About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello?

Dustin, you have studiously avoided answering my direct and repeated offers to provide a defense of Vegetarianism from an Objectivist standpoint. I very much enjoyed the chance to express the argument, but can't help but wonder why you have shown no interest in it, given your declared positions. Please let me know if I should start ignoring your posts, or if you'd like to hear my alternative arguments on feminism. I am quite a good casuist, should you be interested.

With all due benevolence,

Ted

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, from an Objectivist standpoint, I can not offer credible defense of ethical Vegetarianism. I would, however, love to discuss Feminism.

Post 22

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
F*** Objectivistical Correctness

Dustin,

I was not interested in an Objectivist critique of my argument, but your own personal response to my Vegetarianism argument. I need your own personal feedback, even if its not Objectivistically Correct, in order to know who I am talking to. Otherwise it's like talking to a computer psychologist who just keeps saying, "And how do you feel about that?"

I am not an altruist, so I will just loose interest unless you give me at least a well-formed paragraph in response to my views in Vegetarianism 139. This is a Turing test, (first time I've ever found that concept useful) if you like. Pass it, and I'm all yours.

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 6:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, let me do my best here.

Being a "meat and potatoes guy" like you said, reminds me a lot of my father. He is an animal lover who enjoys spending time outside working, exercising, and playing sports. You and him both surprise me. You've made it clear that you have a great appreciation for nature.

Your example about the murdering of the Buffalo is a good one. I can relate this with factory farms. Millions of animals are slaughtered in them, and many die because of poor living conditions (via hysteria and disease). This is a waste of life. I suppose that my saying that means that I give animal's lives value - and I do. That doesn't make it safe to assume I would sacrifice myself for an animal, though. I wouldn't equate one animal life to one human life, but human lives are being run through cycles of slaughter for profit to create unhealthy product (fast food, most meat). I'd say that the mindless killing of any being capable of experiencing emotions is not only wasteful, but immoral. While I'm sure a vast majority of these animals "survive" until their slaughter, I choose personally not to support such an industry. Just like I wouldn't buy a train ticket supporting the company that allowed people to simply ride around and kill at will from a distance.

This raises the possibility that I'd eat animals raised in more sanitary conditions, or on a "mom and pop" type farm. This is where I weigh another factor into consideration - health. I've found that I am in the best shape of my life since I gave up meat. I've got more energy, stamina, not to mention I feel a lot better after a big meal of rice, bean and veggie tacos, and fruit juice as opposed to my old diet of Coca-Cola and bacon pizza. While I could probably eat organic meat in moderation, I choose not to because I'm happy without it. It's not on my conscience that I actively supported the meaningless slaughter of animals.

I've owned pets, and my best friend owns two dogs. Just as you claimed, anyone who's owned a dog knows that animals have feelings just like we do. I've grown very close to animals. I also love nature. I wouldn't go out and set a forest fire for fun, so why should I eat a dead animal when I don't have to, which will leave me feeling nasty and exhausted, both physically and mentally?

I feel the murder of most animals is pointless, as people simply don't need to eat them to get by. This isn't something I'd try to press on anyone else, though. I don't press it on my father, or my friends. All in all, I want no part of mindless murder, and I also want no part in organized massacre. If someone came into my home and ripped my father from me, chopped him up, and sold him as a sandwich, I would be distraught. While animals may not be able to recognize this as in-depth as a human being can, I still appreciate life and therefore do my best to avoid fueling the butchering of it.

I've seen through videos a lot that goes in when it comes to animals being killed. Factory farms are both shocking and disgusting. I've seen pigs shot in the head multiple times and tortured. Cows hung upside down and their throats slit, letting them slowly bleed to death. Chickens going insane from crowded living conditions and pecking one another to death. I definently don't want to be eating that stuff! This kind of maniacal killing isn't much different from those guys on the hunting channel laughing as the animal they shot dies a slow, agonizing death.

My non-eating of animals is part ethical, and part nutritional. I'd say it's an equal balance of both. I love animals because I find them beautiful, just as I do nature. I agree with you that every creature has it's beauty, and all you've got to do is look. Maybe I look too deeply into it, but I think not. I (Dustin) know that I don't need to eat animals to live a healthy life. I also know that it's cheaper to avoid meat, and healthier (wiely debated, I know).

I'm tired of looking at animals as simply food. Human beings are animals as well. I don't understand why some people don't follow their logic, and kill and eat their entire family.


(Edited by Dustin
on 9/07, 7:57pm)


Post 24

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wonderful!

There is much here to which to respond. I will do so at length, just wanted to let you know that I very much appreciated your thoughtful response. This will take me some time, and I will be busy for a while, but I will address point for point.

Ted

And I assume that the rest of us here can stay our votes of execution? I, for one, am quite happy to sanction this post.

Post 25

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's a freaking miracle! 

Dustin, I won't sanction your post, but I will tell you "well done." 

Thanks for giving us a better look. I appreciate it very much.  That doesn't mean I agree, however!  


Post 26

Friday, September 8, 2006 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bravo!  Well written and thoughtfully constructed.  Many will still not agree (myself included), but this may actually start earning you some respect again. 

So are we talking about vegetarinism again or feminism?


Post 27

Friday, September 8, 2006 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Detour to Vegetarianism

I've written a brief synopsis of Dustin's arguments and hope to post a two part response to him later this evening, an essay & then point by point comments. I am going to post them to the Vegetarian thread, not this one.

Ted

Post 28

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm looking to get back on track with discussion on Feminism. Anyone interested in posting their thoughts?

Post 29

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Remind me... what specifically about feminism do you wish to discuss?

Post 30

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm looking for an Objectivist's viewpoint on Feminism. Or, anything about Feminism that may get some good discussion going.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 6:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You might have better success generating discussion if you led it off... tell us your thoughts. If people had an intense interest in discussing feminism, they would probably have already started a thread on it. On the other hand, people here are very responsive... just some friendly advice.

Post 32

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 8:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First define what you consider as - feminism.....   then it can be taken from there....

Post 33

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it means promoting the idea that everyone and everything should be female.

 ;)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the laugh, Teresa.

OK, Dustin. I haven't read your thread about vegetables and I haven't done a lot of reading on Feminism as it relates to Objectivism (there's a book called "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" if you want more) but I think I can start you on the basics. Here goes:

Feminism is interesting to an Objectivist in the way that it promotes equal pay for equal work, or in the way that it demands women should have equal rights under the Constitution. I'm a woman, I can vote, I can own property, etc. But to an Objectivist, these are ways PEOPLE should be treated (as opposed to ways WOMEN and MEN should be treated). I'm a person, I can vote, I happen to be a woman.

I also think Objectivists would be for supporting equal rights for women who are treated unfairly because they are women. Unfair discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong, just like discrimination on the basis of race.

I think Objectivists are opposed to women getting extra or special rights because they are women, which is a fact they can't help. I think most of us are opposed to any system of quotas or preferences for hiring women. If you operated a hospital, you'd probably rather hire the best doctor rather than being restricted to hiring the best female doctor, for instance. There's nothing wrong with a private company taking a special interest in recruiting more women into a male-dominated field if the owners choose to do so.

And we recognize the fact that women are different from men, anatomically speaking, which sometimes makes discrimination necessary.

Anyone feel free to clarify or correct here. I just thought I'd give it a shot.

Post 35

Friday, September 22, 2006 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Becky, just what I was looking for. Please don't count me out of this thread, I have simply been progressively busy in real life. I'm working on my own write up and will be posting it shortly.

Post 36

Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     'Feminists' (check Wiki for an historical rundown) is a term which properly applies to the U.S. 'civil rights' (before that became a special name, as did 'Feminist') specifically voting/birth-control advocates: Sanger, Mott, Stanton, etc.

     The term became broadened in meaning re cultural and historical anti-status-quo re 'rights' (or even mere exceptional existence-style) of females, as well as philosophical perspectives (Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir) on gender-views in general.

     Some noted 'feminists' were male (such as Frederick Douglass.)

     'Present-day' Feminists, who've given very short shrift to the history of their historical forebears, are contemporarily considered 'representative' and include Gloria Steinham (not specifically 'active' recently), Andrea Dworkin (now deceased) and whoever is lately the head of 'NOW.' Some might consider 'celebrity' ones such as Jane Fonda, given apparent sympathies to 'Present-day' ones, but...such is the broadening aspect of the term...nowadays.

     Such latecomer label-users have been dubbed 'FemiNazis' by a noted talk-show host. Mainly because of their present day very myopic concerns (compared to their unacknowledged forebears), and alleged anti-'male' bias (not to mention politically-partisan bias).

     Re my limited knowledge, the only noteworthy present-day worthy-of-the-name 'feminists' are Orianna Fallaci (now deceased), Madalyn O'Hair (ditto), Camille Paglia, and, I'm sorry I forget her name, but she's a 'former' Muslim giving mucho public flak to public defenders of Bin Laden's yucky ilk. (Some would add Ayn Rand here, but, were she alive, she'd really ream you a new one for saying that, so...)

LLAP
J:D

P.S: How in the world 'Vegetarianism' got mixed into this subject, I'm still perplexed on. We ALL know that females are 'predators', fer Pete's sakes, right? Males are just, well, useable (by the 'smart' ones, of course)... drones.

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/24, 6:13pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/24, 6:21pm)


Post 37

Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Drones? - lol, "speak for yourself, John"  ;-)

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Thursday, October 5, 2006 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is what I've got to say in regards to feminism:



Radical Feminism: An assault on humanity.

Firstly, it is important to describe what feminism is. Feminism (See my post on emo) will be defined differently by every person asked to define it. Since I'm always right, I think it would be safe to go with my definition.

Feminism is a movement born out of the patriarchy that has been dominant in the world's history. It is the empowerment of women in their struggle for equality. There are two undeniable facts that must be presented: Women have been and remain oppressed in nearly all societies, and, women are equal to men in every respect (It's obvious that men and women have different physical qualities, though. Think vagina and penis). Sex doesn't determine morality.

Religion and culture are both equally to blame for the plight of women. Christianity boasts it's sexism and the role of women to serve and obey men. Islam is even more oppressive towards women, giving a thumbs up to their rape, enslavement, and abuse. In some parts of Africa and the Middle East, a practice known as clitorectomies is widely accepted. This is the cutting of women's genitals to prevent them from feeling sexual pleasure, for various reasons. The thought of barbaric, sexist practices such as this makes me sick.

Sexism and discrimination against women is the reason for the "glass ceiling" and "stickey feet" syndrome in the workplace. A large part of America's, and the world's men believe women exist to serve them, and will go to strenuous lengths to ensure that a woman in the workplace does not excel. This is not limited to sexism because it can also be easily applied to race, religion, or creed.

"BUT DUSTAN, U DONT UNDERSTAND HOW HARD IT IS 2 BE A WOMAN IN AMERICA. U R A MAN AND NOT A WOMAN LOL"

O rly?

I have been told I am sexist. The reason I am sexist is because I adhere to some traditional values of chivalry. Women have only recently begun to win their battle for equality in The United States. They've won the right to vote, work, and choose their walk of life. Does this mean they've achieved victory? Hardly. Take a look at the rap industry, where chauvinism runs rampant. Women are referred to as "bitches" and believed to only exist for sexual enslavement. This is a multi-million dollar industry! The overwhelming majority of men I've met in my lifetime adhere to the same viewpoints, though some less and more strict.

Feminists claim it's hard simply to be a woman in society. So I'm a sexist if I'd rather befriend a woman then some boring, drunken hillbilly slob of a "man"? Maybe I have a problem with stereotyping other men, but then again, I don't really give a damn if I do. I would rather join and support women and feminists in their fight for equality then sit back and idly do nothing because I am a male.

Feminism is about liberation. It's an ongoing, and hopefully soon to be successful battle for the equality of women. I'm siding with the women, and if you don't, then fuck you. Gender roles and sexual slavery are primitive, backwards, and not compatible with a moral, educated society.

"BUT DUSTAN. IF U LIKE WOMEN SO MUCH THEN Y R U WRITING AN ARTICLE ABOUT RADICAL FEMINISM BEING BAD?!1/1?? U R JUST A DUM KID BEHIND A COMPUTER WITH A BIG MOUTH!!!1"

Feminism has quickly turned into a sort of feminist fundamentalism (radical feminism). It has the ability to transform the struggle for equality into a staunch hatred for men and society. An important thing to ask yourself is "Can you really blame these 'radical feminists' for their disdain of men and society?". You decide.

Here's a few concepts radical feminists distort to prop up their case against men and society:

Rape

The idea that rape is exclusive to men raping women is simply invalid. While an overwhelming majority of cases of rape occur against women from men, it is a heinous crime that can go both ways. Ignore the majority, and accept reality. There ARE cases of women sexually assaulting men. Whether it be adult to adult, or adult to child. Rape is disgusting, and there is no one sex guilty of it. Individuals are guilty of it.

Pornography

I find pornography tasteless and degrading. To claim it is oppressive to women, though, is a lie. This is because if it were oppressive, it would be oppressive to both men and women. No matter how degrading, pornography is not oppressive. It is a private industry, supported by consumers. The people involved make the conscious decision to partake in it.

Prostitution

This is a weightless argument. There can be male or female prostitutes. Besides, the choice to provide sexual services as a form of labor is an individual choice. If it affects women as a whole, then it also affects men as a whole.


The modeling industry

This is another voluntary, private industry that radical feminists have claimed objectifies and oppress women, but why not men also? The idea that a woman does not have the free will to make a profit off of her physical attributes is sexist. In a free society, people are free to do what they please with their bodies. It has been argued that the media creates a "standard" that women should fit to be beautiful. The same applies to men. To claim that it only matters in regards to women, is backwards in the campaign for equality.
Don't like the pornography and modeling industries? Blame the consumers who support it. Don't come up with some hodgepodge concept of "industry" and blame everything possible. Individuals are responsible for their individual actions.

The things I've mentioned all have something in common. None of them are exclusive to women, but all are used as arguments against today's patriarchy. While today's society remains oppressive, how will equality be achieved through militant complaining? Shouldn't an industry that glorifies the beauty of an individual woman, by her own will, be empowering? I'm not claiming this is pornography, though it does apply to the modeling industry in several aspects.

The "sex card" carries about as much weight as the "race card". It's easy for a radical feminist to claim "I WAS FIRED BCUZ THEY R SEXIST". In reality, you probably got fired because you sucked at your job, or no one liked you for who you are. Follow this up with a rant about the world's patriarchy, and you've got a successful lawsuit on your hands.

Feminism is supposed to be a campaign for equality and harmony of the sexes. Instead, extremists have butchered the ideal and abuse it in the form of lawsuits, demands for reperations, and a crutch to excel. Some radical feminists have become so angry and lewd that a male simply saying "I like your outfit. You look pretty" is a reason to explode into anger.

If I were to blame all feminists for the actions of a few extremists, I would be no different from those extremists blaming all men for the actions of others. This is a widely accepted concept - there are extremists in every ideaology.

Some radical feminists, such as Mary Daly, Charlotte Bunch, and Marilyn Frye, have advocated seperatism - a complete separation of male and female in society and culture. The current feminist movement is littered with anti-male sentiments, stereotypes, and a general hatred for men that hinder it's progress and ethical campaign.

You may wonder why I have not addressed masculinism. This is because masculinism is an imperial, oppressive concept aimed at men dominating women. It is outdated and evil.

Morally, feminism is a positive concept. It will lead to equality and justice for both sexes, if extremism does not prevail. Viewing societies progress, (albeit slow) it appears equality will be achieved. Will it be in our lifetime?


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
http://feminism.eserver.org/
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/
http://hijinx.nu/pix/index.php?topic=12533.0



----

I plan on editing and updating this article in the future, pending what sort of feedback I recieve from both men and women. No matter what side of the fence you are on, please share your feedback.

Post 39

Friday, October 6, 2006 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dustin, interesting post, most of which I agree with. There is, however, one part that I would like to address. You wrote,
Sexism and discrimination against women is the reason for the "glass ceiling" and "stickey feet" syndrome in the workplace. A large part of America's, and the world's men believe women exist to serve them, and will go to strenuous lengths to ensure that a woman in the workplace does not excel. This is not limited to sexism because it can also be easily applied to race, religion, or creed.
Economic theory would say that, at least in private industry, the incentives are against invidious discrimination, whether racist or sexist. If women were generally paid less than men or kept in jobs that were beneath their capabilities and talents, the profit motive would act to remedy this misallocation of resources. The reason is that if women were being paid lower wages due to sexist discrimination rather than to lower skills, less reliability or reduced potential from leave of absence for pregnancy, then it would be in the interests of employers to compete for their undervalued labor.

Consider: If women were being paid $18 an hour for work of exactly the same economic value and productivity as that of men who were being paid $21 an hour, then it would be in the interests of employers to fire their male workers who were costing them $21 an hour and hire female workers to perform the same job at a substantially lower cost of $18 an hour.

Of course, other employers, seeing the benefits of these lower costs, would follow suit by bidding up the wages of the female workers in competition with other employers for their labor, as long as the wages they were offering were less than what the employers were paying their male workers. Simultaneously, of course, in order to get hired or to retain their existing jobs, the male workers would have to be willing to work for lower wages.

The obvious result of this process of competition would be for the wages of the women to rise and those of the men to fall to a point at which the discrepancy is eliminated. Assuming that at the start of this process, there were two men making $21 an hour for every woman making $18 an hour, the average wage would be $20 an hour (42 + 18 = 60 ÷ 3 = 20) which is what it would be for either men or women, once this process of competition had brought about an equality of income.

Observe that the women, being a smaller percentage of the workforce, would gain more of a wage increase from this process of competition than the men would lose from it. The women's wage would increase by $2 an hour, whereas the men's would fall by only $1 an hour.

The same reasoning would apply to the demand for managers and executives. If there were women who had better qualifications at these positions than the available male candidates, then it would be in the economic self-interest of the owner to hire the women over the men. In just this way, the profit motive would tend to eliminate any glass ceiling that existed under capitalism. In public-sector employment, which does not operate on the profit motive, there is of course no economic incentive to remedy invidious discrimination.

It is true that even in the private sector, there tend to be disproportionately fewer female executives and managers than male, but the main reason for this is not a glass ceiling; it is the fact that women on average tend to be less likely to remain with a company for the same period of time that men do. Women are more likely to quit or to take leave of absences in order to have children, so that their experience and earning potential tends to be lower. For the same reason, not as many women apply for professional careers requiring the kind of commitment that is incompatible with stay-at-home parental responsibilities.

But if, on average, women were just as likely to remain employed as men were and had the same general level of qualifications as men, then their salaries and level of employment would tend to be the same, if only because competition and the profit motive would tend to eliminate any discrepancies that might otherwise exist.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/06, 1:47pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/06, 9:18pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.