Random thoughts!
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:27pm
Thread Topic: Random thoughts!
-
Aka I am too damn lazy to create a whole speech, so I'll just say a bunch of random unrelated things.
Another freedom we don't truly have under capitalism: freedom to travel. We're always told we can go anywhere we like, but that is not true: we are chained to jobs, and that's if we have a job. We often do not have money to travel. Therefore, we cannot go anywhere we please.
Objectification, and the commodifying of women, must end for sexism to end. Women are seen as a product to sell, not as a human being- and that is WRONG. We must see women as human beings in the same respect as all others.
Why is it that the words describing a relationship (as in "my family") are the exact same ones describing ownership (as in "my jewelry")?
Are we so intimate with property that we see it like family? Or is it that private property is a relationship between those who own and those who do not?
Possibility of more random thoughts is high. -
IHLAOY NewbieI dunno, I think you would experience the same problem regardless of what system you put in place. It isn't limited to capitalism. Labour must be done for a society to survive, and whether someone does it for money or love, it's still going to cut into the amount of time and freedom he has.
Besides, you act like money is needed to travel, that's simply not true. Look at, say, Stu Larsen, the travelling singer who sings and performs for free and lives with whoever takes him in for the night. He took a job he liked and turned it into travel, and he's never regretted it.
And I think the problem with getting rid of sexism is that we need to first define what exactly sexism IS! If you ask five different people, you'll get five different answers. The term has become so diluted and overrun that it's effectively useless. Is chivalry sexist? Is hitting a woman sexist? Is hiring a more talented man sexist? I've seen people argue points like this into the ground.
The problem with sexism is that there are people who think it doesn't exist, people who think it's rampant in today's society, people who think it'll never be solved, people who think it should serve their agendas, people who don't think, and people who argue over semantics endlessly until neither side wins.
The problem doesn't lie with objectification, everything in modern society is objectified. Look at everything from animated cartoons, (Dave the Barbarian, Barbie,) to movies, (Die Hard, Pride and Prejudice,) to even books, (Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades of Grey. Also Twilight.) To complain about ONE section of something being objectified would be to ignore the bigger issue and cheapen its effect on everything else.
Man, I really come on here to complain a lot. -
The possession one -
"The jewlelry"
"The jewelry that is on this planet"
"The jewelry that exists"
"ATTAKKKVAAQUUU jewlery"
I don't see how this would help anything XD -
Actually, yes. You just treat it as if it doesn't belong to anyone.
-
appa,
I actually agree with you on that first one.
Yes, we must work for food and other things, and are therefore glued to our job. This is true of any current ecanomic scheme, and would also be true in the state of nature.
On your second point, I'm just going to point out that objectification and acknowledgement of sentience do not conflict.
Finally, we use possesive language with things that are of ecanomic relation to us because mostly because of ease of communication.
They belong to us in the same way seeds belong to an apple. Ownership is implied by proximity. Emotional, ecanomic, political or otherwise.
IHLAOY
you continue to impress me with rationality.
I'm going to point out though, that while you are correct in saying that what exactly constitutes sexism is highly controversial, the generally understood definition is when a person or persons is being poorly treated based on their sex. -
Acknowledgement of sentience, maybe, but TREATMENT AS AN EQUAL HUMAN BEING does conflict with being treated like a goddamn product.
-
not really.
when dealing with a product a person is not excluded to damaging behaviour. In fact, it's usually in a persons best interest to treat a product with appropriate respect; however, it looks like you're confusing the words, objectivity, commodity, and product for interchangable, and furthermore, it seems like you are confusing the concepts that these words portray as things which are inhuman or somehow subhuman.
To be clear,objectivity is regarding a person or thing with complete neutrality.
a commodity is a good or service which is considered valuable and or marketable.
A product has many exact definitions and several which pertain to the matter at hand, but the main idea is that a product is the result of work.
The truth, is that these concepts have nothing to do with a persons humanity, or eqaulity in society.
It's just denotation of interaction with social economy.
Finally, treatment as an eqaul human being is actually a very cut-throat proposition.
if we were to disregard civil classes and rules meant to protect people who have weakness to others in one area or another, you would find the world to be a much more vicious place then you've ever seen before.
What most people think they want is "human eqaulity" in reality, civilization is designed to accomdate disparity, and that's actually a positive thing.
what you probably mean is eqaul civil liberty, which is ironically better countries which lean towards capitalism. -
The word as I've always heard it literally means "object-ify" as in to treat as an object.
-
well no. Object literally means any tangible thing that we can see and\or feel.
where as the word objectification, implies a way of treating things. It does not mean to treat something badly however.
I get what you're trying to say though. That in order to make a society in which women are givin the same civil equality as men, they must cease to marketable items.
My point is that a markteable item is not necceserilly treated a certain way.
Whether or not women had assets that were considered valuable, it would not play a definite role in their civil liberty.
Of course it would end civilization as we know it, but there is no gaurentee women would be any better off.
civilization may look like it's real but the truth is that it's a wilderness within a wilderness. And the wild has no predjudice. only reaction to action. -
Well then it wouldn't belong to anyone and some random person would be look ooh up for grabs yay!!
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
