|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:51 pm
Lyme:
The great warriors of marginalized peoples are the marginalized people, themselves. Men can help. As straights can help gays and Whites can help Blacks, but we have to remember who has the frustration and agony of years of oppression to push them forward the hardest, with the greatest conviction.
There's nothing wrong with educating boys to fight for women. I think it's paramount, however, to remember women are going to be the most eager, most ready, most moved to fight for themselves.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:03 pm
kp is dcvi Lyme: The great warriors of marginalized peoples are the marginalized people, themselves. Men can help. As straights can help gays and Whites can help Blacks, but we have to remember who has the frustration and agony of years of oppression to push them forward the hardest, with the greatest conviction.There's nothing wrong with educating boys to fight for women. I think it's paramount, however, to remember women are going to be the most eager, most ready, most moved to fight for themselves.That's true, but without sympathetic men, without sympathetic straight people, without sympathetic white people, none of those movements would've gotten off the ground (or, edit, they would have taken MUCH longer). You absolutely NEED to educate men as well, you absolutely NEED to reach young boys as well, and focusing primarily on women instead of on children in general is the wrong way to go about it. Of course they need to fight for themselves but they need their countrymen to fight for them too, and if we're going to step in and help one segment, we should step in and help the other segment as well. If we're going to impose our society on them, we can't just do it for one gender and say, "There, you're on your own, now we'll leave it to you alone to educate the boys." And when Andy suggested educating both, you jumped on him and acted like he just wanted to give power to the men. Also to your comment, "Once they have power, they may abuse it just as the whites have!" That is the opposite of racist. It is not saying "Don't give them power," it is saying, "How do you know they'd be better if they had all the power?" You don't, and saying that they would is inherently racist because it means that they are different because of their skin color, and somehow are not the same as other human beings (even if it is in a positive way in their favor, it's racist against them and racist against white people). And saying, "Let's give them a chance to rule," is saying "let's continue racism," instead of saying, "Let's give them a chance to be equal." And there is a this to donate to. Follow the link that says change. It's the very first thing there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:08 pm
kp is dcvi Quote: To the first, just because the men have power and the women are in a very bad position does not mean that the women, once getting power, would be any ******** different. An inherently sexist concept! Why can't you see that? What if this was your argument for African Americans? Or Latinoamericans? "Once they have power, they may abuse it just as the whites have!" The problem is, you're looking at it the wrong way. It's like you're assuming I'm sexist, and going from there. Yes, I would say the -exact- same thing about Blacks or Latinos. Assuming that, once they get power, they'll be these awesome people is naive. If power in that country is currently represented by abuse of said power, then yeah. When they get power, they will abuse that power, because that's the only way to keep their power. That's why you have to change the system. Women didn't become equal, or as equal as they are today, by simply trying to force their way into the system. They had to change men's minds. They had to change the dynamics, and the way women worked with men. And their part was important too; They had to refuse to accept being treated like they were as just "how it's supposed to be." But they didn't get to be equal, or as equal as they are, by just forcing their way into the traditional "man's role." The point is, the oppressed cannot make things equal between themselves and the oppressors. They either overthrow their oppressors, and become the oppressors themselves, or they convince the oppressors not to oppress them. History shows this again and again. The French revolution is a prime example; When the peasants wanted equality, what did they do? They revolted -and killed- their oppressors. The American revolution, and those similar, are kind of different in that they didn't really overthrow their oppressors so much as throw them out; But that also wouldn't work in this case, as you need both men and women to make a country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:16 pm
lymelady kp is dcvi Lyme: The great warriors of marginalized peoples are the marginalized people, themselves. Men can help. As straights can help gays and Whites can help Blacks, but we have to remember who has the frustration and agony of years of oppression to push them forward the hardest, with the greatest conviction.There's nothing wrong with educating boys to fight for women. I think it's paramount, however, to remember women are going to be the most eager, most ready, most moved to fight for themselves.That's true, but without sympathetic men, without sympathetic straight people, without sympathetic white people, none of those movements would've gotten off the ground (or, edit, they would have taken MUCH longer). You absolutely NEED to educate men as well, you absolutely NEED to reach young boys as well, and focusing primarily on women instead of on children in general is the wrong way to go about it. Of course they need to fight for themselves but they need their countrymen to fight for them too, and if we're going to step in and help one segment, we should step in and help the other segment as well. If we're going to impose our society on them, we can't just do it for one gender and say, "There, you're on your own, now we'll leave it to you alone to educate the boys." And when Andy suggested educating both, you jumped on him and acted like he just wanted to give power to the men. Also to your comment, "Once they have power, they may abuse it just as the whites have!" That is the opposite of racist. It is not saying "Don't give them power," it is saying, "How do you know they'd be better if they had all the power?" You don't, and saying that they would is inherently racist because it means that they are different because of their skin color, and somehow are not the same as other human beings (even if it is in a positive way in their favor, it's racist against them and racist against white people). And saying, "Let's give them a chance to rule," is saying "let's continue racism," instead of saying, "Let's give them a chance to be equal." And there is a this to donate to. Follow the link that says change. It's the very first thing there. The link is to general charities. I didn't see one that articulated exactly what the video said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:20 pm
I.Am kp is dcvi Quote: To the first, just because the men have power and the women are in a very bad position does not mean that the women, once getting power, would be any ******** different. An inherently sexist concept! Why can't you see that? What if this was your argument for African Americans? Or Latinoamericans? "Once they have power, they may abuse it just as the whites have!" The problem is, you're looking at it the wrong way. It's like you're assuming I'm sexist, and going from there. Yes, I would say the -exact- same thing about Blacks or Latinos. Assuming that, once they get power, they'll be these awesome people is naive. If power in that country is currently represented by abuse of said power, then yeah. When they get power, they will abuse that power, because that's the only way to keep their power. That's why you have to change the system. Women didn't become equal, or as equal as they are today, by simply trying to force their way into the system. They had to change men's minds. They had to change the dynamics, and the way women worked with men. And their part was important too; They had to refuse to accept being treated like they were as just "how it's supposed to be." But they didn't get to be equal, or as equal as they are, by just forcing their way into the traditional "man's role." The point is, the oppressed cannot make things equal between themselves and the oppressors. They either overthrow their oppressors, and become the oppressors themselves, or they convince the oppressors not to oppress them. History shows this again and again. The French revolution is a prime example; When the peasants wanted equality, what did they do? They revolted -and killed- their oppressors. The American revolution, and those similar, are kind of different in that they didn't really overthrow their oppressors so much as throw them out; But that also wouldn't work in this case, as you need both men and women to make a country. We don't have to be sexist to say sexist things. It can just happen. But anyway, you're right so far as it's either "Convince or Revolt," I don't think we want to see the latter. But you talked about changing the "system". Just remember that the system is a patriarchy. And also as you said, the powerful want to remain powerful. We live in a genedered society. It's very neutral at its core. But what happens when things start to become disturbed? We want to believe that's it's so easy to convince men, and women, to treat women as equals and overthrow our patriarchal system. "Give equality to women!" one says, and sure, it's nice sounding. But how does it affect the common person? That's usually what people fear and since men have the most to lose, men will probably be the most cautious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:21 pm
And honestly, KP, I don't care whether you find the term "man" loaded or sensitive. Deal with it. And just because you're frustrated doesn't mean you're not also sexist. I mean, I am precisely saying that men and women are equal, and you're calling that sexist. What, unless I claim that women are amazing, and as soon as they get power everything will just be flowers and awesome, I'm sexist? No thanks, I think I'll stick with believing in actual equality.
Let's look at it: I'm saying, "Men and women are equal; The men in power are corrupt, and women in the same position, at this point, will be no different. We need to change that first. We need to make it so that women are respected as people, equal to men, and then their taking positions of power will really take care of itself."
You're saying, "We need to trust that they won't abuse their position, and get them to it."
How is mine sexist, and yours isn't? We should trust that women will be good leaders, even though the men aren't? That's placing women as above men. Saying that women are equal to men? Isn't! It's placing them on the same plain! They are -equal-, it's the very definition of not-sexist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:25 pm
I'm not telling you this, i'm repeating it:
The idea that women may make better leaders is something that has been vocalized in the past.
That's all.
Anyway, past all that: Yous said it yourself, men are corrupt. We must give women equal power. If misfortunte is to occur, we can then, and only then, assert what to do next and who needs help, and progress.
Without taking that leap of faith, without giving power to women, taking that risk as you say, we can't learn anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:27 pm
kp is dcvi We don't have to be sexist to say sexist things. It can just happen. But anyway, you're right so far as it's either "Convince or Revolt," I don't think we want to see the latter. But you talked about changing the "system". Just remember that the system is a patriarchy. And also as you said, the powerful want to remain powerful. We live in a genedered society. It's very neutral at its core. But what happens when things start to become disturbed? We want to believe that's it's so easy to convince men, and women, to treat women as equals and overthrow our patriarchal system. "Give equality to women!" one says, and sure, it's nice sounding. But how does it affect the common person? That's usually what people fear and since men have the most to lose, men will probably be the most cautious. Listen to yourself! You want me to believe that this is a good project, that changing the world is as simple as "giving a girl a cow," but I'm being naive because I think we should change the system? I'm not saying it's easy at all. Perhaps you didn't read my post too carefully, but I said we should educate the youth; That means it'll take a generation for these kids to be out there and using their ideology. It's not easy. It's not all that simple. But that's exactly why it works. I'm not saying to just say, "Give equallity to women!" That's what -you're- doing! "Give a girl a cow, and tell the village leaders to accept her." It's naively simple, and it wouldn't work. If it were such a simple, quick thing to fix it, we would have done it a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:29 pm
I.Am I am not even talking about the video anymore, for one.
For two, I agreed with your (implication) about the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:32 pm
You can't just force women into equality, against the grain. You can't just give them equal power. You have to change the system around them, like I keep repeating.
You can't just give them power. It doesn't work like that. And naive thoughts like that are why places end up ******** up after good intentioned Americans try to help them; Afghanistan? We give them weapons to fight off the Russians. And what happens? The people we gave the weapons to, after the war, take over the country. Oops. Same with many African countries. We give them weapons to protect themselves with, and they make themselves warlords. Well s**t.
So it's not as simple as just giving the poor downtrodden group "equality," because, as I said, they then overthrow their oppressors and start oppressing them. Would a society where men are the downtrodden be better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:33 pm
This thread is about the video, and I haven't seen where you say you disagree with it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:27 pm
kp is dcvi The link is to general charities. I didn't see one that articulated exactly what the video said. Yet they all have the same theme, the same one in the video. The charities were picked because they are absolutely necessary to make the girl effect work. This is the joint operation of the Nike Foundation and the NoVo Foundation and the idea is to invest money in it. That is the point of it. The idea that men make better leaders than woman has been vocalized in the past as well, and the present, but it's still sexist. And the fact that men have the most to lose is the very reason why we need to target boys as well so they understand that this is not a loss, this is a gain! The overall message of the video seems to be that girls are the key to changing things, correct? But that's oversimplifying it. The video script: The world is a mess. Poverty. AIDs. Hunger. War. So what else is new? What if there was an unexpected solution that could turn this sinking ship around? Would you even know it if you saw it? It's not the internet. It's not science. It's not the government. It's not money. It's (dramatic pause) A Girl. Alright, to start off, this is being touted as the unexpected solution to turn things around. Just at the very beginning, and if it's not, that's a stupid line. Next, this video is brought to you by the internet, the ten bullets include things that involve changing the government to be better for girls, and it all involves money. In fact, even in their scenario alone it involves money. Imagine a girl living in poverty. NO Really, Go ahead. Imagine her. Girl, with flies, baby, husband, hunger, HIV Now, pretend that you can fix this picture. *all of those things fall off, leaving Girl* OK Now she has a chance. Let's put her in a school uniform and see her get a loan to buy a cow and use the profits from the milk to help her family. Pretty soon, her cow becomes a herd [because cows use parthenogenesis to reproduce]. And she becomes the business owner who brings clean water to the village that makes men respect her good sense and invite her to the village council. Where She Convinces Everyone That All Girls Are Valuable [because if they see that one is valuable, they will see that all of them are. Just like if one man is polite, well-rounded, intelligent, and respectful, everyone sees that all of them are. It's just that easy to change society]. Soon, more girls have a chance and the village is thriving Healthier Babies Peace Lower HIV Food Education Commerce Sanitation Stability Which means the economy of the entire country improves and the whole world is better off. Are you following what's happening here? Girl -> School -> Cows -> $ -> Business -> Clean H2O -> Social Change -> Stronger Economy -> Better World It's called the Girl Effect. Multiply that by 600 million girls in the developing world, And you've just changed the course of history. *The Girl Effect logo* Invest in a girl and she will change the world. It's no big deal *pause* Just the future of humanity. Alright. Aside from the comments I already made, this is not convincing. It's not revolting, but it doesn't address the core issues. This is a huge emotional appeal to donate to the charities listed that give girls school uniforms, pay for their education, give them loans to buy cows, give them a safe environment (I couldn't find how they made the environment safe but for 100 dollars a year for one girl I'm sure it's something), etc. Which, I'm fine with donating! Really! Charities? Awesome things. Humanitarian aid? Even if I wasn't a Christian I'd support it. But it's not powerful or awesome or profound. It's a big red herring move that convinces people that this is the key to turning things around, that investing in one gender is the way to go, thus providing the same level of aid to humans as before only this way it's gender specific and the real issues remain unaddressed, so everything stays the same but hey everyone feels good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:01 am
I.Am You can't just force women into equality, against the grain. You can't just give them equal power. You have to change the system around them, like I keep repeating. You can't just give them power. It doesn't work like that. And naive thoughts like that are why places end up ******** up after good intentioned Americans try to help them; Afghanistan? We give them weapons to fight off the Russians. And what happens? The people we gave the weapons to, after the war, take over the country. Oops. Same with many African countries. We give them weapons to protect themselves with, and they make themselves warlords. Well s**t. So it's not as simple as just giving the poor downtrodden group "equality," because, as I said, they then overthrow their oppressors and start oppressing them. Would a society where men are the downtrodden be better? That's funny, because that's exactly what I've been promoting. And since we have deviated from the video: that's what the video has promoted. Destroy our patriarchal values. We cannot just keep injecting money into dysfunctional cultures. Quote: So it's not as simple as just giving the poor downtrodden group "equality," Lastly, I'm just gonna agree to disagree with you on this point. I think it's a terrible one. You're asking for an equilibrium that cannot be created by outside intervention. No amount of hand-holding or money-giving will guarantee things do not fall out of balance again, it will not guarantee insurgent groups or nearby aggressive countries from coming in and running amok. But to speak my mind: It's Bullshit I.Am, really. Sorry. I think Women wouldn't do the type of thing you're saying they would. (And you seem to be arguing about it as though it's likely to happen). All things considered, the female group is one that cuts across very strongly ideological differences. Being a women, or being a man for that matter, isn't something that necessarily comes with "loyalties". What religion? What political cause? Giving women power isn't giving them the pulpit to "preach" their thinking, and to eventually become totalitarian. I think that's just an unbacked. Whether we can encourage equality, or get rid of the patriarchy (and we won't, because we haven't done it in this country, the EU, South America, First World Asia etc. etc....) it doesn't matter, I really do feel as though we can trust women because they are a very different minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:40 pm
Who's acting like women will do horrible things? All anyone's saying is they're just as capable and just as likely unless there is a shift in societal values.
Acting like they won't because they're women and women are special flowers who would never, ever do anything immoral at all is stupid, naive, and yes, sexist.
The video PROMOTES pumping money into the system, it just promotes pumping it into specific parts of the system without doing a thing to change the culture!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:44 pm
If women do "exactly as the men have," it will be oppression, plain and simple. I don't know of any other word to describe that, other THAN "horrible".
Apart of me offers that no, they wouldn't do that because we're discussing a gender and not a religious group or racial-ethnic group. Another part of me is quick to point that their may be social scientists who can attest to how differently women view the world and how much differently they'd treat it. That isn't to say this type of research should be heeded, just made aware of. After all, saying "Women, on average, are more saintly," is a pretty heavy statement to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
