Is this world sexist the way we were racist 50 years ago?

Remove this Banner Ad

Sydney Bloods said:
and in reply, 1964 indigenous Australians still couldn't vote in queensland. in fact the first right to vote for indigenous Australians had only existed for 2 years. Many states still had protection act's. But by all means do go on, I'm eager to here how this is all some grand re-invention by the evil communists.
Click to expand...
I give you an A for your concern about indigenous Australians, but an F (fail) in respect of your comprehension of what I wrote.

Your comment about communists (presumably referring to Derrida's deconstruction theme) misses the point - deconstruction is a cultural Marxist philosophy which dealt with a much broader subject and has nothing to do with specific voting rights/relevant legislation per se.

And on the voting, 1964 was 2 generations ago. Your comment nicely illustrates my observations about judging history by today's standards. The legislation of those times (not only in Oz but also in the USA) reflected the mandate of the government of the day (left or right). We may agree or disagree, but that was then and this is now. That was my point. You missed it entirely.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

skilts said:
Jack appears to have misunderstood Heidegger's musings on, 'the clearing in which Being reveals itself'. Don't ask for the exact quote from Heidegger. We neither of us have enough time for me to find it.
Click to expand...

I have the time, but I find that Heidegger's musings, especially re opening up that "clearing", work best for me after a few Damrak gins, straight up with a twist... :drunk:
 
skilts said:
For the uninitiated, 'opacity' is/was his byword. His later work, after WWII, was much more accessible.
Click to expand...
The West owes much of its philosophical weltanschauung to the Greco part of the West's cultural debt to its Greco-Judeo-Christian roots. Heidegger was quite the contrarian to that mindset - his essence of "being" was archetypical nihilism, and he opted for the negative side of Hegelian dialectics.

Only in academia....
 
deltablues said:
I give you an A for your concern about indigenous Australians, but an F (fail) in respect of your comprehension of what I wrote.

Your comment about communists (presumably referring to Derrida's deconstruction theme) misses the point - deconstruction is a cultural Marxist philosophy which dealt with a much broader subject and has nothing to do with specific voting rights/relevant legislation per se.

And on the voting, 1964 was 2 generations ago. Your comment nicely illustrates my observations about judging history by today's standards. The legislation of those times (not only in Oz but also in the USA) reflected the mandate of the government of the day (left or right). We may agree or disagree, but that was then and this is now. That was my point. You missed it entirely.
Click to expand...

no i got your point and its pure bullshit, There is no reinvention on this issue. Your BS essay attempts to suggest that the racism that was prevalent in society 50 years ago is a creation of the left and has no real historic basis, Sadly for you the records actually exist.

the basis for claims of racism in Australia's past relies on the historical record, this extends to things such as voting rights and relevant legislation its has everything to do with it. its primary source. Dismissing it as the government being removed from the people and these views weren't wide spread is based on what, exactly? and seeing as you brought the yanks into this, How do you explain away the race riots and lynchings? and the many protests about ending segregation?

this absolute nonesense that you can't judge the past by any standard other then what they believed acceptable is a piss poor excuse for not simply being honest, most likely out of some sense of misplaced guilt and feel the need to defend the views and actions of the people at the time.

Marxism is dead and has been for some time, you really need to stop jumping at shadows.
 
deltablues said:
The West owes much of its philosophical weltanschauung to the Greco part of the West's cultural debt to its Greco-Judeo-Christian roots. Heidegger was quite the contrarian to that mindset - his essence of "being" was archetypical nihilism, and he opted for the negative side of Hegelian dialectics.

Only in academia....
Click to expand...
Ones man's nihilism is another man's realism. 'Essence of Being' was a notion propagated by Sartre, rather than Heidegger. In fact, Heidegger rejected Sartre's theory on this. Heidegger was a fierce critic of academic philosophy. He foresaw the putrid thing it has become.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
no i got your point and its pure bullshit, There is no reinvention on this issue. Your BS essay attempts to suggest that the racism that was prevalent in society 50 years ago is a creation of the left and has no real historic basis, Sadly for you the records actually exist.

the basis for claims of racism in Australia's past relies on the historical record, this extends to things such as voting rights and relevant legislation its has everything to do with it. its primary source. Dismissing it as the government being removed from the people and these views weren't wide spread is based on what, exactly? and seeing as you brought the yanks into this, How do you explain away the race riots and lynchings? and the many protests about ending segregation?

this absolute nonesense that you can't judge the past by any standard other then what they believed acceptable is a piss poor excuse for not simply being honest, most likely out of some sense of misplaced guilt and feel the need to defend the views and actions of the people at the time.

Marxism is dead and has been for some time, you really need to stop jumping at shadows.
Click to expand...
You still miss my point - but never mind - I appreciate the time it must have taken you to formulate your Pavlovian response, barnyard language and all...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skilts said:
Ones man's nihilism is another man's realism. 'Essence of Being' was a notion propagated by Sartre, rather than Heidegger. In fact, Heidegger rejected Sartre's theory on this. Heidegger was a fierce critic of academic philosophy. He foresaw the putrid thing it has become.
Click to expand...
Heidegger did arguably have some cards on the "essence of being" table, but I certainly agree with your putrid comment - much of academia in this area these days is about dancing on arcane pinheads in search of tenure. I prefer Albert Camus' philosophy of the absurd, but never worked out if this was some flip-side of nihilism (which I find deeply unappealing), or not.
 
deltablues said:
You still miss my point - but never mind - I appreciate the time it must have taken you to formulate your Pavlovian response, barnyard language and all...
Click to expand...
PS Sydney Bloods - I should perhaps clarify for you that in respect of racism and treatment of indigenous folk (I have a great interest in this particularly in a USA context, which I have spoken about in the US forum to some extent) - you are pushing on an open door.

My earlier response to you was in the context of a general philosophical debate (always best over a beer or 2) ;).
 
Its different with race.

Whites were held (rightly or wrongly) in a higher regard to blacks, and so blacks weren't given quite as many rights.

With the gender thing and the different bathrooms we accept that males and females are different. But no one is saying one is better than the other.
 
deltablues said:
Were we racist 50 years ago? The assumptions and trigger words in the thread title interest me in the sense that the themes here (race and sexism) are part of the overall meme thru which folk express themselves these days. What I mean is that we assume that we can judge by our standards of today the past actions of folk who lived in different times to us and where society in those days had very different norms.

This raises the concept of history. Unfortunately, the word "history" is being subverted by activists and their media facilitators as part of an attempt to reverse centuries of perceived (and actual) historic wrongs by engaging in deconstructive "narratives" to fit the various menus on the table in today's culture wars - ignoring the complexity of the historical reality by reference to those times, and relying on some kind of simple social theory. It can be a mistake to judge, by our standards of today, particularly on race, the past actions of folk who lived in different times to us and where society in those days had very different norms.

The neo-Marxist historians and activist academics in the literature and linguistics departments look at culture as being encoded in language that must change with the material conditions - as the social environment changes, so too then must the language constructs. They argue that each era has a language structure which determines the questions that people can ask and the answers they can receive. And as conditions change historically so do the mental tropes, thereby from a new perspective (i.e. the activists' perspective) rendering, among other things, the zeitgeist and literature of the past age an affront and ripe for revisionism.

They follow the wacky French philosopher Jacques Derrida's belief that if one breaks apart the so-called hidden hierarchies in language terms, one can open up a "lacuna" in understanding and free the mind of the reader/critic, baby. Problem is that there is no lacuna - it is a device to re-write or leverage history to fit contemporary agendas.

This re-writing of history is all part of deconstructionalism, in accordance with Michel Foucault's New Historicism theory, where modern "narratives" are sought to be imposed upon the literature/history of past ages. This is the creed of the moral movement and their fellow travelers - always searching for causes and wars (war on this, war on that) in order to stick it to The Man under the guise of seeking to reverse centuries of perceived historic wrongs.

One basic example (linguistic-wise and history-wise) of this mindset is the charming phrase - old dead white men. It is all part of the culture wars, of which perceived sexism and racism is a major player.
Click to expand...

No need to bother refuting the identarians at the base of their ideology. Their inconsistencies can be seen for all to see by the trans-racial/gender double standard in which they give more weight to the weaker social construct in race, while increasingly attempt to do away with gender in it's absolute totality.

Why is it a nonsense? because race isn't equivalent to sex. Race is equivalent to gender and gender specifically in it's most conceptual of interpretations, a place where gender essentialism is disregarded almost entirely. In that regard i'd drop the word Sexism for "Genderism". As a point of differentiation, as it excludes biological and sexual differences that drive what differences do exist, primarily reproductive but also what little neurological differences that do exist. Now Genderism could be the equivalency of Racism 50 years ago.

I don't view a lot of gender essentialist positions as inherently wrong and that gender unlike race has it's origins in a material reality driven by female maternity and the average male physical advantage and i personally believe that at the very least some form of casual sexual determinism will always remain present in determining gender positions attached to the discrete sexes irrespective of how you construct your society. Race or rather the superficial appearance of race that we've come to call race is driven by environmental differences and geographical isolation and nothing more. Only the cultural experiences of race are meaningful and such experiences can more easily transcend genetic heritage. AKA the identarians have chosen and chosen wrong.

Ending Genderism would be distinct from Sexism in that ending Genderism wouldn't be an attack on the fundamental aspects of sex but rather liberate men and women and allow them to be themselves and allow them to be a little more free to pursue their own interests irrespective of how we view such things on a linear masculine and feminine spectrum. Men could be carers more comfortably as they're equipped for such roles biologically but not socially and women could more comfortably take more leadership roles outside of the home.

These folk have pretty much done away with Foucault or simply appropriated him. Foucault grounded his social critique in a larger social-ideological reality and gave a hell of a lot more credence to actual historic justifications than most new historians do today. He wasn't so interested in a grand narrative of historic truth but rather the little threads of historic consequence and the effects they had. So while he was happy for history to be constantly challenged he was no a relativist. Certainly not be today's measure where identity politics is king and where everyone interpretation is up for critique and rendered meaningless by it's origins.
 
Eastern Rangers said:
No need to bother refuting the identarians at the base of their ideology. Their inconsistencies can be seen for all to see by the trans-racial/gender double standard in which they give more weight to the weaker social construct in race, while increasingly attempt to do away with gender in it's absolute totality.

Why is it a nonsense? because race isn't equivalent to sex. Race is equivalent to gender and gender specifically in it's most conceptual of interpretations, a place where gender essentialism is disregarded almost entirely. In that regard i'd drop the word Sexism for "Genderism". As a point of differentiation, as it excludes biological and sexual differences that drive what differences do exist, primarily reproductive but also what little neurological differences that do exist. Now Genderism could be the equivalency of Racism 50 years ago.

I don't view a lot of gender essentialist positions as inherently wrong and that gender unlike race has it's origins in a material reality driven by female maternity and the average male physical advantage and i personally believe that at the very least some form of casual sexual determinism will always remain present in determining gender positions attached to the discrete sexes irrespective of how you construct your society. Race or rather the superficial appearance of race that we've come to call race is driven by environmental differences and geographical isolation and nothing more. Only the cultural experiences of race are meaningful and such experiences can more easily transcend genetic heritage. AKA the identarians have chosen and chosen wrong.

Ending Genderism would be distinct from Sexism in that ending Genderism wouldn't be an attack on the fundamental aspects of sex but rather liberate men and women and allow them to be themselves and allow them to be a little more free to pursue their own interests irrespective of how we view such things on a linear masculine and feminine spectrum. Men could be carers more comfortably as they're equipped for such roles biologically but not socially and women could more comfortably take more leadership roles outside of the home.

These folk have pretty much done away with Foucault or simply appropriated him. Foucault grounded his social critique in a larger social-ideological reality and gave a hell of a lot more credence to actual historic justifications than most new historians do today. He wasn't so interested in a grand narrative of historic truth but rather the little threads of historic consequence and the effects they had. So while he was happy for history to be constantly challenged he was no a relativist. Certainly not be today's measure where identity politics is king and where everyone interpretation is up for critique and rendered meaningless by it's origins.
Click to expand...

I first thought that the relatively recent trans-racial/trans-gender paradigm was just some hydra-headed variant of the deconstruction meme, and it probably is, because it leads to some more -isms which the cultural Marxists can add to their various wars and battles (for job security) and their relentless search for victims and the O-pressed.

But I am inclined to be cynical in my old age and when in doubt I follow the money trail - which led me to Bruce Jenner and Rachel Dolezal - as a poster mentioned above.

This blurring of boundaries also has connotations of some kind of fin-de-siècle degeneracy reminiscent of the Roman Empire in its declining years, with its moral decadence - I mean, treating race/gender as some kind of à la carte option is certainly decadent in the true dictionary definition. It's hard to see the envelope being pushed so far in a TW country where the genders do actually have a role to play and the "liberation" of men and women from their traditional linear roles would be viewed as some kind of far-fetched academic conceit (or possibly by some pithier adjective).

And that observation could be extrapolated by saying that where the genders have an established cultural role to perform, sexism does not exist: sexism only exists when there is competition between the sexes/genders. This may explain why the current perception of sexism now was not an issue 50 years ago for those living in that period (which would include me).
 
deltablues said:
And that observation could be extrapolated by saying that where the genders have an established cultural role to perform, sexism does not exist: sexism only exists when there is competition between the sexes/genders. This may explain why the current perception of sexism now was not an issue 50 years ago for those living in that period (which would include me).
Click to expand...

So you're saying that sexism only exists in cultures with the wriggle room to allow equality to exist as a possibile outcome? Say the Taliban take Kabul and again rule Afghanistan, and in doing so iron out a female role in that society that bars them from education and work outside the home. Now because women have only an extremely narrow range of options beyond which all becomes death by stoning would you say that particular society has successfully erased sexism as an issue?

Technically I'd say you're right but I think the greater wrong here would be denying equality. If equality creates issues so be it, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peetoo
Society/Culture Lucy Letby. Whistleblowers were harassed by authorities
Replies
1
Views
402
peetoo
peetoo
T
  • Locked
Society/Culture Playgrounds are sexist in Victoria
Replies
3
Views
479
Gethelred
Gethelred
ibd77
  • Locked
World War III, Is It Inevitable?
Replies
5
Views
587
Gethelred
Gethelred
Alite
Politics Japan has gone it’s own way on fighting inflation
Replies
12
Views
672
undefined
undefined
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
Geoff
Geoff
B
John Pilger - Year Zero
Replies
0
Views
441
Ballarat Bob
B
Carringbush2010
  • Poll
Society/Culture The seemingly growing anti 'western' sentiment in 'western' societies.
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
541
Views
13K
barreness
barreness

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top