Straight pride? Oy vey....

[conuly]

I think this is all a result of confusing and conflating two different definitions of the word "pride".

The first has to do with a sense of accomplishment. I am proud to have gotten 3 As and an A- last summer. I am proud to have gone to Stuy (even though I didn't stay there).

The second has to do with simply not being ashamed. That's what people mean they have gay pride, or black pride, or autistic pride. They haven't accomplished any of these things, they simply mean that they aren't ashamed of them and don't wish to change them. They have to say that they're proud because they're all minorities. Mainstream culture would generally prefer that these people change, or pretend to change, or act as though they've changed. Mainstream culture encourages people to be ashamed of things they cannot help, if those things make them different. Mainstream culture kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Anyway, as I was saying, you can't really use "pride" in a sense of "not being ashamed" unless you're a minority. People who identify as straight really aren't a minority, and make all the laws, and therefore don't get a parade. Sorry, duckies.

Comments

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

"That's all well and good, but the problem is, some people redefine themselves and insist that others accept their definitions."

Generally I just tell people with that attitude that they're wrong if they are. They can insist all they want, just as the one fellow on AutAdvo does regarding language, but it's not going to make them right or me have any more respect for their notions.

"Therefore, we freethinkers generally lump all of them together under the umbrella of Xianity."

I generally just lump all the religions together as 'religious' and openly state that I don't care about their squabbling subclassifications beyond that. It works better.

"The thing is, that is not how certain feminists view feminism. They view it as, among other things, the idea that men are inferior to women and should be subjugated and relegated to the status of second-class citizens."

I never said that there aren't feminists that believe in that; I know that there are.

"if you insist that men should be relegated to second-class status, you can no longer complain about men having done that to women in the past because you're seeking the same arrangement that used to exist before, just with the genders reversed."

Emulating a variant on something, or reversing it, *doesn't* mean losing the ability to protest it. (I don't believe in the "you have no right to protest" concept in the first place. Everybody should have the right to complain, IMHO, and we should let whatever facts they present decide whether their complaint is legitimate.)

As far as complaining about genderist behavior, it actually is possible to logically protest while applying what one protests to the other gender. There are three basic types of thought here: that women need extra guidance, that men need extra guidance, and that neither needs extra guidance. Saying one group doesn't need additional guidance doesn't automatically mean the other one doesn't either -- the two are separate concepts for separate groups.

(My view is that what one needs depends on the individual rather than their genitals, which isn't feminist, andrist, or equalist. I avoid most groups like that -- not just restricted to gender, but other movements -- as they tend to be filled with antagonistic hypocrites that focus more on keeping others from power than finding ways to elevate or improve them.)

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Emulating a variant on something, or reversing it, *doesn't* mean losing the ability to protest it.

Sure, it does. If you endorse the suppression of a particular group based because of any particular (usually arbitrary) trait that that group has, then logically you cannot object to any situation in which one particular group has already been suppressed using that criterion. To do so is simply hypocrisy.

These feminists endorse the suppression of one group on the basis of that group's gender; therefore, they cannot complain about another group having been suppressed on the basis of its gender. Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes, is sauce for the gander.

(I don't believe in the "you have no right to protest" concept in the first place. Everybody should have the right to complain, IMHO, and we should let whatever facts they present decide whether their complaint is legitimate.)

Everyone starts off with the right to protest anything they want, but depending on what kind of views they espouse, they can forfeit the right to object on the grounds of hypocrisy. For example, I have every right to protest those assholes who smoke in the hallway in my building, but if I start smoking in the hallway myself, then I forfeit my right to object to anyone else doing it.

Similarly, these feminists had the right to object to suppression of women on the basis of their gender, but when they started to endorse doing the same thing to men, they forfeited the right to object to its having happened to women.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

"Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes, is sauce for the gander."

You expect women and men to hold to different behavioral norms, and react to things or judge your reactions based on your beliefs on how your gender "should" respond/behave... Wouldn't this flatly contradict your claim that 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'?

"Everyone starts off with the right to protest anything they want, but depending on what kind of views they espouse, they can forfeit the right to object on the grounds of hypocrisy."

Only in your view, though. That you feel that way doesn't mean it's a universal forfeit, just that you personally will refuse to hear their views and prefer to withhold your own.

"Similarly, these feminists had the right to object to suppression of women on the basis of their gender, but when they started to endorse doing the same thing to men, they forfeited the right to object to its having happened to women."

If you felt that both should (and do) act/react identically, then it would make sense to expect them to need precisely the same treatment -- your own beliefs contradict that, though.

We're also approaching the problem from different angles. You're claiming (though it contradicts your beliefs) to view gender as an incidental variant, saying all human beings should be treated identically. I'm approaching the problem more as a case of men and women being two distinct and unrelated groups akin to dogs and cats -- the needs of which are each unrelated to even the existence of the other. (This is not to say I believe men and women are all that different, as I don't; I'm just arguing against the "you can't protest" concept.)

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

You expect women and men to hold to different behavioral norms, and react to things or judge your reactions based on your beliefs on how your gender "should" respond/behave... Wouldn't this flatly contradict your claim that 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'?

No -- you're referring to my beliefs about social interaction. This is a discussion about civil rights.

I am merely stating that if one endorses a particular ideology, one obviously cannot object if that ideology actually comes to pass anywhere. These feminists (and yes, I do use the term loosely) argue in favor of suppression based on gender, and that being the case, they obviously cannot complain when they encounter any actual examples of suppression based on gender. To do so is simply hypocritical. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Only in your view, though. That you feel that way doesn't mean it's a universal forfeit, just that you personally will refuse to hear their views and prefer to withhold your own.

I do understand your point: they say that it is acceptable to suppress men for their gender, but not to suppress women for their gender. They do not recognize that that is hypocritical, but it is still hypocritical nevertheless. As to it being "only in my view", well... hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of who points out the hypocrisy.

I'm reminded of a scene from The War Against the Chtorr: Invasion where Jim (a college dropout) attempts to classify an alien plant as a "purple coleus", and one of his superiors objects, saying that he should leave that classification to the experts. Jim responds by saying that a purple coleus is a purple coleus, regardless of the qualifications of the person who points at it and says, "That's a purple coleus". These feminists' hypocrisy is the same way.

You're claiming (though it contradicts your beliefs) to view gender as an incidental variant, saying all human beings should be treated identically.

It doesn't contradict my beliefs. What we're discussing here is civil rights and civil liberties, which is a different matter from social situations. When it comes to civil rights, all human beings should be treated identically. Rights cannot be denied to anyone on an arbitrary basis, whether it is gender, religion, race, eye color, tooth decay, or anything else incidental. Rights can only be denied on an individual basis on the grounds of each individual's behavior.

Reverting to our previous example: it is certainly true that almost all sexual assault is perpetrated by men, but it does not follow from that basis that anyone who is a man may be denied their civil rights because most rapists are male. Even if 99% of all men were convicted rapists, the remaining 1% still could not be denied their civil rights for that reason. Guilt by association isn't kosher -- especially when it's based on a trait that is beyond an individual's control -- and guilt by association is exactly what these "feminists" presuppose.