
Do you really not realize I'm talking about in legal proceedings? I've said that constantly, so please at least read the posts in the thread.
Quote:How is it "wanting legal favoritism" to try rapists in court- even on only the word of a victim? Again, you're making no sense.
Not about trying them in court, I'm talking the (hopefully extremist) position that accused men should be presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent. It self-evidently makes sense to be wary of nonsense like that.
Quote:Show me where I did that. Right now.
I was actually wrong here, sorry 'bout that.
Quote:Your position is so nuanced that I can make no sense of it.
That's because you repeatedly don't pay attention to context, and seemingly skip words that are necessary to understand what I'm saying.
While I don't always agree with her (and in the following video I have a few small disagreements), I've generally found this lady insightful on this topic and others:
When Femal Privilege Backfires...
