RedCelt69 wrote:One day, I think that I'll just go ahead and grab a knitting needle so that I can perform a self-lobotomisation. Perhaps then, I'll enjoy Britain's Got Talent, Strictly Come Dancing and The X-Factor. And perhaps I'll also be able to approach debates with the level that has been portrayed by some of you. Perhaps.
Where to start?
Always a favorite, open with something to get a discerning audience on your side and that also calls your opponents stupid.
OK. First off, I haven't addressed (in detail) the issue of privilege because it is an established certainty that yes, as a white straight male, I have had a social strength that isn't experienced by women, non-whites and LGBTs. I have already said that such a privilege shouldn't exist in the first place. I have also said that, given my social status, I am entitled to hold the same views as if I didn't hold such a status. The argument put forward is, what? That I'm not allowed to be anti-feminism because I'm male? Or that, given my social status, I'm not allowed to be anti-feminist? Or that it's too easy to be anti-feminist, what with me being male?
The argument: Privilege exists, is a problem, and is liable to be overlooked or even downplayed using large umbrella identities.
Given that you're a member of a privileged group who has declared himself anti-feminist because you believe feminists don't fight for your rights (g13 disagrees), are we wrong to get an impression of you of wanting to protect your privilege and having biased judgement?
In what way - whatsoever - has that got fuck all to do with the position that I am giving? I'm not against women's rights and the needs of women to express those rights. Very simply, I'm saying that the fight would best be served from a different perspective. What the fuck has that got to do with my privileged position? I have acquaintances who totally agree with my given position. They're women. Are they allowed to have that position? What with them not being so privileged? If you believe that they can hold that view and that I can't hold that view - then you're a sexist. You really fucking are. If that opens up an area of your personality that you're not happy about approaching then that is your problem. It certainly isn't mine.
Do you also have black friends, so you can't be a racist? A clean and articulate Black Friend goes a long way, everyone should make one.
Its not sexist, its positive discrimination. You've spoken about memes before, is it so impossible you've been influenced by patriarchal memes to the extent that for the sale of balance, a little intellectual affirmative action should be employed to consciously counter an unconscious bias?
QueerCommunist. Misanthropy and humanism are not mutually exclusive. I could hate every single person on the planet, without exception, and still be a humanist. As a humanist, I appreciate all of the great things that have been (and can be) achieved by humans. Everything we've done, we've done with our own hands, our own brains. No gods required. It is this aspect of humanism that is most widely endorsed by atheists - particularly in the USA.
Equally, every human on the planet has the same right to everything as every other human. This one statement, above and beyond every other, rejects every kind of discrimination that there is - when we're talking about aspects bestowed at conception and birth. Every human being then has the right, from that position of equality, to make them undeserving of consideration. Pro-life people don't deserve my consideration. Racists don't deserve my consideration... the list is a long one, and I'll stop it there. But basically, at birth, every single one of us has (or should have) an equality of opportunities. What we then do with our lives is altogether up for a cessation of consideration. Especially (and predominantly) when we seek to prevent others from enjoying the same privileges as ourselves.
“I am a misanthropic humanist… Do I like people? They’re great, IN THEORY.” - Bill Hicks
Could you leave this kind of edgy misanthropy to Charlie Brooker other experienced practitioners? Thx.
Wild_quinine, humanism is what humanists make it.
Does humanism need a Stonewall moment?
It sure would lend some authenticity.
I'm suggesting an alteration in how people view the world (and themselves). I'm not suggesting that we should go out and riot. If humanism had been widespread 41 years ago, Stonewall wouldn't have been necessary.
You can say this but it means little. Just about every ideology claims that if people held its attitudes, problems we're familiar with would never have arisen.
I'm talking about the here and now, not the distant past.
Distant past? Must be within the lifetime of at least some mature students...
Unless we suggest to politicians that the best way for them to judge how to govern is to look at how Britain looked in 1969 rather than how it looks now. The fight for the rights of women, non-whites and LGBT has strengthened the accessibility of widespread humanism. It has made it more acceptable to forget the things that make us different to one another.
No no no no no no no no We need more awareness, not some privileged groups trying to bury history and say we're all friends now.
Not one of you has addressed that point, with anything that could be called merit. Tell me why this isn't true:
"I'm the same as you" > "I'm different to you"
Whats there to address? When has it worked?
Oh, its very utopian and all, but its usually been the privileged groups creating and maintaining the division so to their experience its manifestly untrue that an unprivileged group is the same as them.
Its a reasonably sound basis for maintaining currently held rights I'm sure. I dunno, perhaps the term equal rather than same would be more useful here.
And yes, Jollytiddlywink, I hold that position when it comes to every avenue of fighting inequality. If the fight was made with one voice, rather than many, it would be a very loud and convincing voice. And that simple point seems to be lost on some of you... that I'm not advocating that these fights cease. They should very much continue - as a united voice from the perspective of humanism.
Say it humanist, say you are anti-LGBT rights and anti-minority rights in the same sense you are anti-feminist.
You can lay false-trails about privilege all you like, but it is tangential (to the extreme) to what I'm proposing. If you can't see that then I have no option but to assume that you're not playing with a full deck of cards. (Diplomacy Monkey intervened, there).
Ah, its the "agree with me or u dum" gambit once more. Will it be more successful this time around?
G13 wrote:Honestly, the descriptions of feminism you give fit an objectionable, tiny corner of "feminism", which the vast majority of other feminists range from being uncomfortable with to denying that it has anything remotely to do with feminism at all. "Women are best!"or "women should be in charge!" -type things are, emphatically, Not feminism. (They're part of a small number of folk's version of feminism, but it's not what feminism Is.) Apart from the extremists' corner, feminists are extremely pissed off at the whole factors-from-birth thing mattering. It's called "feminism" not because it's the "yay women" movement, but because when it started, women were severely disadvantaged compared to men, so to consider issues relating to gender without that weighting, women's views and experiences have to deliberately be given time and space in order to be heard...I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people who claimed to be, or you thought were, feminists. I can only say, the feminism you describe is not representative; not even close.
I've seen this exact same argument (with the necessary word changes) when Christians have seperated themselves from the actions of Christian extremists - whether it was the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expected that), the burning of witches or Pro-Life nutters who kill abortion clinicians. They're not actually Christians. Christianity isn't about that. Christianity is about my version of Christianity. The defence (there and here) is the No True Scot defence.
So humanism can be what humanists make it but if bad feminists exist, all feminists must be bad.
I've had several female friends. None of them were feminists. They weren't masochists revelling in subservience to men. They were self-determining, free-willed individuals who expected nothing less from life than if they were male. But they weren't feminists.
Or they were but if you're the type to say you're anti-feminist on a first date, they probably know you well enough not to engage you on the topic lest you call them fuckwits.
Well, in any case, they certainly benefited from the efforts of past feminists.
(did anyone see how the acquaintances were upgraded to friends in just a few paragraphs?)
I didn't ask them why... but, given this conversation, I'm wishing that I had. Regardless of their reasons, they didn't identify with the belief system. If feminism is so friendly, cuddly and inclusive to women (and men) why does it remain a fringe belief system?
ANECDOTES!
Feminism is most certainly a fringe thing in, like, probably most continents today or the 19th century anywhere, but I doubt the women you know are a sufficiently representative sample to make statements about its prevalence today in the anglosphere.
G13 wrote:Feminism isn't just to benefit women. It's to benefit everyone, including men
It doesn't fight for male rights, does it? The fight is a much smaller one, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be happening. If you think otherwise, or you think that - because we're barely escaping from millennia of patriarchy - that male rights can be ignored... then you're sexist. Humanism doesn't make that distinction. Feminism does.
G13 made some good posts about this a page back that the mods took bloody ages to let through.
Oh my poor oppressed Redcelt, what male rights of yours are being ignored?
My beliefs are the same as the parts of feminism that don't include the circumvention of men.
Which parts of the feminist monolith you were NTSing earlier are these now?
Providing videos (/wave QueerCommunist) of the inequalities faced by women is a case of preaching to the choir. I wish every woman had the exact same opportunities in life as every man. The weak of mind can take my anti-feminism and assume that I'm against the fight for women's rights.
Or that you're ignorant, doomed to be ineffective and too focused on your own already substantial rights and privilege.
(the inclusive humanist is also calling us stupid again)
Because thinking inside the box is so much easier than stepping out of the box.
So from being a fringe ideology, feminism is now thinking inside the box and a form of humanism dedicated to preserving male privilege is a radical breakthrough?
Is my position clearer now, or should I go fetch the knitting needle?
Heh, i know this one, i know how this goes, wait, wait, its coming... heh, 'k gottit. Maybe... maybe... heheheh YOU ALREADY DID
YEAH!!!!!!!!
*raises hand in anticipation of that slap and a sting that indicates the exchange of "much props" between the palms of bros of all genders*