Why Feminism Isn't Taking Off In Non-Western Countries - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14998293
Pants-of-dog wrote:Restricting their roles drastically, and then using this as an excuse for disrespectful behaviour towards women, is not an example of respecting women.


How is it respecting women to allow them into combat situations? Especially when most of the history of combat was brutally physical and success as an individual largely depended on physical attributes for which men have a natural biological advantage? Sending a lamb to slaughter is not respecting the lamb either, just like forcing female MMA fighters to fight a trans-woman is equally barbaric.

Your standard of being respectful needs to be properly defined because it seems like the opposite of respect to me, especially if respect is seen as the elevation of dignity. Furthermore, after you define "respect," please proceed to defend why anyone here should accept your notion of respect as morally objective and binding; especially given your views that morality is purely subjective and relative.
#14998295
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How is it respecting women to allow them into combat situations? Especially when most of the history of combat was brutally physical and success as an individual largely depended on physical attributes for which men have a natural biological advantage? Sending a lamb to slaughter is not respecting the lamb either, just like forcing female MMA fighters to fight a trans-woman is equally barbaric.


First of all, do you think that women should be not allowed to vote because of their traditional exclusion from the military?

Secondly, do you think that forbidding another adult from doing what they want is respectful?

Third, are you under the mistaken impression that women have not been part of war since time immemorial? They have been, but as victims of slaughter and rape. It seems like it would be more respectful to allow them the chance to defend themselves.

Your standard of being respectful needs to be properly defined because it seems like the opposite of respect to me, especially if respect is seen as the elevation of dignity. Furthermore, after you define "respect," please proceed to defend why anyone here should accept your notion of respect as morally objective and binding; especially given your views that morality is purely subjective and relative.


Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?

Anyway, I will define respect after you do, since you are the one who originally brought it into the discussion.
#14998302
Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, do you think that women should be not allowed to vote because of their traditional exclusion from the military?


I don't think anyone should be voting whether they are allowed to or not because I don't think there should be a state at all.

Silly question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Secondly, do you think that forbidding another adult from doing what they want is respectful?


Of course, because endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life.

For example, if my friend wanted to do my electrical in my house, but had no experience doing electrical work (was not qualified), I would not allow him to do my electrical work and it would not be out of disrespect, but out of concern of his person. Similarly, not wanting to see women attempt to battle men in the MMA or fight in the front-lines of a bloody battle is not an attitude of disrespect, quite the opposite; I respect their dignity and life, perhaps even more than they do.

That being said, I don't think any of this is the business of the state, I am for voluntary associations and natural necessity determining these outcomes.

Pants-of-dog wrote: Third, are you under the mistaken impression that women have not been part of war since time immemorial? They have been, but as victims of slaughter and rape. It seems like it would be more respectful to allow them the chance to defend themselves.


Technically, women have fought in wars in certain times and places, but that this is the exception and not the rule is hardly indicative of anything conspiratorial; rather, there were biological and social reasons for this role delineation that transcends the mere caricature of male malevolence towards women.

Indeed, if women want their rights, let them take them. I hardly see the "rights" of feminists as any kind of achievement when their very granting depended on the concessions and graces of men in power to begin with. If it weren't for men granting women privileges, there would be no feminism.

This is why feminism is not revolutionary, because it is not acquired by women's own efforts via self-defense or insurrection; rather, such is granted only by special pleading and the selfish interests of evil men. After all, for men who hated the chastity of the patriarchal order, supporting feminism was a no-brainer.

There is a reason why the sexual revolution is indistinguishable from second-wave feminism; the results of which have hardly been "respectful" of women (a cursory glace at pornhub would quickly confirm this fact, which only exists today because of the contributions of feminism).

Not coincidentally, feminists of the fourth wave who have "buyer's remorse" for what their forbears unleashed in the sexual revolution have recently added islamic women in hijabs to their cause; the irony of this being well illustrated by this toon:

Image

Perhaps even feminists know that patriarchal societies were more "respectful to women" in some ways, why else would this toon resonate?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?



I am saying I have no reason to accept your claims if morality is subjective and relative as you also claim.

That is, I am going to assume your own worldview in dealing with your objections; thus, if morality being relative is coherent, then you should have no problem with me accepting your own system in critiquing your claims regarding what other people "ought to do."

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, I will define respect after you do, since you are the one who originally brought it into the discussion.


I also asked you a previous questions regarding the acquisition of power in feminism, please answer it.

Or are you refusing to answer my questions again because you still maintain this homo-erotic and racial fear that I am trying to dominate as your claimed in a previous thread? :lol: :lol:
#14998308
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't think anyone should be voting whether they are allowed to or not because I don't think there should be a state at all.

Silly question.


I did not ask about your personal thoughts.

Please answer the question.

Of course, because endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life.


You are adding weird assumptions to the question.

You apparently think that forbidding adults from doing what they want is morally justifiable.

Would it then be morally justifiable to not allow you to have the same rights as others?

That being said, I don't think any of this is the business of the state, I am for voluntary associations and natural necessity determining these outcomes.


You just made an argument about how women should not be allowed to voluntarily associate with others. And then claimed it was a sign of respect.

Technically, women have fought in wars in certain times and places, but that this is the exception and not the rule is hardly indicative of anything conspiratorial; rather, there were biological and social reasons for this role delineation that transcends the mere caricature of male malevolence towards women.


I was not discussing fighting in wars, but instead talking about the fact that women have traditionally been treat3d as spoils of war.

I think treating them as mere objects to be won is less respectful than giving them the skills they need to be free.

I am saying I have no reason to accept your claims if morality is subjective and relative as you also claim.


Please answer the question.

Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?

That is, I am going to assume your own worldview in dealing with your objections; thus, if morality being relative is coherent, then you should have no problem with me accepting your own system in critiquing your claims regarding what other people "ought to do."


I think you misunderstood my claims.
#14998311
Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not ask about your personal thoughts.


I answered the question adequately, you asked a question that involved voting and conscription, etc. I support neither of these for anyone and so its not a gender specific issue in my mind.

If you thought I believed otherwise, then you misunderstand my views.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are adding weird assumptions to the question.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You apparently think that forbidding adults from doing what they want is morally justifiable.


You think I should allow anyone to do my electrical work so long as they want to, regardless of qualification?

:eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Would it then be morally justifiable to not allow you to have the same rights as others?


Are you saying someone has the right to endanger themselves by breaching someone else's desire to voluntarily disassociate? If not, I don't see what your objection is to my argument and examples.

If I don't want someone who is not qualified to do electrical work to risk electrocution by doing work on my house, even if they "want" to, I don't see how anyone's rights are being violated nor do I see how anyone was being disrespected.

If you have a counter argument to my claims, please present it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You just made an argument about how women should not be allowed to voluntarily associate with others. And then claimed it was a sign of respect.


Your misunderstood my claims. I think any adult should be free to voluntarily associate with others, but I also believe people should voluntarily choose not to associate as well. Hence, if I have a private army, a woman is free to apply to fight in battle with my army and I am equally free to reject her application on the basis of her sex because I don't want to see women get killed in hand-to-hand combat with men who are biologically more suited to warfare. Both instances are examples of voluntary association.

If you think I EVER argued that a state was justified in limiting voluntary association, even of women, you are grossly mistaken and my earlier posts on this thread claim nothing different even where explaining the psychology of traditionalist societies regarding their norms as they pertain to female participation in certain vocations and activities.

If you have an argument to the contrary of my claims. please present it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was not discussing fighting in wars, but instead talking about the fact that women have traditionally been treat3d as spoils of war.

I think treating them as mere objects to be won is less respectful than giving them the skills they need to be free.



Sure, but who on here was defending the rape of women by soliders? This sounds like a strawman.

The fact that I will teach my daughters how to use firearms proficiently and use self-defense against marauder male rapists neither implies feminism on my part nor a desire to see my daughters become conscripts.

I think you have a strange and deluded idea of traditionalism, a chimera of your own making.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please answer the question.

Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?


I answered your question, I am assuming your own moral system, thus if morality is subjective; whether I agree with your particular claims or not becomes irrelevant, because I have no justification to apply them outside of myself in obligating others; hence making any debate a fruitless and pointless dispute over competing preferences.

If you wish to claim that people "ought" to behave a certain way regarding women, thats fine, so long as its clear that such a claim is an objective and not subjective moral claim and thus evidence of your own inconsistency regarding ethics and moral philosophy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you misunderstood my claims.


How so? Please explain.

Thanks.

ALSO;

You have failed to answer my questions and arguments regarding the granting of "rights" to women/feminists as being derived by male concessions and grace and not by any power on the part of women.

Likewise, you have not dealt with the issue of women being objectified by men as being in large part perpetuated by second wave feminism and how the recent attempts at reform within feminism by third and fourth wave feminists (including intersectional muslim women) mimics many patriarchal norms regarding modesty and dress first championed by patriarchal societies (including islam) in the first place which you have claimed were "inherently disrespectful."

Please answer these questions and arguments. Thanks.
#14998313
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I answered the question adequately, you asked a question that involved voting and conscription, etc. I support neither of these for anyone and so its not a gender specific issue in my mind.

If you thought I believed otherwise, then you misunderstand my views.


My point was about being excluded from society, or at least, from the places of power in society.

The argument was that women were not allowed to vote because they were also excluded from military service.

In both cases, there is a unilateral decision to keep a group from accessing power. The people excluded from power (in this case, women) are logically going to want to change that. Out of sheer self interest, if nothing else, feminism will come about as a reaction to these policies.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

You think I should allow anyone to do my electrical work so long as they want to, regardless of qualification?

:eh:


The weird assumption you are adding to this question is that being a woman makes you dangerously unqualified for military activity and voting, the same way an untrained person would be if they tried to do electrical work.

Are you saying someone has the right to endanger themselves by breaching someone else's desire to voluntarily disassociate? If not, I don't see what your objection is to my argument and examples.

If I don't want someone who is not qualified to do electrical work to risk electrocution by doing work on my house, even if they "want" to, I don't see how anyone's rights are being violated nor do I see how anyone was being disrespected.

If you have a counter argument to my claims, please present it.


Again, forbidding women the vote and forbidding the women from joining the military are the two rights that are under discussion. And in @SolarCross‘s argument, one justifies the other.

I am not sure what your argument about “endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life” has to do with that.

Your misunderstood my claims. I think any adult should be free to voluntarily associate with others, but I also believe people should voluntarily choose not to associate as well. Hence, if I have a private army, a woman is free to apply to fight in battle with my army and I am equally free to reject her application on the basis of her sex because I don't want to see women get killed in hand-to-hand combat with men who are biologically more suited to warfare. Both instances are examples of voluntary association.

If you think I EVER argued that a state was justified in limiting voluntary association, even of women, you are grossly mistaken and my earlier posts on this thread claim nothing different even where explaining the psychology of traditionalist societies regarding their norms as they pertain to female participation in certain vocations and activities.

If you have an argument to the contrary of my claims. please present it.


I see the confusion.

@SolarCross and I were discussing historical conditions in western societies and the modern context of non-western societies.

You are discussing a hypothetical situation based on your ideology.

The two contexts are clearly different.

In the historical context, keeping women from voting, joining the military, owning land, etc. were all ways of limiting power to the people who held power at the time.

In your hypothetical context, the same factors do not apply.

Sure, but who on here was defending the rape of women by soliders? This sounds like a strawman.

The fact that I will teach my daughters how to use firearms proficiently and use self-defense against marauder male rapists neither implies feminism on my part nor a desire to see my daughters become conscripts.

I think you have a strange and deluded idea of traditionalism, a chimera of your own making.


I never claimed that you support battle rape. In fact, I assumed the exact opposite and your training of your daughters is a testament to the fact that you do not support battle rape.

War rape is a historical fact. This means that traditionally, the role of women in war is to be a passive bystander who can do little to prevent war rape.

And it seems we agree that teaching women to be proficient in military arts is a way of preventing rape in general.

And this is an argument for why women have wanted to join the military.

I answered your question, I am assuming your own moral system, thus if morality is subjective; whether I agree with your particular claims or not becomes irrelevant, because I have no justification to apply them outside of myself in obligating others; hence making any debate a fruitless and pointless dispute over competing preferences.

If you wish to claim that people "ought" to behave a certain way regarding women, thats fine, so long as its clear that such a claim is an objective and not subjective moral claim and thus evidence of your own inconsistency regarding ethics and moral philosophy.

How so? Please explain.

Thanks


How do you think I define “subjective morality”?

I think you define “objective morality” as “any morality that uses objective facts and/or logic to arrive at moral ideas”.

Because of this, I think that you assume I think that subjective morality is a morality that does not use objective facts or logic at all.

These are not the definitions I use when I say morality is subjective.

By that I mean that morality is purely a human construct that only exists because we are sapient and social beings who evolved to have it.

If I were to use your definitions of objective and subjective morality, I would say that the universe has billions of objective moralities right now, and when the last sapient mind dies in the far future, it will have zero.
Syrian war thread

So every citizen causality [ sic ] is ok. If you[…]

Trump and Russiagate

At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]

What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]

The dependence of the world economy on energy reco[…]