Feminists: An Observation

[Number_6]

Yes, prejudices and hatreds. You proceed on a false assumption regarding the reasons for why I make the statements I do. You assume that because I am male, I must therefore mean that men are better than women when I say that men and women are not equal. You need to set those assumptions and prejudices aside. Only then can we have the conversation that needs to occur.

I'm sorry that you run into many sexist people in your personal life. That's unfortunate. However, this is not the case across the board, and you need to acknowledge that. I'm also forced to question whether or not you are not projecting this sexism onto people, since you've seen fit to do it to me in this thread. I have to wonder whether or not you see what you want to see in other people, rather than what's actually there.

I've called you names that indicate I'm dubious about your ability to see the world for what it is, instead of reading it through the distorted lens of a feminism that cannot see the difference between the world today and the world fifty years ago. I also question your use of the English language. If you're talking about socio-economic equality, then you need to qualify the word equality to this particular sphere. If not, you are talking about total equality. And I've read far too many feminist arguments that rest upon the inability to distinguish between types of equality and absolute equality.

 

[TJHairball]

Yes, prejudices and hatreds. You proceed on a false assumption regarding the reasons for why I make the statements I do.

No, you're falsely interpreting what I said.

You assume that because I am male, I must therefore mean that men are better than women when I say that men and women are not equal. You need to set those assumptions and prejudices aside. Only then can we have the conversation that needs to occur.

I will now quote myself in one of my earliest posts in this thread:

It's my experience that a very large number of women and men are sexist.

Fuck, Number 6, you're not even reading what I write very carefully.

I'm sorry that you run into many sexist people in your personal life. That's unfortunate. However, this is not the case across the board, and you need to acknowledge that.

Welcome to the real world, 6. My personal life isn't exactly an isolated incident.

If you want, I can point you to dozens of harmful stereotypes promulgated through the media. Not all, mind you, are singularly detrimental to women.

I'm also forced to question whether or not you are not projecting this sexism onto people, since you've seen fit to do it to me in this thread. I have to wonder whether or not you see what you want to see in other people, rather than what's actually there.

Since you've projected me as calling you a sexist pig, I'd say you leave me wondering. Where have I called you names?

I haven't seen you engage in any particularly notable sexist commentary in this thread in the slightest. However, I think you can find some of what I was referring to if you read through the whole thing.

I've called you names that indicate I'm dubious about your ability to see the world for what it is, instead of reading it through the distorted lens of a feminism that cannot see the difference between the world today and the world fifty years ago. I also question your use of the English language. If you're talking about socio-economic equality, then you need to qualify the word equality to this particular sphere. If not, you are talking about total equality. And I've read far too many feminist arguments that rest upon the inability to distinguish between types of equality and absolute equality.

I've been talking about socio-economic equality, and overall equality.

"Absolute" equality is, in this discussion, something you've more or less coined yourself. Review what I told you earlier. When we're talking about societies, laws, economies, prejudice, and treatment... there is superior, inferior, and equal. Those are three complete categories, and when we talk about the big picture, you get to pick one of those three.

If you don't want to call one superior, you call the both equal. It's simple, really; you're busily confusing it with identity, which is another matter altogether.

 

[Number_6]

Head back up the thread a bit, where you talk about not needing to leave this board/thread in order to find sexism, in response to my statement that men and women are not equal.

The categories we have are equal and unequal. We might also say that there is greater than, less than, and equal to. However, we do not need to conflate the terms "greater than" and "less than" with statements of value, particularly when we take into account the fact that sometimes less of something is actually preferable.

If you want to talk about socio-economic equality, then you need to say that that is the type of equality you are talking about. If you want to talk about legal equality, then you need to say that that is the type of equality you are talking about. If you simply talk about "equality," then you are, whether you want to admit it or not, talking about absolute equality. There can be no other reading of the use of the term without a qualifier.

As for issues of identity, please don't presume to lecture me on a subject on which I have published. Identity has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about. If a woman is able to handle higher g-forces, or a man is able to build greater upper-body strength, that has fuck all to do with identity. Identity is something you assume, something you can build. We're talking about genetics here. Genetics may contribute to your identity, in that they may have an influence on your identity formation, but they sure as hell aren't equal to your identity.

 

[TJHairball]

Head back up the thread a bit, where you talk about not needing to leave this board/thread in order to find sexism, in response to my statement that men and women are not equal.

And was I referring to your statements there?

No. If you want, you can try passing it off as simple trolling to get a reaction... but the fact of the matter is, I see the exact same sentiments expressed with complete sincerity IRL, whether they are being parodied or parroted here.

The categories we have are equal and unequal. We might also say that there is greater than, less than, and equal to. However, we do not need to conflate the terms "greater than" and "less than" with statements of value, particularly when we take into account the fact that sometimes less of something is actually preferable.

If you want to talk about socio-economic equality, then you need to say that that is the type of equality you are talking about. If you want to talk about legal equality, then you need to say that that is the type of equality you are talking about. If you simply talk about "equality," then you are, whether you want to admit it or not, talking about absolute equality. There can be no other reading of the use of the term without a qualifier.

There is no "absolute" equality. You can talk about an overall equality if you like... in any particular context.

In this case, I'm talking about late 20th/early 21st century United States life. As far as I'm concerned, that's quite general enough.

As for issues of identity, please don't presume to lecture me on a subject on which I have published. Identity has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about. If a woman is able to handle higher g-forces, or a man is able to build greater upper-body strength, that has fuck all to do with identity. Identity is something you assume, something you can build.

You're talking about the common noun form of identity - how something is individually identified.

I'm referring to comparative identity, which you are confusing with equality. Identity refers to two objects being in truth the same object; equality refers to them being comparable, equivalent, or on equal standing.

We're talking about genetics here. Genetics may contribute to your identity, in that they may have an influence on your identity formation, but they sure as hell aren't equal to your identity.

And we may identify women separately from men. But this does not give a basis for inequity.

 

[Friday]

I officially protest the karma system. So there.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Wordin, most of TQ's holocaust denial is a troll. I'm shocked that you fall for it, repeatedly.

The part that isn't a troll, he simply puts forth theories that might prove his claim. I've read enough of his posts to know he is not a Nazi, or a racist. He just plays one on TV.

His holocaust denial is completely serious. I thought it might be a troll when I first read his posts over a year ago, but by now it's obvious that he really beleives in all that nonsense.

As for Little Lord Fauntleroy, you are taunted because you are Little Lord Fauntleroy. Drop the persona, come back into the conversation. See what changes.

I was in the conversation. I criticized TQ's "victim mentality" comment. You and Friday responded to my criticism not by considering its merits, but by attacking me.

It's ironic that you would go after me for being an eeevil liberal, but completely ignore TQ's Holocaust denial, and even defend him when I try to hold him accountable for it. Liberals are a threat to the survival of "Western Civilization," but Holocaust deniers are A-OK!

:roll:

 

[The Question]

Y'know, since you can't let this drop, Wordin -- and yes, it is you who can't let it drop -- I feel like picking a nit here.

It's tenet. Not tenant. A tenant is a lessee, a person who occupies a structure owned by another person or business according to a business arrangement. A tenet is a supporting principle of an ideology or belief system. Nazism does not have tenants.

Pretentious freak.

 

[The Question]

It's ironic that you would go after me for being an eeevil liberal, but completely ignore TQ's Holocaust denial, and even defend him when I try to hold him accountable for it. Liberals are a threat to the survival of "Western Civilization," but Holocaust deniers are A-OK!

I think I can tackle the reasons why:

1. Even if I'm wrong, I am using reason to argue my position.

2. Even if you're right, you're not using reason to argue your position.

3. You're a pretentious freak.

4. You're also a pretentious freak.

And finally... you're a pretentious freak.

 

[WordInterrupted]

:roll:

You don't even make arguments. You make vauge assertions that are either irrelevant or undecipherable, and then do a lot of empty posturing about "reason," "logic," and "evidence." I don't know why the conservatives on this board tolerate you. If some nutty leftist claimed that Stalin's purges weren't all that bad, I'd feel obliged to bring down the hammer. I wouldn't ignore his nuttiness, and I certainly wouldn't attack people who went after him. It's disappointing that the TK conservatives don't have the same standards when it comes to holocaust deniers.

 

[The Question]

:roll:

Just shut up, Fauntleroy. Your inability to acknowledge points doesn't magic them away, so unless you're going to actually address them or drop the subject entirely, just shut up. Your stupidity has long ago grown tiresome.