Apelust comes to Rationalia?

[JimC]

Why is it that all of a sudden the worst thing in the world you can be is a white, straight, middle class, christian?

Well Timmy, to be honest it isn't an all of a sudden sort of thing. Being a white, straight, middle-class Christian has always pretty much sucked ass. My advice, young man, it to move to the city. Pluck your eyebrows, shave your legs and take a walk on the wild side. You've got nothing to lose but your virginity.

[surreptitious57]

I have just read the O P and it references a very common error in thinking. Namely that when one particular group is demanding equality that it is somehow perceived by the status quo as meaning less equality for them. This is a logical fallacy for one cannot have true equality if one group is more equal than another. The status quo appear to be under the illusion that equality actually exists. But as they represent positions of privilege this is not something that is immediately obvious to them if at all

When women demand equality with men or blacks with whites or gays with straights it is because those groups are discriminated against by the status quo. Being a member of the latter makes it hard to see that but not being a member does not because it directly impacts upon them. Rather than double down and deny rights to women and blacks and gays
the status quo should acknowledge their lack of equality and reverse these imbalances. Which they most certainly can do because most of those in a position of power capable of doing so are from that particular demographic. Sometimes how
ever because of ignorance or apathy or prejudice that is not forthcoming. Progress nonetheless is being made. Shame
however that it tends to be at a glacial pace as is unfortunately the way with such matters

[DaveDodo007]

everydayfeminism: I think I would rather have a wank instead.

[laklak]

Wanking always helps. Always.

[Audley Strange]

I have just read the O P and it references a very common error in thinking. Namely that when one particular group is demanding equality that it is somehow perceived by the status quo as meaning less equality for them.

This is claimed a lot but outside of a few specific areas, I have never heard any group of the "status quo" complain that equality for another group meant inequality for them. Those groups tended to be either around gay marriage or "positive discrimination". The former is preposterous, the latter remains debatable.

The status quo appear to be under the illusion that equality actually exists. But as they represent positions of privilege this is not something that is immediately obvious to them if at all/

No this I utterly disagree with. If anything it is those who claim privilege on the behalf of others and also claim they want some of it too, that have this idea that equality actually exists. If anything the status quo attitude is "life isn't fair HTFU & STFU".

When women demand equality with men or blacks with whites or gays with straights it is because those groups are discriminated against by the status quo.

Not necessarily. It could actually be they are, for example if women weren't allowed to work or black people were denied education, then yes there is an obvious inequality. However just because someone who feels slighted can make the claim that they are being oppressed culturally does not make it so. This applies to the (in my opinion) fabricated whiner in the OP as much as it does some drugged up numbskull complaining about "darkies taking our jobs" or some tertiary educated daddy's girl with a chip on her shoulder?

Being a member of the latter makes it hard to see that but not being a member does not because it directly impacts upon them. Rather than double down and deny rights to women and blacks and gays the status quo should acknowledge their lack of equality and reverse these imbalances.

Can you tell me what Rights women blacks and gays are being denied, what actual rights are still being denied to these groups? Why is it incumbent on those who don't see a problem to fix the problem that others claim? Should the angry social justice warrior mob accept that perhaps the EDF have a point? After all they certainly see the number of immigrants in the U.K. as a danger. Just because you don't see it as a problem you should acknowledge they feel oppressed in their own nation and reverse that imbalance. I'm sure many of the SJW lot could be easily guided to join in on a pogrom, given the right targets.

Which they most certainly can do because most of those in a position of power capable of doing so are from that particular demographic. Sometimes how ever because of ignorance or apathy or prejudice that is not forthcoming. Progress nonetheless is being made. Shame however that it tends to be at a glacial pace as is unfortunately the way with such matters

Perhaps it moves at a glacial pace because most of the claimed problems have been addressed and found trivial in comparison to other problems. Not allowing you women to vote? Shit that's a no no. Let's be honest, when the movement of universal suffrage became a popular mass movement it moved pretty fucking quickly in the first part and middle part of the 20th century. They had a point, it was obvious to anyone with eyes.

Nowadays they have complaints and are using the language of those engaged in that concept of universal sufferage, not for the benefit of others, but for their own ends. We can all agree that people should have the same rights. However as I have said before those matters have been taken care of. What is left as I keep saying is little more than cultural critique and it is no more or less valid than any other, including those who say homosexuals getting married will destroy society or that the poor should be left to starve.

[surreptitious57]

Which they most certainly can do because most of those in a position of power capable of doing so are from that particular demographic. Sometimes how ever because of ignorance or apathy or prejudice that is not forthcoming. Progress nonetheless is being made. Shame however that it tends to be at a glacial pace as is unfortunately the way with such matters

Perhaps it moves at a glacial pace because most of the claimed problems have been addressed and found trivial in comparison to other problems. Not allowing you women to vote ? Shit that is a no no. Let us be honest when the movement of universal suffrage became a popular mass movement it moved pretty fucking quickly in the first part and middle part of the twentieth century. They had a point it was obvious to anyone with eyes

Nowadays they have complaints and are using the language of those engaged in that concept of universal sufferage not for the benefit of others but for their own ends. We can all agree that people should have the same rights. However as I have said before those matters have been taken care of. What is left as I keep saying is little more than cultural critique and it is no more or less valid than any other, including those who say homosexuals getting married will destroy society or that the poor should be left to starve

Gender equality is about more than just putting a cross on a piece of paper every five years. Take equal pay as a case in point. The 1970 Equal Pay Act as the name suggests gave women the legal right to be paid exactly the same as man for doing the same job. Fast forward forty three years to the present day and womens pay on average is eighteen per cent
less than that of men. Hardly a matter that has been taken care of as you suggest

Also men had the vote for over two thousand years ever since the Greeks first discovered democracy. Yet it was not until the last one that women received it. For something that according to you moved pretty fucking quickly it took a while to
do so. Two millennia without a basic freedom after all is a long time by any definition

The rise of feminism certainly helped address the inequality of society and reverse some of the imbalance. But it is an ongoing work in progress rather than something already complete. Less inequality does not translate to no equality. It
still exists as the pay gap indicates and as long as it does then feminism has a legitimate role in addressing that

[Azathoth]

Feminism absolutely has a role in addressing legitimate issues like the pay gap. Unfortunately it has been taken over by the permaoffended who would rather devote their energy to non-issues like being offered coffee in an elevator.

[Audley Strange]

Gender equality is about more than just putting a cross on a piece of paper every five years. Take equal pay as a case in point. The 1970 Equal Pay Act as the name suggests gave women the legal right to be paid exactly the same as man for doing the same job. Fast forward forty three years to the present day and womens pay on average is eighteen per cent
less than that of men. Hardly a matter that has been taken care of as you suggest

Pay disparity is hardly oppression of a human right especially as a legal act was brought into force to make sure that it was a legal right. Now if you are saying that the wave of women's libbers in the late 60's were effective enough to push through that change but have been ever since ineffective in using those legal means to make sure that was the case. so whose fault is that? Also You make the claim that women are paid eighteen percent less than that of men, however it is meant to be equal pay for the same job, not across the board and I would like to see any evidence that this is a substantial problem in the U.K. especially considering the equal pay act.

I'm not buying that there is a significant issue, however the ones claiming the issue is serious seem to be the same ones who've done nothing about it for almost half a century.

Also men had the vote for over two thousand years ever since the Greeks first discovered democracy. Yet it was not until the last one that women received it. For something that according to you moved pretty fucking quickly it took a while to do so. Two millennia without a basic freedom after all is a long time by any definition.

Yes some men had the vote and predominantly working class men never had. So the majority of men received it grudgingly approximately a whole 30 years before women. Not the millenia of patriarchal oppression you so claim.

The rise of feminism certainly helped address the inequality of society and reverse some of the imbalance. But it is an ongoing work in progress rather than something already complete. Less inequality does not translate to no equality. It still exists as the pay gap indicates and as long as it does then feminism has a legitimate role in addressing that

It may well do, however I still say it is not a human right to get equal pay but neither is it lawful to pay someone less based on gender. Perhaps the 18 percent could be explained by the number of women who take part time jobs or lower paid jobs that are convenient around their family life, but to claim that it is an oppression of someone's human rights is a bit bold without evidence that this is the case.

I don't see how what you are doing is any different to the Christian in the OP making claims about unfairness without much thought as to whether they are actually the case.

[pErvinalia]

There's difference between ideal rights, and realities. Gays and atheists are regularly discriminated against in the US (and other places). Women and blacks are too. But they've all got equal rights, so it s'ok?

[Azathoth]

Check this shit out. I'm sure some of these fuckers have to be just trolling. http://thefeministwire.com/2013/11/addr ... of-colour/

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Beatsong]

The point wasn't the anecdote. The point was the thing about fear and comfort zone. Additionally the systemic nature of what's going on. Nothing you've said addresses any of that.

What the fuck does "systemic" mean anyway, in this context?

Some people are racist or sexist. Some aren't.

[Beatsong]

When women demand equality with men or blacks with whites or gays with straights it is because those groups are discriminated against by the status quo. Being a member of the latter makes it hard to see that but not being a member does not because it directly impacts upon them. Rather than double down and deny rights to women and blacks and gays
the status quo should acknowledge their lack of equality and reverse these imbalances. Which they most certainly can do because most of those in a position of power capable of doing so are from that particular demographic.

(My bold)

Hang on a minute. You seem to be suggesting that because most of those in positions of power are straight white males, that ALL straight white males, or straight white males IN GENERAL, are therefore in a position to reverse the imbalances of power.

This is one of the more irrational assumptions of A+ish twattery about privilege: the idea that sharing certain superficial characteristics with people in a position of power gives someone active voting rights in the exercise of that power. Straight white males in trailer parks all across America can tell you what bullshit that is.

[Beatsong]

Gender equality is about more than just putting a cross on a piece of paper every five years. Take equal pay as a case in point. The 1970 Equal Pay Act as the name suggests gave women the legal right to be paid exactly the same as man for doing the same job. Fast forward forty three years to the present day and womens pay on average is eighteen per cent
less than that of men. Hardly a matter that has been taken care of as you suggest

So did the Equal Pay Act also sign into law that all men and women would have chips implanted in their brains forcing them to make exactly the same life choices, therefore ending up with not only equal pay for equal work, but equal OUTCOMES from the entire matrix of career choice - work - pay - parenthood - everything else as well?

And if not, how is the fact that women on average earn less than men even a point? It's like pointing out that carpenters earn less then brain surgeons - it in no way challenges the fact of equal pay for equal work that it pretends to challenge.

Also men had the vote for over two thousand years ever since the Greeks first discovered democracy.

Bollocks. A tiny minority of men had the vote for some of that time. Again, how does the fact that your average feudal English serf was born with a dick mean he somehow shared vicariously in a process of political power from which he was obviously excluded?

A convincing case could be made that an aristocratic woman during that time had more political power than a working man, even though neither of them got to personally mark an X at the ballot box. At least she benefited from the position of her family within the political system.

The time period from the extension of franchise to any kind of majority of men, to its extension to women, was in fact extremely short.

[Audley Strange]

When women demand equality with men or blacks with whites or gays with straights it is because those groups are discriminated against by the status quo. Being a member of the latter makes it hard to see that but not being a member does not because it directly impacts upon them. Rather than double down and deny rights to women and blacks and gays
the status quo should acknowledge their lack of equality and reverse these imbalances. Which they most certainly can do because most of those in a position of power capable of doing so are from that particular demographic.

(My bold)

Hang on a minute. You seem to be suggesting that because most of those in positions of power are straight white males, that ALL straight white males, or straight white males IN GENERAL, are therefore in a position to reverse the imbalances of power.

This is one of the more irrational assumptions of A+ish twattery about privilege: the idea that sharing certain superficial characteristics with people in a position of power gives someone active voting rights in the exercise of that power. Straight white males in trailer parks all across America can tell you what bullshit that is.

It's also a neat little ball of racism and sexism all in one which is conveniently ignored through the magical intersectional incantation of "The oppressed can never be guilty of the crimes of the oppressor." The casual comedy sexism of some checkout lady having a laugh about me doing the shopping is good. Me and her having a laugh about her not training her man well enough is good, me further saying it's because I don't trust my wife not to buy arsenic is evil misogyny and probably domestic abuse too because I've personally spent my life dedicated to raping women and trying to repeal anti-slavery laws or at least enabled or been an apologist for it.

To me, such weirdo behaviour, when you strip away the supposed content and regard it as rationalisation, shows that intersection very very well, the same behaviour of the Totalitarian, the censor, the sadist, the Inquisitor and the Police State. The SJW's are actually fighting to get rid of themselves, which is, if you think about it, what we've been doing all along.

I don't want to silence women or black people or ethnic or religious minorities, nor trans-gendered folk, I'm all quite happy to embrace them into the coming mono-multiculture. Shit I'm even for more rights for children and specific rights for wild animals. I think most of us all want to be part of that, but we need to get rid of the angry crackpot totalitarians of all colour and hue. Even if we share some political sympathies, they are actually by definition anti-political, impolite, witless at any form of diplomacy and unable to compromise.

[pErvinalia]

The point wasn't the anecdote. The point was the thing about fear and comfort zone. Additionally the systemic nature of what's going on. Nothing you've said addresses any of that.

What the fuck does "systemic" mean anyway, in this context?

Some people are racist or sexist. Some aren't.

I take "systemic" to mean that it's inherent in our society. Perhaps that's not the correct use of the word, I don't know (I could look it up, but couldn't be arsed).