|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:53 pm
But no one's saying they WILL do it, just that they CAN do it. Do you believe that women as a whole are better than men? If you do, please just come out and say it KP, because otherwise I can't understand how you can reconcile saying that they absolutely won't.
And if you don't, I don't see why you are opposed to the idea that it IS possible and that just shifting the power to straight up gynecocracy could result in the same thing with the gender roles reversed. Which, that is how you're coming across, even if you don't mean to, but maybe you do mean to.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:55 pm
No I don't, but I can't reconcile this kind of thinking. "We need to downplay women's roles in this, because they CAN be just as corrupt!" Hell no! Women are so important in this! It's EVERYONE'S fight but only THEY are the benefactors. As such, who do you think is going to be doing the most work anyway?
The fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that you want to gender-neutralize this debate, which I'm saying is more wrong than right: Everyone shares a burden in making an egalitarian society, but some have much more special roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:00 pm
But no one is saying we need to downplay women's roles in it. Who is saying that? Oh right, no one, you were saying we need to tout it as the solution and when it was suggested that men are just as important and we need to reach them too, you argued, which led to all of this.
You are saying we need to focus more on women than anyone, because they have the power to topple corruption. But we are pointing out they cannot do it without men. We didn't! Do you think we would've gotten where we did when we did if there had been no sympathetic men to our cause? No. There were male feminists who were vital. Of course women have an important role and they are more likely to join the cause, but just saying "Funnel the money to the women and they'll do the rest," is oversimplified, naive, sexist, and in my opinion stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:05 pm
Please quote me where I said this, in its exact form, is the solution. I never said that. It's the right idea. Furthermore, you contradicted yourself: "But no one is saying we need to downplay women's roles in it." Implies no one said it. Then you say: " and when it was suggested that men are just as important and we need to reach them too" Which implies someone said it. Quote: "Funnel the money to the women and they'll do the rest," is oversimplified, naive, sexist, and in my opinion stupid." But it isn't that simplistic, and I've never advocated that! I'm just talking in ideals here. I'm not promoting a plan, just a super-simplified objective: we need to take women's roles very seriously. That's all. I didn't say throw money here, didn't say throw money there. I didn't offer a game plan and say it was more superior than X or Y. Nada, nunca, none of that. Again, ideas to keep in mind. I'm not offering concrete solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:07 pm
kp is dcvi 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. Again, not money. What this program suggests is money. "Lend her money to go to school, lend her money for a cow," that's what it's saying. What is it suggesting aside from money? Quote: 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. For God sake man! Read what I said! You're the only one saying, "Women would or wouldn't do this or that!" I'm saying, "Human beings are doing this. Women are human beings. Unless we change the system, and then give women power, women will be just as bad as men, if they make it at all." I'm not saying, "Arg, women are evil! If women were in power, they would become totalitarian rulers!" A fact I've frequently stated and explained. rolleyes If you define what we have as a patriarchy, we're never going to leave a patriarchy, except to enter a matriarchy. While things aren't perfect, the genders are pretty much equal. Women can do everything that men can do. They even get special consideration in a lot of things simply because they are women! Quote: I really do feel as though we can trust women because they are a very different minority. This is what we're talking about. How are they a different minority? What makes women, as a general rule, someone we can trust, as opposed to men? Or even other minorities, what makes them specially better than blacks, or latinos?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:10 pm
Except, KP, that by creating this thread you -did- say that -this- project is a good idea. Maybe you didn't directly state it, but you pretty clearly said that you promote this campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:11 pm
kp is dcvi Furthermore, you contradicted yourself: "But no one is saying we need to downplay women's roles in it." Implies no one said it. Then you say: " and when it was suggested that men are just as important and we need to reach them too" Which implies someone said it. And this is just ridiculous. We're not downplaying the women's role; You're downplaying the men's role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:14 pm
Quote: "Human beings are doing this. Women are human beings. Unless we change the system, and then give women power, women will be just as bad as men, if they make it at all." But you qualified human beings; "Women are human beings, {there are female human beings}" You've made two separate groups. They are different; you just said it! I'm offering that these differences may extend to how they rule! Quote: Women can do everything that men can do. They even get special consideration in a lot of things simply because they are women! Like what? Quote: This is what we're talking about. How are they a different minority? What makes women, as a general rule, someone we can trust, as opposed to men? Or even other minorities, what makes them specially better than blacks, or latinos? Um, better? I wouldn't say better. I think female is a title that cuts across all barriers. We have the human species... and a lot of what separates us are human constructs. Very malleable and what not. But we have sex; we've always had sex and that is essentially what makes us different. There's debate as to whether or not our sexual differences are the result of society, or of genetic makeup. But, regardless of its origin, we do have a culture that perceives women as the nurturer in comparison to their hunter male counterparts. And they just want equality. Period. I don't really see the FEMALE GENDER as having a lot of politics, or baggage, that they'd bring to the table if they had power. As I said, this isn't an insurgent group, a race, or an ethnic group, this is a gender. You can be a Jewish Female American, a Black Female American, a White Female American, a Muslim Female American... but I think being female cuts across all that. I think race and religious and ethnicity have a lot of history to them that makes them more policy-ridden. "We as X want this." But I don't see that with women. I don't know, it's difficult to articulate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:15 pm
I.Am kp is dcvi Furthermore, you contradicted yourself: "But no one is saying we need to downplay women's roles in it." Implies no one said it. Then you say: " and when it was suggested that men are just as important and we need to reach them too" Which implies someone said it. And this is just ridiculous. We're not downplaying the women's role; You're downplaying the men's role. No I'm not. crying I'm seeing what I'm doing as raising up, and you're looking at the obverse. I suppose it's "Tomatoes, Tomahtoes" from this point on. Quote: Except, KP, that by creating this thread you -did- say that -this- project is a good idea. Maybe you didn't directly state it, but you pretty clearly said that you promote this campaign. Without looking at my exact words (because whatever they were, they are misleading) I like the idea. How that translates into action isn't something I can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:20 pm
kp is dcvi Please quote me where I said this, in its exact form, is the solution. I never said that. It's the right idea. Furthermore, you contradicted yourself: "But no one is saying we need to downplay women's roles in it." Implies no one said it. Then you say: " and when it was suggested that men are just as important and we need to reach them too" Which implies someone said it. Quote: "Funnel the money to the women and they'll do the rest," is oversimplified, naive, sexist, and in my opinion stupid." But it isn't that simplistic, and I've never advocated that! I'm just talking in ideals here. I'm not promoting a plan, just a super-simplified objective: we need to take women's roles very seriously. That's all. I didn't say throw money here, didn't say throw money there. I didn't offer a game plan and say it was more superior than X or Y. Nada, nunca, none of that. Again, ideas to keep in mind. I'm not offering concrete solutions. Because men are just as important. You're making it sound like people are saying "Women should sit back and let men do the work." But no. Men are just as important. They absolutely need to be part of the effort, they are essential, and JUST as essential, because you can't have it without both of them. It's not a contradiction, dear. But this video does all of that. That's what this video is. It is an ad! It is an ad, involving several of the charities it links to, without directly naming them, meant to get you in the mood to donate money to gender-specific charities. It ignores the hurdles and says if you give a girl the money to do this she will do it. Nevermind that girls who go to school are nowhere near guaranteed independence, nevermind that girls who tend cows and chickens are already treated like crap and few people respect them for it, nevermind that the government makes it impossible for this to happen, give them money to keep doing what they're doing and it'll make a difference. Somehow. It's somehow not throwing money at it to throw money at it. What is much more inspiring than this ad put out by a charity is the story of Nujood Ali, a 10 year old girl who was married off to a 30 year old who got herself to the courthouse, finally got a lawyer (Shada Nasser) who would take her case, and divorced her husband. That is a girl who took her life into her own hands in a culture that had the odds against her, and the lawyer who took on her case. This is girl power, excuse the phrase. But the video you showed? That is throwing money at the problem. That is a western corporate response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:27 pm
Yes, KP, we're raising up the men; Because everything that this video and website and everything you've argued so far makes it sound like women are the only ones we should be caring about, because the evil men are already in power. So we have to raise up the men to make them equal to your women in importance. Because, and i know it's a crazy idea, but I think equality should be about both genders being considered equal.
And I'm really not going to argue with that nonsense about female being a human constructed word. First of all, there's no debate; Genetics are what give women vaginas and breasts and men penises. But honestly, I'm the one arguing that women are equal to men! You're the one saying that, should women come to power, things would be better! Meaning that women, who when given power are responsible and awesome with it, are better than men, who when given power are evil and totalitarian!
If the assumption is correct, the "good faith" that women who are given power will be better than the men who already have power, then women are better than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:29 pm
lymelady kp is dcvi Please quote me where I said this, in its exact form, is the solution. I never said that. It's the right idea. Furthermore, you contradicted yourself: "But no one is saying we need to downplay women's roles in it." Implies no one said it. Then you say: " and when it was suggested that men are just as important and we need to reach them too" Which implies someone said it. Quote: "Funnel the money to the women and they'll do the rest," is oversimplified, naive, sexist, and in my opinion stupid." But it isn't that simplistic, and I've never advocated that! I'm just talking in ideals here. I'm not promoting a plan, just a super-simplified objective: we need to take women's roles very seriously. That's all. I didn't say throw money here, didn't say throw money there. I didn't offer a game plan and say it was more superior than X or Y. Nada, nunca, none of that. Again, ideas to keep in mind. I'm not offering concrete solutions. Because men are just as important. You're making it sound like people are saying "Women should sit back and let men do the work." But no. Men are just as important. They absolutely need to be part of the effort, they are essential, and JUST as essential, because you can't have it without both of them. It's not a contradiction, dear. But this video does all of that. That's what this video is. It is an ad! It is an ad, involving several of the charities it links to, without directly naming them, meant to get you in the mood to donate money to gender-specific charities. It ignores the hurdles and says if you give a girl the money to do this she will do it. Nevermind that girls who go to school are nowhere near guaranteed independence, nevermind that girls who tend cows and chickens are already treated like crap and few people respect them for it, nevermind that the government makes it impossible for this to happen, give them money to keep doing what they're doing and it'll make a difference. Somehow. It's somehow not throwing money at it to throw money at it. What is much more inspiring than this ad put out by a charity is the story of Nujood Ali, a 10 year old girl who was married off to a 30 year old who got herself to the courthouse, finally got a lawyer (Shada Nasser) who would take her case, and divorced her husband. That is a girl who took her life into her own hands in a culture that had the odds against her, and the lawyer who took on her case. This is girl power, excuse the phrase. But the video you showed? That is throwing money at the problem. That is a western corporate response. If girls were to be become corrupt, as you indicate is the possibility, it wouldn't happen (in Third World) in this lifetime. It's impossible. Gender-norms are way, way, way, way too entrenched in that part of the world. Handing money to girl's in school isn't going to make them revolt, and win. If it is a legit fear, it won't be realized in this century. Quote: That is throwing money at the problem. That is a western corporate response. Throwing the money at the problem? You're becoming way too frivolous with your words. For one; there was only one line in that video that alluded to charity "Invest in..." and, the first charity link I saw on that page involves girls' schooling and funding it. ...honestly, are you going to say no, we shouldn't invest in girls' education because it's sexist? That's terrible. (Besides, isn't gender-segregated schooling in most parts of Africa normal, anyway?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:32 pm
I.Am Yes, KP, we're raising up the men; Because everything that this video and website and everything you've argued so far makes it sound like women are the only ones we should be caring about, because the evil men are already in power. So we have to raise up the men to make them equal to your women in importance. Because, and i know it's a crazy idea, but I think equality should be about both genders being considered equal. And I'm really not going to argue with that nonsense about female being a human constructed word. First of all, there's no debate; Genetics are what give women vaginas and breasts and men penises. But honestly, I'm the one arguing that women are equal to men! You're the one saying that, should women come to power, things would be better! Meaning that women, who when given power are responsible and awesome with it, are better than men, who when given power are evil and totalitarian! If the assumption is correct, the "good faith" that women who are given power will be better than the men who already have power, then women are better than men. You just need to stop blowing what I said out of proportion. confused Like now, it stopped being fun awhile ago. I never said those things. My language is very specific. (Actually, it's pretty vague so I don't make static points). I said women have a special place in this fight. I said men are the dominant class, and this trend has continued since the beginning of time; I asked you to reflect on that. I never called men evil. I never said this is women's burden alone. EDIT: Admittedly, I did say making this an "equal" struggle undermines the power women have in this. Quote: You're the one saying that, should women come to power, things would be better! I didn't argue that. I said it's a point of view held by some, and because Nature vs. Nurture debates are very premature (still), we shouldn't dismiss it. Men and women do operate differently in social structures where power is concerned. I actually just read an article on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:33 pm
But if you're saying that you disagree with this charity now, then just say that you disagree with this charity now; Because before, you "Couldn't stop watching this video, and couldn't stop agreeing with it!" Don't act like this was always about ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:34 pm
I.Am But if you're saying that you disagree with this charity now, then just say that you disagree with this charity now; Because before, you "Couldn't stop watching this video, and couldn't stop agreeing with it!" Don't act like this was always about ideas. But I do agree with it! The idea that is. And I think the story is cute. I haven't donated to it. I wouldn't donate to it (before this and after this discussion). I mean, yeah, you two have thoroughly made me doubt a SIMPLE plan of action, but that doesn't mean I believed it prior to talking to you. But I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I agree with the idea, and I don't really think it could ever translate directly into practical action (in the way it was demonstrated).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
