|
Is this not all rather obvious and mundane?
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Duckbag posted:Interestingly, there's another (equally feminist) perspective that says that gender roles are informed by natural and immutable differences between the sexes and a truly egalitarian society would respect and celebrate those differences rather than trying to treat men and women as if they were the same. What garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:There are a lot of things in gender roles that are purely social or cultural, but gender identity itself seems to be something deeper and difficult to square with the idea of a purely social gender. For many people, yes, gender identity is an emergent property of their neuroanatomy. To others, not so much. This is irrelevant, because even if the source of gender identity were the same for everybody it would have no bearing on whether we should or should not tear down gender-based norms, which are what cause people to have hassles with their identity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? I don't. Societys with merely greater liberation for women seem to be enough to put the majority of them on a death spiral. While I agree with you that it is ultimately a greater moral good to do so and would definitely help keep children from developing painful gender dysphoria, ultimately you have to weigh the costs. A more just society Isn't worth it if it's going to die out in five generations. 1) Yes, I do think the human race will keep itself from dying out; 2) Even if I didn't, what future generations do or don't do as regards reproduction is none of my business and I don't particularly care; 3) Just lol at the idea that reproductive capacity is in any way going to be contingent on sex organs five generations from now; 4) This is a loving absurd concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Why would anybody living today care whether or not the species is going to fail adequately to breed in a hundred years' time? Either we'll have integrated ourselves with an artificial superintelligence and it'll be a totally moot point or we'll all be dead. What kind of a loving maniac worries about whether or not their great-great-great-great-grandkids will be too tumblr-y to breed?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal? ...ergo gender norms are good?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:If the removal of them caused the masses to have fluid sexuality , and it lead to a very quick death spiral for that society, then I can't see how you'd say that some form of gender norms aren't good. 1) Why would it lead to a 'death spiral'? 2) What are you afraid this 'death spiral' would look like, aside from there being fewer humans? 3) Why don't you gently caress off and let my asexual great-great-great-grandkids do what the gently caress they like?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:That's exactly the kind of society feminists wanted, though- a world where white upper class women could pay working class minorities to raise their kids for them while they went to work and participate as consumers. Yeah feminism is an ideology renowned for its racism. What the gently caress are you babbling about? afeelgoodpoop posted:I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal? Just going back to this for a second, it absolutely is maniacal, because what you're saying is that you don't trust Future People with their own future, one in which either a) you won't be present; or b) will be far beyond wringing its hands over everybody being too genderfluid to procreate because people are living for well in excess of a hundred years and have very plausibly transcended flesh altogether. Get help. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Oh, I dunno, the intersectionality feminism arguments didn't occur in a vacuum. Many feminists, being people who existed from the late 1800s to the present, were racist. That does not make it acceptable to generalise that "what feminists want" is white supremacy. Job Truniht posted:This isn't the same thing as the social reforms that the Soviets attempted to institute with the NEP. Modern feminism has a distinctly western and distinctly capitalist in thought and ideology, and that's why it managed to cement itself into western society. How would the US even function now without a huge pool of day cares, nannies, and lower income individuals that are always present to take care of the kids of the middle and upper classes? Why are you equating feminism with the white privilege of the most prominent ideologues of the Second Wave, though? It sounds like you're saying feminism bad because white people bad. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Because I think it is an ideology wholly owned and subsidized by the bourgeoise. Rarely does it permeate into where it is needed the most: households with high birth rates and huge amounts of poverty- both only possible because of traditional gender roles. Post gender equality will only happen after it does reach the proletariat. Way not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. quote:e: and yeah, white people owning an ideology tends to make it suck Firstly, I don't think feminism in 2015 is predominantly a white people thing, and secondly, even if it were that wouldn't be an argument for it being bad, it'd be an argument for taking it off them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I think the difference has to do with the way you handle suffering as to which way you'll go. If you seek to justify it or externalize it, you'll become callous and uncaring. If you see it as arbitrary or internalize it, that experience will be used as a reference point for the suffering of others. Part of that is going to be informed by gender roles, where (unfortunately) men tend to do the former, because being perceived as weak is instantly emasculating. I don't think the maxim that says power is a universally (or even generally) corrupting force is one that should be as blindly accepted as it is. People in positions with the kinds of power to which that saying usually refers (political, economic, bureaucratic etc.) tend to be viewed by those without those powers – and therefore the public at large – as being more morally corrupt than the norm in a given society. But that doesn't necessarily mean that their power corrupted them. I think it's fairly obvious that most people don't really know what their scruples truly are until they're placed in a position where the application of them might have some consequence. The kinds of powers with which we interact most frequently (pedagogical, pastoral, parental etc.) aren't really considered corruptive at all, if you think about it. Do we expect the near-absolute power parents have over their children to turn them callous and sadistic?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 05:04
|
|