Feminism and How I don't Care

[Hathradic States]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

Women are actually the oppressed majority, IIRC.

And you'll stop hearing about them being oppressed when they are no longer oppressed. Pretty simple really. If you want to stop hearing about it, work towards legal and societal equality.

Why, when complaing about it is so much fun

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

So you don't actually believe in equal rights. Or you believe in them but don't think it's okay for people to try to make equal rights a reality.

or try this:

I believe in equal rights, but I don't believe in people forcing them.

Equal rights should always go to a vote of the populas. If the people don't want them, then they shouldn't exist.

And I don't want to here how I should be any kinder a minority than I am to anybody else.

You want civil and human rights put to a vote? That's brilliant, really brilliant. A very good thing it doesn't work that way in the US.

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

[Gift-of-god]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

[Soheran]

Perhaps I've just misunderstood Butler, but the argument that linguistics determines sexual biology sounds like its coming from that same field.

Where on Earth are you getting the idea that Butler thinks that? She doesn't think that "linguistics determines sexual biology"; she thinks our sex categories ("linguistic" if you like, but I'm not sure that's the word I'd use) don't match up very well with the reality of sexual biology, or at least extend quite beyond it.

For a trivial example, in a huge variety of contexts we presume that people are neatly divided into "male" and "female", but they aren't: even leaving aside the mess that is gender and behavior and so forth, even genitalia is very far from a binary.

[Farnhamia]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

Women are actually the oppressed majority, IIRC.

And you'll stop hearing about them being oppressed when they are no longer oppressed. Pretty simple really. If you want to stop hearing about it, work towards legal and societal equality.

Why, when complaing about it is so much fun

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

So you don't actually believe in equal rights. Or you believe in them but don't think it's okay for people to try to make equal rights a reality.

or try this:

I believe in equal rights, but I don't believe in people forcing them.

Equal rights should always go to a vote of the populas. If the people don't want them, then they shouldn't exist.

And I don't want to here how I should be any kinder a minority than I am to anybody else.

You want civil and human rights put to a vote? That's brilliant, really brilliant. A very good thing it doesn't work that way in the US.

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

In a sense they already have been voted on, when the Constitution was ratified. The answer is, because it would be too easy to create a demagogic campaign to deny people their rights through fear and rabble-rousing. It's all well and good to say, "Put it to a vote" when you're in the majority but a fairly scary proposition when you aren't.

[Hathradic States]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

Yes, the people don't elect congress. That would just be insane.

[Soviet Engineers]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

There you go.

I feel more enlightened actually. Nussbaum's take on Butler holds true to Butler's take on Butler, than these ideas don't fit quite into the radical constructionist camp that I thought they did. They still don't seem to make much of a statement beyond "humans respond mentally and physically to social conditioning, even unecessary social conditioning", which itself is kind of a non-statement, but it's not nearly as offensive as some of the material I've encountered.

[Farnhamia]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

Yes, the people don't elect congress. That would just be insane.

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

Yes, a politician who will have to be elected by popular vote is seeking to remove elections by popular vote -- this can only end well for him.

[Georgism]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

That could easily be fucked around with by those with an interest in doing so; Look how many people still believe that Obama is a socialist, for example. Also look at Proposition 8. Civil rights should not be voted on by the populace-they're far too fickle.

[Soheran]

They still don't seem to make much of a statement beyond "humans respond mentally and physically to social conditioning, even unecessary social conditioning", which itself is kind of a non-statement, but it's not nearly as offensive as some of the material I've encountered.

That humans respond to conditioning is a triviality. That social conditioning in our particular society functions in certain particular ways is not (though it is also not, as Nussbaum points out, particularly new.)

[Farnhamia]

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

Yes, a politician who will have to be elected by popular vote is seeking to remove elections by popular vote -- this can only end well for him.

It could, actually. With the election of Senators back in the state legislature, there are that many fewer people to convince. ANd a great many of them are of his own party, so ...

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

Yes, a politician who will have to be elected by popular vote is seeking to remove elections by popular vote -- this can only end well for him.

It could, actually. With the election of Senators back in the state legislature, there are that many fewer people to convince. ANd a great many of them are of his own party, so ...

But he could only propose and vote on such a law by being elected in the first place. Which would require people to vote for him.

I don't think he thought this plan through very well, honestly.

[The Araucania]

feminism is a result of capitalism...

How so?

By the consumism and the individualism, think that...

[Kiskaanak]

or try this:

I believe in equal rights, but I don't believe in people forcing them.

Equal rights should always go to a vote of the populas. If the people don't want them, then they shouldn't exist.

And I don't want to here how I should be any kinder a minority than I am to anybody else.

Equal rights are precisely the thing that should never, ever be left up to majority rule.

[Farnhamia]

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

Yes, a politician who will have to be elected by popular vote is seeking to remove elections by popular vote -- this can only end well for him.

It could, actually. With the election of Senators back in the state legislature, there are that many fewer people to convince. ANd a great many of them are of his own party, so ...

But he could only propose and vote on such a law by being elected in the first place. Which would require people to vote for him.

I don't think he thought this plan through very well, honestly.

It makes for a great slogan for his opponents, though: "Mr. X wants to be the last Senator you ever elect!"

It would require repealing the Seventeenth ... or is it the Sixteenth? Amendment to the Constitution, which would require that 3/4 of the state legislatures vote in favor of the repealing amendment. I honestly doubt it will ever happen and I often wonder what the big deal is.

[Hathradic States]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

Yes, the people don't elect congress. That would just be insane.

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

Why is tyranny of the many better than tyranny of the few?

[Treznor]

Why would it be a bad thing for civil rights to be voted upon by the people it would affect?

Becasue then the US congress could vote to take away the rights of Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack by Saudi terrorists, for example.

WTF would Congress have to do with the PEOPLE voting?

Yes, the people don't elect congress. That would just be insane.

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

Because we tried that for a while. It ended badly.

[Hathradic States]

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

Why is tyranny of the many better than tyranny of the few?

It is not tyranny when the people are with it.

[Farnhamia]

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

Why is tyranny of the many better than tyranny of the few?

Because all politicians are corrupt and only out for themselves and the government has never done anything right since 1787 and you're not the boss of me. You didn't know this? How big a rock have you been living under?

[Georgism]

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

Why is tyranny of the many better than tyranny of the few?

It is not tyranny when the people are with it.

It can be. 'The people' are not a hive mind, after all.

[Offenheim]

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

Yes, a politician who will have to be elected by popular vote is seeking to remove elections by popular vote -- this can only end well for him.

What does this discussion have to do with the original post or the topic of this thread?

If you want to tie it back to the quote of "why can't people just vote on civil rights" in my opinion, it's because majorities rarely, if ever, do anything for change. This is true for negatives and positives. But the majority of people are happy with the way things are, being the majority (I think this theme has already been addressed, or touched upon during the discussion on radicals and moderates). A determined minority is the best way to get something done, and the examples ring out from history. I'll gladly give you a list, if you want, but I feel that right now it would detract from the main point of this argument, which is how Romalec doesn't care about feminism.

But people don't want to believe they are sexist or misogynistic, or chauvinist. We want sexism to be confined to the wife-beater hyper-oppressive category. Unfortunately, since that's been defeated as an acceptable form of social behavior (but its existence is still real), feminists have moved on. The campaign for civil rights didn't end in 1964, the war is still raging. It's been dealt set-backs. Other forms of oppression are now being focused on, and these are the much more insidious forms, the kind that does require a bit of lifestyle change.

Feminism is a widespread field, like other fields, and takes in various viewpoints. I believe most feminists will not advocate superior rights for women. I also believe that feminism has been demonized by various social commentators, and so all the people advocating against feminism have a very specific viewpoint on what feminism is. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water when you dismiss all feminism.

It is good that Romalec had to read some bell hooks. It's unfortunate he only read it for class, but perhaps that will change. We should be taking in a lot of information, from opposing points of view. bell hooks is one feminist scholar, and a controversial one even in the feminist community.

But I do not agree with Romalec, and I think Cat-Tribe inadvertently summed up the entire original post, and quite a few others with the words "petty and small-minded."

I think if you're going to oppose feminism, but do recognize there is gender inequality and social problems, you should have to give some proposal for a solution. But if feminists are the only ones coming up with solutions, we might as well use theirs, by default. Social ills don't just fix themselves.

Those are my thoughts, take 'em or leave 'em.

[Farnhamia]

Some folks do seem to feel that Senators shouldn't be elected directly. One of them just won the Republican nomination to run for the Senate in Kentucky, I do believe.

Yes, a politician who will have to be elected by popular vote is seeking to remove elections by popular vote -- this can only end well for him.

What does this discussion have to do with the original post or the topic of this thread?

If you want to tie it back to the quote of "why can't people just vote on civil rights" in my opinion, it's because majorities rarely, if ever, do anything for change. This is true for negatives and positives. But the majority of people are happy with the way things are, being the majority (I think this theme has already been addressed, or touched upon during the discussion on radicals and moderates). A determined minority is the best way to get something done, and the examples ring out from history. I'll gladly give you a list, if you want, but I feel that right now it would detract from the main point of this argument, which is how Romalec doesn't care about feminism.

But people don't want to believe they are sexist or misogynistic, or chauvinist. We want sexism to be confined to the wife-beater hyper-oppressive category. Unfortunately, since that's been defeated as an acceptable form of social behavior (but its existence is still real), feminists have moved on. The campaign for civil rights didn't end in 1964, the war is still raging. It's been dealt set-backs. Other forms of oppression are now being focused on, and these are the much more insidious forms, the kind that does require a bit of lifestyle change.

Feminism is a widespread field, like other fields, and takes in various viewpoints. I believe most feminists will not advocate superior rights for women. I also believe that feminism has been demonized by various social commentators, and so all the people advocating against feminism have a very specific viewpoint on what feminism is. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water when you dismiss all feminism.

It is good that Romalec had to read some bell hooks. It's unfortunate he only read it for class, but perhaps that will change. We should be taking in a lot of information, from opposing points of view. bell hooks is one feminist scholar, and a controversial one even in the feminist community.

But I do not agree with Romalec, and I think Cat-Tribe inadvertently summed up the entire original post, and quite a few others with the words "petty and small-minded."

I think if you're going to oppose feminism, but do recognize there is gender inequality and social problems, you should have to give some proposal for a solution. But if feminists are the only ones coming up with solutions, we might as well use theirs, by default. Social ills don't just fix themselves.

Those are my thoughts, take 'em or leave 'em.

What, are you campaigning to become a Mod? Yeah, it was a bit of a threadjack, I admit.

Cat-Tribe had it right. Again. Annoying, really. Right all the time. Sheesh. *wanders off and something about a lawn is the last thing you hear clearly*

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Scheisse, some people need to get the corncobs removed from their ears . (Since this is sight based, I guess removed from the position of having said corncobs jabbed into eyes).

Every law should be voted upon by the people.

When they are voted upon by the fools in Congress, they will only serve the Congressmen's desires. After all, every man is truely out for himself.

I believe firmly in no central government. Period. Why do we need people in some distant city who care only about money and getting reelected decide what is best for us?

Why is tyranny of the many better than tyranny of the few?

It is not tyranny when the people are with it.

Um, yes, it is.

Educate thyself.

Because all politicians are corrupt and only out for themselves and the government has never done anything right since 1787 and you're not the boss of me. You didn't know this? How big a rock have you been living under?

Sounds like an accurate summation of US history. Although the government seemed to do a good job with MK Ultra and the 9/11 conspiracy and Roswell and all those other cover-ups -- most people still don't know the truth. It can't be *all* bad. <.<