This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

Women's IssuesTRA Twitter poll "Are Transwomen women?" - majority of voters clicked No

submitted by Criticallacitirc from (mobile.twitter.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I reject the analysis on both accounts as I view the central premise as inherently flawed. While it is true that various societies and cultures endeavored to enshrine the roles of men and women in various ways, the most free and liberal societies end up doing this far more strongly simply by free choice. What this means is that, while such injustices and inequalities ought to be eliminated formally, they clearly reassert themselves by free choice anyway in average populations. Of course that does not mean I support their formalization, because that's unfair to the outliers. Only, this contradicts the central premise that these are the results of those formalizations.

Put another way, I stand for equality. "Equity" is a dubious pursuit. Should the athletic hobble themselves for the crippled to achieve equal outcomes? Why would anybody? I do not see women as "objectified" nor men, not by your average person, and I find such presumptions of the psyche of people to be products of projections from malicious minds. Where are they evidenced? And why, in spite of asking several people in this conversation several times, has nobody presented a SINGLE point of evidence to center a debate on? Where's a SINGLE scientific study backing up these assertions?

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think it is undeniable that men are used after the advent of civilization as soldiers and women as mothers. This is the economic source of their objectification, and only in our time is the economic necessity of these two roles negated (overpopulation and total war means total annihilation), and hence the possibility of transcending them.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Define what you mean by "objectification" and why you think it's a bad thing?

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Objectification is when a person is seen and used as a means to an end, and forced into that role, because of some socially useful aspect of their body. It isn't a matter of good or bad. It is a matter of freedom and necessity. Since human civilization and the advent of organized war (but not in earlier hunter gatherer times), soldiers and mothers are absolutely necessary for the continuation of human societies. Slaves are also objectified for their ability to labor. Typically the descendants of conquered peoples, they are not seen as individuals or equals, but as a means to an end for the ruling classes to exploit.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Okay, now that you've clarified, did you miss the point where I pointed out as societies become more affluent and liberal people more voluntarily engage in more segregated roles? Society is not "objectifying" people as a means to an end anymore, not even remotely by comparison. At earlier points in certain societies, you could make that claim, but not currently. Most certainly not on an interpersonal level.

I'm sorry if all I can present to that is a simple negation, but as I already pointed out, where's a single bit of evidence to back up these assertions? Put another way, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it. And that's the situation I find myself in here.

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Radical feminism asserts that females are objectified for their ability to produce new human beings. The men's rights movement asserts that men are objectified for their ability to fight wars and sacrifice themselves in the most dangerous jobs (and provide for families). Communism asserts that workers are objectified in order to create wealth for an elite class of rulers that is so wealthy, it can "earn" money based on passive income (profit, interest and rent (i.e. financialization)) and hire managers so that affluent capitalists don't even have to be aware of what enterprises they own. I do not see these facts negated worldwide. I see us in transition away from this, but still in a very early stage. True human freedom will only exist when individuals can do and be whatever they aspire to be, without being forced into roles. This has not been achieved worldwide. As a corollary, war cannot go away (and it threatens all life on the planet) until nation states are ended, and we regard ourselves as one planetary people. This relates to homosexuality to the extent that sexual discipline and heterosexuality are part and parcel of these enforced roles. In a world of true freedom, homosexuality and heterosexuality will be meaningless, as one is enforced, and the other is a rebellion or rejection of the other, even if it is not consciously chosen.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You've thrown in a lot more topics all in one instead of sticking to the one at hand, and instead of providing evidence like I asked. Can you focus on evidence of a central claim, or no?