261
262

Stay on target (i.imgur.com)

ac-80 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]kantbot 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (42子コメント)

Social Justice is the real issue, it's naive to think otherwise, or maybe you just haven't been paying attention over the last few years. It's all about control and power. Over the last decade technology, video games and the internet have developed into huge industries and there has been a concerted effort to check their increasing cultural and political independence with articles like this. That isn't Kotaku, it's the New York Times, and people who try to keep this about 'journalistic ethics' are off the mark I'm afraid.

[–]kamon123 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (41子コメント)

When gamergate started you would be the top comment.

[–]kantbot 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (40子コメント)

I imagine it's like what happened to /r/tia, there's a lot of anxiety among certain groups of younger, more politically 'savvy' sorts to embrace radical moderation or 'centrism.' There's a meme that goes "the right has moved farther to the right in recent years while the more reasonable left has remained closer to the center," I've never been a fan of that sort of thing because the other possibility never occurs to people, that it's the middle that's changed positions.

Appeals to moderation have been used very successfully elsewhere, in subs like /r/tia to neuter criticism of Social Justice and Feminism. The 'crazies' on /r/tia aren't 'real Feminists,' and all the sociological concepts and constructions of progressivism must ultimately be upheld by any rational person as completely valid. If you disagree, if you see SJWs not as a cause, but as a symptom, if you understand them, like morbidly obese individuals gorged on fast food, not as moral agents but as moral consumers of a toxic ideology, you are not sufficiently moderate.

Social justice is a poisonous ideology that has had a negative impact on our world beyond games journalism over the last decade or so. As Schlegel said, "moderation is the spirit of castrated narrow-mindedness".

[–]kamon123 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (39子コメント)

Mind helping me in the comments fellow old school TiAer. I'm all alone in here with 2 or 3 users. They can't seem to handle I'm fine with feminist reviews but not sjw ones. Also this post is front page next to another call to moderation post.

[–]kantbot 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (38子コメント)

I don't think most Feminists are 'real' Feminists. Their beliefs don't really go beyond nebulous statements like "men and women are equal." I don't think women were ever really 'oppressed' by men, I think that's a false, entirely subjective narrative and one could easily construct a theory of the matriarchy and say that men have been socialized throughout history to sacrifice for the comfort of women. Neither narrative is ultimately more or less true than the other, both are subjective narratizations of historical content.

In truth I think most men throughout history are 'feminists,' in the sense that they all loved and cherished and treated very well the women in their lives. A Feminist to me is something else, TERFs, for example are 'true' Feminists in my eyes, because they carry the theoretical dogmas of philosophical Feminism to their logical conclusion.

It's like Jacobi's point about Enlightenment Rationalism inevitably collapsing into nihilistic solipsism.

[–]Mr_Shine 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (30子コメント)

...I don't think women were ever really 'oppressed' by men, I think that's a false, entirely subjective narrative...

What is this

I don't even

What

Women not being able to inherit property, wealth, businesses or political titles throughout much of history? They couldn't vote or hold office for the first 150 years of the United States' existence?

Please expand on what you've stated here, I feel like you've left out some very critical details of your post or simply misspoke.

[–]KngpinOfColonProduce [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Sorry for this long post.

Women not being able to inherit property, wealth, businesses or political titles throughout much of history

This is false. A single woman could own wealth, property, and businesses. This was called feme sole. By coverture, if a woman married, these rights and responsibilities would fall on her husband. The man held sole legal responsibility for providing for himself, for his wife, and for his children. It makes sense that if he is forced to provide, that he has the right to control the means of provision.

Moreover, sons used to usually inherit more/all property because of these same responsibilities. Men needed a means of provision for their family. Women were not interested in men with nothing. These men would then use their property to fulfill their sole responsibilities to their family.

Women did not need property because they could get a husband while not owning any. And they could find a husband with wealth and property, because of this inheritance system, so they really did not need it.

Why would you leave your daughters your wealth when they could already find a husband with wealth, while your sons needed it or else they would become poor and not be able to find a wife?

As far as women serving in political positions, were there actually laws stating women couldn't be politicians? Serious question. I'm sure it varies across countries. However, at least in many places historically, few women have been political leaders for the same reason that few became scientists. Women were not forced to provide and to make a name for themselves, so not many went out of their way to work hard when they didn't have to.

Do you really think a man who was forced to work 12 hours a day in a coal mine, and died earlier, was more oppressed than his wife? Among slaves, to make an analogy, remember that it was the house slaves that were the privileged ones.

As for voting, there are multiple problems with this. Governments have been around for many thousands of years. Voting "rights" are recent in history, have generally been given slowly, and have been related to military responsibility.

Historically, there is a huge tie between voting and service in the military. The argument for poor people included the fact that they had to go to war. Blacks, when they wanted the vote, first signed up for military service, just so they could be considered for full citizenship rights. The voting age was lowered because of its tie to military service. In 1918, SCOTUS ruled that military service was tied to citizenship.

Two years later, women got the vote. No military service. The service requirement evaporated.

In Britain, the male poor finally got votes after giving military service over the vast majority of human governmental history. Then women got universal suffrage ten years later, with no military service or other special responsibilities to the state.

In Canada, some women were first given the vote because of their military service.

Why aren't women forced to sign up for selective service? Rights are supposed to be tied to responsibilities. Why don't you say men were oppressed because we have always been forced into drafts during government conflicts, while women can sit on their asses?

Finally, why is not being able to vote oppression? This sounds like a stupid question, but that's because of a racial connection that we should untangle. Also, note I am not saying women should not be able to vote. We used to live in societies that gave men rights and (extreme!) responsibilities that women did not have. This has changed.

Let's look at this racial analogy (we'll look at the US, as I'm less familiar with other countries). When blacks couldn't vote (and for some time after!), we could reasonably say they were oppressed, because legally and socially they were not protected and were held to harsher standards than whites. Now, in addition, one could absolutely say that voting was part of this oppression. This is because their interests were not being heard of upheld in Congress, and voting would have helped change this.

What about women? There seems to be this hidden assumption that only men voting or only men being in political power harms women. But how so? Women are favored and protected. Look at the Women are Wonderful effect, or at chivalry. I don't see why a few men in power, or a few/lot of men voting, would work to benefit all men at the expense of all women. This is something you have to demonstrate if you want to say this was somehow oppression of women.

Again, I am not saying women should not vote. However, since they now have rights, they need to take on male role responsibilities; whether that be going to prison for equal time for the same crime, working full time so husbands can be at home more often, or signing up for selective service.

Edit: clarity, grammar, removed a couple of claims I wasn't sure about.

[–]reversememe -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

How many years after the United States' founding could the average man on the street vote? How long until men without property could? How long until men who weren't white could?

[–]thesoupwillriseagain 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Oppression of the poor and minorities doesn't negate the oppression of women.

[–]kantbot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It wasn't oppression though is the point. Like Fukuyama you're arguing from the premise that neoliberal, universal suffrage democracy is derived, in idea, as the historically inevitable, ultimate end of political and moral development. This modern condition in which we presently find ourselves can not be used as a universal standard however under which all other places and time periods are to be objectively judged.

A wealthy medieval master cooper wasn't oppressed because he couldn't vote, it wasn't an issue, the socio-political framework in which he participated was constituted differently so as to make his inability to elect a president utterly irrelevant to his status and liberty within the world in which he actually lived.

In the same way you must be careful in inferring the 'oppression' of women from their inability to vote as your conception of the role of voting in the exercise of freedom is not universal.

[–]nosewings 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A wealthy medieval master cooper wasn't oppressed because he couldn't vote, it wasn't an issue, the socio-political framework in which he participated was constituted differently so as to make his inability to elect a president utterly irrelevant to his status and liberty within the world in which he actually lived.

And then Marx came along.

[–]JaronK -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yet at the time, a woman could not be a medieval master cooper either. Women have been kept out of the halls of power for century after century, with only a bare few counterexamples (usually caused by a complete lack of any male heir or similar).

[–]reversememe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And it doesn't negate the oppression of men, or the biased family laws they have been subject to for a century and a half.

[–]thesoupwillriseagain 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure you can see how saying "oppression of men" is applying "oppression of poor and minorities" a bit too broadly.

And given that the comment /u/Mr_Shine made was also talking about laws regarding inheritance of property, wealth, and titles, the "biased family laws" you mentioned were actually biased in favor of men.

[–]kantbot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

18 year olds got the vote after women, were they oppressed?

[–]reversememe 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They were when they were asked at 18 to fight in a war they had no say in until 21.

[–]OpinionKid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

In other words the oppression of other minorities completely negates the oppression of woman. That doesn't make any fucking sense, you're guilty of false equivalency here. Nobody is worth more, the oppression of all minorities is important and as such ignoring the oppression of woman for your radical crazy ideas is weird.

Woman were oppressed and we still have effort to do. Same with a lot of other minorities. I'd say we have a lot to do for African Americans or LGBTQ, etc.

[–]kantbot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Or maybe nobody was oppressed for being denied the vote in societies that didn't share our contemporary political values.

Historically, also, I think homosexuals have probably disproportionally been "on the top of society," that is often how "Patriarchy" is defined by Feminists, as a system where women are oppressed because men are disproportionally "on the top." Does this mean that homosexuals have been oppressing straight people throughout history, does it mean that the FBI under Hoover was a tool of homosexual oppression? No. Which goes to show you how convoluted and inconsistent all this sociological silliness is.

[–]OpinionKid -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Historically, also, I think homosexuals have probably disproportionally been "on the top of society," that is often

inb4 you say the same thing about the Jews. You realize the Holocaust happened right? You realize homosexual teenagers kill themselves due to bullying? In fact interesting statistic I read somewhere on this same note about how you're dead wrong on how society treats LGBT people, there is a disproportionate amount of homeless LGBT youth. Isn't that awful?

I'm convinced you're a troll, if you aren't we just aren't going to see eye to eye politically. I'm always up for engaging in a conversation and it's hard for me to know when to stop.

[–]Mr_Shine -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

By the civil war for all three, though with a big ol asterisk for former slaves, due to all the shenanigans by various local laws or state ones that were designed to minimize or entirely suppress their ability.

However, this just means that men who weren't white or didn't own property were oppressed as well.

[–]kantbot -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm not a big fan of your histrionic style, all the "what!? I can't even!" stuff is really tiresome SJW bullshit.

Anyway, you're missing the point. A historical narrative has two parts, like any narrative, there's objective content and subjective form, that is, the negative relationship in which the parts or matter of the story stand to one another. As Schiller said, concepts are "pure logical form," abstracted from every particular.

You're right, factually, that, for example, women couldn't vote, in the United States, preceding the modern development of the political philosophy of universal suffrage, one-person-one-vote style socialized democracy. That piece of matter is but one single bit of content in your narrative, where you're generalizing and arriving at this abstract, subjective narrative archetype or form through which to conceptualize human history.

I don't believe that there has been any progress with regards to 'gender equality,' I think that gender relations are largely static over longer periods of time and that men and women both occupy the same position socially, relative to one another, as they did during the 18th century.

To give you an example, you might claim that women were denied the 'right' to work and that Feminism came in and allowed them to achieve their Madison avenue fantasies of wealth and Mad Men style success. I think that's a historically reductionist way of looking at the matter. I believe that women have always worked and contributed equally. Today we have the stereotype of the 1950s bored housewife and we go too far in projecting that back in time to the 18th century.

Consider the character of Theresa from Goethe's Wilhelm Meister, traditionally the family has always been a sort of business, and the woman was the manager. We're not talking about housewives here, but business women who managed valuable and complex estates. During the 20th century technology and urbanization obsoleted the sort of high-economic-mobility, bourgeois letter writing economy of the 18th and 19th centuries. The nature of work changed, it started happening outside of the home, in office buildings and the like. Domestic technology meanwhile obsoleted servants and the vast majority of practices previously necessary to run a profitable household.

So here I would challenge the standard Feminist narrative where women were imprisoned house slaves and then Feminism came along and allowed them to go to work. Consider that maybe women always did work, and that their traditional roles and occupations were rendered obsolete by material changes during the 20th century. Feminism then was not the cause of women's liberation, but a way of rebranding or reconceptualizing an ongoing change as somehow deliberate or positive. Furthermore I would say that the role that women play in today's economy is the equivalent of the one they played in previous centuries, with women shifting their domestic labor to corresponding modern equivalents in the form of flexible part-time employment. Feminism in this case is more misogynistic than anything, because it uses a distinctly modern conception of work to simplify and erase women's contributions to the family business during centuries past. Having erased the work of women in this way Feminism then has the audacity to say that it allowed or permitted women to work.

Feminism liberates women in the present by enslaving the women of the past. It's that simple, and it tells history in a very specific way so as to create that sense.

Here we have two stories, which is true? Well, strictly speaking, neither, as both are subjective narratives, which is why I find your hysterical incredulity so unbecoming. Post-Modernism is nothing if not skepticism at the ability of narratization to constitute historical meaning. If I tell a story about history and you tell a story about history, how are we to mitigate between them, which are we to prioritize in the construction of our historical reality.

The answer, of course, is given in Kantianism. Were content and form are to be strictly separated and the multiplicity of competing subjective narratives set into a strict framework of universal objectivity upon whose sovereignty the subject may not ultimately infringe.

Really, one should be mindful of what the father of historicism and the founder of anthropology, Gottfried Herder said. Historical continuity is subjective, is our contemporary society really one long continuous society stretching back throughout western history unbroken? Or is every past society a society as far removed from our own as ours is from modern Islamic or Eastern societies? It's incorrect to impose our transitory political and moral fashions upon our ancestors. Gender relations are static, assuming the same basic form in every era under the particular historical and material conditions present within that era.

[–]cluelessperson 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not a big fan of your histrionic style, all the "what!? I can't even!" stuff is really tiresome SJW bullshit.

Tone policing. His tone doesn't matter if he's right - which his facts are.

The answer, of course, is given in Kantianism. Were content and form are to be strictly separated and the multiplicity of competing subjective narratives set into a strict framework of universal objectivity upon whose sovereignty the subject may not ultimately infringe.

There is no meaningful "universal objectivity." Kant is srsly outmoded dude.

So here I would challenge the standard Feminist narrative where women were imprisoned house slaves ...

Ok so this is an interesting argument, but you're fundamentally misinterpreting feminism here: Early 2nd wave feminism specifically called for the recognition of domestic labour. In addition, the idea that women's careers are basically part-time service jobs is stereotyping: Though there are patterns in that women will take more of those, a massive amount of women don't. Claiming these jobs are associable with women categorically is reductive and false. A time that was the case was 18th/19th century London, for example, however you're equating that time with purely familial domestic labour - aren't you committing the same error you're accusing feminism of here?

Feminism in this case is more misogynistic than anything, because it uses a distinctly modern conception of work to simplify and erase women's contributions to the family business during centuries past.

No. Because feminism is about the economic, social, and political equality of genders. Women in prior societies did not have political power, nor social autonomy beyond the role of motherhood in whatever family pattern was prevalent at the time. Which I'll illustrate in the following:

I think that gender relations are largely static over longer periods of time and that men and women both occupy the same position socially, relative to one another, as they did during the 18th century.

Your example essentially argues that domestic labour was labour, and that it was a socially valued and recompensed form. Going further, you argue this meant parity and fulfillment if I'm understanding correctly. Here's why you're wrong:

You're extrapolating (which you argue is heuristically valid), but there are simple counter-examples: In Renaissance Florence (more my specialty), women were systematically disempowered. Inheritence laws tightened to the point they could, if not bequeathed money explicitly by a will, basically never inherit any money. Immense dowries became commonplace, as social status was negotiated through marriage - to that end, women were married off (no agency here) as young as possible, and if they couldn't find a suitor put into a convent. In this patrilineal system, women constituted a threat to economic welfare of male lines, and were thus also culturally depicted as unreliable and fickle, thus in need of subduing (e.g. in Machiavelli's Prince: "fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her"). Virtues praised were modesty, fertility, servility - basically qualities that meant she shut the fuck up and produced babies for the male line of the family she married into and never disagreed with anyone. These qualities are even reflected in visual art of the time (any good art history book will point out these things - symbols like bibles/catechisms, clothing to denote status and/or modesty, the choice of angle indicating the purpose of the image, prevailing beauty ideals etc.)

This is one example, but there are infinitely more examples like it. The point is, women barely had agency outside of strict family confines in history. As others here point out, lower classes were also disenfranchised - but that was merely another factor for women, and one that interacted with the oppression they faced along gender lines.

It's incorrect to impose our transitory political and moral fashions upon our ancestors. Gender relations are static, assuming the same basic form in every era under the particular historical and material conditions present within that era.

Yes, but this is not about "moral standards". This is about recognising and describing a substantively different past. By ignoring it, you'd be ignoring a massive field of valuable historical enquiry.

[–]Mr_Shine -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That is some really fancy bullshit you spun there.

Let's get straight to the brass tacks though: How precisely have we not made progress in gender dynamics when previously women could not hold practically any political or economic might, but today they can hold a great deal?

[–]kantbot -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Read my post, I get the impression that you didn't read it. I get it, it feels really good to be Feminist and automatically engage in hostilities with anyone ostensibly straying from the one true faith, but get over it and open your mind a bit.

[–]Mr_Shine 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I apologize, my "bullshit" comment was unduly harsh.

What I mean to say is this: you've brought some heavy jargon and philosophical history into what I feel is a pretty straightforward discussion on the advancement of women socially, politically and economically. Your reply did not really address the plain advancement that has occurred in those areas, or how their previous state doesn't count because, and I'm perhaps grossly simplifying, "relative culture values".

Perhaps you have some readings to recommend to help me see what you're talking about?

[–]nosewings 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You see: your mode of thinking is doomed to fail. The people who should be your allies are criticising you for using big words.

[–]inthesunsetmeonfire -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

To claim that it was oppressive that women couldn't vote would have to dive into an argument about rights (a construct), and norms changing. In let's say 20 years, if kids aged 3-18 get the right to vote, would you claim that kids today suffered oppression? Probably not. Using the term oppression so liberally is undermining those who actually suffered from oppressive regimes who did things like control who they were friends with, where they spent their time, who they worked for, etc. I think that's what they mean by that accusation being such a false, subjective narrative.

[–]Mr_Shine -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

...those who actually suffered from oppressive regimes who did things like control who they were friends with, where they spent their time, who they worked for, etc. I think that's what they mean by that accusation being such a false, subjective narrative.

All those things you listed have be forced on women in various cultures, including our own in the not so distant past. Are you saying a narrative of current oppression is false and subjective? I could definitely agree that is worthy of debate and discussion. For historical purposes though, I don't think I have ever seen anyone who could make that argument.

[–]inthesunsetmeonfire 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Examples of them being forced on our own women? The ones you've listed don't fall under that category that's for sure.

[–]OpinionKid -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think women were ever really 'oppressed' by men, I think that's a false, entirely subjective narrative

I will respectfully call you on your bullshit. Have you ever studied at all? It wasn't until the early 20th century that they were allowed to vote guy. I hate your entire concept, I'm liberal and am against radicals. I'm against authoritarian ideas. I'm against SJWs. I support equality, I support inclusion and I'm a big fan of /r/tumblrinaction. I think you should take a moment to reevaluate how crazy you sound because you're entitled to think these things but I think people like you are very off base politically.

In truth I think most men throughout history are 'feminists,' in the sense that they all loved and cherished and treated very well the women in their lives.

Know nothing about History do you?

[–]namae_nanka 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It wasn't until the early 20th century that they were allowed to vote guy.

Most women got the vote a few years after men and sometimes at the same time. USA is one exception to the rule, swiss are the other. As for getting the vote, you'd find this amusing:

After much debating and argument, the result of the vote was 48-48. Burn's vote broke the tie in favor of ratifying the amendment. He asked to speak to the House the next day and told them he changed his vote because his mother asked him to and that she had always taught him that "a good boy always does what his mother asks him to do."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_T._Burn

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]AutoModerator[M] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Your link has been removed. In accordance with Rule 5, linking to other subreddits is not allowed in this sub.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–]kantbot -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It's pointless trying to have a nuanced discussion about the philosophy of history and the epistemology of narrative sometimes, "BUT THEY COULDN'T VOTE," is so often all I hear when I try to have this conversation with some people, but again, I don't think that neoliberal universal suffrage democracy is the end all be all of historical political and moral development.

    Some people can't accept that but I just don't believe that one vote = one person = freedom is in anyway a universal, a priori standard under which all historical and national circumstances are to be considered. The state is a corporation subject to conditioning by historical market forces, under the material conditions of modernity the neoliberal universal democracy emerged as the most competitive implementation of government, that does not mean that we may derive it, in idea, as the morally triumphant, universal form of government to which every people regardless of place or time should strive. That means that not being able to vote does not necessarily confer status as some horribly oppressed victims of society upon you. History is more complicated than that.

    [–]OpinionKid 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    How about pay? How about not having freedom to do what they like? How about not having freedom to marry who they please? From a Historical perspective I love the idea that we can't condemn those of a different time or place for not matching our ideas in the present. I think you're off base though.

    [–]inthesunsetmeonfire 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    These concepts are largely bigger picture, for lack of a better phrasing term, you cannot have this nuanced discussion with many because they refuse to pull back (sticking with the example of a bigger picture).

    You question certain statements that have been repeated so many times they've become 'truths', and are dismissed for questioning, or implying otherwise. You start to talk about freedoms and rights as constructs (for instance), and people start labeling you as 'crazy', as seen above. It's unfortunate, but a harsh reality that the internet, especially sites that encourage groupthink, are pretty awful places to have such discussions. I do have a question though, you mentioned elsewhere kantianism, do you have any recommended books about kantianism worth reading?