This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Feminism, Warfare, and Honor: Is chivalry dead?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Incorrect, I'm afraid. I have read a great deal of Richard Dawkins work, and he never claims to be able to be able to disprove god. He's a soft atheist, like most educated atheists in the world today.
6: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I canot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Any truly logical person wouldn't be 'leaning towards 7', because they would know that there's no way of proving it. There's already a relatively fine distinction, and any leaning towards 7 is essentially an unadmitted belief in 7.
And to further that point, there is very little evidence *against* a God existing, so how he comes to the conclusion that there is a 'very low probability' is questionable in its own right, in any event.
Ok, back on topic:
Basically, reading about women that are dismembered or tortured (real or fictional) affects me much more than an equally brutal incident occurring to a man. It's not that I look at it happen to a man and say "Well, that's okay" or "There's nothing wrong with that," it's just that while I may see it as regrettable or wrong to happen to a man, when I read about it happening to a woman, it hits me much harder, and I feel a real emotional reaction.
An example that I've encountered recently is in my new Warcraft book. I hope you'll forgive me spoiling it a little (and referring to Warcraft lore here, I don't imagine that you folks are big lore nerds), but there is one incident where a group night elf Sentinels are found killed, skinned, and dismembered, hopefully in that order. And imagining a night elf woman skinned alive affects me a great deal more than reading about Ner'zhul's being slowly torn apart while still alive.
What is it hitting you harder about? What real emotional reaction? That's all rhetoric at the moment. Describe what you're actually feeling.
And is there a difference in 'innocence'? For example, is Ner'Zhul more culpable for actions he's undertaken? Or is he better able to defend himself?
@ Hyper - I'll give you some time to get your post together and reply to you in a couple of hours. Leaving the house for work in a few minutes.
Post by
Skreeran
Any truly logical person wouldn't be 'leaning towards 7', because they would know that there's no way of proving it. There's already a relatively fine distinction, and any leaning towards 7 is essentially an unadmitted belief in 7.
And to further that point, there is very little evidence *against* a God existing, so how he comes to the conclusion that there is a 'very low probability' is questionable in its own right, in any event.I feel the same way. Dawkins isn't saying he can disprove god, he's saying that he doesn't see any reason to believe that gods are any less mythical than faeries. I feel the same way.
But if we want to debate religion, we should bump up one of those threads focused on that topic, eh?
What is it hitting you harder about? What real emotional reaction? That's all rhetoric at the moment. Describe what you're actually feeling.
And is there a difference in 'innocence'? For example, is Ner'Zhul more culpable for actions he's undertaken? Or is he better able to defend himself?
@ Hyper - I'll give you some time to get your post together and reply to you in a couple of hours. Leaving the house for work in a few minutes.It's difficult to explain, due to its nature as an emotion rather than logic. It's just that when I read about a real man that's been tortured, or see a fictional man tortured in a movie or video game, I feel that it's a shame, and I feel sorry for them (a good example would be one character that is brutally tortured in a Mass Effect book I read a little while ago). But when I read about a gruesome act committed upon a woman, I feel a fire in my stomach, and I feel the familiar sensation of hate in the background of my mind.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I feel the same way. Dawkins isn't saying he can disprove god, he's saying that he doesn't see any reason to believe that gods are any less mythical than faeries. I feel the same way.
He's saying exactly what he said. That God's existence is "improbable."
Post by
Skreeran
I feel the same way. Dawkins isn't saying he can disprove god, he's saying that he doesn't see any reason to believe that gods are any less mythical than faeries. I feel the same way.
He's saying exactly what he said. That God's existence is "improbable."Right, as improbable as faeries, unicorns, elves and other magical beings that show up in the various myths that we hold.
But again, let's take that to another thread.
Post by
Squishalot
I feel the same way. Dawkins isn't saying he can disprove god, he's saying that he doesn't see any reason to believe that gods are any less mythical than faeries. I feel the same way.
But if we want to debate religion, we should bump up one of those threads focused on that topic, eh?
He's saying that there is evidence to suggest that 50/50 probability is flawed, and that the actual probability should be near zero. But there is none, which is why I question his judgement.
Anyway, leaving that for another thread.
It's difficult to explain, due to its nature as an emotion rather than logic. It's just that when I read about a real man that's been tortured, or see a fictional man tortured in a movie or video game, I feel that it's a shame, and I feel sorry for them (a good example would be one character that is brutally tortured in a Mass Effect book I read a little while ago). But when I read about a gruesome act committed upon a woman, I feel a fire in my stomach, and I feel the familiar sensation of hate in the background of my mind.
It's worth taking a step back and stopping to think 'why am I getting so up-in-arms about this'? Self-reflection - it's something that more people ought to do. I appreciate that it's an emotion, but emotions are just as logical as mathematics. It's just a much more complicated logic, and worth investigating.
Post by
Skreeran
It's worth taking a step back and stopping to think 'why am I getting so up-in-arms about this'? Self-reflection - it's something that more people ought to do. I appreciate that it's an emotion, but emotions are just as logical as mathematics. It's just a much more complicated logic, and worth investigating.Oh, trust me, I understand. Why do you think I made this thread? I've spent many, many hours in self-reflection. There are other factors at work in my mind as well, which I'm not really comfortable discussing here.
The biggest reason I made this thread is to see how many people feel the same, or if my viewpoint is outdated.
Post by
Squishalot
I do think it's somewhat outdated, and also disrespectful of the women in your life. Not saying that this is your train of thought, but the primary idea that it's more outrageous for women to be skinned and dismembered is the underlying reasoning that they're powerless and innocent, and are somehow unable to defend themselves. Thus, any atrocities committed on them must have been done in cold blood and are especially evil and abhorent.
And yes, that's a very outdated view, when taken without any evidence that they're powerless and innocent.
I worry about my girlfriend and a couple of other friends tremendously when they're out on their own. Not because they're female, but because they tend to be a bit oblivious to things going on around them - putting a bag down out of eyesight in an arcade, not looking where they're going, etc. There are other female friends that I don't worry about in that respect, because I know that they're as cynical as I am, and pay attention to their surroundings. I'm just as worried about one of my male friends who gets quite drunk. So it's not a female thing, it's the characteristics that lead them to being more powerless that I associate with the need to worry / be concerned.
In terms of everyday 'chivalry', I'll hold the door open behind me for anyone, male or female. And I'll offer whoever I'm travelling to go first, providing that the way we're walking makes sense to do so.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
@Squish:
I suppose it is an outdated view, but that's just what I was taught. My dad is a warrior, and he served in Iraq and Afghanistan until he got shot (he's okay now, though), and he always taught me to put women and children first in any life or death situation.
I suppose its for that reason that it seems worse to me for someone to kill innocent women than for them to kill innocent men.
It's not so much a logical conclusion (as I normally do my best to avoid being sexist, or racist, or unnecessarily discriminating in any context) as an emotional one, reached from years of psychological conditioning.
And, incidentally, it's not that I think women are weak. I think that a woman can do almost any job as effectively as an equally skilled man (with a few exceptions, mainly related to biology), but I've just always been taught that it is a man's duty to protect women and children from harm.
Post by
Squishalot
It's the presumption of that duty that is the sexist / discriminatory part though. Presuming that it's your duty to protect them implies that they're weaker than you and *need* protecting in the first place, which was the whole feminist issue - they can stand up for themselves.
Whether you're a Christian who sees the natural hierarchy as perfection, or a Nietzschean who only sees a hierarchy in power, the hierarchy is indicative of one thing: higher things take natural precedent over lower things.
If you don't think there is a natural hierarchy, that's a different debate, but I'll just say that common experience contradicts that.
Sorry, I never came back to you.
It's not that I don't think there's a natural hierarchy, it's just that within each hierarchy (eg, life), there will be a subjective measure of worth within that hierarchy. I'm not questioning whether life > pile of boxes. I'm questioning if it's a matter of landing on your brother or on my brother, there isn't an objectively 'selfish' action to take.
You asked for an example, not an "real life" example. Which is why I clearly stated that it doesn't matter whether you believe it really happened or not.
It was implied, but for the benefit of a second clarification, again, if you can provide me with a real life example, I would be more convinced.
In any event, whether I have enough evidence to convince you or not is irrelevant to whether we have different views on the definition of selfishness :P
So do you, or do you not, think that we have different views on the definition? :P
This is directly related to what I was saying a couple posts back. Just because some positive outcome exists, that doesn't mean that those outcomes are therefore necessarily your aim.
I don't think selfishness needs to be conscious.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm questioning if it's a matter of landing on your brother or on my brother, there isn't an objectively 'selfish' action to take.
Both are objectively selfish. You're valuing your life above another innocent rational being's life, when objectively you have no right to do that.
In any event, whether I have enough evidence to convince you or not is irrelevant to whether we have different views on the definition of selfishness :P
So do you, or do you not, think that we have different views on the definition? :P
I honestly don't remember why I wrote that or even what I was driving at. The main force of my reply was in the paragraph previous.
In any case, you're defining selfishness based on your experience (existentialism). I'm defining it based on the metaphysical reality as I understand it (a more realist approach). Neither can say much to the other, as they start with completely different principles. I guess what I was trying to say with that sentence you quoted is say that no matter how much metaphysical evidence I can come up with, your experience of action as necessarily self-directed won't change; and no matter how much you experience action as necessarily self-directed, it won't change the metaphysical evidence I'm bringing forward.
This is directly related to what I was saying a couple posts back. Just because some positive outcome exists, that doesn't mean that those outcomes are therefore necessarily your aim.
I don't think selfishness needs to be conscious.
Nothing in that quote need imply consciousness.
Post by
Squishalot
Both are objectively selfish. You're valuing your life above another innocent rational being's life, when objectively you have no right to do that.
Presume that I don't have a choice about whether I'm saving my life or not i.e. that I'm going to die anyway, because really, a metre of flesh and bone isn't really going to break a fall by that much.
I guess what I was trying to say with that sentence you quoted is say that no matter how much metaphysical evidence I can come up with, your experience of action as necessarily self-directed won't change; and no matter how much you experience action as necessarily self-directed, it won't change the metaphysical evidence I'm bringing forward.
Fair enough. My issue with you bringing Jesus / God into the equation is that we're dealing with real life feelings, thoughts and actions. It's all well and good to understand that it's possible for a being to act in an unselfish manner, but it doesn't further the question of whether humans can.
Nothing in that quote need imply consciousness.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing that selfishness doesn't require consciousness.
What I was trying to say was that unconscious bias is a provable thing. Just because something isn't your aim doesn't mean that you can still be acting towards an unconsciously aim/goal. Hence my statement - I would still consider that unconscious aim as selfishness (where applicable).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Presume that I don't have a choice about whether I'm saving my life or not i.e. that I'm going to die anyway, because really, a metre of flesh and bone isn't really going to break a fall by that much.
Is the situation such that you
have
to fall on one person or the other, and can't make it away from them? If so, you need to make a judgment. Obviously if we assume their both innocent and neither "deserves" to die, I can't base my judgment on that. As a Catholic I would base my judgment on which one I thought was in the state of grace. That's not something I can know, but I can make at least an educated guess.
If it's not a matter of having to fall on one or the other, it's even more selfish to fall on one if you won't survive, because you're valuing the other's life even less.
What I was trying to say was that unconscious bias is a provable thing. Just because something isn't your aim doesn't mean that you can still be acting towards an unconsciously aim/goal. Hence my statement - I would still consider that unconscious aim as selfishness (where applicable).
I very much disagree that consciousness is not needed, but my statement is dealing with something else, where it doesn't matter if consciousness is involved or not.
You can't say that just because good outcomes exist, that was the end or goal of the action, whether conscious or unconscious.
Post by
Tya1
As mentioned before in an earlier post by somebody, I think the main reason why men are told to protect women is because women are considered weaker, innocent and valuable.
Is this sexist? Of course.
Is it necessairly wrong? No.
These notions are not something that is from the last 100/200/300 years. We are talking about ideas that have excisted for as long mankind is around. Women are biologically weaker in force, absolutely. They are considered less likely to be the starter of a fight, do horrible things and are overall softer in nature. They have more value, both in nature, as perseived. As said before, you need more women then men to keep a population going, and men have always considered women as a 'price'/special. From the days they were worshipped as the embodiment of Mother Nature, to going on a hunt to steal the neighbouring women, to these days 'trophy-wives'.
These ideas are so embedded in our upbringing, society, nature/nuture, that even while we say with our mouths that men and women should be equal in all, our subconsience brain tells us something else. If you say that you are more upset by the idea that a women is being killed, it's millenia of behavior.
Of course, we should strive towards equality. But, I have to say there: if I meet a woman these days who claims she is a 'feminist' I have to resist the urge to laugh. Current day feminism has nothing to do with being equal anymore, it exactly does the opposite. They expect to be valued higher then men, because women are 'better'.
The thing is that women these days still make happy use of the 'protect the women' soft spot of men. Women still want to be seen as innocent and valuable. Just not weak anymore.
In all the countries that still have military service, how many of those actually call up women as well? I doubt that it are a lot (I know one), and suprisingly enough you never hear the feminist movement cry about that. It doesn't fit how women want to be seen. (I know that I would be pretty upset if my goverment suddenly would call for me, and say: sorry, you want to be equal to men? Here is gun, there is a live chicken for dinner, have fun with it.)
If we still have to work around those notions of innocense, weakness and value, how can we expect that we should have the same emotional response towards what happens to men and what happens to women?
That would be damn hard, as it's simply ingrained in the collective brain: protect the women, they are worth it more. Guys can fend for themselves and while bad, we'll deal with it if they are not here anymore.
So, as long as that is your only difference in approaching women compared to men, you can hardly be blamed for it.
Post by
Skreeran
I certainly appreciate your weighing in on the matter, Tya. I myself have said just about all I can say on it, but I look forward to seeing how everyone else replies.
Post by
Skreeran
You know, I was just watching Pulp Fiction again, and got some new insight into this topic.
As you may know
, there is a segment where gang-lord Marsellus Wallace and boxer Butch Coolidge are captured by two hill-billy-ish types, Zed and Maynard, who are into S&M. They take Marsellus into the back room and begin to rape him, until Butch manages to escape and rescues him.
The whole scene is played out in a kind of whacky, comical way. At least, that's how I took it. There's no laugh track, but it seems like the situation was played for laughs.
Now, if it were two girls that were gagged, tied up, and raped, I don't think anyone would be laughing. It becomes a much more serious and abhorrent situation in that case, at least that's how it seems to me.
Anyone else who has seen the movie care to weigh in?
Post by
Squishalot
Obviously if we assume their both innocent and neither "deserves" to die, I can't base my judgment on that.
A lay person would probably suggest that choosing the non-relative person would be the selfish act to do - that I rate my brother's value higher than yours.
You can't say that just because good outcomes exist, that was the end or goal of the action, whether conscious or unconscious.
Not if the good outcomes were in no way predictable, I agree to that extent. But if you undertake an action consciously or unconsciously knowing that there is a good outcome, I would suggest that it forms a part of the goal of the action.
But, I have to say there: if I meet a woman these days who claims she is a 'feminist' I have to resist the urge to laugh. Current day feminism has nothing to do with being equal anymore, it exactly does the opposite. They expect to be valued higher then men, because women are 'better'.
Judging people by stereotypes is no better than racism or sexism.
Now, if it were two girls that were gagged, tied up, and raped, I don't think anyone would be laughing. It becomes a much more serious and abhorrent situation in that case, at least that's how it seems to me.
I haven't seen the movie, but it's probably a movie presentation thing. There are plenty of comical circumstances where girls are taken away against their will (though for more trivial things, perhaps). Presumably, if it was that comical, there is enough lead-up to suggest that they'll get out of it without suffering, in which case, females in the same position would be equally comical. If there isn't said lead-up, then I'd be more worried about your sense of humour.
Post by
Kibbles
I enjoy how people only talk about breeding in relation to success. There IS more to it. If i had to sum up It would look like this
Men-
Hunters, primary food supplier
Warriors, primary defeNder/land supplier
1/2 of the process to reproduce
Women-
1/2 of the process of reproduction, primary reproducer
Secondary food supplier (berries, etc.)
As you can see, one of the two was set up for violence. The politeness and respect for women is a two part effect.
1. Prevent violence from entering the household
2. Greater chance to reproduce
But if a society had, say, two women for one man, several problems would arise.
1. Overpopulation/sterility. Do we want more mouths to feed? In the past that would have meant either death or a need to conquer more land- and this society is mostly women
2. Lack of hunters. We would have become herbivores, and there is no such thing as a dominant species being an herbivore AND as physically weak as we are.
3. Lack of defenders. They would have been sitting ducks and died to the first local tribe.
Yes, the amazon are an exception. But did you ever notice theY are the only exception? Now I wonder why that is?
Post by
Tya1
But, I have to say there: if I meet a woman these days who claims she is a 'feminist' I have to resist the urge to laugh. Current day feminism has nothing to do with being equal anymore, it exactly does the opposite. They expect to be valued higher then men, because women are 'better'.Judging people by stereotypes is no better than racism or sexism.
Naturally. But the a) the whole tread is about stereotyping and sexism, and b) stereotyping is not always a bad thing and c) you can't put disclaimers on everything.
As my communication teacher once said: we all put people in stereotypes. If a girl is walking somewhere and she notices a guy behind her who is behaving 'shady' in her eyes and she decides to pick up the pace, is that wrong?
Morally perhaps, because she has no idea who that guy is. Most likely he is just as well walking there like her, with a goal to go from a to b and she judges him as dangerous without good reasons. But he could just as well have totally other ideas in mind, and thus she was smart to do so. We do that all day, again without out much thinking, as it is as much ingrained like: fire is bad, stay away from the fire.
A bigot/sexist/racist whatever has people placed in their place in his mind and is not allowing/willing to see that they might not belong there after he met people. They are firmly in place, and he/she will even try to prevent anything to have that changed. A morally just (or even...lets call it a NORMAL) person will try to supress his intitial response and judge every person seperatly. But if you meet a homeless person who askes for money to buy food. Do you give it, thinking he is going to use it for that goal, or do you think: pff, he's spending it on booze, wanna bet?
Hello stereotype.
And that is the same with my point over current day feminism. Feminism on it's own is nothing wrong with. It has brought us (oh yeah, hello stereotype) a lot of good things. I can decide if I want to work, what I want to do, use the pill, have a sexual relationship out of wedlock, vote, you name it. There is still a lot to be desired, as I still do not get the same payment as men for the same work, because I
might
get children and work less after. If I decide to have a few more sexual relationships I'm a ^&*!. Women are still encouraged to work on a lower level then men, with the same education. You name it again. Go go womanhood, fight for our right.
But if I look at the current day feminism movement, and the women who are openly and loudly calling themselves Feminist (note the capital), I come across women who have lost a certain touch with reality. I can of course put a disclaimer on to this: *this is not applicable to all feminists out there* like I can do with every statement I make. But it talks so difficult. And in this case, I meant the movement, which is scarely equal. *Punish men, they are bad.* It's so little about women themselves can do to improve their live, which is as far as I am concerned a better starting point. But hey, that is MY idea, and I'm not going to impose it on the rest of the world.
I've could have put a similar explanation about my motives already in my first post. But it would have been nearly twice as long just to explain: what I say is based on general ideas, not persons. There are always people who do things different then what you would expect but there the saying comes in to place: the exceptions make the rule.
Post by
Squishalot
Feminism generally is about women being treated equally to men. The breed of feminism that you're describing, with women demanding retribution and / or repatriation for history is an extreme version, just as the Muslims who bomb buildings, troops and are openly and loudly calling for jihad are extremists. Perhaps it's more common where you are, but I certainly haven't seen either extreme prevalent around me, nor the people I associate with, or the society I live in.
In your example, the girl is reacting to the 'shady' behaviour, not to the fact that it's a man. I (a man) would act similarly. I'd act the same way if it was a woman exhibiting shady behaviour. I don't see it as sexual discrimination.
In any event, I agree that not all stereotyping is bad, providing it's justifiable and not for the sake of harm. I don't think that stereotyping 'self-pronounced Feminists', just like stereotyping 'Muslims' or 'Greens' or 'Volvo drivers' and laughing at them is justifiable.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.