Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I wrote this as a reply to a post in another thread, but I think I wrote some things that deserve discussion: first, what it means to a feminist. Secondly, distinctions that exist between the sexes, and how 'equality' does not mean 'social equality' i.e. equality in action, but equality in principle.

In that sense, I see no problem with feminism in the pursuit if equality in areas where equality is a valid right for females to lay claim to. However, there are some areas where to give females an equal right would put men - and indeed mankind - into the disadvantage, and indeed, into the service of natural instinct.


------------------------------------------------------------------


This hyper concern with physical beauty is an objectification of body. What the feminists want - a pipe dream, a fantasy - is to have their cake and eat it too. They want the latitude to present themselves in any way they desire, but also, to deny basic facts of biology, to deny that men, independent of their own volition, will become more aroused when women present themselves more scantily dressed.

This tabula rasa nonsense which hypothesizes a mans reaction to a woman's beauty and charm to be nothing more than 'environmental conditioning' is absurd, unscientific ideologically motivated trite. They want to erase that reality in order to arrogate further powers for female kind, as if their subconscious emotional sway over a man's psychology weren't enough; because anything less then complete unqualified equality - because to be different means to be inferior, apparently - is somehow immoral.

If patriarchal society means acknowledgement of differences, and matriarchal society means abnegation of differences, than I think if we want to live in a just world, we should prefer a patriarchal society.

Womankind has been favored in a way that man isn't. A man cannot exert subconscious, subtle influence over a woman's decision making and behavior as a woman can over a man. Feminists choose not to take note of this. Somehow, it's irrelevant. But in any case, since it is acknowledged the world over, from ancient times to now, it's unnatural to treat women in every situation the same as men; a simple example being the desire for equality in public dress: just as men are allowed to walk around topless, feminists argue they should be granted the same privileges. Ignored is the biological effect a topless man has on women verses the effect a topless woman has on men. This alone determines the morality. The circumstance - a mans biology and his response - puts him at the mercy of his sex drive once he sees a topless woman. Conversely, a woman can see a topless man and not sexualize it. The issue being: how the sex in question responds to the sight of toplessness. A woman's biology allows her the wiggle room to not be afflicted with unwanted sexual thoughts, whereas a man, whether a married one who values monogamy with his wife, and thus freedom from oppressive thoughts, or a youth, who shouldn't be inured to such sights at such a young and suggestible age, has much less freedom.

Laws are designed to promote freedom, no??? Well here, feminists want to take what little freedom law gives men from their sultry powers over us. It seems to me feminism is motivated at root against biology, against God; at it's root, it's a rebellion against nature - which is ironic since they use nature in their platform. In any case those who desire to live free, which means, to live from EXTERNAL INFLUENCE i.e. the pangs of unqualified instinct, which affects men far more than women, for those who value the freedom to will what they please, who value the freedom to live as they please, this wanton abuse of scientific fact by feminists impinges on THEIR freedom to think and feel free from external influences.

Hence, feminism is intimately linked with moral relativism, with nihilism, with naturism; in short, with ancient paganism. What the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to emancipate mankind from - from subservience to the passions - feminists hope to bring us back into slavery to. But who does it benefit?? It benefits THEM! They will have all the emotional power over us in addition to political powers which support them.

The Judeo-Christian tradition balances it out. It acknowledges, and indeed, it cannot outright erase, the influence a woman has over a man; nature has decreed that it be so, that men, like the Absolute, seek expression, just as a woman takes the indeterminate seed of a man and gives it expression in her womb as a child.

This is natural law. A womans power is essentially esoteric, private, and covert. To give her exoteric, public and overt powers, doesn't change the situation. It just affords her the power to rule over men inside and out.

That's the fact of the matter. Thus Patriarchal law is a balance of natures - and a woman's - power over man.




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I don't think our conclusions are valid. You are basing your argument on Judeo-Christian morality. I want nothing to do with that cesspool. Furthermore, you make it sound like paganism is somehow a detriment to a society. That is not true at all. The few examples of a matriarchal society that history presents us with were, on the whole, far more egalitarian compared to Judeo-Christian societies and all of them were/are "pagan". Activities such as torture are commonplace in Judeo-Christian societies throughout history. It is almost unknown in matriarchal egalitarian societies.

However, you do bring up fair points about the feminist movement. I don't think the modern feminists are anything like the matriarchal societies of the past. Still, I can't agree with what you think is the answer to modern feminists. Judeo-Christian morals is one of the most oppressive, disgusting and twisted moral system on earth. We would still be living in the middle ages if that philosophy was not defeated by the efforts of humanists, secularists and free-thinkers.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 





I don't think our conclusions are valid. You are basing your argument on Judeo-Christian morality.


I'm not basing my argument on Judeo-Christian morality. Rather, Judeo-Christian morality is an expression of that metaphysic, best enunciated in the philosophy of Hegel.




Furthermore, you make it sound like paganism is somehow a detriment to a society


It's a detriment to mans ability to maintain his freedom.

There are two possible paths before us: the immoral, which disregards issues of practical morality; this is obviously the path taken by radical feminists, moral relativists etc; this philosophy uses evil means, evil actions, lies, distortion, slander etc, for some determined end.

Let's tackle the issue of woman having different laws to abide by with regard to public dress. Am I wrong in diagnosing the problem with it? No. I'm absolutely justified. What you take offense to - which itself is symptomatic of a despotic attitude to how others should live - is my desire to follow a Jewish ethic: my appreciation of monogamy, which COULD NOT be preserved in a culture which permits women to walk topless in public. Imagine the effect such a license would have on future generations. Complete submission to the passions! Complete immobility of the will.

You have this twisted idea, I'm sure, that to control the passions is 'bad'. Why?? It's either one way or the other. If I'm slave to my passions, I'm a slave to the FEMININE, who, btw, already controls my heart in the patriarchal context, as John Adams wisely noted:


Abigail Adams grated on her husband John in letters demanding full legal rights for women: “we are determined to instigate a rebellion” she declared, echoing the women of Athens in Lysistrata. John Adams’ reply was only too apt: men’s legal privileges were essential, he wrote, “we dare not exert our power [in the home] in its full latitude…in practice, you know, we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters. To give up on this would subject us completely to the despotism of the petticoat.

Link


The only way to preserve autonomy of self would be to do act as Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Hinduism etc suggests - to disregard the objective world - whether to cast it as 'illusory' as the Easterners do, or relativize it to the point of oblivion as modern moral relativists do.

In any case, submission to the passions undermines a persons individual freedom.



Activities such as torture are commonplace in Judeo-Christian societies throughout history


Are you seriously going to go to torture to prove how immoral "judeo-christian society" is??? UMM. The Romans, INVENTORS of crucifixion and a medley of all sorts of other types of physical torture. No governments or societies show as much creativity here as the relativistic, or the Godless.




It is almost unknown in matriarchal egalitarian societies.


You seem to be likening matriarchy to 'egalitarianism'. Egalitarianism may be a type of matriarchal society, but it is not the only type. Further, what type of society behooves the use of torture?? It's not simply a patriarchal society.

Patriarchal at root, is the political application of the metaphysical concept of differentiation; multiplicity and unity. Hence, Judaism - the chief progenitor of this metaphysical and political perspective, became the salvation to so many people in the Greco-Roman world who were fed up with the vile corruption of the Roman political system, and found in Judaism a belief system that ennobled an objective good, which gave them belief in humanities ultimate salvation.

Lets just take a look at contemporary pagan societies. Hinduism, which subscribes to a moral relativity, firmly and inexorably places all people in certain social contexts; s slave laborer is forever a slave laborer. He cannot move up in society. He is ineluctably determined for life by his/her lower birth.

This too is an expression of a matriarchal order. No restriction is put upon the people to live according to an objective morality. Consequently, there is very little justice for Hindus of low birth.

As for egalitarianism. This ignores the reality of the particular. In any democratic society, all people are given basic, fundamental - generalized - rights. However, those rights cannot be equal in the particular - anymore than human beings are themselves equal in the particular. Differentiation exists within the created order.

Some people are smart and have a natural aptitude towards science; becoming doctors, scientists etc. The work that goes into becoming such a professional - and givens it's especial importance to societies pedigree - merits them to be rewarded more for their services to society than common laborers.

Thus, people get paid differently, live differently, all according to a system of merit that metes out each according to his just deserts. Agree? If no, than your a communist/socialist.

If yes, then you acknowledge difference. Why can't difference be preserved in the outer order? Why can't human beings in their different traits - and biology - be treated according to their biological situation? Since many men - and women - desire to live in a world in which people are free from over-sexualization, from the oppression of salacious thoughts, which means a society in which a man and a woman can meet, fall in love, and stay true to each other for the whole of their lives, in both spiritual and physical terms, then that requires laws that preserve those basic rights. Those rights to be free from external influence

Nobody is forced to be a saint; no one is required to abide by a moral code that he or she doesn't agree with. Thus, you'll be the first to admit that divergence from the imposed moral order of man is an EASY matter. Anyone can be debauched and lead such a lifestyle even if society frowns upon it. The society we live provides that right. However, a society which defends rights in the terms you suggest strips the moral order of it's traditional value, which gives primacy to reason over the passions; in such an order, it would be borderline impossible, far harder than it would be for a debauchee to be moral, to abide by a moral code that society makes virtually impossible to abide by.

In other words, the matriarchal society you envision is the apogee of despotism. It is the complete submission of mankind to external factors, which means, not coincidentally, forfeiting the very divine idea usually denoted by the concept of "man" - a being invested with reason, able to impose reason on the chaos of natural existence.
edit on 9-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 





Judeo-Christian morals is one of the most oppressive, disgusting and twisted moral system on earth.


I don't think you quite understand the full breadth of what is meant by the Judeo-Christian ethic; also, there is confusion because they are not at all the same, and to many, it's a complete misnomer. I use it for convenience sake. A better term would be 'traditional'.

In any case, what do you make of my objections to women walking around topless in public? Am I justified in opposing this? Wouldn't this provoke sexual thoughts in men, regardless of their conscious disposition? Speaking for myself, and my general understanding of man, I know I definitely would be, particularly if the woman in question is young and attractive. So, am I - and men, in general, - allowed the right to preserve my/our inner freedom by opposing laws which compromise it? Not to mention the many outraged woman who would be offended by this uncouth act which they know will provoke thoughts in their significant other or children
edit on 9-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
In any case, what do you make of my objections to women walking around topless in public? Am I justified in opposing this? Wouldn't this provoke sexual thoughts in men, regardless of their conscious disposition? Speaking for myself, and my general understanding of man, I know I definitely would be, particularly if the woman in question is young and attractive. So, am I - and men, in general, - allowed the right to preserve my/our inner freedom by opposing laws which compromise it? Not to mention the many outraged woman who would be offended by this uncouth act which they know will provoke thoughts in their significant other or children


If ALL women walked around with their breasts bared, then men would soon become desensitised to the stimulus that such exposure would provoke. This is proven in cultures where women do not cover themselves. And less can be most definately more. If all is exposed, then what is left to the imagination? And it is the imagination that creates the fantasies. Make something commonplace, and it takes all the pleasure of revealing away.

Which works on a number of levels.

But women's bodies are not responsible for male trangressions, and covering something up, and hiding it, does not make that reality go away. If men cannot control their thoughts and impulses, they should be looking to themselves, internally, for a means of control, not looking to control others. That would be avoidance, I think.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 





If ALL women walked around with their breasts bared, then men would soon become desensitised to the stimulus that such exposure would provoke.


Are you serious?? So thousands of years of male response to female physiognomy would be 'wiped clean' after a few years of desensitization??? That is the most outrageous pseudo-scientific claim I have yet to hear. And that you managed to get two people to agree with you, is astounding.

Listen, speaking as a male, there would be no desensitization to the image of a topless woman. If anything, there would be an increase in sexual thoughts, gawking at naked woman, and the eventual evisceration of an institution - marriage and monogamy - in human society.

We COVER - we IMPOSE LAWS - because of the DIFFICULTY of dealing with those oppressive thoughts. Any man knows this. Any man who is married, or in a relationship, already has difficulty diverting his gaze from a woman who's beauty he can't help looking at. Take away her clothes, expose her breasts - are you serious?? What on earth compels you to think nature and her laws could be ignored and overcome through sheer force of will - through umm "densensitization".



This is proven in cultures where women do not cover themselves.


Where? In primitive cultures? In African, Indonesian tribes?? So you in other words call for the complete elimination of a culture - and spiritual ethos - which has animated western civilization for some 2500 years. Not even the Greeks were depraved enough to allow their woman to walk around naked, knowing the effect it would have on the institution of marriage, how it would infringe on the thoughts of those people who wanted to preserve a sense of monogamy and faithfulness; and imagine the children in such a society.

It's feminists like you, with this radical vision of a future stripped of all moral sensibility, that I've specifically addressed this thread to. Certainly, there are issues of gender equality which deserve attention in modern society, but this is NOT it - not even close, as it completely invades the privacy of ones individual thoughts and feelings.

There's a reason why CIVILIZED peoples, REASONABLE cultures, impose such rules on women; whereas ignorant primitive tribes allow their woman to go walking around topless; it's the fact that nature and her beauty is despotic, overwhelms the human heart with unwanted imagery and subjugates it to external influence. Reason and Consciousness imposes order on this chaotic slew of unmitigated thoughts and feelings in order to reel in some personal autonomy over it. The moral order imposed by man, the traditional moral order, is the balancing of the influence the feminine holds over man.




Make something commonplace, and it takes all the pleasure of revealing away.


So in other words, its the tension of 'concealment' which engenders the pleasure of the sight of physical beauty? And you want to take away the pleasure by removing the concealment??? Seems to me, if we enjoy sex, and enjoy the effect an unclothed woman or man has on us, we should prefer to preserve this tension, if at least for the sake of enhancing orgasms





But women's bodies are not responsible for male trangressions, and covering something up, and hiding it, does not make that reality go away.


What male transgressions? I'm making the distinction between thought and action. It's in thought that a woman's bare chest intrudes and oppresses men; especially those who seek to foster feelings of respect - independent of sexualization, for members of the other sex.




If men cannot control their thoughts and impulses, they should be looking to themselves, internally, for a means of control, not looking to control others. That would be avoidance, I think.


Oh please. What is the buddhistic remedy you talk about. Not even the Dalai Lama, an ascetic, can resist the impression an attractive woman can have on him...and yet you unreasonably expect that men 'control' the feelings a topless woman would have. Its determined already, an attractive topless woman would draw all gazes towards her, and if not, torture those men who try to resist. It's spiritual torture. Case closed. By allowing this, you essentially attack the privacy of the human will, saying 'oh deal with it" and then adding "perhaps overtime you will become desensitized to it", as if this response weren't hardwired by nature into the human male organism.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I was with you until you erroneously simplified patriachy and matriarchy. Pretty sure your insecurities are slipping a bit in the OP. Men can seduce women just as hard.

Anyways, patriarchy will be the death of us all at our current track. If you don't want to submit to women's wisdom guiding us out of this mess we've created, so long!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Once self-identified as "free", the abused almost always becomes the abuser.

Oppressive women are no better than oppressive men.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Evolutionarily, there was never a point in men hiding their arousal, because their arousal pointed! A great deal of our culture is dicatated by our biology. Women should stop emulating male behavior - maybe then they'll stop expecting men to emulate female behavior.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Are you serious?? So thousands of years of male response to female physiognomy would be 'wiped clean' after a few years of desensitization???


Are YOU serious? Those fun-bags have far more important uses that simply stimulating the male's arousal. And there is nothing 'pseudo-scientific about that claim. Just because you are unable to elevate your level of thought above the level of your crotch does not make it any less of a fact. If exposed breasts were commonplace then, yes, men would become desensitised to that exposure.

So anyway, let's get this straight, YOU, that is males, impose laws upon females because you cannot control your own impulses. Is that right? So because you cannot elevate yourself above the animals, we all have to sink to your level?

Now, to cut a long story very short, I ain't going to even go there, given the above, about what you consider to be civilised (LOL)...but I am not about to go around topless either, because as a 'civilised', educated woman, I understand the health benefits and support given to me by my well-fitted bra, but truly, really, and honestly, civilised or not, compared to some primitive cultures you have a vast amount to learn about your own ability to control yourself and your thought processes. Why so weak willed?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 



Men can seduce women just as hard.


No they can't.

Just because a man is able to seduce a woman doesn't mean generally speaking, women are as charmed by men as men are by women. That's absurd.

There's a reason why men court women and not the other way around; why every mythology of every people at almost every period have associated beauty with woman - of seduction with femininity.




Anyways, patriarchy will be the death of us all at our current track.


Care to explain?



I was with you until you erroneously simplified patriachy and matriarchy.


I gave an abstract definition of patriarchy and matriarchy; of course, the abstract definition will in itself be a simplification - but it's not an "over-simplifiction".

At root, things can be broken down into a basic dualism; the dualism of male-female, or patriarchy and matriarchy, reflects a dynamic both present in the archetype and it's political manifestation. In it's political manifestation, patriarchy is typified by a culture which places a preponderance of reason over passion, in the institution of laws that afford man the freedom from the encumbrance of stifling emotions, which in turn compromise his judgement, and ultimately, his inner freedom. Thus, Patriarchy in archetype is the rule of the mind over the body by uniting the freedom of infinite thought with the freedom effected by ethical action.

Matriarchy, conversely, is a 'whitewashing' or 'relativizing' of differences. If the reason is objective, and the passions are subjective, then matriarchy accords precedence to the passions above reason by preferring a society free of the 'restrictions' of moral judgements, which in turn necessitates principles like moral relativism. In this system, differences are abrogated, and the inner freedom of infinite thought is imposed on matter by divesting the objective of any reality.

I'd like to point out that the attitude of Christendom, particularly the Catholic church, towards sex, is exceedingly unhealthy. This is not at all a true and authentic position of 'patriarchy'. Rather, the Jewish tradition provides a better example of the proper attitude towards sexuality. It is not the avoidance of sex, or the condemnation of sex that's required, but the understanding that the power of sexuality needs to be controlled and divested of it's ability to control human actions; this is effected through the institution of marriage and the fidelity it entails.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Ah, you're not worth my time.

You have a very warped opinion of matriarchy and patriarchy.

Probably has to do with how your mind operates.

Rooting out based on assumptions of extreme oppositions.

If patriarchy is based on reason: why do we find an increase of war, rape, murder, incest, and abuse in general under it's rule?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about, sorry!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 





And there is nothing 'pseudo-scientific about that claim.


You believe that man can become desensitized to something that nature has made him biologically responsive to. To assume that it can be changed by positing - presuming - that man is nothing more than a 'blank slate' irrespective of scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary, is indeed a pseudo-scientific claim.



Just because you are unable to elevate your level of thought above the level of your crotch does not make it any less of a fact.


It's not just me, apparently, but all men. Again, what you propose is nothing else than the abrogation of a philosophical outlook that many people subscribe to.

I said earlier that being ruled by the passions i.e. living liberally, comes far easier to man than imposing moral rules. Therefore, living in a "patriarchal culture" or a society which imposes rules which permit the freedom of thought and will still enables the libertine to live as she or he pleases. It comes naturally to them. Ergo, it doesn't completely infringe on their inner freedom

Conversely, to enact laws that permit something which comes naturally - such as allowing woman to walk around topless - leaves very little room for someone who seeks to preserve his inner will, which means, to abide by a moral code, infinitely more difficult.

As a woman you seem to have very little understanding of what it is to be a man. It is not easy to turn away when you see an attractive woman; take off her top, and the will to look becomes almost intolerably hard to resist.




So anyway, let's get this straight, YOU, that is males, impose laws upon females because you cannot control your own impulses. Is that right?


Why do you talk as if it's something in our power to control?? It's nature. Nature made man this way. Biology makes man respond this way. Your argument is as silly as blaming the depressive or obsessive person of being 'too weak' to "rise above" his or her depression or obsession. The THOUGHT fills your mind, grasps your attention and leaves you very little freedom to think of anything else. Hence, we enact laws against letting women walk around topless or nude because of the effect it has on Males.

I repeat, a moral order, marriage, fidelity, all the beautiful things inherited from 'patriarchy' could not be preserved if we succumbed to the designs you suggest.

If you were in any way mature you would understand that this is nature, or God's will. You are as much a part of the existent order as we are. What's required of you, is required, because of what it does to men. Your freedom is only partially being infringed upon. Wearing a top - and being required to wear a top - is hardly comparable to the stress that walking around topless would cause for married men, young children, adolescents and single young men.




Why so weak willed?


What do you mean weak willed??

I know a great deal of other cultures, religions, philosophies, hence, my position. I want to preserve the traditional moral order. The institution of marriage, spiritual and sexual fidelity between spouses, would evaporate in a society that permitted women to walk around topless. Hence, the only society in which this is normalized, are primitive societies, where monogamy isn't practiced, where other moral demands, go either unrecognized, or uncared for.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 





Ah, you're not worth my time.


That's because you're obviously too lazy or uneducated to counter my arguments.
.. If not educated enough, you are certainly too lazy. It comes off very strongly.



You have a very warped opinion of matriarchy and patriarchy.


And yet you don't bother showing me how that is. How would you define Matriarchy and Patriarchy.



If patriarchy is based on reason: why do we find an increase of war, rape, murder, incest, and abuse in general under it's rule?


I don't even think you even understand what I'm writing about.

Look at the Communists and Nazis; neither could be described as adherents of a true 'patriarchy', since both sought to eliminate the traditional moral order. Were they examples of morality?? Or are they the best examples known to man - besides the Romans, another exponent of moral relativism - of war, rape, murder, incest, and abuse?
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
You believe that man can become desensitized to something that nature has made him biologically responsive to. To assume that it can be changed by positing - presuming - that man is nothing more than a 'blank slate' irrespective of scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary, is indeed a pseudo-scientific claim.


Please back this up with said scientific and empirical evidence.


Originally posted by dontreally
It's not just me, apparently, but all men. Again, what you propose is nothing else than the abrogation of a philosophical outlook that many people subscribe to.


They 'subscribe' to? That would be about right, it is a choice, or rather an aspect of nurture, it is not hardwired as you are trying to imply.


Originally posted by dontreally
I said earlier that being ruled by the passions i.e. living liberally, comes far easier to man than imposing moral rules. Therefore, living in a "patriarchal culture" or a society which imposes rules which permit the freedom of thought and will still enables the libertine to live as she or he pleases. It comes naturally to them. Ergo, it doesn't completely infringe on their inner freedom


Imposing rules does not change thought processes, it merely penalises them. It is not a solution, it is an elastoplast.


Originally posted by dontreally
Conversely, to enact laws that permit something which comes naturally - such as allowing woman to walk around topless - leaves very little room for someone who seeks to preserve his inner will, which means, to abide by a moral code, infinitely more difficult.


Women are no more predisposed to self-exposure than men are to dealing with that exposure. There is nothing moral about denying women the freedom to feed their children in public because it may offend others, or arouse them. Encouraging the proper usage of breast, rather than as just objects of arousal, would be a step forward in fact.


Originally posted by dontreally
As a woman you seem to have very little understanding of what it is to be a man. It is not easy to turn away when you see an attractive woman; take off her top, and the will to look becomes almost intolerably hard to resist.


That's your problem, not the woman's. Deal with it.



Originally posted by dontreally
Why do you talk as if it's something in our power to control?? It's nature. Nature made man this way. Biology makes man respond this way.


Well if it is natural while feel the need to conceal it? There is nothing wrong with appreciating beauty, it is natural. As you say, thought and action are two entirely different things. Enjoy the beauty for what it is, do not feel the need to impose thought upon it, and allow that thought to inspire action. That is what the brain is for, differentiating given the circumstances. I really do not see what your problem is.


Originally posted by dontreally
Your argument is as silly as blaming the depressive or obsessive person of being 'too weak' to "rise above" his or her depression or obsession. The THOUGHT fills your mind, grasps your attention and leaves you very little freedom to think of anything else. Hence, we enact laws against letting women walk around topless or nude because of the effect it has on Males.


I see men walking around topless all the time, in the summer that is, and I can control my 'impulse', don't make it any the less pretty to look at, when it is pretty to look at, that is. But I cope.


Originally posted by dontreally
I repeat, a moral order, marriage, fidelity, all the beautiful things inherited from 'patriarchy' could not be preserved if we succumbed to the designs you suggest.


I have no intention of succumbing, as it were, to patriarchy, ta very much....same goes for a matriarchy while we're at it. I prefer progress and equality.


Originally posted by dontreally

What do you mean weak willed??

I know a great deal of other cultures, religions, philosophies, hence, my position. I want to preserve the traditional moral order. The institution of marriage, spiritual and sexual fidelity between spouses, would evaporate in a society that permitted women to walk around topless.


You can preserve that if that is what you want, your choice of spouse, the way you both raise your children...beyond that, you have to learn to live with the rights and freedoms that others have. I don't particularly want to see people walking around naked to be honest, and there is zero chance that I ever would, but, that aside, I do believe that men and women should be afforded the same rights, and if it is okay for men who want to walk around topless, then it should be okay for women to as well, if they so choose.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Actually, I don't trust a man who is lecturing about feminism. Especially one who claims that men are victims of women. That's ridiculous! Put your big boy pants on and take responsibility for yourself and your actions.


Originally posted by dontreally
However, there are some areas where to give females an equal right would put men - and indeed mankind - into the disadvantage, and indeed, into the service of natural instinct.


Men don't give rights to females. You don't have the power to allow women to be equal or have access to their equal rights. All you can do is try to prevent us from claiming rights that are already ours. Good luck with that.


Well here, feminists want to take what little freedom law gives men from their sultry powers over us.


I'm sorry.
"sultry powers"?


:shk:



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Where to begin.....

First off that torture remark was merely an example. I thought that it was obvious with the phrase "such as". Guess I was wrong. Regarding your comment about there being only two paths; Moral or Immoral. It all depends on how a person defines those terms. I find many practices of the Judeo-Christian philosophy to be immoral. Hell, I used to make a good amount of money playing online poker. Then, politicians influenced by Judeo-Christian morality made the activity illegal. That is simply one example of how that moral philosophy is repugnant. It is entirely about control and conformity. Another example: You said something along the lines of certain women getting offended by a topless woman walking around. So what if they are offended? The problem does not lay with the topless woman. The problem lies with the offended women projecting their personal beliefs unto everyone else and expecting every woman to act and believe as they do. Control and conformity. I can't even begin to comment on what you said controlling passions. You seem to have this belief that everything is black or white, good or bad, positive or negative. I don't live my life with such banal restrictions.

How is paganism a detriment to mans freedom? Please, describe to me how that is so. I would argue the opposite. That paganism is one of many ways to achieve freedom.

Regarding your comments about the Greco-Roman world accepting Judaism. They didn't. Perhaps you mean Christianity? Whatever the case, you show historical ignorance. Christianity was forced upon the inhabitants of the Roman Empire by Constantine I and his followers. Constantine granted freedom of worship to Christians throughout the empire through the Edict of Milan; as soon as that happened the Christians immediately began to persecute the devilish pagans and denying them fair treatment. I know the early history of Christianity and it was bloody. Hell, not even did the Christians persecute pagans; they would cheerfully and happily persecute each other for the crime of viewing Jesus with a different point of view. Good examples of this are how Catholics stole property, tortured and killed the Arians and Monophysites. That is the morality of Judeo-Christian thought--if you do not believe as I do you must be wrong; because you are wrong I can do anything I choose to you because you are obviously in league with the devil. As I said in my 1st post this attitude has fortunately changed through the labors of the groups I mentioned there.

I had to laugh when I read what you said about the Romans and torture. What the Romans did to people was childs play in comparison to what Christians did during the Inquisition. At least Romans would kill you relatively quickly. The Inquisition would have you in a dungeon for maybe a decade or two, violating you every day you were there using methods that cause extreme pain but did not kill.

Hinduism is a poor example to judge all pagans by. The rigid caste system that they adhere to is very much unique. There are many philosophical or religious systems that you would call "pagan". Are you implying that you have studied every single one of those systems. You seem to be implying that any religion, philosophy, or practice that is non-Abrahamic in origin is somehow detrimental to society.

To respond to the comment you made about Merit: I don't agree with you. This does not make me a communist or socialist. Once again you display what I mentioned earlier about black/white, positive/negative. I don't agree with you so you assume I must be a communist or socialist. Come on. Now, to answer your query. I believe in Meritocracy. What we have in the USA is a controlled system that is rampant with nepotism/favoritism. Merit plays a very small role in the USA. It is all about how well one kisses the Patriarchs ass, so to speak. If the patriarch does not like you whatever Merit one has is irrelevant.

You say some humans want to live in a society that is free from over-sexualization, from the oppression of salacious thoughts, from external influence. What about the people that do not want to live that way? Are you saying that all those people be forced to conform to those points of view? That is oppression at its finest. There is only one way to live life without external influence -- become a hermit. If that does not sound appealing than it would be wise of you to learn how to deal with external influences in a sane, civilized manner.

Reason is not the be all and end all of human existence. It is merely a tool. Finally, the society you envision in your final paragraph is as much a fantasy as the "apogee of despotism" matriarchal society that you assume I endorse.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


excuse me but can you change your avatar?,,, its turning me on....

in all honesty I agree with the OP,, without all the words,, only for the simple fact that ( although i agree with you it may eventually be desensitized) once women were initially aloud to walk around topless,,, if it was there choice and all,,, i think they would regret it ( unless they love all kinds of attention) from all the creeps that would be staring and taking pictures,,. I wouldnt want every guy in new york city staring at my sisters ( or girlfriends) breasts,,, even if the affect would ware off in a few years..,,.,.

so yea,.,.,. i have no problem with a girl walking topless down the street,, but I think they would initially want to do it more as a rebellion,,, yes they should be able to feel comfortable and free,,,, but i think they would quickly become skeeved out, creeped out, bothered,, harassed,, and have a hundread pictures of their bare breasts on twitter and facebook by the end of the day.,,.

I know its totally different but when will the arguments for full nudity in public be accepted?
edit on 10-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
How is a discussion about feminism revolving mostly around women being topless?

What about the fact that a woman has the choice to abort a child which took BOTH parties to conceive yet a man has no choice to "abort" his obligation within the same time period? If one can choose to "not have their life ruined" or that it is "not the right time" why can't the other?

What about the horribly crooked child custody/child support system? Why is the woman always given preference even if the man is clearly a better provider for the child?

What about women statistically being given much lesser sentences and punishments for similar crimes?

What about reducing requirements for firefighters and police officers to allow women equal access to these jobs when it can actually put people in danger? I don't care what you say no amount of training will make up for the physical difference between a man picking up another person in a burning house versus a woman.

What is all this I hear about a "strong independent woman who don't need no man" but still wanting the man to pay for dates, buy gifts, buy drinks, etc.?

Before the attacks come, no I am not a chauvinist. Yes I have a wonderful girlfriend of 1 year. I just want to see some more conversation on the topic not directly related to boobs.

I would like to see a male equivalent of abortion, only allowed within the same time period a woman could abort. There are sick women out there who use kid's as chains on men.

I would like to see child custody determined on who can provide the brightest future for the child. Which parent has the better job, the better home, the better prospects for the future, who can most likely put the kid through college on their own if needed? Also, for child support I think that both parents should contribute to an account that can either be used for college and emergency expenses for the child, or that can have purchases viewed by the other party and contested. No more mommies making $8hr while driving a new Mercedes on daddies dollar while little Timmy eats ramen and balogna.

I would like women to acknowledge that there are physical differences between the sexes that make men more capable in some jobs. Men are naturally stronger and perform better where people lives are on the line. Police, firefighters and soldiers should be men. Also on the soldier side, there is a very good reason women should not be on the front lines. If in the case of a major war there was a large drop in population we need women to help raise the population back up. Women can only get pregnant once over the course of 9 months. In that same time span a man can have many kids. Women are more needed for reproduction.

And this last one about paying for dates. This is just in there for fun. I think chivalry is a good thing, but it is dead because some women started taking advantage and killed it.

Can't wait for these replies



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


What does it mean to be a feminist? There IS no one definition of feminism. I think the very term feminism has gained a lot of negative connotations and is associated with Rush Limbaugh’s aggressive, unfeminine, man-hating, unhygienic bogiewoman. Feminism is constantly evolving, and one can see this if you look at the First Wave, Second Wave, and Third Wave movements.

In reality, I would go so far as to say that most women are feminists and yet soundly reject referring to themselves by that term. You’ll often hear this sort of woman say, “I’m no feminist, but--” I’m in this category myself. I don’t think it’s important to call myself a feminist. However, I am for women being viewed as human and I am for women being provided rights and opportunities in this world. I am also very much a menstrual activist in that I think women should be aware of their options (and have access to them) when it comes to non-conventional menstrual products, such as menstrual cups.

Have you ever been de-humanized by anyone, dontreally? In that, I mean completely ignored/underestimated/condescended to based solely on the fact that you’re something those dehumanizing you are not? I have (based on my sex)- and I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone. It still happens in this world. There are certain fields of work that are still dominated by men who don’t like the fact that there are qualified women among them. I’m not even speaking of things that most women might find difficult to do based on their biology, but fields like architecture. There are certain religious groups that will vilify you for wanting to even go to college and not get married as a teen (my personal experience).

I do wonder what you think are the ‘areas where equality is a valid right for females to lay claim to’? Could you provide specific examples? I also wonder why you think you should have a say as to what the rights of women should be at all?

You’re very focused on societal concepts of undress. Society changes over time. Cultural concepts of what defines feminine and masculine change over time. I sometimes think that people tend to idealize and romanticize a past that was never all that ideal or romantic in reality. And, that’s not an assertion- on my part- that I approve of everything going on in society now.

Feminism isn’t rooted against biology/nature/Divine Providence/what have you- but in helping half of humanity to even be viewed as human in the first place. It isn’t solely about the affluent upper class problems of having the luxury of choice between being a SAHM or a working mother- but for more serious issues of women who are abused, raising children alone, who have no opportunity for education, and have to work for little pay, all while potentially not even having their basic needs met when it comes to things such as feminine hygiene products.

It’s funny, but what struck me in your post was that (despite the topic) your view of morality can be boiled down to a preference on your part for Kant’s deontological rationalist philosophy over Mill’s consequentialist utilitarianism. I tend to view the modern world as being more utilitarian in nature- and I'd go so far as to say that most feminists would fall firmly in this category. That said, I don’t think you have a good handle on what utilitariansim is about at all. You wouldn’t be alone in that.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join