Womens rights, black rights, Catholic rights......

strobe

Feminism, black power...etc.

Why not, human rights? Why not egalitarianism?

Why do some women interested in womens right insist on fighting for 'feminism'? Why do some black or Asian or Muslim people insist on defining things in terms of black or Asian or Muslim rights?

Surely it is better if any group, for the sake of argument lets say the female Jewish disabled gays, come out and say; "this person {who happens to be a disabled Jewish lesbian} is being denied their human rights. We want to push for egalitarianism. This is a human, they deserve human rights."

What is to be gained by focusing on one group? What is the point of saying, we want rights for Hindus? Why not just disregard the fact that the person is a Hindu and just say "this human's human rights are being violated, we are humans too, lets put an end to this".

Why the deliberate segregation? Is it not counter productive? Is it not anathema to what these special interest groups claim to want to accomplish?


Enough of the 'feminism' 'religious freedom' 'rights for whites' stuff.

If you feel a particular group or person is being discriminated against, why not just come out and say "this person's human rights are being denied" rather than "this woman's/black's/Hindu's/ woman's/black's/Hindu's rights are being denied"?






That is all slightly ranty. Apologies. I hope the point of it got through.

What are your opinions?

chucken1

I do say a persons human rights are being denied. Maybe I'm an odd ball but I dont see colour or creed if it is a violation of a human right.

http://www.amnesty.ie/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eightyfish

strobe wrote: »

If you feel a particular group or person is being discriminated against, why not just come out and say "this person's human rights are being denied" rather than...

That is what people say, isn't it?

There is no such thing as "black rights" or "Hindu rights" as you say. There is just human rights, including a freedom from persecution and a freedom of religion (or no religion) for every person.

eightyfish

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True, true. I thought feminism was dead until I read a few books about the treatment of women in middle eastern countries (specifically Ayaan Hirsi Ali) where feminism is very much a necessity.

strobe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is what I am talking about. This view point specifically. "Well it's ok for you, you are a man living in 'the western world'". But in these places, in any places, is it not better to say "this person is a human. They deserve human rights. All humans are equal. All humans, old, young, black, white, male female, Jew, Muslim," Rather than saying "What about the women!?!?11eleven?". Why focus on the fact that they are women? Why focus on the fact that gay people are being discriminated against?

If the women were men and were treated like this we both would have the same objection. If the gay people were straight we would have the same objection (presumably with these statements obviously).

Why not just say; "this is a human, this is a person, they deserve human rights". Why the 'sectarianism'? Why the propagation?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

When people stop denying other people's human rights because of their membership of a certain group, then there'll be no need for people to express their dissatisfaction in a group context.

Rev Hellfire

strobe wrote: »

Why not, human rights? Why not egalitarianism?

Because most people aren't really interested in the rights of others but simply ensuring that the system is stacked in their favour where possible.

ztoical

strobe wrote: »

Why focus on the fact that they are women? Why focus on the fact that gay people are being discriminated against?

Because the whole reasons they are being discriminated against is based on them being women/gay/etc How exactly would you highlight a case of someone being disriminated against without mentioning the reason for the discrimination?

liah

While I largely agree with the sentiment I think you're wildly missing the bigger picture. It's annoying, but these groups had to start and be divisive to actually get somewhere in the world and work for their basic human rights, and what's been done cannot be easily undone. They're still vital in a lot of areas to provide comfort to minorities who face discrimination and to educate those who do discriminate out of ignorance.

The 'white male' has never had to prove his worth, it was always just assumed, which is why there's no equivalent, really. Yes, positive discrimination is still discrimination but unfortunately, on the bigger scale, it's still very much necessary to change people's attitudes.

In a utopia everything would be free and equal but the world doesn't actually work like that. You can't expect it to change overnight, this positive discrimination stuff is residual and will take time to phase out. I have confidence that it will phase out, to a degree, but I'm fairly sure it'll never be completely gone. People are clannish and like to set themselves apart, an odd combination but a common one, and that's going to perpetuate it.

Scanlas The 2nd

eightyfish wrote: »

True, true. I thought feminism was dead until I read a few books about the treatment of women in middle eastern countries (specifically Ayaan Hirsi Ali) where feminism is very much a necessity.

Its things like this that make it hard for me to take seriously the likes of "glass celings" waffle that some feminists go on about. If you truly are interested in women's rights (and not simply your own interests) shut up about your minor lack of luxuries and and do something about the awful abuse women in middle eastern countries are forced to endure.

What annoys me is feminists, black rights, gay rights people etc. who go on about equality but coincidentally the topics they bring up are all about improving their own situation, never actually doing something to worsen their own situation that would make things more equal. So somehow I don't think equality is really what they are so interested in. It's their own interests they are interested in, not equality.

liah

It's much easier to focus on improving one aspect of equality than to take every injustice under your wing. I don't get this whole 'well if you want things to be equal for x group you have to do it for everyone else too!' thing that people keep using as an excuse to bash people-- I mean come on. That's logistically impossible and simply unrealistic. People can only fight for so much. If everyone fights their corner individually, we'll get there (to equality, that is) eventually. It just takes time. It doesn't mean there can't be crossovers but surely you can understand the reasons why it is the way it is, it's not that difficult?

Scanlas The 2nd

liah wrote: »

It's much easier to focus on improving one aspect of equality than to take every injustice under your wing. I don't get this whole 'well if you want things to be equal for x group you have to do it for everyone else too!' thing that people keep using as an excuse to bash people-- I mean come on. That's logistically impossible and simply unrealistic. People can only fight for so much. If everyone fights their corner individually, we'll get there (to equality, that is) eventually. It just takes time. It doesn't mean there can't be crossovers but surely you can understand the reasons why it is the way it is, it's not that difficult?

The point I'm making is a lot of groups claim to want equality, but don't ever seem to do anything that harms their own interests for equality. What they want is the benefits they can get out of the equality card but overlook areas where they are being treated more favourably at other people's expense. It's true people can only fight for so much, so fight your corner for your own equality, but that means fighting your corner for relatively worse treatment/ circumstances at times if equality is what you truly want.

I've no problem with people only being interested in their own interests either, what annoys me is when people bullsh*t others by saying it's for "equality" when all they are really interested in is the best possible curcumstances for themselves regardless of the harm to other people.

donfers

eightyfish wrote: »

True, true. I thought feminism was dead until I read a few books about the treatment of women in middle eastern countries (specifically Ayaan Hirsi Ali) where feminism is very much a necessity.

I agree completely and it makes the feminists here who whinge that they aren't a CEO of the company they work in within 5 years or scream sexual harrassment when a guy says she has a nice hairstyle look all the more ludicrous

donfers

liah wrote: »

It's much easier to focus on improving one aspect of equality than to take every injustice under your wing. I don't get this whole 'well if you want things to be equal for x group you have to do it for everyone else too!' thing that people keep using as an excuse to bash people-- I mean come on. That's logistically impossible and simply unrealistic. People can only fight for so much. If everyone fights their corner individually, we'll get there (to equality, that is) eventually. It just takes time. It doesn't mean there can't be crossovers but surely you can understand the reasons why it is the way it is, it's not that difficult?

correct, many many people are motivated by self-interest and selfishness, the best of us should however aspire to demonstrating a more empathetic mindset

tawnyowl

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Its things like this that make it hard for me to take seriously the likes of "glass celings" waffle that some feminists go on about. If you truly are interested in women's rights (and not simply your own interests) shut up about your minor lack of luxuries and and do something about the awful abuse women in middle eastern countries are forced to endure.

As it's quite likely that there's always someone worse off somewhere else in the world, that attitude can have the effect of telling someone to shut up about any problems they have.

For example, a woman who voices concerns about sexual violence in Ireland might be told "Oh yeah? It's worse in Saudi Arabia, so why don't you do something about that instead?"

It's whataboutery in other words.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

What is to be gained by focusing on one group? What is the point of saying, we want rights for Hindus?

Its, as you say, a way of focusing action.

Imagine you go down to your local beach and find it polluted. Would you start the "Clean up Green Bay" campaign, or would you start the "Clean up Every Beach in the World" campaign, or even "Clean up the Entire World[/i" campaign. Probably the former.

That doesn't mean you think only Green Bay should be clean and damn the rest of the beaches, but to try and take on the whole world with a single campaign would be silly. People work better when they have clear specific goals and are working on manageable chunks. Even things like black civil rights and feminism are two general, which is why people talk of local chapters or organizations focusing on the specific problems in their specific areas. Again that doesn't mean they don't care about those outside the area.

Chuchoter

There are separate groups for different disadvantaged groups because frankly if you don't fight for yourself specifically no-one else is coming back for you.

Dudess

I agree with Strobe in relation to certain stuff - e.g. the treatment of women in Pakistan; under the Taliban, etc. That is not a women's rights issue - it is a human rights issue, and if men were being treated in such a way under those regimes, it wouldn't be viewed as a "men's rights" issue, just, again, a human one.

Fittle

I believe alot of the categories referred to in the OP have differences and knowledge of what specific rights these categories actually 'want' is the key. For example - prisoners rights is quite a general term. But even within the prison system, there are travellers. It tends to be traveller movements who fight specifically for travellers rights in prisons, because they are that bit different to that of a more 'general' prisoner. Yes, the usual arguments regarding 'human rights' are still there - slopping out for example - but travellers consider themselves a different ethnic group to others, with different traditions and lifestyles, so there are other issues that they feel entitled to. That's just an example.

And also, as someone else said, if you don't fight for your own beliefs, whether it be womens rights, travellers rights, prisoners right or whatever, no-one else will. We all tend to fight for the rights of those closest to us -or those that affect us the most.

DrFroggies

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think the OP is directing this question toward Western attitudes as reflected and propagated in the west which is where we probably should be moving away from many of those specific group issues at least (and again i'm assuming the OP was refering to this) in western mindsets and in how we relate to/express various needs/rights as i think its generally understood that more fundamentalist areas in the world require obvious and specific approaches.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Because most people aren't really interested in the rights of others but simply ensuring that the system is stacked in their favour where possible.

Not idealistically but possibly in real terms this is true

liah wrote: »

It's annoying, but these groups had to start and be divisive to actually get somewhere in the world and work for their basic human rights, and what's been done cannot be easily undone. They're still vital in a lot of areas to provide comfort to minorities who face discrimination and to educate those who do discriminate out of ignorance.

The 'white male' has never had to prove his worth, it was always just assumed, which is why there's no equivalent, really. Yes, positive discrimination is still discrimination but unfortunately, on the bigger scale, it's still very much necessary to change people's attitudes.

I think again the OP's point (apologies if i'm making assumptions here OP!) is that any discrimination at this point in western culture is counterproductive - I'm certainly not sure how beneficial 'positive discrimination' is in changing attitudes at this point (in many cases) it could be a case of the cure killing the patient.

liah wrote: »

It's much easier to focus on improving one aspect of equality than to take every injustice under your wing. I don't get this whole 'well if you want things to be equal for x group you have to do it for everyone else too!' thing that people keep using as an excuse to bash people-- I mean come on. That's logistically impossible and simply unrealistic. People can only fight for so much. If everyone fights their corner individually, we'll get there (to equality, that is) eventually. It just takes time. It doesn't mean there can't be crossovers but surely you can understand the reasons why it is the way it is, it's not that difficult?

Not sure about this...yeah it is easier but easier is not necessarily better - i'm also not sure that it'll lead to equality in the end at all...self interest can cause counter interest causes to appear and result in a prolonged messier battle for all.

tawnyowl wrote: »

As it's quite likely that there's always someone worse off somewhere else in the world, that attitude can have the effect of telling someone to shut up about any problems they have.

For example, a woman who voices concerns about sexual violence in Ireland might be told "Oh yeah? It's worse in Saudi Arabia, so why don't you do something about that instead?"

It's whataboutery in other words.

Equally bringing more minor slights or perceived slights into the same 'cause pool' could degrade the more serious issues that the specific group or movement set out to resolve - Feminism being a case in point; western women abusing feminism for petty (not necessarily feminist issues) self interest, results in the cause itself being belittled - which is why feminism has become an almost trite and often mocked consideration in the west when it still has such a massive role to play in much of the world. Feminism now tends to conjure up images of lazy, unsuccessful middle managment bemoaning the fact that they haven't moved further up the ladder rather than serious human rights issues against women around the world.

Wicknight wrote: »

Its, as you say, a way of focusing action.

Imagine you go down to your local beach and find it polluted. Would you start the "Clean up Green Bay" campaign, or would you start the "Clean up Every Beach in the World" campaign, or even "Clean up the Entire World[/i" campaign. Probably the former.

Actually i think we could well live in an age where the latter is not only preferable but also more likely to yeild results

Fittle wrote: »

And also, as someone else said, if you don't fight for your own beliefs, whether it be womens rights, travellers rights, prisoners right or whatever, no-one else will. We all tend to fight for the rights of those closest to us -or those that affect us the most.

Yeah i think this is our default behaviour though we should aim for more.

jill_valentine

donfers wrote: »

I agree completely and it makes the feminists here who whinge that they aren't a CEO of the company they work in within 5 years or scream sexual harrassment when a guy says she has a nice hairstyle look all the more ludicrous

Such feminists are far more numerous in editorials and anecdotes than in reality.

It is not unreasonable to point out that there aren't many women - or black folk, or jewish folks, or gay folk or what have you - in high echelons of business and power because it's indicative of a society wide bias away from them. This may seem annoying to the guys who have, I don't doubt, earned their job titles and paypackets honestly - but it is important to remind everyone that just because folks no longer have to fling themselves under horses for the vote these days, it does not mean they are still playing on a level field.

The lack of female CEOs, to run with your example, is not necessarily the fault of some evil cabal of white men jealously hogging all the jobs and nobody's claiming it is, but it does ask much more far reaching questions about where the bottlenecking is happening. Ultimately, the hope is that raising the issue draws attention to fixing that problem, whether it be in education or in cultural values or what.

As for why there are specific rights groups - the folks who already have all the rights to which they're entitled are unlikely to recognise that there's a problem in the first place, or at the very least, truly understand it's scale.

Zombrex

DrFroggies wrote: »

Actually i think we could well live in an age where the latter is not only preferable but also more likely to yeild results

How? For a start where do you, er, start? You have to pick a beech to clean up, you will naturally pick the one closest to you, and then you are back to square one. Clean up the World has become Clean up Green Bay Beach.

Massive generalization becomes unworkable because to achieve anything people need specific goals.

DrFroggies

Wicknight wrote: »

How? For a start where do you, er, start? You have to pick a beech to clean up, you will naturally pick the one closest to you, and then you are back to square one. Clean up the World has become Clean up Green Bay Beach. Massive generalization becomes unworkable because to achieve anything people need specific goals.

Of course you start somewhere Green Bay Beach is part of the general mass!

Clean up the World/Beaches of the World should become Clean up Green Bay Beach but not soley Green Bay Beach...green bay beach is just one part of the Clean Up the Beaches of the World Campagin etc...not to allow the analogy to drag things off thread (feel free to exchange green bay for any of the thread title issues) but:

Clean Up Green Bay becomes as you say a concern for only immediately interested parties (locals, green campaginers etc) it may be achieved and to a lesser extent maintained but eventually it either loses momentum or becomes an insular project (an exaggerated obsession for immediately interested parties...their biased interests undermining the greater good and therefore their own project in the long term as it becomes a divisive cause rather than an encompassing ideal) either way it certainly doesn't have enough gravity to capture broader, progressive and longer term interest eventually either slipping back into its unclean state or becoming a niche concern.

However 'Clean Up The Beaches of the World' would be a larger project with wider interests and wider impact which is also likely to attract a broader effort across the spectrum, as a cause it becomes ingrained in the public conciousness with those willing to do a lot supported to various extents by a wider group/everyone willing to make small efforts or concessions regarding their own behaviour in order to see this wider ideal achieved. The scale of the project make it more inclusive its not a niche concern but a behavioural one on a larger scale.

How? We live in the communications era, spreading broader messages (**ie. smoking = negative behaviour etc) is much easier than in days gone by and many people in the western world (and further) are media savvy, intuitively understanding marketing and PR etc its a very defininte part of our culture now, larger scale concerns capture a larger audience a zeitgeist (for lack of a better term) of sorts. You'll find that people are much more eager in our world today to be part of a global project rather than a local one and Green Bay becomes the local chapter of a grander collective and much grander scheme. Specifics are still attended to but the goal is greater, more inclusive and less likely to lose momentum. The clean up beaches issue becomes ingrained in the public conciousness.

The same logic can be applied to any of the previously discussed issues; feminism, ethnicity, sexual orientation...narrowing them into sole concerns creates an exclusivity, by extension routed in self interest; as the wider social development becomes more sophisticated this becomes counter-productive creating antipathies and ultimately subversive conflicts. In a more progressive society the original causes (or the base responses to those causes) tend to give voice to regressive attitudes unable to accept more elegant solutions of what we should hope is a more reasoned age we live in.

(**walk into a bar or restuarant in many western countries now and spark up a cigarrette and see the reaction you'll get (quite aside from the legal issue)...it's a given now even amongst smokers that's its inappropriate/insulting to smoke over someone else in a confined space, the public conciousness has changed on a massive scale)

Dudess

jill_valentine wrote: »

Such feminists are far more numerous in editorials and anecdotes

... And also: the head.

DrFroggies

jill_valentine wrote: »

It is not unreasonable to point out that there aren't many women - or black folk, or jewish folks, or gay folk or what have you - because it's indicative of a society wide bias away from them.

But it would be unreasonable to assume that a 'society wide bias' was the overriding cause...being a minority in a given area (in no other way than simple numbers) could well be a greater factor at this stage in western society. Put crudely...there may be more Jewish people working at all levels of society in Israel than there are Christian but that is as likely the result of there being a greater number of Jewish people in that society than a bias against Christians.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Ultimately, the hope is that raising the issue draws attention to fixing that problem, whether it be in education or in cultural values or what.

But misunderstanding what the issue is or deliberately inflating self interested aspects of the issue (accepting that the ultimate issue is human equality) only serves to inflame and convolute the problem - and the movement away from a balanced society becomes more apparent.

jill_valentine wrote: »

As for why there are specific rights groups - the folks who already have all the rights to which they're entitled are unlikely to recognise that there's a problem in the first place, or at the very least, truly understand it's scale.

Equally specific rights groups may be unable to see the far reaching negative effect that such naively narrow focused self interest can have in the long run. Also it creates knots in terms of which particular group could possibly have 'all the rights they are entitled to' as there is unlikely to be any such group (ie.to use some of the opening issues...is it a white, homosexual male or a black, hetrosexual female, a white hetrosexual Muslim or a Black homosexual Christian and so on so forth). I think it might be wrong to presume there is. And aggressive self interest groups can be seen to create further imbalances by encroaching on the rights of other groups which again only creates worse problems along the road.

Scanlas The 2nd

tawnyowl wrote: »

As it's quite likely that there's always someone worse off somewhere else in the world, that attitude can have the effect of telling someone to shut up about any problems they have.

For example, a woman who voices concerns about sexual violence in Ireland might be told "Oh yeah? It's worse in Saudi Arabia, so why don't you do something about that instead?"

It's whataboutery in other words.

There's nothing wrong with voicing your problems no matter how minor, but don't pretend that equality is your priority when it clearly isn't, it's their own self interest that is their goal.

Macha

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with voicing your problems no matter how minor, but don't pretend that equality is your priority when it clearly isn't, it's their own self interest that is their goal.

Evidence?

Scanlas The 2nd

Macha wrote: »

Evidence?

I don't remember ever hearing about someone fighting for equality who wasn't looking for better relative conditions for themself. If equality is really people's concern then surely you would hear of people looking for worse relative conditions so they could be more equal. I don't mind people looking after number one, what does annoy me is people claiming to want equality when really what they want is better relative conditions for themselves.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't remember ever hearing about someone fighting for equality who wasn't looking for better relative conditions for themself. If equality is really people's concern then surely you would hear of people looking for worse relative conditions so they could be more equal. I don't mind people looking after number one, what does annoy me is people claiming to want equality when really what they want is better relative conditions for themselves.

You've never seen straight people who fight for gay rights? White people fight against racism?

Macha

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't remember ever hearing about someone fighting for equality who wasn't looking for better relative conditions for themself. If equality is really people's concern then surely you would hear of people looking for worse relative conditions so they could be more equal. I don't mind people looking after number one, what does annoy me is people claiming to want equality when really what they want is better relative conditions for themselves.

I've been on gay rights marches - I'm not gay. I've marched for Falun Gong prisoners in China - I'm not one of those. I fully support reform of fathers' rights in Ireland - I'm not even male.

seenitall

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't remember ever hearing about someone fighting for equality who wasn't looking for better relative conditions for themself. If equality is really people's concern then surely you would hear of people looking for worse relative conditions so they could be more equal. I don't mind people looking after number one, what does annoy me is people claiming to want equality when really what they want is better relative conditions for themselves.

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me; surely people very obviously fight for equality when they fight for the improvements of conditions for themselves in a society that will bring them to the level pegging with a dominant group. In other words, when they fight for nothing more than everyone else has got. So yes, they are fighting their own corner, with a view to equality with others.

As for the people who already have those conditions/privileges in place but would seek to divest themselves of them in order to be equal with those who are worse off, they are free to do so, but they never do, do they? The inherent selfishness of the human nature is something that is common to us all, whether disandvantaged or privileged.

Scanlas The 2nd

Macha wrote: »

I've been on gay rights marches - I'm not gay. I've marched for Falun Gong prisoners in China - I'm not one of those. I fully support reform of fathers' rights in Ireland - I'm not even male.

When you do this you aren't making your own circumstances worse for equality. I'm sure there are people who do primarily care about quality, but I think a lot of people in first world countries use the equality card as simply a way to pursue their own interests which are their primary concern.

I just noticed the Fathers rights bit of your post. That would be something that could worsen your circumstances. Fair play to you, I don't think most people who exault equality are like you.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When you do this you aren't making your own circumstances worse for equality. I'm sure there are people who do primarily care about quality, but I think a lot of people in first world countries use the equality card as simply a way to pursue their own interests which are their primary concern.

You seem to be saying that equality is the most important thing, not that rights are. Gay couples don't have the right to adopt. Should I be campaigning for their right to be granted or my right to be removed? Women who aren't treated equally at work, should I be campaigning for them to receive my treatment or me to receive their treatment?

And I am making my own circumstances "worse" by campaigning for these things. What if I lose out on a promotion I would have gotten if women were discriminated against?

Scanlas The 2nd

seenitall wrote: »

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me; surely people very obviously fight for equality when they fight for the improvements of conditions for themselves in a society that will bring them to the level pegging with a dominant group. In other words, when they fight for nothing more than everyone else has got. So yes, they are fighting their own corner, with a view to equality with others.

As for the people who already have those conditions/privileges in place but would seek to divest themselves of them in order to be equal with those who are worse off, they are free to do so, but they never do, do they? The inherent selfishness of the human nature is something that is common to us all, whether disandvantaged or privileged.

So equality isn't really your primary concern, it's your own selfish interests, which I have no problem with. The point I'm making is for most people who express the importance of equality to them, they are bullsh*tting us. Their primary concern is their own selfish interests. Thats the point I'm making. You don't see too many people in advantaged positions campaigning for to lose their advantaged positions. This makes me see equality as mostly a smokescreen. You have just agreed with me in your above post.

Macha

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When you do this you aren't making your own circumstances worse for equality. I'm sure there are people who do primarily care about quality, but I think a lot of people in first world countries use the equality card as simply a way to pursue their own interests which are their primary concern.

I know what you're getting at - people agitating for something under the guise of altruism when they will actually benefit from it. I see it a lot in the environmental sector and my attitude to it has to be that if it makes people in favour of these measures then it can't be all bad. Of course you have to be aware of people's motivations.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I just noticed the Fathers rights bit of your post. That would be something that could worsen your circumstances. Fair play to you, I don't think most people who exault equality are like you.

Well I know the accusation is often thrown at feminists that they only care about women but I think it's a bit of a misconception. Most feminists I know don't blame "men", if they're blaming anyone, they blame "society".

seenitall

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You have just agreed with me in your above post.

Err... no, I actually very much disagreed with you in my above post! However, the post stands there, I've nothing to add to it, and you are at liberty, just as anyone else, to read and interpret it in any way you prefer to.

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So equality isn't really your primary concern, it's your own selfish interests, which I have no problem with. The point I'm making is for most people who express the importance of equality to them, they are bullsh*tting us. Their primary concern is their own selfish interests. Thats the point I'm making. You don't see too many people in advantaged positions campaigning for to lose their advantaged positions. This makes me see equality as mostly a smokescreen. You have just agreed with me in your above post.

You seem to be arguing that no one is really interested in equality because the only way to achieve equality is to lower everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That seems a rather bizarre position.

For example when women campaigned for the equal right to vote they weren't campaigning that men lose their right to vote. Men lost nothing when women won voting rights.

How is that not about equality?

DrFroggies

However much people might not like the way Scanlas has made his/her (i'm assuming his ;-) point.

It is entirely valid.

Abusing a cause is demeaning to the original tenet of the given cause and often the loudest voices in these areas (as in most areas in life) are the silliest. These kind of people do untold damage to the longer term perception of people included in that cause who sincerely endevour toward an equal society and who genuinely desire to see the need for their particular rights group to dissappear.

To that end i assume Scanlas is not refering to everyone involved in these causes but the over-loud (i'd like to say minority but unfortunately i think in some of the above...its...) majority, who certainly see self interest as a reason to shout: Sexism/Racism/Religious Intolerance.

I think its more beneficial to acknowledge this is an increasing problem than sit on our laurels afraid to contest the popular consensus for fear of seeming anti-(insert cause here) though unfortunately it is easier to support causes without question and it makes us feel like we're on the good side of the inferred divide.

28064212

DrFroggies wrote: »

However much people might not like the way Scanlas has made his/her (i'm assuming his ;-) point.

It is entirely valid.

Abusing a cause is demeaning to the original tenet of the given cause and often the loudest voices in these areas (as in most areas in life) are the silliest. These kind of people do untold damage to the longer term perception of people included in that cause who sincerely endevour toward an equal society and who genuinely desire to see the need for their particular rights group to dissappear.

To that end i assume Scanlas is not refering to everyone involved in these causes but the over-loud (i'd like to say minority but unfortunately i think in some of the above...its...) majority, who certainly see self interest as a reason to shout: Sexism/Racism/Religious Intolerance.

I think its more beneficial to acknowledge this is an increasing problem than sit on our laurels afraid to contest the popular consensus for fear of seeming anti-(insert cause here) though unfortunately it is easier to support causes without question and it makes us feel like we're on the good side of the inferred divide.

Really?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't remember ever hearing about someone fighting for equality who wasn't looking for better relative conditions for themself.

That's blatantly just not true.

Secondly, fighting to raise your own rights to the level of others might be self-interest, but it's certainly not selfish, or something to be frowned upon.

DrFroggies

28064212 wrote: »

Really?

28...(you don't mind if i call you 28... do you ;-)...Is that really the only thing you felt compelled to reply to in that post?

Nothing relating to the actual issue...its seems very petty. But just to clarify having read through the thread i made the assumption that despite some of the more excitable reactions made Scanlans point referred to large factions of a group rather than everyone involved in an ideal or issue, I gathered this from his/her overall posts and response to another poster who he/she had accepted had proven their own integrity in supporting various causes. I suppose i'm less interested in deriding the intent of posters and very interested in the actual issues raised.

Obviously you're free to indulge in as much trivial tangents as you like but it is silly and narrows the debate...as i say its up to you...but its a pity to derail things and make them about an individual over a genuine issue.

28064212 wrote: »

Secondly, fighting to raise your own rights to the level of others might be self-interest, but it's certainly not selfish, or something to be frowned upon.

Again i think you're interpreting the questions this thread has raised wrong I'm not sure where this has been said by either the poster you highlighted or the OP (you needn't quote someone i may have missed...if you say you saw it i'll take your word for it..just better than slipping off thread:)). Just to clarify incase you haven't read the whole thread** the OPs issue was with the actual need for divisive factional rights group, we all might be better served in considering all those rights to be 'human rights' and refering to them as such (allowing us all to be considered equal from the outstart) Scanlans issue (however broad you assume he/she applies the stroke) was with people who use these issue groups for their own self interest.

For my own part i take it that both concerns (applied in the progressive framework of the western world) are entirely valid for reasons I've clearly stated which you're absolutely welcome to question.

**I don't mean to sound patronising in any of that - I find this debate interesting and i'm always interested in peoples ability to reason over just passionate platfom responses so i just hate things slipping off thread and wouldn't like my posts to be used to do so! (he said as he slipped off thread..sorry all )

28064212

DrFroggies wrote: »

28...(you don't mind if i call you 28... do you ;-)...Is that really the only thing you felt compelled to reply to in that post?

No (no to the "only" thing, not the 28 thing :pac:) That's why I addressed one point, and then followed it up with a second point

DrFroggies wrote: »

Nothing relating to the actual issue...its seems very petty. But just to clarify having read through the thread i made the assumption that despite some of the more excitable reactions made Scanlans point referred to large factions of a group as apposed to everyone involved in an ideal or issue, I gathered this from his/her overall posts and response to another poster who he/she had accepted had proven their own integrity in supporting various causes. I suppose i'm less interested in deriding the intent of posters and very interested in the actual issues raised.

Scanlas' entire point seems to be that everybody calling for equality is acting in their own selfish interests. That particular quote encapsulated their position, which is why I used it. It's something which is obviously untrue. Even to say "the majority" is extremely unlikely to be true, as that would mean the majority of, for example, white people do not care about discrimination against black people.

DrFroggies wrote: »

Scanlans issue (however broad you assume he/she applies the stroke) was with people who use these issue groups for their own self interest.

What part of the piece I quoted was misinterpreted? "I don't remember ever hearing about someone fighting for equality who wasn't looking for better relative conditions for themself" - how could that have any meaning other than the one I took from it and addressed?

DrFroggies wrote: »

Again i think you're interpreting the questions this thread has raised wrong I'm not sure where this has been said by either the poster you highlighted or the OP (you needn't quote someone i may have missed...if you say you saw it i'll take your word for it..just better than slipping off thread:)). Just to clarify incase you haven't read the whole thread** the OPs issue was with the actual need for divisive factional rights group, we all might be better served in considering all those rights to be 'human rights' and refering to them as such (allowing us all to be considered equal from the outstart)

I don't see how my second point isn't a direct response to that. Acting in your own self-interest is in direct contrast to calling for "all" rights to be applied across the board. However, I don't consider that to be selfish. The OP presupposes that being (for example) predominately a feminist precludes you from supporting other groups, when it's more likely that people who have fought for their rights will support other groups when they come looking

DrFroggies

28064212 wrote: »

No (no to the "only" thing, not the 28 thing :pac:) That's why I addressed one point, and then followed it up with a second point

I said 'only' in reference to my post assuming that neither of the following quotes related to my post...unless you completely misread or misunderstood my post? Regardless its a minor concern slightly off point so we won't drag it out;)

28064212 wrote: »

Even to say "the majority" is extremely unlikely to be true, as that would mean the majority of, for example, white people do not care about discrimination against black people.

No...if that was the point clearly it would mean that the "majority" care more about their own self interest over larger interests.

Either way that wasn't what i said...this goes back to what i mentioned about platform responses (yes its easier to reform statements into something obvious to argue against but its far more progressive to read, reason and to respond to what was actually said over what would be easier to infer/misread)...So to reitterate what I said:"not refering to everyone involved in these causes but the over-loud (i'd like to say minority but unfortunately i think in some of the above...its...) majority, who certainly see self interest as a reason to shout: Sexism/Racism/Religious Intolerance." There's no ambiguity there i think! Since you mention feminism I'll use it to illustrate: Feminsim has become to a noticable extent a much mocked term due to the amount of abuse the term has suffered at the hands of silly people (whether thats claiming Katie Price/Madonna is an icon of feminism or the less informed people crying feminism from the lower rungs of the office floor - which may or may not be a genuine issue higher up the career ladder (still a contentous issue for many) or the whold Bridget Jones brand of feminism) the very real issues for feminism as a *high-profile concern (*mostly outside the developed western world) are demeaned as the term is dragged through the mud by a loud and silly, (possibly) majority.

28064212 wrote: »

I don't see how my second point isn't a direct response to that. Acting in your own self-interest is in direct contrast to calling for "all" rights to be applied across the board. However, I don't consider that to be selfish.

:eek::eek::eek:

28064212 wrote: »

The OP presupposes that being (for example) predominately a feminist precludes you from supporting other groups, when it's more likely that people who have fought for their rights will support other groups when they come looking

What makes you think that? The OP doesn't suggest it "precludes you from supporting other groups" The OP only asks if segragation is counterproductive to the ideal as equality/human rights as a whole and suggests that it would be better to focus at this stage on seeing us as human, equal and with no biased interest groups. I think there is still a lot of misinterpretation going on there.

But let me ask you 28... What do you think of the initial suggestion that it might be time to wind down the notion of self interest groups and focus on a wider collective Human Rights/Equality for all model? Don't you think it's a reasonable, progressive expectation?

Scanlas The 2nd

Maybe this is obvious, but I just think self interest is what most people are interested in, not equality. Not saying it's wrong, just want to point this out.

Just say blue eyed people got paid less than brown eyed people. I think you would find a lot more blue eyed people campaigning for equality than brown eyed people. Many of these blue eyed people would be very angry about the lack of equality. But if they happened to be born brown eyed I doubt very much they would be as angry about the lack of equality. It's not so much lack of equality that bothers them, it's about them feeling inferior that angers them.

I don't mean to offend blue eyed or brown eyed people.