Fuck Sexism

[Truthordeal]

Should have known better, probably. I'm not altering my stance, though. If you want to see oppression of women, look to China, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe, most of Africa, parts of South America or the Middle East.

As I said before, the word oppression is far overused. In fact, in being one of the few religious, libertarian people on a board of mostly statist atheists, I should be considered oppressed.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, because both notions are insane.

And I have yet to hear from anyone on this topic, except Zeality, who's so far out there that I pretty much tune him out at this point, how women are oppressed. Most of the people who disagree with me can't seem to be bothered to explain this. Instead all I get is the "Wow, you're wrong," or the "No, just no" arguments, which don't really mean anything other than you don't respect dissent enough to try to defend your own arguments.



And look, I can facepalm y'alls fail too.

Does that describe the position of women in America? As a woman, I don't feel oppressed in this country. I don't even really feel discriminated against. I do know of facts and statures and all the talk about the glass ceiling to understand that some women do feel discriminated against. However, taking into account the etymology of the word "oppression", I would not argue that women are oppressed in this country.

Italicized for emphasis and win.

[Uboa]

Should have known better, probably. I'm not altering my stance, though. If you want to see oppression of women, look to China, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe, most of Africa, parts of South America or the Middle East.

As I said before, the word oppression is far overused. In fact, in being one of the few religious, libertarian people on a board of mostly statist atheists, I should be considered oppressed.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, because both notions are insane.

And I have yet to hear from anyone on this topic, except Zeality, who's so far out there that I pretty much tune him out at this point, how women are oppressed. Most of the people who disagree with me can't seem to be bothered to explain this. Instead all I get is the "Wow, you're wrong," or the "No, just no" arguments, which don't really mean anything other than you don't respect dissent enough to try to defend your own arguments.



And look, I can facepalm y'alls fail too.

Does that describe the position of women in America? As a woman, I don't feel oppressed in this country. I don't even really feel discriminated against. I do know of facts and statures and all the talk about the glass ceiling to understand that some women do feel discriminated against. However, taking into account the etymology of the word "oppression", I would not argue that women are oppressed in this country.

Italicized for emphasis and win.

I don't understand why the burden of proof rests with the people who can realistically expect that in a country as large and diverse as the US, there will be some regions where female and/or minority oppression is still commonplace.  (Yes, real oppression.)

In other parts of the world oppression may be far more commonplace, but that does not mean that it does not exist in this country.

[Truthordeal]

Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

And, once again, no one has provided me with any evidence of oppression. I've already defended my point of view, seeing as how women can become anything that men can, even President, Vice President and Supreme Court Justice.

[Lord J Esq]

You mooks! Have I taught you nothing? Is nobody else going to put this wretched Truthordeal in his place? Do I have to do everything myself? I can only be in so many places at once, you know!!

Truthordeal: We're not shaking our heads at you because we've been struck dumb by your wisdom and logic. We're shaking our heads at you because your position is so far off the deep end that it's daunting to even begin to set you straight. Given that your posture seems to be that of a person who is more interested in convincing himself than in anyone else, we would have a great deal of work to do even to get to the point where you're actually listening to us seriously. I don't know that it would be worth the effort! Honestly, if you believe that there's no sexist oppression in this country, then you're not going to be a part of the solution anyway. Here's my suggestion: Keep your lazy ass out of the way of the people who are working hard for social justice in this country, and you can live out your life in blissful ignorance.

Get in our way, and you're mulch.

[Truthordeal]

Social justice? Hah.

Lord J, I thought better of you. You usually provide some insight, but for whatever reason you can't spare any at this point.

If my view is so far off the deep end, then why is it that Zaichi, a woman, statist and feminist agrees with me calling your rhetorical use of the word oppression as the bullshit crap that it is? You throw around the word like a groom at a Jewish wedding, not even realizing the consequences that that word implies. To say that women are oppressed shows a true lack of perspective.

And the fact that none of you can seem to bring any substance to this debate just proves my point that you lack any sort of perspective on this cause.

Thus far, the only argument I've heard that was somewhat reasonable from the other side was Uboa. The rest of you played the "durrr, he's ignorant, durrr" card.

So, I'll tell you what, take your pot shots all you want. I'll come back after a topic change or if someone brings some substance to this debate.

[Uboa]

Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

I think that burden of proof lies with the one who makes the more outlandish claim.

Which of these two claims would you find more outlandish?
a.)  There is no female oppression in the United States.
b.)  There exist social structures oppressive to women in small scattered regions of the United States due to deep inset cultural paradigms.

[Mr Bekkler]

Exactly my point. It would take hours just to get you to understand that there is an opposing point of view, T Ordeal.

Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

And, once again, no one has provided me with any evidence of oppression. I've already defended my point of view, seeing as how women can become anything that men can, even President, Vice President and Supreme Court Justice.

When has a woman become president of the US?

I think I slept through that history lesson  

But seriously, there is oppression everywhere in the world. There is discrimination everywhere. One could even say the definition of life is to deal with said oppression. Everything everywhere wants you dead. Wild animals, natural disasters, other nations, people that don't know you, the list goes on. It's not just you, it's all of us. The small amount of things that don't want you dead are what make life important.

Evidence of oppression? Where did this topic start again? Oh yeah, with ABORTION. Something voted on back and forth and argued back and forth by white, rich, old men. When does the pregnant teenager get a say in what's legal? Or the rape victim? Or the woman with a hunched, clawed baby that wouldn't survive outside of the womb anyway?

They don't. Hence, oppression. Just because there's less here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'd like to quote a now-famous cartoon

Abscence of evidence IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSCENCE.

[FaustWolf]

In light of Uboa's statement b., it might be useful to tease apart Western society at this point and identify where the current worst offenses are, and then determine the proper semantics for those instances. I'm apt to offer typical hiring practices, where stereotypes of sexual attractiveness play into the final decision more than skillset. Although, social connections are by far the greatest determinant in whether someone will land a job. I can see a deadly cocktail brewing -- man in powerful position finds woman a job, and expects something in return. This happens in politics from time to time, and I wonder how the recession will affect things.

It'd be great to get some anecdotes from our non-Western viewers too. Although the nature of what is "Western" could be subject to its own debate.

[Mr Bekkler]

Several jobs I've had, women have come in to apply and the first question the boss would ask after getting their application would be something like "Was she cute?" This happens with male and female bosses and tends to be more about the stereotype of only having attractive workers so that logically more customers will be attracted to your establishment. It is a blatantly prejudiced practice.

[Truthordeal]

Thank you, Mr. Bekkler. Jeez, was that so hard?

I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

I think we should worry less over the discrimination here so much as the oppression world wide. Women's rights here have come an enormous way. There is some social grievance, I won't deny it. But to say it is oppressive is misleading.

Uh...perhaps you missed another history lesson...the one where abortion has been legal since the 1970s.   The merits of it are up for debate, but the practice isn't going anywhere. The fact that we allow it is proof enough that we're centuries ahead of other cultures in terms of women's rights. 

And thank God again for Faustwolf for bringing something up that I agree with. I don't call hiring practices "oppression" though, so much as discrimination. Its prejudiced, but its hardly oppression.

Now, please enlighten us heretics, what would the end result of this "social justice" look like?

[Uboa]

I think we should worry less over the discrimination here so much as the oppression world wide. Women's rights here have come an enormous way. There is some social grievance, I won't deny it. But to say it is oppressive is misleading.

On the whole, yes.  It's just that, chances are if you can imagine any screwed up situation existing in the US right now, it probably does exist somewhere, and it's likely to be even worse than what you imagined.  (I read a book called Homicide:  A Year on the Killings Streets several month ago which took my faith in humanity down several notches.  It also broadened my imagination for conditions that exist in the underbelly of society.)

Now, please enlighten us heretics, what would the end result of this "social justice" look like?

Believe it or not I have no great vision of this.  I just get annoyed when people argue hyperbole as fact.

Edit:  Forum got really slow for me after I noticed I had a typo in my post... finally fixed it.

[ZeaLitY]

Ha, you know things are bad when almost everyone has thrown their hands up in disgust, and not even Daniel Krispin or Thought will oppose the secular side. Now that everyone knows the depth of his ignorance and has recognized the futility of arguing with this idiot box, the thread can probably be retired.

[Mr Bekkler]

Thank you, Mr. Bekkler. Jeez, was that so hard?

No, but I never said it would be difficult, I said I didn't have time earlier. Read please.

Uh...perhaps you missed another history lesson...the one where abortion has been legal since the 1970s.

And who made that decision? Ah yes, I covered that already.

And thank God again for Faustwolf for bringing something up that I agree with. I don't call hiring practices "oppression" though, so much as discrimination. Its prejudiced, but its hardly oppression.

A little duck is still a duck. Discrimination is a specific, albeit smaller, form of oppression. Would you not say that those who have faced racial discrimination have not been oppressed? Perhaps you should check the dictionary.


Is that enough?

[FaustWolf]

Several jobs I've had, women have come in to apply and the first question the boss would ask after getting their application would be something like "Was she cute?" This happens with male and female bosses and tends to be more about the stereotype of only having attractive workers so that logically more customers will be attracted to your establishment. It is a blatantly prejudiced practice.

It strikes me as a soft, stealthy kind of oppression, so it could be termed "suppression" maybe -- suppression of higher faculties in the applicant in favor of just striking at the primordial urges ingrained within the hirer. I think it's bound to hamper economic efficiency in the long run, whereas there could be considerable efficiency gains from less sexist hiring practices, and less socially-oriented hiring practices for that matter, that place greater emphasis on skillset and educational attainment.

I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

Now that Truth brings it up, I was really surprised by the amount of support Hillary received from middle-aged men. In fact, I'd venture to say that middle-aged men were Hillary's most dependable block of supporters (in Ohio at least). Can't tell you how many times I came across these big-muscled, leather-jacketed, grizzly biker dudes who were just sooo pissed Hillary didn't clinch the nomination. It was really heartening from a feminist standpoint.

And on the flipside, we had Sarah Palin, whose greatest qualification was "dude, she's hot." But I also think the image of her shooting a high-powered rifle also made her briefly powerful and respected because it was something the conservative male hunter demographic, especially, could internalize and identify with. Once Governor Palin said she could see Russia from her balcony window it was all over because it dispelled the femme fatale archetype and replaced it with the airhead, but up to that point, there was an interesting dynamic in the media portrayal of Palin. She was kind of like this...conservative Zero Suit Samus, or a pro-life Lara Croft. Someone with beauty and power and conservative values all rolled up into one. I'm still trying to decide whether that historical moment was a fantastically positive development within the conservative movement or the most horrendous bastardization of feminist sensibilities in recent years.

I distinctly remember a mall manager approaching me while I was doing voter reg a couple days after Palin was unveiled, and he said something to the effect of, you'd-better-do-something-because-your-guy-is-toast. Guess we did enough in the end, but I suspect there was a skip in the heart of more than a few Obama supporters and campaign workers in the first days of Palin's candidacy.

[Mr Bekkler]

I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

I agree with the sentiment, and wholly support any woman who can get up there and run. However, those two specific women will never become president. Everyone thinks Clinton's a bitch and Palin's a dolt.

And even those things have root in the public view that Clinton must be a terrible wife if her husband had to cheat to get laid and Palin was in a beauty pagaent so there's no way she knows things like geography or math, or what a vice president does.