In danger of concurring with RedCelt, on the 'slut' point on it's own (i.e. gender-loaded words), I'd say the trivial solution is just to call men sluts. Thus weakening the load on women? It hardly deals with the associated issues, but it seems the sensible first port of call (though it hardly requires a long stop in port either).
RedCelt69 wrote:jollytiddlywink wrote:I think that people have, broadly speaking, three objections to what you are arguing for in this thread.
I'm always wary of people who claim to be speaking on behalf of others. Unless you've had a meeting, agreed on some key points and had yourself declared as the spokesman. Otherwise, how about you describe your own objections, rather than attempt (that grand old logical fallacy) argument by numbers.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again: truth is not democratic.
In the spirit of not agreeing with RecCelt, I'll say: this is a big pile of nonsense.
You can speak on other folks' behalf if it's noted you're tentatively inferring. The logic of your argument should, if you've measured it right, make sense. JTW's arguments/claims hold up to inspection by a fellow (fellow to RC) white, cisgender ostensibly straight person.
E.g. if you can speak truthfully on behalf of others, you can do it without democratically polling the folks you're speaking for. (And what RC's suggesting here isn't actually a very representative thing, it's just: 'do you have anecdotes to support that?')
To chime in further: Hennessy's talking tripe about the registering thing. It'd be nice (and, alas, it does conjure the notion of cowardice) if anons'd register, but it's hardly an important factor.
And to echo a much earlier sentiment, G13: insightful and well put throughout.
---
On humanists not helping outWell, there's an obvious case I hadn't heard caught. The assumption that those who identify with the '-ists' are those who feel legitimately concerned. In the cases discussed, we're talking about walking towards a better society with a more sensible/representative/well-understood dispersal for the social norms, right? So gay and women's rights (arguably the more serious than race-rights, world-wide) would be properly on par, there wouldn't be ingrained and preposterous (when noticed [referring to the 'cisterns don't know what's it's like' line of thinking]) discrimination.
Why are humanists not doing this? Well, because they find it difficult to 'get involved' with women's rights and gay rights. Certainly, beyond high school (where, as there wasn't an obvious gay or feminist community to identify), I surely stood out from time to time for banging on about things like has been discussed in here. At Uni, well, it was a whole different kettle of fish. Women, I tended to have more interaction with and, I hope, I was somewhat more encouraging and not too condescending about the whole thing. With the gay community, however, I just felt...excluded. Somewhat obviously, really. I wasn't motivated to get involved (it wasn't a personal issue, so it's difficult on that front alone) and without that...well, it's hardly surprising that being an 'armchair LGBT acceptance enthusiast' is really a go-nowhere hobby.
That's a go-nowhere line of think, but I think it informs the humanist aspect of the discussion. Certainly, in the years I was a Catholic (up to '07), it took a long,
long time to account for my otherwise non-Catholic humanist leanings. Perhaps the ridiculous, unstable combination of views was obvious to others (JTW seems most reasonable commenter here, being my eldest academic brother), perhaps not. It's not really the point.
Rather: it's difficult to support the idea that feminists (and their kin) are 'doing humanists a favour'. Conversely, put to the idea that I myself occupy the privileged position (can I summon anti-Catholic discrimination as a kid? I suppose I can, but I shouldn't, so I won't), then there is a case to say that the others are doing me a favour. Or at least: my interests are fairness for all. My privileged position leaves me unable to get properly (well, to my satisfaction
and my inclination) involved. So, to an extent, they're working in my interests.
Except they're not, of course. Well, they're not wholly acting in my supposedly noble interests. It's difficult for me to speculate on my supposed wish to preserve my privilege, but I'm less significantly (and more efficiently) able to account for the fact that
obviously protesters don't represent my own views.
It's largely why I don't protest, even on student fees and so forth: the vast bulk of the protest seem to actually want different things to me.
Which leads to a pretty obvious criticism of humanism: it, like agnositicism, scepticism, atheism and so forth, doesn't offer much motivation in response to the don't-want-to-seem-condescending desires of someone who is interested in changing things for the better but doesn't have something particularly or clearly relevant to rally for. It has even less motivation to lend to someone like myself who has a certain contempt for a lot of things people
do rally for.
A second order of privilege in being crippled/castrated by my distance from incensed/motivated groups though empathetic enough to actually agree on a number of points?
More likely a backwards rationalisation for lacklustre involvement in those sort of protest-y shenanigans.
(Though, accepting I've little calibration but my own experience, I'd like to hope I've leant a lot of support to others' issues, at least more than simply wittering about it on the internet.)