I’d like to see you think about questions like this:
Are all problems confronted by society best solved with an eye towards combating physical threats? What problems are not solved with such a focus? What problems might be aggravated with such a focus? Are we making society vulnerable to other kinds of threats?
Are all individuals in society best served by striving primarily to be ready to combat physical threats? What about individuals who can best achieve their personal goals or achieve other societal goals by focusing on issues other than combating physical threats? Are we sacrificing the potential of individuals who might prosper without having to focus on the problem of combating physical threats?
Is the problem of combating physical threats served only by forcing everyone in society to conform with a certain set of values? Might the problem of combating physical threats indeed be interfered with by forcing such conformity? What about the fact that not all societies have agreed on what qualities are bundled together under the category of “manliness,” especially ones—such as homosexuality or choice of dress—that might be entirely irrelevant to the issue of combating physical threats?
Might a singular focus on fostering aggressive manliness in some ways worsen rather than solve the problem of physical threats?
In this play, a girl gets pregnant and dies from a botched abortion.
The boy who gets her pregnant is sent to a reform school.
The boy’s best friend commits suicide because he can’t deal with what’s happening to his body during puberty.
Two boys find out that they’re gay.
Remember, this was in 1890. In Germany.
Tell me again how adolescent behavior is caused by modern “standards”.
Which I personally have no problem with, if that’s what they like. But if enough other people mistake it for a form of actual abuse or endangerment and trouble ensues, then (paceTrinopos), that could arguably be considered “creating a disturbance”, and if so, the law can tell them not to do it.
Likewise, you can’t hang out at the mall pretending to engage in an aggressive fistfight with your best friend, even if it’s what you both enjoy and neither of you is actually hurting the other or getting angry.
It’s not oppressive to be forbidden to publicly engage in simulations of behavior that other people might reasonably believe to be inflicting actual harm on someone.
Well, the idea that the American left wing would be to the right in most other developed countries gets trotted out frequently here. In Spain you’d probably think that PP is too leftist sometimes, but you’d be more likely to vote Ciudadanos than go for one of the horrible little extremist parties.
The legal system under which I was born, and the values system it reflected, said I would never be able to truly become a complete, legal adult. Males would become adults at age 21, me at 25, but even in my most adult state I would never be able to sign a work or property contract (I’d be able to sign a marriage contract by myself at 25). That system was touted by its proponents as being “traditional”, but it actually went against older laws and traditions which did not consider that lack of a penis at birth implied lack of a brain. I hope you will excuse me and my people for fighting back against that shit.
My people are very traditional. Our neighbors say that as an insult, we grab it and run with it. The political current to which my paternal family belonged for some 200 years is currently called “traditionalism”, in fact. But traditional doesn’t necessarily mean what people think it means, and those “traditional gender roles”? Traditional my ass!
I think it’s an interesting discussion, not necessarily in the “Queer Rights” context alone, but in a wider “Who decides what the standards actually are?” way.
This was touched on in the mysteriously vanished “Why do some people hate political correctness?” thread a week or so ago, but I think it’s worth talking about in more depth and detail.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having standards - but it’s vitally important to understand those standards should - nay, must change over time as societal attitudes evolve, and that it’s entirely possible for different standards to apply in different circumstances.
For example, (generic) you might enjoy the freedom that comes with being completely naked within one’s home. However, the minute you step outside sans fig leaf and go for a stroll to the local shops, your neighbours (and by extension, the authorities) are likely to (quite reasonably) object to that, due to the fact there’s two standards at play here - one for the privacy of your own home, another for being out in public.
I don’t think anyone thinks that one standard of Thou Should Never Be Nude is reasonable, nor is Thou Shalt Never Be Clothed* - unless you’re an ultra-orthodox member of a religion with particularly strong views on the subject.
*You can make your own Arrested Development/Tobias Funke joke here; I’ve had a long day and am Le Tired.
You know what would be really efficient? One set of bathrooms, instead of two. That were not gender specific. Sort of like at your home, or at your friend’s home.
You seem to be only in favour of a universal standard, if it aligns with your opinions. You okay with the new ‘universal’ standard being inclusive of trans people?
How do you feel about democracy? Willing to concede to the majority opinion, when times change?
And as our knowledge of physical and biological reality does.
I don’t think there’s a single person in the planet who thinks it’s a Bad Thing that we have more stringent standards for drug testing now than back when thalidomide hit pharmacies, or a few decades prior when anybody could call anything “medicinal”. There are people who think the standards should have been higher sooner, there are people who invent conspiracies (as if it wasn’t enough with the real ones!), but claiming that there should be lower or no standards for drug manufacturing and testing is too suicidal for even Wakefield on drugs.
As we learn more about the way our world and ourselves work, hopefully we’ll set up rules that play with and not against that reality. Gravity don’t give a shit if you believe in her.
Of course, it’s always SOMEONE ELSE that has to change their value system to match yours, not you changing to their one value system. And I want a clear definition of what you mean by ‘efficient’ and how ‘conformity’ fuels it before I accept the bald assertion.
To go back to traditional values that you like to ignore again, I don’t think that barring black people from most non-labor jobs was actually an efficient use of people’s talent, since there were a great many smart black people who could have done a lot for the world. Same thing with barring women from science, medicine, and other fields. I think that your idea of forcing non-conforming people like George Washington Carver and Marie Curie to follow social norms would have damaged scientific and economic progress even more than such beliefs already did, and cannot see how that would be ‘efficient’.
Also, while I do think that it’s telling that Chihuahua won’t address traditional views on women and blacks, what prompted this discussion was LGBT issues. So I’d like to see if you can make an efficiency argument for the treatment of Alan Turing, a brilliant cryptographer and computer scientist. I think that the ‘efficient’ way for society to use him would be to let him do what he wanted in his private life and reap the benefits of his inventions and work, like what the military did during WW2. But your argument is that society was somehow made more ‘efficient’ by subjecting him to criminal trials, forced drugging, and eventually driving him to suicide than by letting him go on doing good work. I would love to hear an explanation of how forced conformity was actually efficient.
I really wish he would explore this. I think he’d find a lot of cognitive dissonance in his own thinking, and unpacking it would be useful.
It seems to me that most people that have Chihuahua’s worldview double-think the whole “girl” question by basically deciding that it’s okay for a girl to be girly because women are sort of inherently second-class, and that’s immutable, so you don’t have to hold it against them, any more than you hold it against a deaf person that they can’t sing. And it’s understandable that girls don’t hate themselves for being inferior because they’ve basically accepted the inevitable, and there’s no shame in that. But they are inferior. That’s self-evident. They are just allowed to be. Men aren’t.
He’s acknowledged several times in this thread that he is suffering from cognitive dissonance. I agree with the general view that his views are largely wrong, and he seems to be acknowledging that too. He’s asking for help coming to terms with that, and you guys are perhaps being unnecessarily harsh.
I didn’t mean to be harsh: I really feel that if he thinks his way through where women fit into his scheme, he might find a way to reexamine his postulates.
There’s nothing objectively reasonable about objecting to your neighbour walking around in the nude. It’s an entirely arbitrary cultural standard. Nobody is actually harmed by seeing someone naked. If it troubles them psychologically, it’s entirely because they have internalized social norms. It’s in fact no different from being bothered by the knowledge that your neighbour is involved in a same-sex relationship (here too because you have internalized social norms). Or similarly, there’s nothing worst in saying “a woman shouldn’t appear on TV with uncovered hair” and “a woman shouldn’t appear on TV with uncovered breasts”: that exactly the same thing. An arbitrary norm people are expected to conform to, whether they like it or not.
It’s not like we’re going to be free of such arbitrary norms any time soon. Most social standards are arbitrary. Plenty of very liberal minded people promoting freedom as long as it doesn’t harm others will in fact object to me walking in the street naked with my three wives, one of them being my sister, held on leash.
A woman calls the police to complain about people skinny dipping in the pond across the street from her house. An officer arrives and finds that the pond is actually off in the distance, more than a mile away.
“Lady, you can’t possibly see people swimming naked in that pond from here”, he says.
In fairness, he has basically said that he adopted his current worldview after, essentially, being shouted into going along with it. So there’s some evidence that this approach might work again.
