The nature of equality

[Cognisant]

I was watching a stream on Youtube from Overly Sarcastic Productions in which they're creating a tier list of the magic systems used in various works of fiction and at one point the topic of gendered magic system in "The NeverEnding Story" came up and they commented on how you don't see systems like that anymore because it's too controversial. Now I'm no expert on that fictional universe, perhaps the magic system is somehow inherently misogynistic in some way and if that is the case please feel free to explain the situation me, but the impression I got was that the controversy was solely based on the idea that men and women are in some way inherently different.

Suppose in the Avatar universe only men can do fire/earth bending, and only women can do air/water bending, is that sexist?

The thing is people are different and it's very important that we recognize that, in reality there a people with disabilities, people who are neurodivergent, people who are homosexual and/or non-binary and I'm told that it's very important that these people receive representation in media so they have something to identify with. Now I agree with that but I want to highlight the cognitive dissonance here, when someone "identifies" with something that's because they want to make it part of their identity and our identity is that that which defines us as being something as opposed to being something else.

So if you have a "gender identity" the very nature of having an identity means that your are differentiating yourself from others and if it's important that people are allowed to do that why would it be controversial for magic in a fictional setting to manifest in different ways or grant different abilities based upon the gender of the person using it? Indeed this could be really useful suppose in the Avatar example Aang is the exception to the rule, he's the one guy in the world (ignoring the whole "master of all four elements" thing) whose bending doesn't match his gender, causing everyone he meets to question his gender and/or make assumptions about him and Sokka, isn't that a fun story? I think so.

As a straight white man (basically the devil) seeing a straight white male character go through the struggles a non-binary person has to would really help me see things from their point of view, but this subversion of the character's gender identity is only possible if the setting makes what elements a character can bend part of their gender identity.

I think this push to erase gender identity, specifically the male/female dualism, stems from an insecurity women have with being feminine, the idea of a magic system in which men and women are inherently different is an acknowledgement of that controversial truth. But it shouldn't be controversial, it's the truth, like it or not men and women are different and not in a way that is necessarily fair and I'm not saying that to be misogynistic rather my point is that equality isn't something that exists in the absence of differences, it is something we create in spite of them.

 

[scorpiomover]

Suppose in the Avatar universe only men can do fire/earth bending, and only women can do air/water bending, is that sexist?

It's anti-feminist to say that only men can be fire-benders and earth-benders.

It's also anti-trans and anti-non-binary.

The thing is people are different and it's very important that we recognize that, in reality there a people with disabilities, people who are neurodivergent, people who are homosexual and/or non-binary and I'm told that it's very important that these people receive representation in media so they have something to identify with. Now I agree with that but I want to highlight the cognitive dissonance here, when someone "identifies" with something that's because they want to make it part of their identity and our identity is that that which defines us as being something as opposed to being something else.

So if you have a "gender identity" the very nature of having an identity means that your are differentiating yourself from others and if it's important that people are allowed to do that why would it be controversial for magic in a fictional setting to manifest in different ways or grant different abilities based upon the gender of the person using it?

Because you're claiming that stupid, ignorant, violent, hateful, religious, cis-gender, heterosexual men can do some things that some women/LBGTQ/religious/etc people can't, silly. You're supporting the evil patriarchy.

Indeed this could be really useful suppose in the Avatar example Aang is the exception to the rule, he's the one guy in the world (ignoring the whole "master of all four elements" thing) whose bending doesn't match his gender, causing everyone he meets to question his gender and/or make assumptions about him and Sokka, isn't that a fun story? I think so.

Aang is male, and he's also attracted to Katana (a girl), but not Sokka (a boy), and so he's also heterosexual. So Aang is another example of the male patriarchy that needs to be taken down.

As a straight white man (basically the devil) seeing a straight white male character go through the struggles a non-binary person has to would really help me see things from their point of view, but this subversion of the character's gender identity is only possible if the setting makes what elements a character can bend part of their gender identity.

I think this push to erase gender identity, specifically the male/female dualism, stems from an insecurity women have with being feminine, the idea of a magic system in which men and women are inherently different is an acknowledgement of that controversial truth. But it shouldn't be controversial, it's the truth,

The patriarchy needs to be taken down, because men are powerful in this world, which we can be certain of, because the political elite tell us so. So anything that gives men an advantage over women in even one way, is a threat to good people. So the only room for men, is to be completely subservient and dominated by the political elite.

Of course, once men are completely controlled by the political elite, then the political elite can force all the men into armies and forced to round up all the women and turn them into sex slaves, any time they feel like it. But hey, the political elite would never do anything to hurt women, right?

 

[Rook]

mammal groups vary from colonies, patriarchies, matriarchies to more independent systems like those of leopards and cats. The same holds true for human groups, whether on a familial, tribal or national scale. Regarding all the political hullabaloo of do this or act so, I simply don't care.

I look at society from an evolutionary standpoint, and believe that without undue interference beliefs and norms will always adjust and adapt, most humans aren't sadists after all. Whether this takes a decade or a century though is the question I guess, and may explain in part much of the current friction.

It's all background noise tho. If I like a story I like it, regardless of the gender mores and morality or what have you portrayed by the characters/world---it's like music, either I like it or I don't. Beyond that, the rest is mere detail and nothing to get worked up about, after all, who cares if the guitarist is catholic if he's got some sick-ass riffs.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's important to note that there is no monolith.

The question for me is, when it comes to the usual escapist nature of entertainment, what do audiences want to see?

Well escapism for who? What audiences? What constitutes escapism for this audience and how do we give it to them?

Spoiler: I kinda ramble and decided to stop.

"God made men physically superior because he wanted men to dominate. Thus women are physically weaker because they are to be submissive to men, because God intended."

Anything that reflects any "vibe" of this in any light will trigger some of these people. Literal, metaphorical, socially, philosophically. If it can be connected back to the quoted writing it isn't safe.

Now, I know this has spoiled a lot of people's milk when it comes to entertainment, but the fact is that entertainment isn't escapism if it reflects existential realities onto its audience. And capitalist profit motives straight up wants to be as inclusive as possible when it comes to audience.

I'm also of the mind that a good story is a good story. I can separate the woods for the trees, even if the forest makes me uncomfortable.

The thing is not everyone can do that, and they also abhor being asked to do so. As if you're trying to have them overlook a crime. Like me in Uni when a professor made a stupid mistake and it was in the back of my head for the rest of the semester that this person was a fraud.

In conclusion: I don't think it's necessary to psychoanalyze these people. History shows humanity loves a good witch trial. The witches are interchangeable with anything as long as enough people are convinced the witches is bad.

I honestly see it as a wild dog that will attack anything, and the left inclusive movement isn't the only one with these types of dogs we're honest.

The central thing that should be targeted isn't the people, their motivations are too diverse. That along with the fact that there are hordes of people that are willing to get drafted to any cause with next to no explanation. It's simply to easy to start a harassment campaign on the internet these days.

Honestly the men who are simping for these movements but don't actually believe what it's about is who we should really shame.

 

[Cognisant]

This isn't about shaming anyone, I want to examine people's beliefs and change them if they don't align with reality. Because such beliefs are dangerous, just take a cursory glance at the far right to see what I mean.
This is equally true for the far left, I'm not taking sides here or if I am then I'm siding with reality, whatever that reality may be.

As I've established, in reality people are different and in ways that are not necessarily fair and we don't achieve equality by denying this truth. Our differences won't just go away if we ignore them, what's good for gander isn't necessarily good for goose. Rather equality is something we must achieve in spite of our differences, we are not born equal but in society we can be equal citizens.

In the left's ideology political history has been an inexorable march forwards and for the most part I agree with this, although I see it through the lens of technological determinism rather than the advancement of ethics in political philosophy. This is because technological development can continue marching forward whereas socio-political issues are either a consequence of some practical impediment, or the injustice has already been righted and pushing further is not going to result in more justice, quite the opposite in fact.

Granted civil rights cannot be achieved through technology alone (well...) however likewise the women's rights movement was never going to succeed in a world where the vast majority of occupations were some form of backbreaking manual labour.

Honestly the men who are simping for these movements but don't actually believe what it's about is who we should really shame.

Do tell, what is it actually about and what should they not be simping for?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

• Social media is a machine that propagates outrage/emotionality, it demands that people be emotional and actively conditions people to be emotional. This is the tech component of the problem.
  
  
• Politics around right and wrong has been eternal, and usually is devoid of actual philosophical inquiry. The arguments and events are centered around human/group psychology. So in a political milieu where philosophical thinking isn't valued among, humans, what are the emerging values? This is the moral component of the problem.
  
  
• Media as a tool, has traditionally seldom been a tool for it's own sake, but a tool backed by financial interests. Even at independent studios, most decisions that are made have a financial motive behind them that is not tied to the media itself. Without this, media that generates media would be even more rare than it already is. This is the media problem.

Honestly the men who are simping for these movements but don't actually believe what it's about is who we should really shame.

Do tell, what is it actually about and what should they not be simping for?

1. All groups are essentially cults. We mythologize things by instinct. The difference between a cult and a typical group is literally just the bar for entry.
   
   
2. People want to identify with a group for a variety of reasons. The group may exist for a specific purpose, mostly aligned with perpetuating the group, but that hardly means the people in it really care about the group being perpetuated.
   
   
3. Cheap words are the bar for entry for most groups. Because the group exists for a "purpose" and if what you're doing looks like it matches that purpose then you're in. Behavioral oversight is extremely common.

I see what you mean with the advancement of philosophical inquiry, but I don't think we can dialectically diffuse this if we tried for 100s of years.

At the core of the movement, when we remove all the people that are just there because it seems like a nice scene for them or because they're trying to have anal with a Trump hater, you have people with emotional experiences and stories that touched them to the level of picking of their pitchforks and tiki torches. And there was a movement that told them that this was the right thing to do.

Your distilled analysis of what a couple members of that group may think might do something, but it's going to be sidelines with the hours of validation for their beliefs they experience when they're browsing their personalized timelines or from their friends.

It's such a delicate dance if you are to deliver something that addresses multiple people's viewpoints without being dismissed on arrival. Are there women that straight up want to give women more power in society than men. Yes, anything is possible. But if you bring it up, you're fucking wacko who is paying attention to the fringe. People don't want to accept the reality, and other people don't want to accept nuance. Same with if you mention how most men are simps that don't acutally give a fuck about feminism. They might have words to prove that they do, but then again, so do most people, so what the fuck does that mean?

See I'm rambling. That's why I just keep it simple. Apply the bellcurve to morality, 50% of people are morally lacking, yet play on the morals of the other 50% who all have a diverse set of beliefs. Even if you do make a good philosophical and moral point, there will be people that will corrupt it from the inside. Getting people on the record admitting to stupid ideas is funny, but it's not going to help actually solve any issues.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not cherry-picking my examples to push a narrative, rather I use fiction as a means through which to examine culture (both the fiction itself and how people react to it) because it gives me access to a cultural consensus. When Red and Cyan were discussing the magic system used in "The NeverEnding Story" and of it being controversial, it didn't come from (or didn't seem to) a place of personal offense or outrage. Rather their attitude, which is what really got me interested, was like they were afraid of what their audience might think of such a notion, indicating a belief in the cultural consensus that depicting women as in any way different to men is taboo. It's not just them either I've seen this same fear of offending the masses from other credible YouTubers, particularly those who do trope talks and narrative theory dissections, and indeed it matches my own personal experience even on this forum.

When I wrote the OP I was very well aware that it might not be well received, even though I don't think I actually said anything that inflammatory.

But either way it doesn't matter whether this taboo is common or not, if I'm challenging people's beliefs then it only matters to the people whose beliefs I'm challenging. If I'm calling out the crazies on their nonsense, and you're not one of the crazies, then why does it matter to you?

Speaking of crazies and cherry-picking I don't think "Skweezy Jibbs" is indicative of anyone but himself, I'm not even sure his story is real, a quote from ifunny.co could just as likely be manufactured by some memer as the insane ramblings of an attention seeking idiot. What it's not likely to be is reliable evidence and most certainly not indicative of the attitudes/beliefs of the common man.

I see what you mean with the advancement of philosophical inquiry, but I don't think we can dialectically diffuse this if we tried for 100s of years.

Spoiler

I take my philosophy very seriously.

Ok now let me ask my questions again and to avoid confusion I'll be more specific this time:

• What is feminism actually about?
• How are men contributing to it in a way that ought to be shamed?

And no I will not accept quotes from "Skweezy Jibbs" as reliable evidence.

 

[scorpiomover]

Speaking of crazies and cherry-picking I don't think "Skweezy Jibbs" is indicative of anyone but himself, I'm not even sure his story is real, a quote from ifunny.co could just as likely be manufactured by some memer as the insane ramblings of an attention seeking idiot. What it's not likely to be is reliable evidence and most certainly not indicative of the attitudes/beliefs of the common man.

But it does remind me of a guy I knew in university.

 

[Black Rose]

What is feminism actually about?

There are three categories

The brave feminism
The limp do nothing feminism
The I hate men sucky kind of feminism

How are men contributing to it in a way that ought to be shamed?

brave feminism isn't a problem the rest is men just being sucky men.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

When I wrote the OP I was very well aware that it might not be well received, even though I don't think I actually said anything that inflammatory.

I don't think it's inflammatory either. Occam's razor has a problem with what you're saying.

I must be missing something here, but my impression of your thesis is that feminisms influence in media hints at insecurities about the abilities of women, trying to cope with the reality of their existential limitations.

So then, does Superman exist because men have insecurities about their lacking ability to fly, to cope with their existential limitations?

People wanting to please the widest audience possible easily explains everyone bending over to access the widest possible market. Women are fully integrated in the work force, set to be the most educated portion of the population. Pandering to them is the logical thing to do.

At some point the people with more questionable motives are the ones that are questioning why this is occurring, wouldn't you think so?

But either way it doesn't matter whether this taboo is common or not, if I'm challenging people's beliefs then it only matters to the people whose beliefs I'm challenging. If I'm calling out the crazies on their nonsense, and you're not one of the crazies, then why does it matter to you?

Because if I'm in the room when people are having an argument like this my head will explode.

Ok now let me ask my questions again and to avoid confusion I'll be more specific this time:

• What is feminism actually about?
• How are men contributing to it in a way that ought to be shamed?

And no I will not accept quotes from "Skweezy Jibbs" as reliable evidence.

I don't know how to answer that question like a fucking human being so I'll just go off of characterizations of my observations.

Feminism is the social immune system of women. If feminism believes that women are at risk given an approaching substrate, it will attack. That's it, that simple. It doesn't matter what that substance actually entails, if it's good or bad for women or feminism, it's in the interest of women, which according to feminism, historically it's a necessity.

Does the same thing exist for men? It doesn't matter what the truth is, feminism will sustain a yes because why would it lower it's immune system to the possibility that it doesn't?

AK pretty much gets that second point. It's not really a quality of being feminist, it's just associating with a group/movement for political and profit motives. Much like everyone calls out companies during black history month or pride month yet hardly doing anything for these communities besides changing their branding.

 

[scorpiomover]

I must be missing something here, but my impression of your thesis is that feminisms influence in media hints at insecurities about the abilities of women, trying to cope with the reality of their existential limitations.

Actually, it hints at insecurities about the insecurities of people in the media to control women.

So then, does Superman exist because men have insecurities about their lacking ability to fly, to cope with their existential limitations?

Men have been trying to overcome their inability to fly since the days of Icarus.

People wanting to please the widest audience possible easily explains everyone bending over to access the widest possible market. Women are fully integrated in the work force, set to be the most educated portion of the population. Pandering to them is the logical thing to do.

The most educated people would be the hardest to fool, and thus the least easy to manipulate, and thus the worst choice to pander to.

At some point the people with more questionable motives are the ones that are questioning why this is occurring, wouldn't you think so?

Why would the people who don't want things to change for the betterment of humanity, be questioning and trying to make things change for the betterment of humanity?

But either way it doesn't matter whether this taboo is common or not, if I'm challenging people's beliefs then it only matters to the people whose beliefs I'm challenging. If I'm calling out the crazies on their nonsense, and you're not one of the crazies, then why does it matter to you?

Because if I'm in the room when people are having an argument like this my head will explode.

Why would your head explode? Did someone attach a thermite bomb to the back of your head?

I don't know how to answer that question like a fucking human being so I'll just go off of characterizations of my observations.

Feminism is the social immune system of women. If feminism believes that women are at risk given an approaching substrate, it will attack. That's it, that simple. It doesn't matter what that substance actually entails, if it's good or bad for women or feminism, it's in the interest of women, which according to feminism, historically it's a necessity.

What was the social immune system of women before feminism?

Does the same thing exist for men? It doesn't matter what the truth is, feminism will sustain a yes because why would it lower it's immune system to the possibility that it doesn't?

Ummm...if men don't have an immune system that protects them from COVID, and women have an immune system that protects them from COVID, then women's immune system would stop? Does that make sense?

OTOH, if women have an immune system that protects them from men, because men are "the enemy", then since women need men to reproduce, women are quite literally made of men. So if men are "the enemy", women are the enemy of themselves, and thus women want to kill off all women and seek their own self-destruction. What could be a better form of self-destruction than killing your own immune system?

AK pretty much gets that second point. It's not really a quality of being feminist, it's just associating with a group/movement for political and profit motives. Much like everyone calls out companies during black history month or pride month yet hardly doing anything for these communities besides changing their branding.

That's because those companies were primarily made to make money, not to help black people. If helping black people would make those companies more money, they'd do that. If not helping black people would make those companies more money, they'd do that. If advertising how anti-racist they are during black history month, would make those companies the most money, they'd do that.

Incidentally, what do people learn about in black history month? Because it seems that there were an awful lot of things about black people in history, that people never seem to mention.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Actually, it hints at insecurities about the insecurities of people in the media to control women.

It sounds to me like Cog is saying we can't have nice things because people are doing a thing.

I'm saying we can't have nice things because people.

Even on this forum of INTPs we make normative statements conflating various things for the sake of clean communication. Such as conflating intersectional feminism with general or radical feminism that among ourselves we may understand what we mean, but passerby's will see a different message. Even if they agree with what is being said, they might apply it in a disruptive matter in their own lives.

So then, does Superman exist because men have insecurities about their lacking ability to fly, to cope with their existential limitations?

Men have been trying to overcome their inability to fly since the days of Icarus.

Yes, it's a nice story about someone who is trying to transcend their existential limitations and ends up hurting themselves because they become overly ambitious.

If you're trying to say that media should be instructive in this way, then I am all for this discussion. I do think that would be ideal. But I still hold that most media that is consumed by people is a form of escapism.

People getting off of work wanting to relax don't really care for being reminded of the qualities of their gender to be represented to them for some "worthy" higher purpose. They want to turn their brain off and retreat into a mode of reality that comforts them before they inevitably have to face the world again.

People wanting to please the widest audience possible easily explains everyone bending over to access the widest possible market. Women are fully integrated in the work force, set to be the most educated portion of the population. Pandering to them is the logical thing to do.

The most educated people would be the hardest to fool, and thus the least easy to manipulate, and thus the worst choice to pander to.

Education in America is a means of attaining a higher salary. Not necessarily critical thinking ability unless you're on track to be a teacher. You want to tailor your products and advertisements towards people that have money, otherwise you're trying to sell to people that usually only buy necessities. Which is fine, unless you aren't selling something that is a necessity. Like movie tickets.

At some point the people with more questionable motives are the ones that are questioning why this is occurring, wouldn't you think so?

Why would the people who don't want things to change for the betterment of humanity, be questioning and trying to make things change for the betterment of humanity?

Things have been getting better though.

Any narrative device that adheres to ANY perspective of gender, sex, race, ect; and assigns attributes to these qualities is propagating an idea about that gender, sex, race, ect.

Doing this means you engage in talking about these people. Not indirectly, but very much DIRECTLY.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's very much something that is still done. It just needs tact and compromise. Sensibility isn't a universal condition.

Cognisant said: But either way it doesn't matter whether this taboo is common or not, if I'm challenging people's beliefs then it only matters to the people whose beliefs I'm challenging. If I'm calling out the crazies on their nonsense, and you're not one of the crazies, then why does it matter to you? Click to expand... Because if I'm in the room when people are having an argument like this my head will explode.

Why would your head explode? Did someone attach a thermite bomb to the back of your head?

Yes, and the trigger for the bomb is a scenario that I thought would only ever happen in college because no one actually gives a fuck

The answers to me are clear about these crazies.

I don't know how to answer that question like a fucking human being so I'll just go off of characterizations of my observations.

Feminism is the social immune system of women. If feminism believes that women are at risk given an approaching substrate, it will attack. That's it, that simple. It doesn't matter what that substance actually entails, if it's good or bad for women or feminism, it's in the interest of women, which according to feminism, historically it's a necessity.

What was the social immune system of women before feminism?

It's like asking what came before homosapiens. Some other broadly cultural phenomena that is outdated and now incompatible with todays feminism. I don't know. I can hardly tell if the feminism now is the same feminisms from 10 years ago.

I am aware of my bubble, there is a lot of sympathy coming out for men from women actually. So I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

Does the same thing exist for men? It doesn't matter what the truth is, feminism will sustain a yes because why would it lower it's immune system to the possibility that it doesn't?

Ummm...if men don't have an immune system that protects them from COVID, and women have an immune system that protects them from COVID, then women's immune system would stop? Does that make sense?

OTOH, if women have an immune system that protects them from men, because men are "the enemy", then since women need men to reproduce, women are quite literally made of men. So if men are "the enemy", women are the enemy of themselves, and thus women want to kill off all women and seek their own self-destruction. What could be a better form of self-destruction than killing your own immune system?

Um, I agree?

AK pretty much gets that second point. It's not really a quality of being feminist, it's just associating with a group/movement for political and profit motives. Much like everyone calls out companies during black history month or pride month yet hardly doing anything for these communities besides changing their branding.

That's because those companies were primarily made to make money, not to help black people. If helping black people would make those companies more money, they'd do that. If not helping black people would make those companies more money, they'd do that. If advertising how anti-racist they are during black history month, would make those companies the most money, they'd do that.

Incidentally, what do people learn about in black history month? Because it seems that there were an awful lot of things about black people in history, that people never seem to mention.

Yeah, that's part of my point. People do a good job at shaming these companies typically. When it comes to women though, well I guess there was that one Burger King (Hungry Jacks?) which I have no idea if it panned out well for them.

 

[scorpiomover]

Actually, it hints at insecurities about the insecurities of people in the media to control women.

It sounds to me like Cog is saying we can't have nice things because people are doing a thing.
I'm saying we can't have nice things because people.

If you keep saying you can't have nice things, then your subconscious will come to believe you. Then when someone gives you something nice, your subconscious will say to itself "Can't be real" and throw it away.

Pavlovian conditioning.

Even on this forum of INTPs we make normative statements conflating various things for the sake of clean communication.

Conflation is the opposite of clean and clear communication.

Such as conflating intersectional feminism with general or radical feminism that among ourselves we may understand what we mean, but passerby's will see a different message. Even if they agree with what is being said, they might apply it in a disruptive matter in their own lives.

If you talk about "intersectional feminism" as if it's an entity of its own, rather than what you mean by it, then don't be surprised if everyone gets confused.

So then, does Superman exist because men have insecurities about their lacking ability to fly, to cope with their existential limitations?

Men have been trying to overcome their inability to fly since the days of Icarus.

Yes, it's a nice story about someone who is trying to transcend their existential limitations and ends up hurting themselves because they become overly ambitious.

The point of the story, was that Daedalus achieved his ambitions to escape from prison and live.

If you're trying to say that media should be instructive in this way, then I am all for this discussion.

When I grew up in the 1970s, Aesop's Fables was something everyone learned in primary school.

I do think that would be ideal. But I still hold that most media that is consumed by people is a form of escapism.

Fiction is escapism. When the media becomes escapism, the media becomes fiction.

People getting off of work wanting to relax don't really care for being reminded of the qualities of their gender to be represented to them for some "worthy" higher purpose. They want to turn their brain off and retreat into a mode of reality that comforts them before they inevitably have to face the world again.

You only want to run away from the world, when you are pessimistic about what you can get out of it.

Education in America is a means of attaining a higher salary.

When education is about making money, it's called "business school".

Things have been getting better though.

Then people would be optimistic about the world, and then they'd be avoiding escapism and fiction that takes them away from it.

Any narrative device that adheres to ANY perspective of gender, sex, race, ect; and assigns attributes to these qualities is propagating an idea about that gender, sex, race, ect.

Without a connection between A and B, you have nothing to say about either.

Doing this means you engage in talking about these people. Not indirectly, but very much DIRECTLY.

Once you divorce any connection between A and B, you can talk directly all you want. But you still have nothing to say.

It's like asking what came before homosapiens.

I think they call that evolution.

Some other broadly cultural phenomena that is outdated and now incompatible with todays feminism. I don't know. I can hardly tell if the feminism now is the same feminisms from 10 years ago.

If you can't tell the connection between now and 10 years ago, then cause and effect are no longer clear anymore.

I am aware of my bubble, there is a lot of sympathy coming out for men from women actually. So I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

I think the point was your hilarious Skweezy Jibbs pic.

Does the same thing exist for men? It doesn't matter what the truth is, feminism will sustain a yes because why would it lower it's immune system to the possibility that it doesn't?

Ummm...if men don't have an immune system that protects them from COVID, and women have an immune system that protects them from COVID, then women's immune system would stop? Does that make sense?

OTOH, if women have an immune system that protects them from men, because men are "the enemy", then since women need men to reproduce, women are quite literally made of men. So if men are "the enemy", women are the enemy of themselves, and thus women want to kill off all women and seek their own self-destruction. What could be a better form of self-destruction than killing your own immune system?

Um, I agree?

My point was that it seemed like utter madness. I was hoping you'd argue with me and prove me utterly wrong.

AK pretty much gets that second point. It's not really a quality of being feminist, it's just associating with a group/movement for political and profit motives. Much like everyone calls out companies during black history month or pride month yet hardly doing anything for these communities besides changing their branding.

That's because those companies were primarily made to make money, not to help black people. If helping black people would make those companies more money, they'd do that. If not helping black people would make those companies more money, they'd do that. If advertising how anti-racist they are during black history month, would make those companies the most money, they'd do that.

Incidentally, what do people learn about in black history month? Because it seems that there were an awful lot of things about black people in history, that people never seem to mention.

Yeah, that's part of my point. People do a good job at shaming these companies typically. When it comes to women though, well I guess there was that one Burger King (Hungry Jacks?) which I have no idea if it panned out well for them.

View attachment 5918

I'm sure it will be grrrrrreaaaatttttt! Go Tony the Tiger!

Oh, wait!

Not grrreat! Labour pushes to ban Tony the Tiger and other cartoon characters from cereal packets to stop sugary food firms targeting children

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If you keep saying you can't have nice things, then your subconscious will come to believe you. Then when someone gives you something nice, your subconscious will say to itself "Can't be real" and throw it away.

Pavlovian conditioning.

Even on this forum of INTPs we make normative statements conflating various things for the sake of clean communication.

Conflation is the opposite of clean and clear communication.

Such as conflating intersectional feminism with general or radical feminism that among ourselves we may understand what we mean, but passerby's will see a different message. Even if they agree with what is being said, they might apply it in a disruptive matter in their own lives.

If you talk about "intersectional feminism" as if it's an entity of its own, rather than what you mean by it, then don't be surprised if everyone gets confused.

I'm responding to someone's takes on 'feminism'.

scorpiomover said: So then, does Superman exist because men have insecurities about their lacking ability to fly, to cope with their existential limitations? Click to expand... Men have been trying to overcome their inability to fly since the days of Icarus. Click to expand... Yes, it's a nice story about someone who is trying to transcend their existential limitations and ends up hurting themselves because they become overly ambitious.

The point of the story, was that Daedalus achieved his ambitions to escape from prison and live.

Good for him. His son flew close to the sun though and fucking died.

If you're trying to say that media should be instructive in this way, then I am all for this discussion.

When I grew up in the 1970s, Aesop's Fables was something everyone learned in primary school.

That's more a moral anthology rather than something with insight into the world. Nor really that is functionally instructive of anything.

I do think that would be ideal. But I still hold that most media that is consumed by people is a form of escapism.

Fiction is escapism. When the media becomes escapism, the media becomes fiction.

People getting off of work wanting to relax don't really care for being reminded of the qualities of their gender to be represented to them for some "worthy" higher purpose. They want to turn their brain off and retreat into a mode of reality that comforts them before they inevitably have to face the world again.

You only want to run away from the world, when you are pessimistic about what you can get out of it.

When you've worked for your salary for the day, done chores, errands, other maintenance, I don't know why you would do anything else but fall into indulging things like fiction. Not everyone is plotting the next chess move of their life all the time.

Education in America is a means of attaining a higher salary.

When education is about making money, it's called "business school".

Education and money are not compatible, they are not conducive to each other. This is why colleges exist.

Things have been getting better though.


Any narrative device that adheres to ANY perspective of gender, sex, race, ect; and assigns attributes to these qualities is propagating an idea about that gender, sex, race, ect.

Without a connection between A and B, you have nothing to say about either.

Doing this means you engage in talking about these people. Not indirectly, but very much DIRECTLY.

Once you divorce any connection between A and B, you can talk directly all you want. But you still have nothing to say.

Your argument has no connection to A nor B.

If I have the notion that you should be represented as a gnome in some fictional world. Then in my story all the gnomes run off a cliff, It's safe to say I'm making a direct comment to you running off a cliff.

Granted you might not be able to prove that I intended the Gnome to represent you, it's still something I am directly commenting about you, even if the way a symbolize your qualities are exchanged with some other concept.

It's like asking what came before homosapiens.

Only if homo sapiens evolved 200 years ago.

Some other broadly cultural phenomena that is outdated and now incompatible with todays feminism. I don't know. I can hardly tell if the feminism now is the same feminisms from 10 years ago.

If you can't tell the connection between now and 10 years ago, then cause and effect are no longer clear anymore.

Well I'm not quiet sure most people can completely catalogue the history and development of political movements off the top of their head.

Feminists did have to resort to terrorism various times in the early 1900s to get basic rights that the constitution said were men's inalienable rights.

I am aware of my bubble, there is a lot of sympathy coming out for men from women actually. So I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

I think the point was your hilarious Skweezy Jibbs pic.

scorpiomover said: Does the same thing exist for men? It doesn't matter what the truth is, feminism will sustain a yes because why would it lower it's immune system to the possibility that it doesn't? Click to expand... Ummm...if men don't have an immune system that protects them from COVID, and women have an immune system that protects them from COVID, then women's immune system would stop? Does that make sense?

OTOH, if women have an immune system that protects them from men, because men are "the enemy", then since women need men to reproduce, women are quite literally made of men. So if men are "the enemy", women are the enemy of themselves, and thus women want to kill off all women and seek their own self-destruction. What could be a better form of self-destruction than killing your own immune system? Click to expand... Um, I agree?

My point was that it seemed like utter madness. I was hoping you'd argue with me and prove me utterly wrong.

No no, I acknowledged when I first wrote it wasn't a good analogy. Though mostly because my own deficiencies.

Feminism ideally would be a library of tools anyone can look into to think about a variety of issues. Feminist philosophy has no credibility though. It strongly depends on constructivist theory to assert itself as serious. So if you don't take Constructivist theory, then you won't care much about what Feminist tools because you already have tools for critical thinking you chose over it.

Thank you for reminding me of about these one off slides from my international studies courses. I thought I lost these memories. Constructivism is a thing to me, so that's where I stand.

 

[Rook]

i've stated before that reality is not equal and it will never be... the only system where human equality can somewhat exist is something beyond communism, most likely a system where everyone are strapped into chairs and made to experience the same virtual reality with the same codices of laws governing their collective actions. a system where humanity is more like an ant colony, with the system reinforcing equality being the queen.

Fairness tho is a much better term and while not a universal principle, it's definitely a working ideal. So, what is fair? In reality a complex answer, but if I were to be simple I would say it's a system where you don't get screwed over for arbitrary reasons. Kill a child, rape someone, yeah you don't deserve jack shit, you've acted in a way which rended all fairness from another's life and therefore you should be shot or at least put in a labor camp or exile colony. But to be persecuted for something you said, for the color of your epidermis, for the form or your sexual organs or the orientation of your sexuality? Utter bullshit.

Discriminating against cys gender males is wrong. Discriminating against transgender women is wrong. Discrimination is wrong---it is acting against someone's interests by using an arbitrary judgement predicated upon one's own prejudices. Maybe for you it feels right, but in the end you are acting against another not because of their actions but because of their nature.

But here we come to fiction: discrimination does not exist. I'm not talking about your teenage wannabee Mein Kampf writer here, but simply the concept of art and its censorship. Anything is allowed in art, for art is not a weapon or ideology or whatever(tho some will use it as such---the problem lies with them, not the medium) but rather an act of creation borne from imagination. You're not building a bomb, you're painting a canvas.

Even if you get a racist writer who includes racist themes in their works, this should not be banned as long as it is fictional. Why? Well... not everyone reading that work is going to be racist, and perhaps many will read it for other reasons(critique, worldbuilding, character conflicts, nice style, whatever) And if those who are racist read it and praise it for its racist themes, well, now we know what prejudices these people hold as well as knowing the prejudices of the author.
Banning the book can do more harm than not imo, for now it becomes an underground thing, more of a cult symbol than it would've been before, and parts of the readership might more radically embrace certain themes espoused in the book. And of course, a non-racist writer who wishes to include racist themes in their world will now have to check their artistic drive against the current narrative for fear of getting their work banned. Think about Django Unchained: if all portrayals of slaves and racists are banned from the medium of film, would Django ever have been made?

And in regards to feminism, I offer no substantial comment. Not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. It is an ideology with many interpretations and outcomes, differing from country to country and practitioner to practitioner. In my personal view the closer feminist thought stays to visceral problems and their solutions, the more actionable it is.
Preventing rape, workplace abuse and domestic assault for me is a nobler goal than enforcing gender quotas and stamping down on what is termed toxic masculinity. If an activist group is geared toward bringing justice to victims of terrible crimes as well as prevention of these crimes, I'm all on board. If they instead gather funds so that they can preach about men and the manner in which they sit, or talk about how this or that is inherently sexist towards all woman and should therefore be a thing all men are banned from doing, well, I see them as just another political entity. And as with so many political entities these days, talk is cheap and positive results rarely seen.

 

[ZenRaiden]

equal is equal just like a sequal
are we jerbils or are we not
we must be put to equal to equal or it is what it
is or is it no?