Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Passion Projects

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#81

Post by mlent »

lutusp wrote: post #76
naradaellis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument. Is a woman who is born into a culture with female genital mutilation, or forced arranged marriage "cooperating in their own oppression"? Both of these acts can occur at young ages.

> I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument. With respect to the topic of women who cooperate in their own oppression, they aren't victims, and no one is blaming them. Would you blame someone for choosing a lifestyle that didn't suit your personal tastes? No? Then we lose the right to "blame" women for making the choices they do. This is what personal freedom means -- the right to make choices others may di…

> Consider the all-too-common example in which a woman, removed from one abusive relationship, promptly seeks out another. How is that "forced"?

That is a really poor example of women being instruments in their own oppression. In cases like that, women are likely suffering from internalized problems that result from patriarchy -- such as a desire to be dominated, to fit into the patriarchal framework, to fill out the role of the victim that they are told is their identity. Sure, some choice is involved, but it's more like Stockholm Syndrome than "I think I fancy having the living daylights beat out of me today."

My much less dramatic example is a woman who claims that she doesn't enjoy the company of other women, finds them to be too catty or bitchy, would rather hang out with men, etc. Commonly, this woman is seeking the approval of her male peers at the expense of...basically all women ever. She wants to come off as a "pretty tomboy" -- 'cool' enough to be one of the guys, but also conforming to sexist expectations about her appearance. This is obviously a stereotype, but I personally encounter it a lot. How can anyone truly respect women when their own kind are debasing them left and right?

> Real liberation will come, not when women are given the rights they deserve, but when they accept them.

I don't think I even need to explain how absurd this statement is. I'll agree that women are part of the problem in fighting for women's rights, but frankly I see and experience sexism far too often to be so dismissive.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#82

Post by mlent »

hnacc10 wrote: post #72
mlent wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perspective is this: people write the dictionary just like people write any other book. It's not the end-all-be-all of any word. There are probably many sources on sexism that agree with me, and many that do not. It goes without saying, such is the nature of a controversial subject. I am not trying to be sarcastic here: Have you read any books on sexism or feminism? Because realistically, I think it's hard to grok…

"Have you read any books on sexism or feminism?" Books written by women for women examined at female studies classes at Universities which host Women's Centers? See what's wrong with this picture? It's very one sided. Egalitarianism would benefit greatly from having the male point of view in these gender-based studies. You will however find a very small percentage of men compared to women in these courses. If you act…

It is a fallacy to say that you cannot say that just because a woman wrote a book about women that it is inherently going to be incorrect. What about every other class at the university? Books written by men for men examined in classes about men. Historically, every other subject has been that one-sided.

Personally, I know just as many male feminists as I do female feminists, and several of the former are Gender and Women's Studies (GWS) majors or minors.

I'd love it if all students were required to take a GWS class. I'd love it if more male voices were engaged in the feminist discourse. We need more male voices in the feminist discourse. But frankly, it is easier to stick with the straw man argument "feminism is about hating men, going against nature, or being a lesbian!" rather than reading a wide range of literature that discusses its true goal: ending sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. Should be something we can all get behind...

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#83

Post by hnacc10 »

mlent wrote: post #82
hnacc10 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have you read any books on sexism or feminism?" Books written by women for women examined at female studies classes at Universities which host Women's Centers? See what's wrong with this picture? It's very one sided. Egalitarianism would benefit greatly from having the male point of view in these gender-based studies. You will however find a very small percentage of men compared to women in these courses. If you act…

It is a fallacy to say that you cannot say that just because a woman wrote a book about women that it is inherently going to be incorrect. What about every other class at the university? Books written by men for men examined in classes about men. Historically, every other subject has been that one-sided. Personally, I know just as many male feminists as I do female feminists, and several of the former are Gender and…

I said books written by women for women, not just ABOUT women. These books examine relations between the two sexes and society in general. If you have primarily 50% of the population writing these books to examine society then yes, it is a fallacy and it is a distortion of reality.

This very much differs from subjects like physics or math or biology, written primarily by men. It doesn't matter who writes these books, they are science based, based on logic and facts.

This differs entirely from gender relation based books, which are based on observations. Again, if you primarily have one sex leading the discussion and writing books about observations (NOT science) then it is a distortion of reality.

As such, you now believe that sexism can only be done by men, and other ignorant statements. The problem is now that you TRULY in your heart believe this, because you were told over and over that all the problems which face you are a result of patriarchy and that women can't possibly be sexist against men! This goes against what has been ingrained in your brain, and you've never had any opposition to this naive idea until now, so it will be difficult for you to accept.

Yes, there are many male feminists which actually believe some of the things which you say, but why wouldn't there be? Feminism is a now long-established and UNCHALLENGED institution. Of course there will be men who will be feminists.

All students should definitely not be required to take any GWS classes. First off the problem is in the name already, Gender and Women's Studies. Already biased. Gender implies that women are a part of that gender. Make it simply Gender Studies or call it Gender and Women's and Men's studies.

Until there is a shift in attitudes and Gender Studies actually moves closer to reality, no one should be required to take such classes. There should be simple encouragement for men, however, to attend these classes to dispel decades of myth and ignorance.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#84

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

jessedhillon wrote: post #80
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Fortunately I wasn't talking about me, just men victims of rape. And doesn't matter if they follow my logic or not, we are discussing what's right, not the logic of the organizers of such meetings.

If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly that it actually corresponds to truth.

Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#85

Post by jessedhillon »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #84
jessedhillon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly that it actually corresponds to truth.

Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?

I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith. And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains: a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in, and so I really have to wonder in what sense you think this argument is true. Presumably because it exhibits logical consistency, which by itself is irrelevant (cf bounded rationality)

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#86

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

jessedhillon wrote: post #85
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?

I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith. And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains: a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe…

> a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in

Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in.

And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some about violence or abusive relationships in general.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#87

Post by jessedhillon »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #86
jessedhillon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith. And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains: a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe…

> a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in. And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some abou…

You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no female-only rape survivor groups.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#88

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

jessedhillon wrote: post #87
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in. And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some abou…

You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no female-only rape survivor groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#89

Post by jessedhillon »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #88
jessedhillon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no female-only rape survivor groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.

It's not as hominem to say that you do not have facts. Moreover, I already said that being logically correct is not my aim. Your argument lacks relevance or informedness, so you can make as many valid points as you want, your words simply have no correlation to reality.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#90

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

jessedhillon wrote: post #89
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.

It's not as hominem to say that you do not have facts. Moreover, I already said that being logically correct is not my aim. Your argument lacks relevance or informedness, so you can make as many valid points as you want, your words simply have no correlation to reality.

Correlation with reality? If I wanted to speak the news I would become an anchorman. Most people here is discussing how things _should_ be and how that could become a reality.

And say what you want, Im pretty sure white female rape-victims is not a valid meet up.

Post reply on HN