Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[EMTe]

I have watched the below movie. Didnt know it exists.

If they begin to make movies like this one in Norway you know that the b@llsh#t is ending. Well, not that I believe there was anybody healthy on mind who ever believed in these ill theories, Im just happy that with movies like this sooner or later genderists will be treated as seriously as raelians.

Your thoughts?

[Spiral Out]

I'm guessing this is another new-age "blur the lines" propaganda campaign? It's apparently en vogue to "break down the barriers" and such.

What will the result be then? A bunch of confused misfits with no sense of identity, I bet. Let them swim in their own cesspool of "freedom" I say!

[Sy Borg]

Surprising comments for a philosophy forum. If anyone has a problem with gender equality, may I direct you to a quote from Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency in regard to a horse and its master:

Especially this: "It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever".

It's hardly news that there are differences on average between genders - some physical, some mental, some historical. However, the borders between genders are blurred and there is much more androgyny in the population than common mythology suggests.

[Spiral Out]

If anyone has a problem with gender equality…

Gender "equality" (and I use the term equality in quotes because I do not believe that there is any true equality, let alone gender equality (define equality please), nor does anyone truly desire genuine "equality" between genders) is far different than gender "blending". There are those who seek to blur lines and break down boundaries for no other reason than to elicit change, and only for the sake of change itself, without any ultimately constructive goal.

[Theophane]

(Nested quote removed.)


Gender "equality" (and I use the term equality in quotes because I do not believe that there is any true equality, let alone gender equality (define equality please), nor does anyone truly desire genuine "equality" between genders) is far different than gender "blending". There are those who seek to blur lines and break down boundaries for no other reason than to elicit change, and only for the sake of change itself, without any ultimately constructive goal.

There is a constructive goal, but achieving requires destruction of the current gender binary paradigm. As far as I'm concerned, the gender binary exists for a reason.

[Spiral Out]

There is a constructive goal…

What would that goal be?

[Sy Borg]

I'd say one constructive goal of blurring the boundaries would be reducing pressure on people who are naturally closer to the gender margins to conform to stereotypes.

It's not mission critical like the environment or economy, but it *is* an issue. If we don't needlessly marginalise and harass people for not being in the top arc of the Bell Curve, then we will increase those persons' productivity and happiness.

[Spiral Out]

If we don't needlessly marginalise and harass people for not being in the top arc of the Bell Curve, then we will increase those persons' productivity and happiness.

Everyone would be happier if we we're to just accept them as they are and not create differentiations and boundaries around them or marginalize them. Everyone would. So this would not stop at simply a gender boundary.

What good is a game without rules?

Are you proposing to place the sphere of acceptance around everyone then? If not, then who are you deciding to continue to marginalize and why? Where do you draw your own line and what is your justification for drawing your line at that particular point?

The "progressives" are always speaking of 'equality' and all other manner of new-age global community positive sounding concepts, but if one scrutinizes these concepts and applies them to all people then one quickly realizes that their push for this equality or boundary breaking or line blurring can only lead to chaos.

Why can't I be wealthy like the ultra-rich? Why is there not financial equality? Can't we just blur the lines and break the boundaries of financial inequality? Think about that one. I'm sure there's some contingency for being able to choose one's attributes, yes? But is there not a lack of choice when it comes to one's capacity for intelligence, just as with one's gender?

So, how would you construct this "law of equality" and who is deserving of its benefits and who is not? Please be specific since there will be many people of certain differences scrutinizing your selective boundaries to find their own equality.

[Londoner]

So, how would you construct this "law of equality" and who is deserving of its benefits and who is not? Please be specific since there will be many people of certain differences scrutinizing your selective boundaries to find their own equality.

I don't know what Greta will say, but if it was me I'd argue that by equality we don't mean 'sameness'. Rather, it is that what differences there are shouldn't be given extra connotations.

A may be richer than B, C may have a different sexuality than D, but that shouldn't imply that as a consequence of these differences any of those people are 'better/worse' or 'more/less deserving' than any of the others.

[Spiral Out]

…but that shouldn't imply that as a consequence of these differences any of those people are 'better/worse' or 'more/less deserving' than any of the others.

More or less deserving of what exactly? Also, if everyone is just as deserving as the next person then how do we distribute fairly that which there is not enough of?

[Sy Borg]

Spiral, I'm not proposing anything and accept that equality is an ideal more than a reality. All I did was reply to the comment asking what good it would do to blur the gender boundaries. My point was just that being kinder to oppressed minorities has benefits in regard to family stability and productivity and, to that end, gender studies may be of some benefit.

Londoner, I agree that equality need not equal sameness. Personally, I've never understood the desperate need to get everyone to be the same through gatekeeping of norms in The Information Age, other than as a relic of our primeval distrust of difference and change.

[Sy Borg]

More or less deserving of what exactly? Also, if everyone is just as deserving as the next person then how do we distribute fairly that which there is not enough of?

Everyone is deserving of respect, civility and an opportunity to contribute. Some individuals may not be worthy of those things but, as much as possible, everyone should have the chance to show they are worthy.

[Londoner]

(Nested quote removed.)


More or less deserving of what exactly? Also, if everyone is just as deserving as the next person then how do we distribute fairly that which there is not enough of?

Deserving of anything. If somebody is a woman then it should have no consequences beyond the biological facts; it shouldn't mean they get a better/worse education, or better/worse legal rights. It is the same argument that applies to different skin colour.

The distribution of resources is a political question which in turn depends on your ethical standpoint, but if one person does earn more than another then I think this should be a reflection of a relevant ability; if it was possible to earn money by philosphising, then the best philosophers should be richest. The sex or race of the philosopher isn't relevant to an ability to philosophise so it shouldn't affect their earnings.

[Spiral Out]

Everyone is deserving of respect, civility and an opportunity to contribute.

I do not agree with that sentiment. Those of the Jeffrey Dahmer type are not deserving of respect, civility or an opportunity to contribute.

The type of "respect, civility and opportunity to contribute" of which you speak is of a negating degree of limited capacity. It only serves to challenge the status quo for the simplistic and short-sighted goal of change for the sake of change.

Some individuals may not be worthy of those things but, as much as possible, everyone should have the chance to show they are worthy.

So how do you determine which individuals may not be worthy of such things? Are you not simply drawing a subjective line just as everyone else has done, and of which you are challenging and/or pushing to change? Isn't this all just a game of subjective line drawing and redrawing based on our individual (or collective) desires and fears?

If you care to contribute to the topic (Feminism Under Fire) that I had started in order to discuss this issue of supposed "equality" then you can demonstrate the nature of what contribution is being offered to the "minority" individuals.

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)


I do not agree with that sentiment. Those of the Jeffrey Dahmer type are not deserving of respect, civility or an opportunity to contribute.

I can't respond to this because the quote out of context, sans the qualifier. The full quote, to be taken as a whole was:

"Everyone is deserving of respect, civility and an opportunity to contribute. Some individuals may not be worthy of those things but, as much as possible, everyone should have the chance to show they are worthy".

Some individuals may not be worthy of those things but, as much as possible, everyone should have the chance to show they are worthy.

So how do you determine which individuals may not be worthy of such things? Are you not simply drawing a subjective line just as everyone else has done, and of which you are challenging and/or pushing to change? Isn't this all just a game of subjective line drawing and redrawing based on our individual (or collective) desires and fears?

A quick question so I can understand where you are coming from ... Do you think it's ethically okay to harass people for being born the way they are?