Fuck Sexism

[ZeaLitY]

1) Religious people, as a whole, do not promote sexism, destruction of the environment or the death of "infidels," subtly or otherwise.

You don't really believe that gender roles and cultural attitudes have any effect on anything, do you? Most religious people "as a whole" believe their texts which say women are the domain of men, which is only the start of so-called "moderate" sexist edicts that religion has on women. It seems you've learned nothing from these threads, which is heartbreaking.

4) Zeality is way too f-ing belligerent on the matter for his own good.

Hah, I guess it's only fair that I'm singled out, while the other ones (like Lord J, who argues with more experience and knowledge, and Zelbess and Zephira, who argue with more experience thanks to actually being female) get a free pass. Yes, of course I'm this way. This world is full of rape, murder, sexism, and ignorance, and religion is complicit in all of it. I'm fighting for a better future.

5) Posting an American flag with a Bible quote on it is not religious dominionism, nor is it affecting anyone else's freedom to express or worship whatever religion or lackthereof they choose. I honestly don't see why that Bible quote would offend anyone other than Zeality.

But it is indicative of religious dominionism, which was my point.

6) Religious people don't typically like the thought of same-sex marriage. I do, but I'm different than the majority. Why they don't support it is their own private business, and they aren't automatically bad people because they believe differently than I do.

They are "bad" because they violate separation of church and state by passing and supporting laws forbidding same-sex marriage, which is thrusting a religious belief constricting liberty on a group of humans who do not share that belief.

[Truthordeal]

You're singled out because they don't label every religious person as evil. They show a hell of a lot more tolerance.

You're a bigot, pure and simple. The only difference between you and an anti-Semite is that you bash their descendants as well and give yourself a free pass on the grounds that you're being "intellectual."

They aren't. They're passionate, and will get caught up same as anyone, but they don't think my beliefs should stop existing or that they preclude evil.

You're paranoid of some obscure pathology about religion and the flag, whereas they might have not liked it, but they respected my right to express my belief even if they thought it was stupid or wrong.

Unfortunately, I can't articulate my positions well, as Zaichi said. I dislike being the religious counter point to your inane rantings, but unfortunately, all of the seasoned people here seem to be atheistic as well and there would be no counter point if I stopped.

[Samopoznanie]

Good grief... Where do you guys find your energy? Or the spare time time, for that matter...? The expression, 'watering a cement garden' comes to mind. 

[FaustWolf]

Truth, with time you'll find a sizable portion of the Compendium community to be just as vigorously atheist as ZeaLitY. The same trend goes with most videogame oriented forums, as far as I've seen in my limited experience. But the Internet is not the only place you'll encounter this, nor is it so very rare; Sam Harris' books are likely to challenge the religious in more than one college course, and he is no less vigorous or unyielding in his pursuit of justice than ZeaLitY. Anecdotally, it seemed a ton of people my age at college were of atheist persuasion, whereas this would have been unheard of or highly discouraged only decades ago. I hope the vehement force of their reasoning does not dissuade you from participating in debate, but that it does cause you to question your relationship with your religion and better define what place that religion should have in your life, and what function it serves. I feel I've benefited enormously from atheist studies, even though I have not crossed over the theist/atheist divide. Consider it the ultimate test of faith.

Good grief... Where do you guys find your energy? Or the spare time time, for that matter...?

Ahem! *gets back to studying*

[ZaichikArky]

Good grief... Where do you guys find your energy? Or the spare time time, for that matter...? The expression, 'watering a cement garden' comes to mind. 

BEST ARGUMENT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD. Hahaha XD.

Ok, I guess I do have more to say.

You're singled out because they don't label every religious person as evil. They show a hell of a lot more tolerance.

Agreed. Lord J and Thought at least try to be more constructive in their arguments rather then just saying "religion is terrible due to X Y Z", acknowledging both sides of the arguement, while Z tends not to, and therefore can be seen as more belligerent.

Z, it seems like you have a very narrow view of the role of religion in the world based on your experience as a Mormon. I'm not entirely sure what happened to make you one day become the complete opposite of what you once were, but you can't just say "hey, you're not serious about religion like I was , so your view is discounted!" What makes you think that Truth is not serious about his religion because he doesn't believe that people not of his domination should go to hell? Is this REALLY what religion is about? Religion should not be thought of as one entity, it isn't. It is entirely more complicated than that. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of denominations around in the world. Some are extremist and some aren't.

Many great civilizations were created throughout the world because it was a great rallying point for people. If religion could be the one binding-force in an area, then people could be subjugated under one empire under some god(or gods for that matter). There is evil and power inherent in the will of all people. Religion is just one method upon which it is enacted. However, by denouncing religion to just be a force of evil is completely ignoring all the "good" it has been responsible for throughout the history of civilization.

There unquestionably is a lot of death and destruction in the bible, but a lot of new age Christians tend to like to ignore a lot of that crap and focus on what they believe the highlights and lessons of the bible are- to love thy neighbor and all that jazz. By tolerance, they wish to go to heaven. You talk to most Christians, and they will tell you that they will go to heaven by doing "good deeds", by tolerating others and spreading their good Christian attitudes around. How are you to judge that they are not serious about their religion because they don't really care to focus on the part about others going to hell, instead focusing on what they can do in their lifetime to ensure that they/their family go to heaven? Sure, it may sound more selfish, but most of them believe that if others follow the way of God, they will go to heaven too, and they will be happy.

Religion isn't stagnant. Maybe you can say it has a will of its own because different people practice it in different ways. New denominations are born, people pass it down to their children differently. Religion is not the same as it was  hundreds of years ago, and it won't die down in the future(even if a lot of us wish it to). Religion doesn't denounce science, and the world will NOT be a better place without it. I guarentee you. If religion were suddenly eliminated from all corners of the earth, do you think that society's problems would go away? Oh maybe some would, but then others would just take their places. That is what I mentioned at the beginning- the inherent evil and power associated with the human race.

Z is just using religion as a scapegoat for basically all of society's problems. Religion is something that needs to be viewed much more constructively. Even though I am Jewish, I am non-practicing. As long as religious people don't try to convert me( and I really don't remember the last time that even happened), I am very tolerant of all religions that do not promote evil and extremism. While in the back of my mind, I still know that they are inherent with the religion just as evil is inherent in all of mankind, kindness and tolerance to others is as well. it all just depends how it is enacted in society.

Truth had a point. I am from the Soviet Union. My father and his family was discriminated against for being Jewish. In the USSR, religion was not common place and it was highly discouraged, actually. The same can be said for many functioning former USSR and Communist countries these days. So religion was completely taken out of the equation. You cannot blame it for anything that happened inside the country. Marx tried to make communism as Utopian as possible, and when it was first practically enacted inside of an actual country- look what happened. Millions of people died under Stalin's iron rule. And then forget Stalin, you know how it was like living under Maoist China? At least 100 times worse!

This is why I think most religion arguments are pointless. The world will suck with religion, and it will continue to suck without religion. The only thing we can do is try to push the inherent evil side of our human nature aside and focus on making the world a better place.

[Truthordeal]

Zaichi, FW, you two are soo freaking cool. Y'all keep me from being a complete idiot on the matter.

[Lord J Esq]

It's an interesting complaint: women's issues getting hijacked by men. However, though frustrating it may be, walking away from the abortion debate in resignation, when it's your issue, is self-defeating. If people don't speak for themselves, someone else will.

That doesn't mean you would have to participate in "watering the cement garden," but it does bring to mind that memorable quote, perhaps mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

[Thought]

Why? Women are the ones dealing with these issues.

Exactly. Personal experience makes a world of difference. Since men usually lack in experience in these regards, it takes us longer to understand and express the concepts.

Religious people don't typically like the thought of same-sex marriage. I do...

Huh, I didn't know that type of fetish existed

Agreed. Lord J and Thought at least try to be more constructive in their arguments rather then just saying "religion is terrible due to X Y Z", acknowledging both sides of the argument, while Z tends not to, and therefore can be seen as more belligerent.

Odd getting lumped with J and Z, as I'm pro-religious. Perhaps it is because I'm quite willing to admit where religion (usually my own) isn't perfect and where it is harmful? But please don't take that as an indication that I don't think religion has been good or beneficial. I'm aware that in the Middle Ages the Church oppressed women, but I'm also aware that in the first century Christians pioneered social justice by treating women, slaves, and the poor as equals (indeed, they were mocked for this very reason). Like you, I think the world sucks with religion and it would suck without it.

Religion doesn't denounce science, and the world will NOT be a better place without it.

I'm a Francis Collins fanboy, but I highly recommend checking him out. I fully expect that he'll get a Nobel prize fairly soon for his work on the human genome project. He also started the Biologos Foundation, which is dedicated to trying to bridge the gap between religion and science.

That and he has a double-helix on his guitar. That's pretty awesome.

That doesn't mean you would have to participate in "watering the cement garden," but it does bring to mind that memorable quote, perhaps mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Mad-Eye Moody? CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

[Lord J Esq]

Please do note that I wasn't attempting to argue against abortion; I did, however, find Zephira's implication (which perhaps I imagined) that aborting a potential child would be doing them a favor to be likewise... improper.

We will disagree on this, of course. I suspect you know my attitude toward bringing unwanted children into the world, or toward bringing children into the world who cannot be provided for humanely.

Sometimes I wonder if you're a clone of myself (or vice versa); I too am attracted to fat women. That is one of those things I consider myself to be lucky about; being attracted to a non-socially acceptable body type has given me a wonderful opportunity to observe attraction in general and I believe I'm much more open minded to beauty because of it.

It is profoundly edifying to have a mindset that puts oneself in direct contradiction to another, universally-held mindset. I've written more on fat-bashing than I have on any other topic other than sexism (and the two topics overlap considerably). There is simply no end of insight and education to be realized when one is able to assume a position of objectiveness.

We may be long-lost twins, for all I know. I've wanted to dislike you from the moment you showed up on these forums, but I never could. You're too smart, too reasonable (at least outside certain topics), and we have too much in common, despite being religious antipodes. Brothers, in a sense...

[KebreI]

There can be only one...

[ZeaLitY]

Lord J and Thought at least try to be more constructive in their arguments rather then just saying "religion is terrible due to X Y Z", acknowledging both sides of the arguement, while Z tends not to, and therefore can be seen as more belligerent.

Then you don't know J.

Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of denominations around in the world. Some are extremist and some aren't.

No, it's not one entity. There are many flavors of evil. Muslims blow themselves up and force women to wear covers. Jewish traumatically mutilate male babies. And even Buddhists have had their share of religiously-motivated violence.

Many great civilizations were created throughout the world because it was a great rallying point for people. If religion could be the one binding-force in an area, then people could be subjugated under one empire under some god(or gods for that matter). There is evil and power inherent in the will of all people. Religion is just one method upon which it is enacted. However, by denouncing religion to just be a force of evil is completely ignoring all the "good" it has been responsible for throughout the history of civilization.

That was back when the logistics needed to manage an empire were too great for the technology of the time. Many old states didn't even entreat the concept of a "nation", but now we have nationalism, television, phones, and other ways of communication that make the infrastructure of an empire possible. Religion should be tossed out with yesterday's garbage, not solicited as an opiate for the masses so someone can build a less rebellious empire.

There unquestionably is a lot of death and destruction in the bible, but a lot of new age Christians tend to like to ignore a lot of that crap and focus on what they believe the highlights and lessons of the bible are- to love thy neighbor and all that jazz. By tolerance, they wish to go to heaven. You talk to most Christians, and they will tell you that they will go to heaven by doing "good deeds", by tolerating others and spreading their good Christian attitudes around. How are you to judge that they are not serious about their religion because they don't really care to focus on the part about others going to hell, instead focusing on what they can do in their lifetime to ensure that they/their family go to heaven? Sure, it may sound more selfish, but most of them believe that if others follow the way of God, they will go to heaven too, and they will be happy.

You sound as if you've never met Baptists and evangelicals. And we've already demonstrated well enough that even the "non-extreme" parts of religion are still scathingly sexist and anti-human.

Z is just using religion as a scapegoat for basically all of society's problems. Religion is something that needs to be viewed much more constructively. Even though I am Jewish, I am non-practicing. As long as religious people don't try to convert me( and I really don't remember the last time that even happened), I am very tolerant of all religions that do not promote evil and extremism. While in the back of my mind, I still know that they are inherent with the religion just as evil is inherent in all of mankind, kindness and tolerance to others is as well. it all just depends how it is enacted in society.

Bullshit. Humanity has a host of other problems, but religion is one of the greatest evils that plague it, and my chosen target (with sexism) for trying to improve the human condition. Nowhere do I claim religion is the root of all evil. It amplifies and perpetuates human evil, and the world would suck a lot less without it. Religious faith is a neurosis. When a child claims that 2 + 2 = 5, we correct him. When a group of people fly out to different locations to converse with the fairy realm and improve human / fairy relations, we laugh at them. And yet, an elaborate mythology about a zombie carpenter somehow demands our respect? Ignorance is ignorance.

I'm a Francis Collins fanboy,

"Whoa, this scenery is REALLY beautiful...therefore, God exists."

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Rene Descartes provides a better explanation for God's existence. So does Soren Kierkegaard, for that matter.  It appeals to my logical side and leaves emotions out of it.

[ZaichikArky]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about SEXISM anyway? I'm not sure why this turned into another debate about religion, but I suggest merging all of that into this topic- http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,6967.0.html . And if possible, the frustration thread part of it too.

Let's go back to sexism for a moment.

I don't really like it when a guy claims he's very feminist and anti-sexist because it makes me slightly weary. Not because he's not a woman and how could he understand our plight and bla bla, but because women are sexist themselves and enjoy sexism to a certain extent. Holding the door open for a woman- is that sexist or polite?

Women are treated differently by men because of the sexist society, but it's not always bad IMO. I would not want to date a guy who didn't treat me differently just because I was a woman. Do I want a man who is a little sexist or a man who treats me like one of the guys? I'm a woman, dammit, and I want to be treated like a lady sometimes.

My boyfriend is sexist because he believes that I, as the woman in the relationship, should not contribute to paying for anything when we go out on a date... actually, any expenses really. He believes that the man should pay for everything and that the woman should not because she's the woman. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way because I'm stubborn and will pay anyway, but he puts up a big front about it. Now, probably both men and women will agree that the better way to deal with that is arrange an equitable way to pay for things when on a date. Like the girl pay one date, the guy pay the next date. But I kind of like it that my bf likes to insist he pay for everything not because he's trying to "hold me down", but because he's old fashioned in that manner and it feels more gentlemanly of him to pay for his lady.

Guys on the other hand, expect women to be "nurturing". When does a heterosexual guy go to his guy friends to talk about his "feelings" or any emotional problems he has? Is it sexist that he expects women to be more receptive to his personal problems than his best (guy) friend? No, I don't think it is.

I think that because society has certain expectations for men and women, sexism continues. There are two definitions of sexism, mind you.

1.    attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.    discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.

So I am talking more about definition 1, treating someone different based on stereotypes of gender or sex.

I also don't think that it's entirely society's fault for instilling sexism. Men and women are wired differently, and with the exception of transgendered people, women tend to follow a *slightly* different course than men just because of programming.  It's why physical requirements are different for men and women. Women just cannot develop muscle as easily as men. You can't blame society for perpetuating sexism the same as you can't blame religion for perpetuating the evils in the world. People are born with gender differences as people are born with both good and evil. It's the balance of the two that is hard to achieve...

[Exodus]

What if the women was impregnated by rape?
What if she and the man were being perfectly safe, pills and condoms and whatever else, but it still failed?
What if the family didn't have enough money for a child, and the kid would grow up and suffer in squalor?
What if it happened to you before you were prepared to start your life, or before you were finished with school?

Look, as I said before, adoption would be a very reasonable solution for the majority of the above cases.

 

Jesus Harold Christ, you sound like a broken record. Absolutely no effort put into your argument beyond HURRRRR DURR ITS DA WAY I THINX! I DONT NEED NO RAISN TO RAWK. She already explained (quite diligently) why adoption is not truthfully the wonderful alternative your typical fundy regurgitates to anybody willing to devour their mental poison.

The blindly religious are so quick to call out that a fetus is a living being, yet vehemently oppose the idea that they've committed murder simply by scratching themselves, thereby killing skin cells, or for another example, simply eating to sustain themselves. Oh, that's right, it's human life, isn't it? Well isn't that just fine and hypocritical isn't it? Doesn't stop any of you from suggesting other animals (Yes, that's right. I went there. Humans are just as much animals as your cat or dog or lizard or mouse or what have you) were put here solely for human benefit... And if we need the land a certain species is on, to hell with that species right? Such raw instinctual behavior from a species that holds itself above the rest of nature makes me sick.

I could go on and on about the religious mindset and why it disgusts me, but I'll save it.

[FaustWolf]

I don't really like it when a guy claims he's very feminist and anti-sexist because it makes me slightly weary.

Completely understandable. The phenomenon of male feminism is probably fairly new in public discourse and therefore "weird;" moreover, we should be subject to intense scrutiny at this nascent stage of the movement to ensure that we aren't just trying to pander to perceptions of female victimization; at that point male feminism can devolve into a kind of false paternalistic protectiveness, which would be sexist in and of itself.

The male feminist must prepare for an awkward road indeed, and be able to keep his footing whilst being viewed skeptically by both men and women. I'm glad that I had a male feminist professor for a women's studies class in college and that people like Lord J, ZeaLitY, Thought, and others closer to my own age are very comfortable with these types of discussions, otherwise I might have been dissuaded from choosing this philosophical path altogether.

And as a shameless plug to male feminists or at least pro-feminists in "mainstream" culture, I offer the filmmakers James Cameron and Hayao Miyazaki. Note that with the topsy-turviness of James Cameron's personal life, the male feminist should not expect to suddenly find harmony with women or something; guy's been divorced five times. So much for the romantic ideal.

Guys on the other hand, expect women to be "nurturing". When does a heterosexual guy go to his guy friends to talk about his "feelings" or any emotional problems he has? Is it sexist that he expects women to be more receptive to his personal problems than his best (guy) friend? No, I don't think it is.

All humans have equal capacity to be nurturing, and this should not be denied to men, in the same way that aggressive pursuit of success in the job market should not be denied to women. There are aboriginal societies in which men care for the young, which is highly suggestive of equal nurturing capacity. This is positive; the negative flipside to that is that the women in some of these societies seem to be more violent -- as if there needs to be some sort of bloodthirsty, hardened gender in every society. Feminists must eschew this notion.

As for the opening doors example specifically, I've had plenty of women open doors for me, and I've opened doors for men, and vice versa...why shouldn't everyone open the door for each other? Paying for dinners, ah, that's an interesting question indeed. I'm not sure how to solve that, as equality does necessitate going halfies or one partner treating the other on a turn basis.

When does a heterosexual guy go to his guy friends to talk about his "feelings" or any emotional problems he has?

I actually did this once in high school after the emotionally jarring experience of seeing someone enter a seizure, and remaining to make sure the seizing person's back and neck were straight, etc (it was one of those situations where I got to do something I saw on the Discovery Channel, yay!). I was quite frankly surprised at how well a good male friend sort of talked me through the emotional and psychological aftermath of that event. And you know what? I left the experience with an astounding amount of respect for my friend, without losing any sense of my own masculinity or heterosexuality.


EDIT: Oh, I just have to drop a link to this:

Next to Rocco Morabito's photo Kiss of Life, this is probably the most jarring visual symbol of man's positive nurturing ability that I've seen, in that it immediately forces the viewer to confront sexist stereotypes. What!? Why isn't he in a woman's arms? Why isn't a woman in his arms? For that matter, why is that guy such a wuss? A soldier doesn't cry! ...Are these dudes g-g-g-gay!?. But the simple fact is, in the middle of this horrendous Korean War battlefield, this guy is all this other guy has, and at that moment this man was capable of a wonderful emotionally nurturing act.

Call it feminism, pro-feminism, positive masculinism...by any name, this is what it's about for me. It's about unlocking humanistic potential within men that traditional androcentric mores are suppressing, to the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual detriment of all.