People, particularly those in antifeminist and/or MRA circles, have decried the feminist movement as being full of infighting. If even feminists can't agree on their goals or methodology, why should anyone be a part of the movement? I don't want to ally myself with something that is not entirely good and pure! The fact that no movement, and indeed no person, is without fault, seems to elude these people.
The really weird thing is that I've seen feminists take the same position on this issue. They believe that feminists have to unify in order to be taken seriously. Any hint of disagreement within the movement is seen as a weakness, which must be crushed in order to further the end goal of women's rights.
I agree with this to some extent. If the so-called infighting has devolved to name-calling and screaming, then we need to shove it aside and focus on our common goal of aiding women. But here's the thing. I don't think we've reached that point. What you call infighting, I call legitimate descent. Disagreement is absolutely vital to a movement which does not wish to be caught in an echo chamber full of groupthink. A group which shoves aside the personal feelings of its members in favor of furthering the greater good. This kind of unity is purely superficial, and not sustainable. We must all argue our points so that actual unity can be attained. If evidence is brought fourth in reasoned debate, then everyone within the movement will reach the same conclusions of their own accord.
Further, feminism is broadly defined as a movement which seeks to elevate women to standards that men have already achieved. This, in turn, will help other minority groups rise to similar levels in their respective contexts. But, given the relative youth of feminism compared to other social advocacy movements, there is still a great deal of discussion within it over how exactly we achieve our stated goal. I have some of my own thoughts on that, which you can take a look at here. However, I welcome disagreement, because only through debate and reasoned discussion can we reach real, sustainable unity.
Just something to think about.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Monday, August 3, 2015
The Lesser of Two Evils
I've heard a lot of people, particularly on the left, who have become disillusioned by the political process, and thus have ceased the practice of voting. I think there are a host of legitimate reasons to take this position. However, the most common one I hear is not. I'd like to talk about that today.
The way I hear this point summed up most commonly is that the political candidates are all the same. the Democratic party has become conservative. they're center-left, of course, but they exhibit the same kind of corporatism that their opposition in the Republican party does. This is true to some extent. After all, President Obama made ninety percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is a profoundly conservative move, proof of which can be found here.
Events like these will often lead the above disenfranchised people to say something along the lines of, "That's why I stopped voting. I didn't want to keep electing the lesser of two evils."
Do I even need to explain the problem with this argument? It's the fucking lesser of two evils. Someone is going to be elected no matter what happens. One person not voting isn't going to change that. In fact, not voting is probably the worst thing you can do if you want to send a message. The whole point of democracy is that the people must have a way to send a message to their elected representative. You know how we send those messages? We fucking vote. That's how you affect change, by electing candidates who have views that will better the nation. But sometimes boring establishment people win the nomination. Sometimes the choices aren't radical enough. You know what we do then? We vote for the lesser of two evils. As I said, someone's gonna get elected either way, it might as well be the person closest to the correct one, especially if the precisely correct one is nowhere to be found.
Just something to think about.
The way I hear this point summed up most commonly is that the political candidates are all the same. the Democratic party has become conservative. they're center-left, of course, but they exhibit the same kind of corporatism that their opposition in the Republican party does. This is true to some extent. After all, President Obama made ninety percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is a profoundly conservative move, proof of which can be found here.
Events like these will often lead the above disenfranchised people to say something along the lines of, "That's why I stopped voting. I didn't want to keep electing the lesser of two evils."
Do I even need to explain the problem with this argument? It's the fucking lesser of two evils. Someone is going to be elected no matter what happens. One person not voting isn't going to change that. In fact, not voting is probably the worst thing you can do if you want to send a message. The whole point of democracy is that the people must have a way to send a message to their elected representative. You know how we send those messages? We fucking vote. That's how you affect change, by electing candidates who have views that will better the nation. But sometimes boring establishment people win the nomination. Sometimes the choices aren't radical enough. You know what we do then? We vote for the lesser of two evils. As I said, someone's gonna get elected either way, it might as well be the person closest to the correct one, especially if the precisely correct one is nowhere to be found.
Just something to think about.
Censorship and Jerry Seinfeld
I recently went to see Jerry Seinfeld perform a comedy show. I thought he was excellent, and I was also a huge fan of his television show. His comedy matters to me.
That's why I was rather nonplussed when he said that he would no longer perform at colleges, given that they are too politically correct, or 'PC.' Here's the thing that weirded me out about that. Jerry's comedy isn't fucking edgey. He does observational humor, and I would've felt comfortable taking my kid to that show. It baffles me that anyone would be offended by any of his jokes.
In light of that, there are two distinct possibilities, two collections of events that could have transpired which caused him to make that decision. Either somebody got pissed at a joke that he made based on a misunderstanding of the material. That is to say, someone became angry over subtext in a joke, when said subtext was not intended. I will concede that this is plausible, but again, the material that he used at the show I attended was in no way offensive. I find it exceedingly unlikely that any rational, thinking person would ever describe him as being 'non-PC.' But maybe the material he used at the college was different from that which he used at my show. I have no way of knowing that.
Which leads me to what I consider to be the more likely possibility. Jerry Seinfeld is a sniveling, whining little asshole. By that, I mean that his joke didn't land, and he got pissed about it. Then he went out of his way to blame anyone but himself for the failure he committed.
Look, let me be clear. I do not agree with censorship in any form, least of all in the context of a comedy show. The jokes that a comedian tells are not necessarily indicative of his real feelings on a subject. His persona onstage is merely an act, intended to illicit laughter from the audience. It cannot be offensive, in my view, because it is comedy. If the humor employed by shock-value comedians like Daniel Tosh offends you, then it is your responsibility to avoid that sort of humor. You cannot force a comic to change his act. You can educate, and engage in constructive debate, but if he chooses to ignore your suggestions, then that is completely within his right. He has a right to peddle the sort of product that he wants, to the market demographic he desires. If that demo does not include you, then suck it up and deal. No one is forcing you to listen to comedians you don't like.
But, in a way, the same goes for comedians. It's still about personal responsibility. If a joke you make onstage doesn't land, it is his responsibility to evaluate why. He must place the blame on himself, and examine his material from a logical standpoint. If he discovers flaws in his act, he can change them to appeal to a broader subset of people. And if he wants to keep pleasing his current audience, that's fine too. But in the context of entertainment, my original point still stands. Both parties are personally responsible for their own actions.
Just something to think about.
That's why I was rather nonplussed when he said that he would no longer perform at colleges, given that they are too politically correct, or 'PC.' Here's the thing that weirded me out about that. Jerry's comedy isn't fucking edgey. He does observational humor, and I would've felt comfortable taking my kid to that show. It baffles me that anyone would be offended by any of his jokes.
In light of that, there are two distinct possibilities, two collections of events that could have transpired which caused him to make that decision. Either somebody got pissed at a joke that he made based on a misunderstanding of the material. That is to say, someone became angry over subtext in a joke, when said subtext was not intended. I will concede that this is plausible, but again, the material that he used at the show I attended was in no way offensive. I find it exceedingly unlikely that any rational, thinking person would ever describe him as being 'non-PC.' But maybe the material he used at the college was different from that which he used at my show. I have no way of knowing that.
Which leads me to what I consider to be the more likely possibility. Jerry Seinfeld is a sniveling, whining little asshole. By that, I mean that his joke didn't land, and he got pissed about it. Then he went out of his way to blame anyone but himself for the failure he committed.
Look, let me be clear. I do not agree with censorship in any form, least of all in the context of a comedy show. The jokes that a comedian tells are not necessarily indicative of his real feelings on a subject. His persona onstage is merely an act, intended to illicit laughter from the audience. It cannot be offensive, in my view, because it is comedy. If the humor employed by shock-value comedians like Daniel Tosh offends you, then it is your responsibility to avoid that sort of humor. You cannot force a comic to change his act. You can educate, and engage in constructive debate, but if he chooses to ignore your suggestions, then that is completely within his right. He has a right to peddle the sort of product that he wants, to the market demographic he desires. If that demo does not include you, then suck it up and deal. No one is forcing you to listen to comedians you don't like.
But, in a way, the same goes for comedians. It's still about personal responsibility. If a joke you make onstage doesn't land, it is his responsibility to evaluate why. He must place the blame on himself, and examine his material from a logical standpoint. If he discovers flaws in his act, he can change them to appeal to a broader subset of people. And if he wants to keep pleasing his current audience, that's fine too. But in the context of entertainment, my original point still stands. Both parties are personally responsible for their own actions.
Just something to think about.
Drugs
There's been something of a shift among progressive circles recently, and now many popular figures on the left are advocating for the abolition of prohibition. That is to say, they are in favor of the legalization, or at least the decriminalization, of all drugs. Their primary argument is that the cost of prohibition is exceedingly expensive, and that the sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenses are so long as to ruin people's lives. And, near as I can tell, both of those things are objectively factual. Further, anti-prohibitionists claim that, by legalizing, taxing, and regulating substances, we would take power away from violent cartels and ensure that the substances circulating are safe and nonfatal.
Here is a Web site which contains data about the drug war and determines that a progressive drug policy is the best fix for the problems outlined above.
The argument against is that drugs are not good for you. At least, that's one argument I hear from both the opposing left as well as the right. This is a bullshit argument, of course. Hamburgers are not good for you, should we criminalize those? If you want to criminalize something, you must take into account a whole lot more than whether it is or is not 'good for you,' whatever the fuck that even means. Snatching away and criminalizing everything that might possibly be bad for some segment of the population is, as outlined above, expensive as hell. It also needlessly ruins people's lives, and often ends up causing way more harm than it prevents.
Are there some drugs that are so harmful that they are worth the cost, both monetarily and otherwise, of criminalization? Perhaps. But the mere fact that something is unhealthy is not enough reason to ban it entirely.
Just something to think about.
Here is a Web site which contains data about the drug war and determines that a progressive drug policy is the best fix for the problems outlined above.
The argument against is that drugs are not good for you. At least, that's one argument I hear from both the opposing left as well as the right. This is a bullshit argument, of course. Hamburgers are not good for you, should we criminalize those? If you want to criminalize something, you must take into account a whole lot more than whether it is or is not 'good for you,' whatever the fuck that even means. Snatching away and criminalizing everything that might possibly be bad for some segment of the population is, as outlined above, expensive as hell. It also needlessly ruins people's lives, and often ends up causing way more harm than it prevents.
Are there some drugs that are so harmful that they are worth the cost, both monetarily and otherwise, of criminalization? Perhaps. But the mere fact that something is unhealthy is not enough reason to ban it entirely.
Just something to think about.
What Exactly is Feminism?
Feminism is kind of a new movement, and its definition is rather nebulous. The way that I define feminism, and the definition that I think others agree on, is this. "Feminism aims to achieve equality for everyone by raising women to the standards that men have already achieved." That's a good starting place, but it raises a good number of questions. Namely, how the fuck do we do that? We know that women need to be elevated. The playing field needs to be evened out, but there's a lot of discussion, even in feminist circles, about how exactly that ought to be done.
Well, I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring. Here's a breakdown of what feminism means to me:
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, I'm trans-inclusionary. This is a point of contention among feminists, with one camp claiming that feminism is about protecting 'real women,' whatever the fuck that means. In my opinion, if you identify as a women, that's what you are. And, let's be frank with each other, trans people are still oppressed, as are women. That's a shame, but it is also true. Some would even argue that trans women are even more disadvantaged than cis women. I'm against turning oppression into a competition, of course, but I'm also inclined to agree. There are several states where employers can refuse to hire trans individuals simply because of their gender identity, and that needs to stop. Feminism has to be intersectional, and work to further the standing of all women.
I'm pro-choice. I think that most feminists agree on this point, but there are some people who believe that abortion is akin to murder. This is crap. That came out a little more bluntly than I intended, but I stand by the sentiment. Before viability, a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells. So is hair, and no one gets lynched for exfoliating. Further, the fetus feeds off of nutrients that is gathered by the mother. Until viability, it is virtually indistinguishable from a tape-worm. But perhaps that's a flimsy argument. Most pro-life people claim that abortion robs the world of potential geniuses. 'What if we aborted the person who would eventually go on to cure cancer,' they say. I'd like to take a moment to correct this. Children who receive the sort of education and support required to cure cancer are not raised by parents who consider getting abortions. Abortion ought to be available for everyone, but only people who would be unable to provide for a child take advantage of it. It's as simple as that.
Finally, I'm sex-positive. This is an easy one, and it ties into an old pro-choice argument. What someone else does with their body is none of your fucking business, nor is it mine. It doesn't matter if people want to fuck, or get abortions, or get tattoos. Just back off, man. Be cool. Also, and this is the biggest reason, sex-negativity encourages the proliferation of abstinence-only sex education, which is provably ineffectual.
So, yeah. That's my personal brand of feminism, and it's the direction I think the movement as a whole ought to be going in. But I'm always open to hearing and discussing new opinions, so if you disagree, tell me.
Just something to think about.
Well, I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring. Here's a breakdown of what feminism means to me:
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, I'm trans-inclusionary. This is a point of contention among feminists, with one camp claiming that feminism is about protecting 'real women,' whatever the fuck that means. In my opinion, if you identify as a women, that's what you are. And, let's be frank with each other, trans people are still oppressed, as are women. That's a shame, but it is also true. Some would even argue that trans women are even more disadvantaged than cis women. I'm against turning oppression into a competition, of course, but I'm also inclined to agree. There are several states where employers can refuse to hire trans individuals simply because of their gender identity, and that needs to stop. Feminism has to be intersectional, and work to further the standing of all women.
I'm pro-choice. I think that most feminists agree on this point, but there are some people who believe that abortion is akin to murder. This is crap. That came out a little more bluntly than I intended, but I stand by the sentiment. Before viability, a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells. So is hair, and no one gets lynched for exfoliating. Further, the fetus feeds off of nutrients that is gathered by the mother. Until viability, it is virtually indistinguishable from a tape-worm. But perhaps that's a flimsy argument. Most pro-life people claim that abortion robs the world of potential geniuses. 'What if we aborted the person who would eventually go on to cure cancer,' they say. I'd like to take a moment to correct this. Children who receive the sort of education and support required to cure cancer are not raised by parents who consider getting abortions. Abortion ought to be available for everyone, but only people who would be unable to provide for a child take advantage of it. It's as simple as that.
Finally, I'm sex-positive. This is an easy one, and it ties into an old pro-choice argument. What someone else does with their body is none of your fucking business, nor is it mine. It doesn't matter if people want to fuck, or get abortions, or get tattoos. Just back off, man. Be cool. Also, and this is the biggest reason, sex-negativity encourages the proliferation of abstinence-only sex education, which is provably ineffectual.
So, yeah. That's my personal brand of feminism, and it's the direction I think the movement as a whole ought to be going in. But I'm always open to hearing and discussing new opinions, so if you disagree, tell me.
Just something to think about.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Are Babies Atheists?
I've seen an info-graphic circulating around the Web recently, particularly in atheist spaces. It depicts an infant, and then below that, the words: 'you don't become an atheist. You go back to being one.'
That statement is clearly meant to imply that, since babies have no concept of a god, they must be atheists. Hence, you go back to being one.
This is a bullshit claim, and it doesn't take very long to refute. So let's do that right now. Say it with me, "LOW HANGING FRUIT!"
Babies aren't atheists for the same reason that proponents of the above theory claim that they are. I know that sounds weird, and it is, but just bear with me for a minute. This'll all make sense in time. Atheism as a viewpoint is entirely dependent upon theism to exist. That is to say, if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. The only reason that atheists are able to reject theistic claims is because we were introduced to them first. Without the concept of a deity imparted to us, we would never know how to refute said claims, nor would there be a reason for us to do so.
That's why babies don't meet the definition of atheism. Atheists lack a belief in God, but babies do not. It is impossible for them to make any decisions about their theological positions because they have no context on which to base those decisions. It would perhaps be accurate to state that babies are secular, as in wholly nonreligious, but they are not atheistic. They can't be, because they don't know who or what God is yet.
Just something to think about.
That statement is clearly meant to imply that, since babies have no concept of a god, they must be atheists. Hence, you go back to being one.
This is a bullshit claim, and it doesn't take very long to refute. So let's do that right now. Say it with me, "LOW HANGING FRUIT!"
Babies aren't atheists for the same reason that proponents of the above theory claim that they are. I know that sounds weird, and it is, but just bear with me for a minute. This'll all make sense in time. Atheism as a viewpoint is entirely dependent upon theism to exist. That is to say, if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. The only reason that atheists are able to reject theistic claims is because we were introduced to them first. Without the concept of a deity imparted to us, we would never know how to refute said claims, nor would there be a reason for us to do so.
That's why babies don't meet the definition of atheism. Atheists lack a belief in God, but babies do not. It is impossible for them to make any decisions about their theological positions because they have no context on which to base those decisions. It would perhaps be accurate to state that babies are secular, as in wholly nonreligious, but they are not atheistic. They can't be, because they don't know who or what God is yet.
Just something to think about.
Walking on Eggshells: A Poem
These eggshells are land-mines,
concealed under layers of dirt
and halfhearted apologies.
they tread carefully, not daring
to disturb the centuries of ink
That were spilled to sculpt the skyline.
These eggshells are land-mines
And I don’t dare move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)