Gynocracy vs. Guynocracy

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!

In a single gender world...

All male civilization is better and I'd prefer to live there
3
21%
All male civilization is better but I'd prefer the opposite
0
No votes
All female civilization is better and I'd prefer to live there
8
57%
All female civilization is better but I'd prefer the opposite
3
21%
 
Total votes: 14

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:28 pm

Oh I agree that it has been and is currently used to oppress. But just because a thing may be and is used to oppress does not mean that it is by nature oppressive and that in all situations it is being used to that end.
Sure, but while it's being used to oppress, it would be healthy to prohibit its use, at least until the mindset where the use of burqa is an externalized symbol of oppression has been extinguished.

Think of how in Germany all of the nazi symbols and propaganda have been prohibitted. Despite the fact, that, for example, the swastika is actually a religious symbol of positive things in the eastern religions.
Image

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:50 pm

Disagree, jota. Totally, utterly disagree.

I rather despise seeing Confederate flags displayed in the United States -- or swastikas for that matter -- but people have the right to do so. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, etc., etc.

In other words, I don't find your example of Germany compelling because I disagree with that, too.

Censorship strikes me as a rather absurd way to fight oppression.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:54 pm

I'm actually particularly bothered by Western countries removing the right to religious expression like that. If there is any place where it is more likely to be a free choice, it is in the West, and banning such imagery tends to be motivated by fear and hatred of it as opposed to actually trying to support people who are being oppressed.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:34 am

When people can't be trusted with a certain freedom, because they use it to oppress or harrass other (like the freedom to use burqas or swastikas), the only sane choice is to limit such freedom.

I understand that in the US people no longer have the freedom to discriminate in terms of race or gender for that same reason, because people couldn't be trusted with that freedom without hurting large segments of the population.

I disagree that swastikas are comparable to the confederate flag, which usually goes in line with the right to secede from a central government (the union flag would be the symbol of oppression here :wink: )

I guess my bottom line is: is it alright to defend to the death the right of others to say how some people should be oppressed and killed? Is it placing limits at the freedom of expression something that puts you down the road of becoming yourself an oppressor?
I think that sane limits can be placed. Limits that should be checked upon and reevaluated often, so they don't go out of hand, but freedom isn't an easy thing (constant vigilance and all that).

Rei, fear takes part of it, true. But it's mostly fear that the ones who promote burqas will want to start a full-scale oppression campaign here. In spain, some far-right-wing muslim organizations started to set up sharia juries, and started to execute sentences, too. Now that's scary. :?
Image

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:24 am

The flag is analogous to the swastika in that they were both political symbols that people rallied to. They were both symbols of governments that systematically oppressed a particular group of people. (The Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression that is deeply offensive to some. It's called "slavery." Look it up. What it symbolizes to whom is far more complex than secession from the central governmnent. Do not make the mistake of underestimating the race related associations of said flag. Not everybody has that association, like not every group views the swastika as inherently bad. However, plenty of people do.) And those symbols are both deeply, deeply offensive to some groups of people. I am not trying to compare them in terms of "which government was worse," or "which group of people is more morally culpable" or "who was more oppressive" or even which has more shock value. Those are pointless arguments. It's about what happens when people display the symbols once the war is over and civil (rather than martial) law is established. I do not think the swastika should be illegal for an individual to display in Germany. I do not think the Confederate flag should be illegal for an individual to display in the South. I think it should be a matter for individual consciences.

There is a difference between limiting someone's ability to harm someone else or discriminate against someone else and limiting their ability to speak their mind or point of view. It should absolutely be illegal to assault someone, to hold someone as property, to refuse to accept someone's money based on gender, ethnicity, etc. It should NOT be illegal to express your opinion regarding those groups unless the act of doing so prevents them from exercising their rights to the same capacity (e.g., creating a hostile work environment so that a person's ability to do their job is compromised).

People can wear white sheets and burn crosses (on their own property and time) all they want. That is not (and should not be) illegal. What is (and ought to be) illegal is actually harrassing, harming, and oppressing other people. Preventing citizens from voting. Threats and blackmail.

It is not illegal to wear a burqa, and should not be. Ultimately, the woman is making a choice to put it on, to remain in the marriage, etc. If she is being threatened or harmed for making the choice, that threat or harm is the crime -- not the clothing. It shouldn't be any more illegal to wear a burqa than to wear a bikini. (And you could easily argue that wearing a bikini is a symbol of oppression as well, in that you could say it was designed with the purpose of objectifying women for the viewing pleasure of men.) What does need to be addressed is actually treating women like property, rape, assault, honor killings, genital mutilation, etc.

Censoring people's freedom of expression in personal choices isn't just a slippery slope. It's a steep grade hill that has just been greased and has banana peels scattered here and there. Wearing a burqa could be easily viewed as a form of censorship in and of itself. Beyond some pretty common sense rules (e.g., don't shout fire in a theater), it is not acceptable for any group of people to say, "I disagree with the way you limit other people's freedom of expression, so I am going to limit everyone's freedom of expression because I know what's right." You are replacing that person's form of parentalism with your own. And that is not an acceptable attitude to have towards other adults. The fact that people are wrong does not affect their rights. In general, autonomy trumps stupidity.
I understand that in the US people no longer have the freedom to discriminate in terms of race or gender for that same reason, because people couldn't be trusted with that freedom without hurting large segments of the population.
People as private individuals in the United States have every right to discriminate, actually. I can refuse to go to a church which allows women to serve as ministers. I can refuse to give my business to a store that is patronized by GLBT people. I can go to white supremacy websites and write long essays on how no other race deserves to interact with white people except as servants. I can do all sorts of things the majority of people would find morally abhorrent if I am acting as a private citizen. Because those things do not limit other people's rights in any way. They can speak back. They can refuse to listen. They can refuse to vote for me. A publisher can refuse to accept my essay in their journal. Whatever.

What I cannot do is discriminate by refusing someone else the ability to exercise their own rights (to gainful employment, to purchase property, to attend school, to run for office) based on my personal beliefs.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:01 pm

Censoring people's freedom of expression in personal choices isn't just a slippery slope. It's a steep grade hill that has just been greased and has banana peels scattered here and there. Wearing a burqa could be easily viewed as a form of censorship in and of itself. Beyond some pretty common sense rules (e.g., don't shout fire in a theater), it is not acceptable for any group of people to say, "I disagree with the way you limit other people's freedom of expression, so I am going to limit everyone's freedom of expression because I know what's right." You are replacing that person's form of parentalism with your own. And that is not an acceptable attitude to have towards other adults.
This, for me, is the biggest part of the matter. If people are trying to set up another law as higher than that of the government and it is in conflict with the government, then by all means it should be dealt with. This is not what they have been doing in France, for example (at least not according to the BBC), where they are seeking to promote secularism and such an extreme and clear display of religion is in conflict with the ideal of secularism. This is far more scary to me than a fringe group trying to set up their own laws. A fringe group may be squashed, imprisoned, whatever for instituting laws that are in conflict with the laws of the country. But when the government of the country decides to institute laws that oppose religious expression because they want the country to be secular? Then it is not just a small group of people oppressing each other and who can be dealt with. Instead it's the whole country living under an unjust law.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:10 pm

But when you allow for display symbols of that sort, the extremist to whom they appeal feel emboldened. And their victims are humiliated. Is it ok, for example, what the westboro baptist church do? gathering around fallen soldiers funerals, saying "thank god for dead soldiers". Where does it stop? It would be natural for a person there to be moved to rage, and that might cause them to inflict physical violence on the extremists... and then it would be the victims being victimized again, charged with assault.

Eventually, when the extremists can speak out with no consequence for them, it's only them that speak out. Look at what's happening to the US, or to Spain, how people at both sides of the political aisle hate and despise each other. I think it's because only the extremists feel legitimized to speak, so only them get to sway oppinion.

About the discrimination, i meant not as private individuals, but about things like hiring, and studying, where discrimination actually matters and can make or break lives.

Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, i'm just a moderate. And even moderation has to be taken with moderation :wink:
Image

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:35 pm

Depends. Westboro is a tricky one. Because I despise them. I despise their behavior. AND I think they have the right to hold and express their viewpoint, to peaceably assemble, and to say things that make other people uncomfortable. It depends, in my opinion, on whether they are doing those things in a way that disrupts a service or actually could be considered harassment (e.g., actually standing at the gravesite shouting over the preacher vs. holding a rally out of earshot a couple of blocks away). Obviously, there are some areas of gray. However, I think these are pretty few.

And the solution to the screaming is not making everybody you disagree with shut up. It's to speak up louder yourself, to support people who have viewpoints that diverge with the extremists, to ADD voices rather than take voices away. Just because that's hard to do doesn't mean it's hopeless or that censorship is the solution. I dislike the current political climate a lot. I'm not sure what the solution is. I AM certain it does not involve taking away freedom of speech.

With regards to your paragraph on discrimination, the original issue was the burqa, yes? If a woman wears a burqa how does that harm anyone else in a way that matters, as you put it? Clothing choice is pretty clearly an issue of personal expression. Unless the burqa is loaded with poisoned darts that shoot out when I'm not looking, it's not hurting me any. It might anger me, but it's not infringing on me.

Also, your original statement was the US had taken away people's "freedom to discriminate" -- I don't think taking away people's ability to force people to go to separate schools is analogous at all to the display of religious symbols or wearing garments with religious meaning.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:52 pm

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

When it becomes a shouting contest, only the loud fringes win. Any moderate voice will be filtered out, because extremist language polarizes. Moderates will be labeled as "useful idiots" by the extremists of their own side, and as extremists anyway by the extremist of the other side. If sane people decide to stay out of the whole thing, what there will be to stop democracy (and hence, power) from being a game played by extremists?

If a woman wears a burqa how does that harm anyone else in a way that matters, as you put it?
It harms her -nevemind how willingly you are oppressed, you are still oppressed-, and it harms the other women who are forced into it. Because it won't stand out anymore. It won't be a shameful external symbol of oppression. More husbands won't hesitate to force their own wives and daughters to wear it. It will be normal. People won't turn their heads at the sight of oppression. Women forced into it will question if their reluctance to be made disappear below that piece of clothing isn't but the product of the devil that put bad ideas in their mind.
Image

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:58 pm

I guess I'm also concerned for the person who desires to show their devotion to God by their dress who may be oppressed by the government who makes it illegal to dress in that devout manner.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:58 pm

And that's the difference. If someone is FORCED to wear it, it is a crime, because force implies threat of violence. And THAT is what should be outlawed.

Outlawing actually wearing some type of religious garment is not going to stop oppression. No matter how restrictive or culturally laden that garment is. The person who needs to be punished is the person oppressing, anyhow, not the person wearing the garment.

If someone is choosing to wear something, however, even in the existence of significant cultural pressure, it is not anyone's place to say, "You're being oppressed! Stop that! You should do what we tell you, not what they tell you!"

Want to stop it? Provide alternatives. Provide avenues for exit. Provide education. Provide something better.

Oppression is about people being controlled. To replace the husband or father controlling someone with another person or set of cultural mores who has that same control to dictate what can and cannot be worn is not a significant gain, even if you (or the government) is a more benevolent master.

It's the lazy way of dealing with oppression. Remove the outward forms. Makes it much easier to ignore what's going on out of sight or behind closed doors. Men who would force someone to wear a burqa would likely have little objection to forcing a woman to stay inside.

Besides, then, where does that stop? If the government can dictate no burqas, can they also dictate no hijabs? No low-necked shirts? No homemade modest dresses? No cross necklaces?
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
daPyr0x
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:28 pm
Title: Firebug
Location: Inside the blackhole that became of my heart

Postby daPyr0x » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:03 pm

Stop trying to be perfect. Focus on being you; perfect will come.
"If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy I could have won"
Image

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:28 pm

Maaaan... While foreign governments should have some respect for the fact that others may not know or understand their laws, there's no calling for flaunting their laws or their sensibilities.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

mr_thebrain
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:22 pm
Title: The same thing we do every night...
First Joined: 0- 7-2000
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby mr_thebrain » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:57 pm

wow did this thread ever get derailed.
Ubernaustrum

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:35 pm

I don't mind. Although I did make another thread for discussing equality issues.
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:44 pm

wow did this thread ever get derailed.
That's because you blinked.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4511
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Luet » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:36 pm

I don't have anything to add to either topic but I just wanted to say that I find all of the posts you guys write very thought provoking. Keep up the good work! :)
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby elfprince13 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:17 am

Historically, most of my close friends have been women, because I find that they are usually more interesting conversationalists and share more of my interests in intellectual conversation. OTOH guys tend to be much more direct in their expressions of anger and displeasure, and that is a trait I much prefer to the manipulativeness, conniving, and long-standing grudges that I observe from upset women. I guess it's a hard decision, I'd rather work and live among men, but I'd rather spend time conversing with women.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:42 pm

OTOH guys tend to be much more direct in their expressions of anger and displeasure, and that is a trait I much prefer to the manipulativeness, conniving, and long-standing grudges that I observe from upset women.
This, I suspect, is largely cultural, and not innate. Girls are trained from a very young age not to fight, not to be crude, etc. I grew up with 3 sisters and if we'd been given the opportunity to physically beat on each other to deal with conflict, we probably would have. There's no corresponding expectation for guys to sit still and not ruin that pretty outfit. (I also personally believe there's a point where cattiness becomes a reflection of poor parenting more than anything else.)
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:10 am

Y: The Last Man yet?
Do we also get a "helper" monkey in this thread's hypothetical situation?

Also... I just read many chapters of Y within the last month or so, never having heard of it before. Odd.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 60 guests