Originally Posted by
inumbra
then why bother responding to me as though i am unaware of the gender politics? as you said, you don't know! seriously.
i kind of find it insulting to make assumptions about what individual people might know or not know based upon where they are from. that's why i don't even consider the question of where they're from all that important in this context. i've encountered people who are not from the US who seem to know a lot more about US matters than a lot of people who are from the US - for example. people are firstly, individuals.
you still seem to not understand that one can dislike this video without disagreeing that some of the issues it's hitting upon are problems that society needs to address? i was criticizing the video; not necessarily criticizing what the video itself is criticizing. there is a difference. it's not about mind-reading... it's just logic, basically. you know i'm criticizing the video--that's clear from my posts. there isn't enough in my posts to tell you precisely what about the topics the video addresses that i might or might not be criticizing (aside from not liking the idea of singling out men to give them a lesson in not raping). but you responded to me as though i am a) unaware of the gender inequality in (US or western) society that the video is responding to, and b) may disagree with its "rhetoric" at least to the extent that you need to say things along these lines (i could be wrong about this one). as you said, you are not a mind reader. so don't act like one?
granted, i am personally over feminism as i said, and want a new way... i recently realized that i don't identify really as a gender at all and i can finally see a new way of transcending the entire question of gender for myself. after this "revelation," feminism seems lacking to me... i want a complete picture. i know that this differs from the goals of the inequality movement which focuses more on raising those groups that through the structures in society have been unfairly disadvantaged in one way or another. and i largely support that, but my focus and interest has drifted elsewhere. and that aside, i have no interest in taking digs at groups in a way that will treat the individuals who belong to those groups (through no fault of their own) as though they are personally guilty of every wrong attributed to that group - e.g. men = rapists - because at the bottom of these groups, there are simply individuals. none of us can help these categories and which ones we have the misfortune of belonging to. changing the structures and systems in society to balance out inequality: great. targeting people for their membership in any group, taking digs at the groups in a way that individuals in them will be harmed: awful.
eta: at the heart of the inequality movement, i think, is a goal to be unbiased against individuals on the basis of their membership in one or more groups. giving men special "don't rape" classes is a way of being biased against individual men on the basis of their membership in the group '(heterosexual) males.' this is no worse than blaming a female victim of rape for what she was wearing, or for not taking particular precautions. the difference is that her unprivileged status as being a member of the group 'women' leads to looking at what she did wrong that led to this tragedy. people belonging to unprivileged groups unfortunately are not as likely to be given the benefit of the doubt... where as those belonging to privileged groups are allowed that (for them, the biases in the minds of the average citizen may allow for considering how the conditions or situation that person was in contributed to their fate - rather than blaming them for failure or misfortune).
Reply With Quote
