Our Shared Shelf discussion
Archive
>
Equal rights to go topless?
Catrice wrote: "Nikita wrote: "Ana, you've showed a typical example of feminist demagoguery. I'm not talking about the percentage of women who can breastfeed (such percentage is not great).
I'm talking about t..."
Can I ask you why you feel the need to go topless...other then the comparing "well men get to do it" I believe you criticized me for that reasoning when I compared what women get to do and how it's not fair for men...so wouldn't It be the same line of reasoning that men,because of our anatomy, might not be held to the same standards of topless. Although if a man is nude in public or is exposed he will be arrested an quite possibly be labeled a first degree sex offender. Where I do believe that you have a right to be nude in your own house... if somebody sees you in public then unfortunately they kind of have the right to look if they choose too. Not with binoculars, that is against the law. If being nude is so important to you then a set of curtains for the window might help. If you wish to be publicly nude, well then the public dose have the right to acknowledge your nudeness. That's kind of what it means to live in a society. There are standards put in place by cultures....there are groups that allow this though, if you wished it, and countries that are more open to it too. So I need to ask is it being topless or is it being topless and having everyone else having to except you and your toplessness? If men had to wear shirts, or nipple pasties, would you feel vindicated? Should men and women beheld to the same standards even though sometimes because of our differences both sexist need different things? And no nothing here is a joke so you don't need to call me a douchebag .
Oh and by the way how did you know the peeper had binoculars? Did you see him? If you did then you should have called the cops. did you confront the guy and his wife? Can you give a little more insight to this story?
Dear Jing Wen,You know, I'm that kind of guy who likes to go topless, and who likes to sunbathe in summer time.
But I'm also the kind of guy to whom parents, unlike you, apparently, have invested some ideas into the head, when I was a child, about what/when/where is acceptable and not acceptable.
For instance, that it's unacceptable to urinate in a public place or that it's unacceptable to pick your nose while sitting at the dinner table.
James has fairly noticed that we are living in a society, not in the wild jungles, and we are not animals. If you want to live in a society - follow the rules, if you want to be an animal - be an animal and live in the jungles. I hope no one is questioning the need of rules.
At the base of social life regulation should always present principles of rationality and mutual responsibility, not the principle of "I want it and I want it now." All the people who are older than 6 years are aware of this.
The one who aware of this will never rush topless into office building with an idiotic banners and will never demand to let them go topless there.
P.S. I insist that feminism is an ideology that appeals to selfishness and encourages infantilism, which is leading to a social degradation and destruction.
Dear Nikita,You know, I'm that kind of guy who likes to go topless, and who likes to sunbathe in summer time.
You wouldn’t deny yourself that special right to go topless and yet you don’t consider going topless a privilege.
But I'm also the kind of guy to whom parents, unlike you, apparently, have invested some ideas into the head, when I was a child, about what/when/where is acceptable and not acceptable.
1500 years ago thinking that the world was flat was acceptable. 500 years ago thinking that the earth was the center of the universe was acceptable. 250 years ago having slaves were acceptable. And today a big number of adult still thinks that going without vaccination is acceptable. Sad to say that you are a sheep with a mind too rigid to think for yourself what is right and what is wrong.
For instance, that it's unacceptable to urinate in a public place or that it's unacceptable to pick your nose while sitting at the dinner table.
Which I would agree because it is unacceptable for both gender to piss in public or pick your nose at dinner. But imagine if it was a rule that only applies to one gender? Eg if it was unacceptable for men to drink water in public while women can do so whenever they like. How would you feel to be denied something that is a privilege to the opposite gender?
James has fairly noticed that we are living in a society, not in the wild jungles, and we are not animals. If you want to live in a society - follow the rules, if you want to be an animal - be an animal and live in the jungles. I hope no one is questioning the need of rules.
Just want to point out about our scientific discoveries that I mentioned earlier and many more. If no one questioned the “rules”, we wouldn’t be where we are right now (the world is flat pffft). You are literally a case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (what irony considering the topic of this thread).
At the base of social life regulation should always present principles of rationality and mutual responsibility, not the principle of "I want it and I want it now." All the people who are older than 6 years are aware of this.
And which part of promoting equal rights seems irrational and un-responsible? In that case, Abraham Lincoln is the most irrational and unresponsible person in the history of USA. Guess who has a memorial in Washington DC.
The one who aware of this will never rush topless into office building with an idiotic banners and will never demand to let them go topless there.
I think you are somehow delusional. Have you seen men rush topless into office buildings? We are calling for equal rights. Which mean, wherever men can be seen topless and acceptable to society, women too can be seen topless. Not just “specific” locations because in most states, there is no law against women being topless.
P.S. I insist that feminism is an ideology that appeals to selfishness and encourages infantilism, which is leading to a social degradation and destruction.
P.S. I insist that Nikita has an ideology that appeals to his own selfishness and inconsideration for other people who have been denied equal rights which is leading to a society of douchebaggery and hypocrisy.
P.S.S I’m usually never this rude but please enjoy your own medicine.
Sure, I want to go topless cause sometimes it's freaking hot out! Sometimes I want to crawl out of my skin it's so hot and yet, walking outside, men are all half naked in the heat and it's fine but if as a woman you go out in even just a sports bra you get told to 'go put some clothes on!' Why do men want to take their shirts off? Also, WHY DO I NEED A REASON?? You obviously don't need a reason for when you get to take your shirt off, but I do. I have to PROVE that I deserve the same privileges as you. That, sir, is crap.And yeah, the cop stated the man was using binoculars, and the problem was NOT my lack of privacy it was that anyone, that really wanted to, could see INTO MY HOUSE and see boobs. That's just not allowed. Boobies upset people, boobies are bad. So I didn't know about the binoculars until the cop told me, and still I was the one cited.
Also, you stating someone finds your behavior funny doesn't excuse it. You have been, in more than one thread, rude, condescending, and dismissive. You belittle others ideas and thoughts and try dismissing them as not important, simply because YOU see no value in them. As if somehow, YOUR opinion is more important than all the women in the discussion. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.
Catrice wrote: "Sure, I want to go topless cause sometimes it's freaking hot out! Sometimes I want to crawl out of my skin it's so hot and yet, walking outside, men are all half naked in the heat and it's fine but..."Chill Catrice. I've got this :) Cheers!
Jing Wen wrote: "Catrice wrote: "Sure, I want to go topless cause sometimes it's freaking hot out! Sometimes I want to crawl out of my skin it's so hot and yet, walking outside, men are all half naked in the heat a..."While most would say "That's sweet of you" I won't. He asked me directly a couple of questions and I answered. When I need someone to stick up FOR me, I ask. Otherwise my partners even know that I am capable of answering for myself.
Catrice wrote: "Sure, I want to go topless cause sometimes it's freaking hot out! Sometimes I want to crawl out of my skin it's so hot and yet, walking outside, men are all half naked in the heat and it's fine but..."I have no Privileges to check and non that I feel I owe anyone, not to women not to you. Everything i have, I've earned. When I have met with adversity i work my way through it, so i don't ever feel the need to play the victim card to get thing handed to me. I also understand the world is not always going to seem fair. Sometimes it works out in my favor more often then not it doesn’t and so it goes. One thing that i Do not do is expect others to make it better for me...I do it myself.
You make the comment why do you need a reason, well your right you don't personally when your choices don't affect anyone but yourself. But you don't just get unlimited freedoms to do what you choice when others are involved...unless of course you are on your own property. Then have at it. For all the people out there who cry it is sexist that women can't go around topless, I am going to give you an argument to why it isn't sexist.
and here we go.
First off you are walk down the street topless, I don't know their might be children or minors present. Whether you yourself find this bad or not is irrelevant because you cannot super impose your morality on to others. Another reason… A woman is topless, a man accidentally touches her chest, If she accuses him of sexual assault whether it was intentional or not, he’s going to be spending the next few years in prison and registering as a sexual offender. Next scenario. A man is topless, a woman "accidentally" gropes his chest, even if he does freak out, which he probably wouldn't, but if he did, the entire police station will laugh him out of the station for reporting it. The reason it is illegal for women to walk around topless isn't just for children's sake. It is because there are completely different rules and regulations when it comes to men and women and their bodies. (sure you can say double standards are sexist, but I don't hear any women complaining about when double standards benefit women and not men. If the day comes when accidentally touching a woman's chest isn't grounds for being arrested, sure then you can say it's sexist that women aren't allowed to go topless.
Furthermore, breast whether you want to admit it or not, are sexualized in the world, just as much as certain phallic extremities are. And yes, both men and women are responsible for this. Women explicitly attempt to make their chests more predominant to make themselves appear more attractive. Breasts are not just a sign of femininity in terms of children and breast feeding, they are sign of sexual maturity, as in, a sign that this woman is ready to mate, have sex, so yes breast are just as much a lusting symbol, as they are a symbol for "the cradle of life" Breasts are and will always be sexual. It's an exclusive part of a women that is involved in her sexuality. It is part of women being turned on, is part of sexual play.
Between men and women There are two different body parts involved here so there really isn't any discrimination occurring. Discrimination occurs when two different things of equal value are not treated equally. A woman's breasts holds value of a high sexual nature because they are highly sensitive organs. A woman will admit that her nipples grow erect when she is sexually aroused. As a man, I can tell you that this doesn't occur to us. Our pectoral muscles are just another set of muscles like the biceps and triceps.
Another point, Okay here we go... know to blame men.... Men are visually in their sexuality... You might say ''Well don't look!'' . Say that to a kid in a toy store. Easier said than done.
We are different I don't know how women out there can be trying to compare the bodies of men to women as if they are the same. I'm completely baffled. Women need to understand that their breasts are not just sexual because society sexualizes them, they are sexual by nature! When women get sexually aroused there are internal and even visible physiological changes that occur in their breasts. That alone makes them sexual by nature and there's no excusing that.
Another reason why they are of a sexual nature is because they are a clear sign of sexual maturity. Once girls hit a certain age their breasts become a sexual part of their anatomy designed not just for nurturing but to signal to men and say "Hey, by the way, I'm mature and healthy enough to have babies". That's JUST HOW IT IS and nothing can change that fact. Men (heterosexual) are always going to be attracted to this feature no matter what. Some of you may say "well ankles were looked at with lust once upon a time" and I agree it's true that due to long exposure to those parts including wrists, legs et.C. The lust wore off for most however those parts are not the same as breasts because they serve no sexual purpose in the first place (but breasts do), they're not signals that show sexual maturity (breasts are), there's pretty much nothing that links ankles and such to sex at all so there's no way you can even compare them. You might say that men's Pecs are signs of sexual maturity but the thing is they serve to sexual purpose to the man or woman during arousal. Pecs are just Pecs and only a tiny tiny tiny amount of men find pleasure in stimulating their own Pecs. I don't even know how that's possible but my main point is we are physiologically and psychologically different and no amount of protests and change in law can change that. EVER.
Equality is not declaring women and men are the same, it is about recognizing our differences and ensuring neither are discriminated against because of it.
In regards to Peeping tom'sIf the cop stated that them manwas using binoculars That is intent and with peeping tom laws that can be fought.
Being a peeping tom is treated as a crime based on sexual deviancy, according to state laws, which vary by state. The victim of a peeping Tom can bring a lawsuit for invasion of privacy.
Peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent "this includes the use of telegraphic lens and binoculars. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:
That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy..."This would be the home,"
“Reasonable expectation of privacy” is a term borrowed from constitutional law, which requires that the police obtain a search warrant if they wish to conduct a search in a place where you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There’s no exact definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy” but basically, private homes, dressing rooms, tanning booths, college dormitory rooms, and restrooms are the sorts of places protected. Public beaches, parks and swimming pools are not. So you ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your Home.
So you could have fought that one because the law would have been on your side. In the future getting a police report would help. Or a copy from the police that served you one. The thing is you could have fought that and most likly have sued this man using the police statement.
As to your other complaints against me, I don't need justification to tell a joke Like you said, " I don't need a reason." My example was because other people realized I was making a joke, not to justify me explaining it. Your views of my other threads are fine, that's your option but don’t for a second superimpose what i’m thinking, how I feel, and what my thoughts are based on your personal dislike of me. You may disagree with what i have said but i am aloud to say them... This is a discussion after all. If you just wanted people to agree with you and repeat the same things back, just want to close your ears to anything else other then what you want then sorry, that’s not how the real world works. If you stand on a platform and put ideas out people are aloud to disagree with them.
If these ideas you have are not logical then they will in fact fall by the waist side.
I'm sorry that I don't agree with feminist and feminist ideology on many many many things...but that's my choice as well…It's not how I view Equality and I believe a little logic never hurt anyone. Have a good day.
Oh yeah and your entire argument was all about what YOU want.
That seems a little bit egotistical if you ask me. Where is the equality for everyone?
Disclaimer for all....I personally love breast and would have no problem with women being topless...It's just not a form of oppression.
The fact that you think you have no privilege is an issue. WE ALL have privilege, by race, by gender, by economic standing. By understanding this we take the first steps to change things to be more equal.You talk of how I can't go topless because it's pushing my morals on someone else, which is EXACTLY what is being done by telling me that I can't but you can. So in the end, what you are saying is that someone else's morals are more important than mine. SOrry, no.
The fact that you get worked up and have to spew, and yes having to write three posts to get out everything is spewing, your thoughts as if they are the only right ones, is an issue.
You CONSTANTLY put words in other people's mouths so you can prove your point. So fine. You aren't going to listen to anyone, you are going to assume what they 'mean' instead of listening to what they say. Engaging you is useless. From now on, when I post, it will not be to you and I won't be reading your posts as there's no decent discourse to be had. You aren't here to learn but to teach. A fine and noble thing, if you knew everything.
You don't agree with feminist ideology, but you don't even know what that is, as you have proven over and over as you put words in people's mouths and find hidden meanings that aren't there just to be right. Being right, is more important to you than learning anything.
Now, to anyone else reading:
We all have our own viewpoints on nudity, obviously. Many women here have said while they personally would never show their breasts they see the inherent issue in the fact that it's not allowed. That's to me, the point of fighting for equality and freedom. It's saying "Hey, all I want is to be a stay at home mom, and dedicate myself to the house, BUT I will fight for the right to have a job, any job I want and be treated fairly at the job and in society."
In the end, it's simply about having the rights, everyone, to choose. Men and Women and everyone in between. If you don't like it, then you don't have to do it. You dont' want to see it, don't look. If you DO want to look, don't be an ass about it!
Hubby once told me yes he looks but to him looking at a good looking woman is like looking at a classic car. "Wow, that's nice." Then move on. No I want to have it, I want to destroy it, I want to use it and toss it aside, I want to degrade it, or even I wish I had it. Just, hey, I appreciate it for what it is. And now I'm back to wondering about lunch.
So yeah, if I'm walking topless, if I'm nude somewhere and someone looks. I don't care. If you tell me I look good, I don't care. If you aren't being an ass, you aren't degrading, you aren't taking liberties, that's fine. Then again I believe in a culture of consent. Where the absence of no doesn't mean yes. Where only yes means yes. Where it's SEXY to get consent. It's SEXY to not only say yes but say yes to this, yes to this, we can try that, but I'm so not in the mood/interested in that. PLEASE tell me what you want and don't, that is awesome!
James wrote: "In regards to Peeping tom'sIf the cop stated that them manwas using binoculars That is intent and with peeping tom laws that can be fought.
Being a peeping tom is treated as a crime based on sexu..."
This is why I don't consider you a troll. Because when you put your mind to it, you can actually throw some pretty valid reasoning (without breaking group rules lol). Cheers!
Jing Wen, The word "delusional" is likely more suitable for the description of your and Catrice attempts to justify the idiotic initiative of the femists.
James gave a detailed explanation of why. You and Catrice are like the silly kids.
Who can not even imagine that the world around can be arranged more complicated way than it can be seen through the prism of your unlimited "I want".
The freedom of one individual is always ends there where the freedom of another individual begins. That's the principle of equality.
As for my postscript then you and Catrice are the best confirmation its accuracy.
I hope at least time and ages will put your brain in place.
I pretty much like our international discussion. Wanna know why? We're able to speak the same language, so we can sort of understand each other, and at the same time - seems like we don't, at least not completely. Because of different knowledge base, different social background and experience, different views and life goals. So every person tend to add something specific to the whole picture.
Eric wrote: "I think it shouldn't be forbidden, but in most parts of the world the female breasts are a sexually symbol. So it will always be a diffrent between female breasts and male breasts. People will alwa..."
you spoke my mind well said
you spoke my mind well said
Damn me, I've been missing out! Lots of opinions on this one, and while it's a bit late, I figure I should add my two cents.For starters, right to go topless: necessity. However, as some of our opponents seem not to understand (as is often the case, so I find), rights do not begin or end with law. Systemic oppression by society itself is a major restriction, and a lot of the time, it's for very stupid reasons.
I'd also like to say hi, James, good to see you again. While I think this has been one of your better episodes of argueing against feminism, I've since come to a conclusion: in spite of you promoting equality (at least saying so, but it's not like a great deal of people actually say they oppose gender equality), you always seem to gain support from the reactionary point of view, looking at you, Nikita. Then there was good old Ty from the Emma should this and Emma should do that thread. Anyway, another I've noticed is you never seem to be bothered by this. In fact, if anything, you seem to be more bothered when receiving criticism from feminists than when you receive support from people who actually say reactionary and/or or (borderline) protocol violoating things. So far, I've yet to see you criticize them as well. If, by chance, you have, I apologize, as I have skipped over page 2 and 3 of this thread (because it's late and I want to add my two cents before turning in). If, however, you indeed have not, then you're not helping your credibility.
Now, as to your viewpoint, a lot of it sounds to me like you're putting the comfort of the many before the rights of the few, which I find to be wrong. I get that you value people's right to not have to see any nudity in public, but I think that right is outweighed by the women's right to go topless. Also, something of a recurring flaw I've noticed in your argument is that you use men with their penises out as an analogy. This I find to be a flawed analogy considering the fact that the penis serves specifically for penetration (which a man can very easily force upon someone in an act known as rape/sexual assault), because of which I can understand why people would feel threatened by the sight of them in public, especially near children. The breasts, however, do not serve this purpose and additionally they are located elsewhere on the body. They're located on top of the lungs and therefore covering them could be a bit troublesome for breathing (depending on the circumstances or any chronical health issues the person in question might have). The penis is a different story (the vagina as well, but to a lesser extent).
I do, however, have something of a disagreement with some of my fellow feminists here as well. Actually, it's mainly one: the sexualization of female breasts is to blame and should therefore be done with. This, I seem to have some doubts about. Just about any part of the body can be sexualized and/or used for sexual satisfaction; feet, hands, ears (mostly for paralyzed people as far as I know). There's nothing wrong with that; if anything, we should embrace the fact that we have the possibility to use so much of our body to satisfy our sexual needs. As for the people's reaction to seeing breasts, I think that's merely a case of people viewing a certain body part as purely (or mostly) sexual and that is what I do have an issue with. If this is what my colleagues here mean by sexualization, then I suppose we agree after all. However, we should be careful in how vehemently we're opposed to this mindset of putting the sexual aspect of breasts first, because otherwise we may wind up going to the opposite side of the spectrum: the side that says all sexual thoughts related to breasts are immoral. In doing so, we would be acting in a sexually repressive manner, which is never good.
Finally, as James seemed to help clear up further for me, being supportive to public topplessness is not inherently anti-sexist. As James mentioned, it would be heaven for many men, which made me ask myself: does that mean that their viewpoint ceases to be for gender equality and starts to become another form of objectification? Can allowing women to do something that ultimately serves men's desires still be anti-sexist or not? For instance, is it wrong to say pornography should (generally) be allowed to exist? On the one hand, it is a woman's choice to make and as an adult she should be allowed to make that choice (ignoring the fact that pornography in its current form is largely pivatized and therefore not 100% empowering, but I'm talking about the general principal). On the other hand, it's mainly men who benefit from pornography, and I am a man. Does me realizing that change anything? Should I as a man have no opinion on the matter, as it will affect women's choice to one extent or another regardless of which opinion I choose?
Good grief, I've been typing this for almost an hour and I really feel like I could and should add much more to prevent confusion, but I'm exhausted. Hope this all makes sense (for all the fecking effort it took me to draft) and see you all tomorrow.
James, we can change that! If there will come out psycological theory enough simple to understand for everyone, and when everyone would recognise through theory that we are not treated right, the results will come fast! But there is another question: does such a psychological theory exist, and, how to spread it between human? Try to go on the street and convince people that you got THE answers for everything, ... I believe people would just walk straight by you, not considering in your words. Sadly, but true!
Jing Wen wrote: "James wrote: "In regards to Peeping tom'sIf the cop stated that them manwas using binoculars That is intent and with peeping tom laws that can be fought.
Being a peeping tom is treated as a crime..."
And you see what that got me. I gave out valid reasons and ideas and I was labeled a word spinner, privileged jerk, who only Manipulates. Oh well. People should realize that in my reasoning I'm doing just that, reason to present a logical argument. What you don't see me doing is providing a emotional responds that is only based in my emotions. Emotional feeling, though important to the individual , cannot be superimposed on others. Examination of these feelings and a lot of times putting them aside for critical thinking is what is needed when one looks at equality for all people. I don't dismiss other people's views on feminism, but I do recognize when they are based in the person's own personal feelings.
Also I reject ideas like "Check your privilege." I see this as a means of shaming and shutting down any real communication. I hate the term male privilege, the statement itself is to shame and divide the genders.
James wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "James wrote: "In regards to Peeping tom'sIf the cop stated that them manwas using binoculars That is intent and with peeping tom laws that can be fought.
Being a peeping tom is t..."
Nah. Don't worry about it. According to some people here, I'm a "silly kid" whos "delusional" and " appeals to selfishness and encourages infantilism, which is leading to a social degradation and destruction. "
Mod
https://www.facebook.com/JoeSantagato...
Just wanted to share this video my friend tagged me in on Facebook. The start is what I really want to direct you to, where the speaker addresses those who asked him to talk about breast feeding in public. It may me a bit extreme, but I do support his views. It is exactly what more than one person has said here, actually.
James wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "James wrote: "In regards to Peeping tom'sIf the cop stated that them manwas using binoculars That is intent and with peeping tom laws that can be fought.
Being a peeping tom is t..."
When people say "check your privilege" they tend to mean it's easy for you to criticize. If you should ask whether or not black people are fully equal to white people, it's fair for one to have higher expectations towards the arguments of those who would answer "yes", particularly from white people. So as I see it, there are always two ways in which people approach oppression:
1) denying its existence
2) acknowledging and attempting to justify it (this one is very rarely used anymore)
Most people opt for the former nowadays, as you seem to be doing, but does that make them less on the oppressive side than the latter? Maybe it does, maybe not; for the most part, I believe that those who deny its existence are certainly not going to do anything about it and are therefore more on the oppressive side than on the emancipating side.
Anyway, I don't really see how anyone can give you objective evidence that sexism is still an issue in the West, because sexism cannot be measured in units and it's not like anyone still identifies as being against wmoen's rights, but that doesn't mean sexism has ceased to exist. All I can really tell you is to observe. Rape still occurs (mostly done by men; that does not mean all us men should be ashamed, it's a simple fact), and for each rape victim there is always at least one person (even women) who will say (or at least think) that the victim was somehow responsible. If you do not agree with the feminist tactics of approaching systemic sexism, then there is probably little I can do to change that, but your scepticism towards the general notion that women are unequally, mostly in a bad way, is getting out of proportion and reaching the point where scepticism becomes denial. I don't how I can give you "objective" information that can change your mind, unless rape was still legal.
As for emotional arguments, given the fact that most sexism in the West is perforemd in a subtle, unofficial matter that nevertheless puts women in more negative places throughout life, it's no mystery that people have mostly emotional arguments about this. If you've watched the George Carlin audio fragment, you've heard all the things that are xpected of women nowadays. No, they are not legally obliged to do them, but look at how those who don't do them are viewed or even treated. To present purely objective information would, aside from taking ages of work, require criticizing the very foundational elements of our society, because a lot is perpetuated by the private sector and then later carried out by ordinary people as well, meaning we'd have to criticize our entire capitalist system as well as probably offending lots of people by suggesting they may be tricked into believing/accepting things for the sake of profit. Now, I'm always down for criticizing capitalism, but would you, James, at that point still consider it objective, even if I could present mathematical data? I believe that rather, you, or at least most people, would just brush it off as interpretation in favour feminism, at which point all the hard work would have been for nothing.
While emotional arguments can be bad, the idea that all of them are by default bad needs to be thoroughly questioned, especially when discussing fundamental societal elements.
Tim you raise and make good points some i would agree with other not so much...Let me respond to of few of the questions
With emotional arguments, I'm not a vulcan here. I'm not demonizing feelings and say that the passion that feelings create are not valid, meaningful, or should not have a place in culture. Feelings are real and they are the driving force to all action and beliefs. What I'm referring to is emotions need to be examined and understood instead of just thrown them out as a legitimate cause. Unexamined emotions and individuals emotions can not be place on everyone or take on faith that they are ligament.
The truth of situations doesn't always go with good feelings and ideals. The solutions aren't always going to be accompanied with good feelings either. I believe that truthful approach is always best no matter what the emotional are or what emotions will come from them.
I think the problem with things in society today is everyone is willing to manipulated, stretch, fabricate and down right lie about the truth in every media because, "the cause" they believe in is more important then the truth. You see this in the News media, in politics, business, special interest groups and ever other form of social structure.
Yes If You presented statistics about any kind of information It should be looked at truthfully. But at the same time the data should and would need to be looked objectively, is it true.
In what content was it taken and represented in? is it a accurate representation? and What is the credibility of the sorce that it came form? This is very problematic these days because information is so lied and misrepresented to the public.
Take for example the wage gap. This information has been presented by feminist out of content and in a-lot of ways lied about. The vast vast majority if not all of economist in the North American and Europe have declared it to be a miss-representation of the information.
"Please for the love of god don't ask me to speak about it...I'm so tried of arguing with people. Just google it."
You talk about criticizing capitalism...ok their is a lot to criticize there but in the same vain you could also criticize Socialism ideas as well. Neither are perfect systems and both, when taken to extremes and left unchecked are bad...The best case is to have both systems present, and allow both to serve as a check and balance for each other. I'm not a big fan of big government over people and really not a fan of collectivism, as I personally view it as a way to control individuals. I think a Socialist society in principle moves toward more to control people, but I'm a american who loves my freedoms so I'm not the best judge. I think the Progressives libels have gone way to far in every aspect of government and society. They are more a mirror backward image of the far right conservatives then the Independent liberals more to the middle. Political correctness, identity politics, and social change has gone to far and is know just become a way to control individuals.
Let's see as for the "Check your privilege," term, that is so popular know, I do understand what the principle of the statement is...I also completely understand how it is actually used by social justice wars. The content in which it is used and abused by people is as a shaming tactic, and to try and keep people from expressing their options.
If you are labeled a "privileged person," this usually involves being racially, sexually or any other form of discriminate profiling of a individual. Judging them not by who they are but rather what they are, and the people who do this profiling believe that they have the entitlement to judge. That is how it was thrown at me in the above post by Catrice. She implied that as a white heterosexual male I had no right to question her views just because she was a women. That as a man I had no right to have any kind of voice. This is crap and i have no respect for that kind of thinking or the people who think that way. A vast majority of people see that a lot with feminism. Equality is great, equal rights for people is great but the feminist view of what is equal is what's bad.
There is a-lot of Feminist Ideology that go again scientific theories, human evolution, biology, sociology, evolution, Psychology, Culture, political science, History and every other form of human study. So you mentioned that I and most people would reject data...I would say that Feminism had always rejected it when it doesn't coincide with the feminist agenda.
Anyway man I'm really tired of writing so I'm going to end it here.
I'm kind of done writing on this thread.
Jing Wen wrote: "Men go topless, nobody bats an eye.Women do the same and everybody loses their minds.
Why is it that society reacts so differently when the same part of the body is shown by two different genders..."
let me ask all of you a question: If a woman wears veil and burqa at the beach? it will be weird for you right?
it's not that you hate her, it's just weird.
What if a man wears a dress?
shouldn't the subject of our discussion be: being open-minded toward how people dress themselves other than freeing the nipple?
everybody should have the right to dress as they like but you can not ask everyone to feel normal about everything.
men are attracted toward women breast, it's like asking women to feel normal if a guy is passing by with his penis out.
Although it's just what I think and I don't say that I can't be wrong.
p.s: with all the injustice that is going on in the world I don't believe that's what you are worried about.
Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Men go topless, nobody bats an eye.Women do the same and everybody loses their minds.
Why is it that society reacts so differently when the same part of the body is shown by two ..."
Pretty faulty analogy, as I said earlier on this thread. I'll repeat it for your convenience. A penis is for but one purpose: penetration. That, and the fact that it shows clearly if the man is sexually aroused (by means of an erection), can frighten people. Breasts are not necessarily for sexual purposes and they're located elsewhere. They don't intimidate people; they make them uncomfortable or "weird" as you so put it, and that should not be the case.
Also, no one is denying people the right to wear what they want, I don't know what gave you that idea. This thread is exactly about allowing people to choose what they wear, including nothing (at least on chest-level, general nudism is something each of us may differ on). That is what free the nipple means; that's pretty much what "freedom" means: having a choice to do something or not. What we're discussing here is the woman's freedom to choose whether or not she covers her breasts.
Milad wrote: "let me ask all of you a question: If a woman wears veil and burqa at the beach? it will be weird for you right?it's not that you hate her, it's just weird.
What if a man wears a dress?
shouldn't the subject of our discussion be: being open-minded toward how people dress themselves other than freeing the nipple?
everybody should have the right to dress as they like but you can not ask everyone to feel normal about everything."
Veil and burka in a beach environment? Not for me, but if she feels comfortable that way, be my guest. Why do you think it'd be "weird"? It's clothing and she has every right to wear whatever she wants. If a man wears a dress? It's clothing like all the rest of it. And topless? Well, the discussion is around nipples.
I'm not asking everyone else to feel normal in regards to what other people choose to wear. I just wish people would stop jumping to conclusions about the person's morals. There's so much judgement even from women on women that I can't even.
James wrote: "Tim you raise and make good points some i would agree with other not so much...Let me respond to of few of the questions
With emotional arguments, I'm not a vulcan here. I'm not demonizing feeli..."
Well, if you're done, then I won't be forcing you to continue, so I'll just send this one for old times' sake, unless you choose to stay on this thread.
Firstly, when you are being called privileged it usually means you are not being given the same problems as another group, or at least not for the same reasons. You may have been born a white poor person, but that doesn't make you equally oppressed to a poor person with a different skin colour or nationality. There are certain situations in which you would get more positive results being part of one demographic as opposed to the other, even if the other has identical circumstances. That is usually what we mean by privilege. The way Catrice said it may have come of as angry due to it being in all caps, but to me it did not seem to be a call to silence you; just a call to tell to review your situation more in comparison to that of others. The problem with that is that explaining the situation of others in this case tends to entail using emotional arguments (such as women feeling more unsafe at night) and that is where you seem to wave off.
Secondly, when it comes to socialism, I hope to god you're not referring to the Soviet Union, China or North-Korea. Socialists today advocate primarily that workers should collectively control their own workplace and the wealth they create. That is all that collectivism means. As for government, most state socialists tend to be democratic socialists, which a state with minimal power. Other socialists, such as myself, are libertarian. No, libertarianism does not entail the free market that Ron Paul advocates, that is market libertarianism. I know the terms socialism and libertarianism have been quite perverted in the U.S. so I just wanted to clear that up. As for capitalism, I think capitalism is against individual freedom if nothing else, because as a worker you have no control over your workplace and the money you produce, which is instead distributed and absorbed by a boss, as opposed to democratically. Capitalism only serves the individual that owns private property (as in a means of production) In other words, it only sevres the individual freedom of an elite minority. For the employees, it's my way or the highway, as challenging their bosses' authority will almost inevitably lead to being fired, which will either lead to you being stigmatized as a wellfare parasite or just pauverty and subsequent famine/homelessness/sickness/death. So I'd rethink the phrase "I'm a american who loves my freedoms". I know you meant that partially as satire, but still, do not fall under the illusion that you have any real freedoms within capitalism unless you're a private owner.
Thirdly, I cannot speak for all feminists but I've had my own scientific and psychological theories when it comes to men.
1) Men are more likely to attempt rape.
2) Men are more likely to succeed in rape from physiological standpoint as they are physcially stronger and raping someone if you have a vagina tends to need some preparational work (you'll likely need to physcially bind your victim into place, and getting that done as the physcially weaker sex tends to mean even more preparational work)
3) Historically, almost all bad things that have happened to human beings, have been caused, carried out and/or continued by men.
4) Bearing 1-3 in mind, as well as the fact that men seem to always need some sort of self-made rule book for simple decency or just for bonding (knight's code, bro code and what have you) it has become clear that men seem to be born intellectually and/or emotionally inferior to women. This does not mean all men are pigs, nor does it mean some men cannot possibly be better than some women. All it means is that men need some more guiding as they grow up, so as to not fuck things up worse for others, especially women, who have been mistreated by men for centuries and it's still going on today, including in the West, and don't really seem eager to compensate them for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an emotional person myself, but I recognize that I should always be mindful not to let my gender play a role in my decisions, by keeping some of my flaws that might just come with being male (and the possibility of them affecting my choices) in the back of my head.
You'll find that a lot of these points were made in Carlin's audio fragment I sent in an earlier discussion, if you listened to it, that is, but I felt like they needed to be said by me this time. Have a good day.
Apart from topless, men tend to show off their lower bodies. You know how you're on a subway train and see men sit with their legs wide open? Oddly, I find it tittilating, when I'm in the mood! If displays of sexual organs and public tittilation is shameful, then men should stop sitting so "indecently", almost strutting their stuff!Women, on another hand, sit cross-legged or have their knees close together, as if what's between them should be guarded.
All of that, I find, is a perfect display of how women are taught to suppress their sexuality and men are taught to be proud of their sexuality.
I have read some of the comments. And the whole idea of equality to be naked (or semi) is arbitrary and subjective. For some, including myself, equality and freedom is about the meta-physical and the opportunities one has. Not whether men and women should be treated equally in a physical sense. Because that is impossible. What is more civilization has progressed to wearing clothes. That's a sign of progress. Nakedness is a sign of primitivity. If that is the way you roll, thats alright. Absolutely weird in my personal opinion but still okay in the sense that I won't go bollocks over it. But don't go arguing this should be the status quo for the sake of equality as this shouldn't be our scale of measuring equality.Furthermore, feminism in my opinion isn't just about being masculine (of course this is debatable depending on your definition), it's also about carving our niches and allowing that to be okay. Agreeing that such a person is recipient to equal rights, obligations and opportunities.
Tim wrote: "James wrote: "Tim you raise and make good points some i would agree with other not so much...Let me respond to of few of the questions
With emotional arguments, I'm not a vulcan here. I'm not de..."
Oh Tim you have taken my comment about democracy and capitalism out of content and kind of gone waywayway into left field with your arguments and by doing so have jumped to alot of conclusions based on arguments that I have not made. But I will respond because your views are very one sided. I would suggest that you have a more open mind and look at the bigger picture of both sides. Things are not and never are as black and white as you presenting them to be…. And really man after this can we just call it a wash because I do really hate semantics when they just lead to a dead end of people who will never see past their own views.
Ok Here we go again.
On the subject of Capitalism vs. Socialism remember When I presented it was important to have a system of checks and balances that supported both and allows non to fully control everything. I was speaking about american society and the balance it has or should have…. Either system has the ability to become corrupt if taken to the extreme. But you inferred that as me saying that I completely supporting Capitalism…Are you one of thoughts “if your not completely on our side your on the others side”…kind of people, how sad. If You look in past History I believe that you can see that the corruption of both Capitalism and Socialism at work, and Tom, if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. Also if You think that China, japan and other places know a-days are not adopting Capitalism and free enterprise, then you are crazy because they are, At least for their businesses. They may still hold their people to that but there is a-lot of conflict with that to. I suggest you look into it. But since you placed me on the side of Capitalism, so that you can argue for Socialism, I will concur and play devil advocate…. And here we go. Socialism is detrimental to society for a variety of reasons. Most people get caught up in socialism because of the good nature of it. It sounds appealing and in theory should solve poverty, unequal pay, and much more. It is also affective because it takes advantage of people's greed and covetness. People that have not been successful throughout life are most likely to favor socialism. Their greed and envy of the successful and wealthy is what pits them against those individuals. They then fall into the trap of socialism. The main reason socialism is not effective is because it involves a lot of government and bureacracy and spread out the wealth. It removes the incentive of a worker to work hard for a promotion or higher pay. If someone gets paid the same as someone else even though one of them works harder and has more talent, that person is not going to want to work as hard. Socialism removes the essential trait that pushes people to make something out of their lives and that trait is "will". The fact that socialism removes incentive not only stagnates an economy but also lowers the rate of innovation. If you don't believe me look it up, free enterprises for the most part have always be the innovators throughout history. Socialism not only does not solve poverty and the seperation of classes but makes them worse. People become much more dependent on the government through welfare and food stamps because of socialism. This causes more and more people to fall into poverty. Socialism also causes a war on the classes. It pits the lower classes against the upper classes which will divide a country. If you need any proof that socialism does not work, take a look at all of the unsuccessful european countries that use socialism. Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Sweden and many more are great examples of the unsuccessfulness of socialsim. Sweden for example, used to be extremely successful when it had a free market economy. It then adopted socialist policies and has now had lower rates of growth, year after year. Capitalism is much more effective and the U.S is a great example of that. Socialism might sound good but it is in a sense a dreamland that just does not work as a real world economy. At present China is the most socialist country in the world.Chinese government has well-managed and controlled its economy and the number of domestic organizations are owned and operated by its own government. According to a recent survey China’s economy has become more geared towards the capitalism, but still it is officially recognized as a socialist country. In China the government manages and controls the economy. Many of the domestic companies are owned and run by the government. Recently, the Chinese economy has become more geared towards capitalism, but is still officially socialist. So Tim I’m not saying socialist elements are not all good…I’m saying their needs to be a check and balance system in place. My comment about american was this. I love my American freedoms…The All american government is a system of checks and balance systems between the three divisions of government. The political parties, systems all keep each other in check and in balance. It is really a beautiful system that makes sure that one segment takes over completely. This is all to promote the maxima amount of freedom form the people. I’m not a huge fan of big government, because the american government is there to serve the people…not the other way around….”By the people and for the people.” I don’t like when the government is aloud to extend their hand and effect and control people. That’s why both systems are needed.
Tim wrote: "James wrote: "Tim you raise and make good points some i would agree with other not so much...Let me respond to of few of the questions
With emotional arguments, I'm not a vulcan here. I'm not de..."
Now a few thoughts on Collectivisms
Throughout most of the world people are taught to look at reality in a very polarized way. When certain issues are presented to us through mainstream circles they are usually oversimplified to the point where all concepts are either black or white, and all people are either good or bad, with no in between. The reality of the situation is that things are much more complicated than that; there are usually many different ways of looking at things and many different sides to the story. This is especially true in the study of philosophy, because terms are constantly being redefined and ideas constantly reexamined with every new generation of philosophers to accommodate the new insight and information that has become available over time.
One polarity that is vastly misunderstood and oversimplified by the general population is that of individualism and collectivism. Now, it is true that many different people have many different ideas about what these words mean, but what really determines the true value of any concept is the consequences that come as a result of that concept being implemented by society.
The mainstream stereotype of an individualist is someone who is selfish and who has no desire at all to participate in the community. The contrasting view of a collectivist is apparently someone who cares about the tribe as a whole, so much so that they are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the tribe. While this may be what these names have come to represent in our culture, and the stereotypes may be true in some cases, these definitions are overlooking the impact that these philosophies have on the real world and the realm of politics.
To be an individualist has nothing to do with selfishness. It is simply a way of looking at the world where you see billions of individuals, instead of various groups of people separated by race, nationality, gender, religion or social status. Oddly enough, it is collectivism that allows for people to be divided into groups and puts the innocent at risk by devaluing the lives of individuals. The reason why this is such a danger is because when people are grouped together in a political sense; large numbers of those people can be held responsible for anything that an individual among them may or may not have done. Furthermore, when sacrifice is seen as a virtue it becomes even easier for a tyrant to come along and take advantage of this perspective for their own ends.
This idea of collectivism is the mindset that allows tyrants to wage war. If each individual on this earth was held accountable for their own personal actions then the full-scale war that we see today would never even materialize to begin with. If individuals were actually seen as who they were instead of what group they belonged to, there would not be millions of lives sacrificed for the sake of hunting down a few among them who were accused of some real or fabricated transgression.
Likewise, it is this mentality that is the root of all the bigotry that separates humanity. If all of the people on the earth were seen as individuals then racism, sexism, classism and other forms of discrimination would cease to exist and everyone would be responsible for their own actions.
The rhetoric behind collectivism sounds great at face value, but the real-life consequences of this worldview tell a very different story. It may be natural for humans to form social groups, but we must recognize that those groups are all filled with unique individuals who should not be forced to compromise any of their freedom for the sake of a group or authority figure.
Respecting the rights and needs of individuals is actually a much more caring way of looking at things, than grouping people into categories and expecting them to forfeit their personal sovereignty to satisfy the whims of other human beings. Individualism on the other hand is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Individualism is often contrasted with totalitarianism or collectivism.
I suggest you go read some Ayn Rand, a very strong, intelligent important women in literature, It’’s funny how feminist don’t acknowledge her and her views.” Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge, and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral, and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, and instead supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights.
I’m tired man so I’ll respond to your other views another time. just remind me because you views on men are not well founded.
Oh Yeah and I will never "check my privilege," maybe feminist should check the entitlement that they think they have over others.
Fiza wrote: "I have read some of the comments. And the whole idea of equality to be naked (or semi) is arbitrary and subjective. For some, including myself, equality and freedom is about the meta-physical and the opportunities one has. Not whether men and women should be treated equally in a physical sense. Because that is impossible. What is more civilization has progressed to wearing clothes. That's a sign of progress. Nakedness is a sign of primitivity. If that is the way you roll, thats alright. Absolutely weird in my personal opinion but still okay in the sense that I won't go bollocks over it. But don't go arguing this should be the status quo for the sake of equality as this shouldn't be our scale of measuring equality.Furthermore, feminism in my opinion isn't just about being masculine (of course this is debatable depending on your definition), it's also about carving our niches and allowing that to be okay. Agreeing that such a person is recipient to equal rights, obligations and opportunities. "
Primitivity? Right.
Do you see at all how you are contradicting yourself? In the last, bolded part of your comment, you talk about multitude, yet earlier you stated how you judge nakedness to be primitive.
I just find this curious.
I get a lot of your arguments, but I absolutely do not see how you fail to translate them into socialism. How you can say it's wrong for any group of people to oppress individuals, and yet still support capitalism? Because that is quite clearly what you are doing now, even though I actually was not saying that in the comment you responded to earlier, I am now, thanks to you just stating support for a free market economy.At its roots, capitalism is the idea that workers should obey the autonomous rule of their bosses, the difference between different capitalist ideas is the extent to which the workers should obey, but fundamentally there is little to no difference between them. Look at our current society and you'll see exactly what a hierarchical workplace has done to human beings. You're being supportive of individualism and I don't think that's inherently selfish. However, you're choosing one group of individuals (a smaller group, mind you) over another. I choose the side of the working class, because whatever your ideas of socialism or capitalism are, it is always the workers who create wealth, not the owners. As for laissez-faire capitalism, I can say without shame that I hate it with a passion. It has taken anarchism and perverted it in order to serve those in power, hence the word "anarcho-capitalism" and you may call this individualism, but this is without a doubt the most vile form of individualism in existence. I have some respect for individualist anarchists and I believe mutualism (which is an anarchist form that allows for a market to exist, so long as it is done by the working class, creating not a "free" market, but a "freed" market) is the best way to combine libertarian socialism with individualism. Your claim on promotions definitely deserves a response as well, because it has been shown in numerous psychological studies that our ability to empathize lowers upon getting promotions.
Am I arguing against the individual in saying so? No, in fact I am arguing for the individual. I want every individual to have an equal amount of power in their workplace, as opposed to having this metaphorical fighting pit where employees are tested on just how much of their humanity they're willing to sacrifice for more money and power. I'm arguing for a system of democratically, non-hierarchically run workplaces where people don't need to throw one another to the wolves for some stupid fictional "position of authority" given to you by a boss, who, no matter how nice he/she is or to how much of an extent, still exploits you for profit.
I agree that a red bureaucracy (state socialism) is not an ultimate goal to be aspiring towards. As I said, I am a libertarian socialist. I can, however, empathize with democratic socialism on samll scale (at most city-wide) so long as the state-like structure serves to collect a certain amount of taxation necessary to fund the public sector in order for certain workers to gain money from somewhere, has minimal power outside of that (particularly in the field of the use of violence), is elected through direct democracy, can be dismantled by the population without causing a large conflict (mainly by police repression), and most of all, should only be founded if libertarian socialism has proven to fail within the given area. Libertarian socialism could after all wind up to be somewhat chaotic to have complete democracy over policy and workplaces in large cities like New York, at which point no one would have any spare time outside their work, which would lead to just as much alienation as we have today, except now because of an overload of responsibility and not by being stripped of all power for the sake of being employed, as caused by capitalism.
As for free markets, I can say capitalism has one redeeming quality, if only just the one: it is productive. Market forces work, that has been shown. Are they, however, therefore moral? Absolutely not. Is a free market a solution for anything? Maybe it'll work out relatively nicely for a generation or two, but inevitably, laissez-faire capitalism (often accompanied by the sociopathical homo economicus view of human beings) will lead to property owners creating state-like structures. Now, I did earlier advocate a small-sale state-like structure, but one that is only founded because direct democracy failed prior. State-like structures founded by business owners in a laissez-faire capitalist system is basically nothing but a ticking time bomb for abuse. But we al know how to get around that argument: "Oh, but that would be corporatism, not the nice cuddly capitalism I personally support."
You can make the same argument about socialism, but at the end of the day, even if a collectively run workplace should lead to power abuse (which I am very reluctant to believe even CAN happen, considering no one is ranked one above another) then at least it will be orchestrated by a larger group of people than by the elite minority you advocate.
As for my small-scale state-like structure argument, as I'm sure you'll make the same power abuse argument I just made, I re-iterate, that the structure should
1) be temporary (only as long as it can fulfill the necessary role listed in 2)
2)have minimal power besides solving problems that libertarianism caused or failed to solve by using a little bit of power given (and taken when the time comes) by the consent/initiative of the population, thus being only a last resort in the event that direct democracy within the area should have proven counter-productive
3) have rules on violence and weapons applied equally to themselves and police force (should it be decided to have on), by which I mean that they should only be allowed to use weapons and/or violence to the same extent as the population (and the police's weapons should be paid for by the individual officer who chooses to carry them, NOT by the state-like structure).
If the structure is later dismantled and libertarianism presents issues again, then the procedure can be started over. The key to libertarian socialism is organization and hard work by the population, whereas laissez-faire capitalism is the idea that some exploitative minority of people can be trusted to, for the most exploitative reasons (e.g. profit), make life better for everyone.
Other than the "slut shaming" "breastfeeding in public" and "abortion" I believe, we should also look at the male's perspective such as the traditional courting (Why men are supposed to do it--sometimes it seems to me that men feel obliged by it).But regarding this, I think we really should not look down at girls who go topless. I mean, some maniacs would even say "She is asking for it" but what if it really is just her style?
Aglaea wrote: "Fiza wrote: "I have read some of the comments. And the whole idea of equality to be naked (or semi) is arbitrary and subjective. For some, including myself, equality and freedom is about the meta-p..."And? Do you assume the former bolded comment to be a negative one? Also, I still don't see how they contradict. Just because I think something is primitive, which I didn't intend to have entirely negative connotations in the sense that your comment implies it to be, it does not mean that the latter statement can't hold true.
By primitive (and you can't deny that it isn't), I meant that in the beginning of time, humans probably didn't have clothes, and would have had to survive without them. With progress of civilization, we got different fashions of attire.
Tim, motive of capitalism is much more simpler - the bosses think, how they can have benefit with others, they reward and punish, the motive of socialism is that everyone should work and the maximum would get those who are most in need ;)
You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird.You are not suggesting freedom, you are suggesting idiocy.
there are places for women to go topless like beach if they want to but asking to go topless in a mall and everyone playing cool is selfish. wouldn't you weird out if the man sitting next to you in a bus is naked?
p.s: with all the things we could talk about in favor of gender equality, I can not believe going naked is your favorite.
Tadej wrote: "Tim, motive of capitalism is much more simpler - the bosses think, how they can have benefit with others, they reward and punish, the motive of socialism is that everyone should work and the maxi..."
I don't see where I contradicted you on that, but it could be I'm misinterpreting your statement on the motive of capitalism. As for socialism, yes, most if not all socialists do want to provide for those in need in one way or another, depending on the individual socialist. Some want to have a state(-like structure) to perform this task by means of using tax money, others (particularly libertarian socialists) would prefer that this task would be done by the community, i.e. through direct action of the population.
I personally think they're both very effective, and while I do think the latter is more preferable, the former seems to be much easier to achieve and maintain. Also, while I have yet to come across one, there could be socialists who do not want to provide for those in need and only want to empower workers. I'd be most curious as to their reasoning behind this, but I don't rule out the possibility (although I hope I should).
Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird.You are not suggesting freedom, you are sugge..."
p.s: with all the things we could talk about in favor of gender equality, I can not believe going naked is your favorite.
May I know who this "your" is addressing?
What do people think about this video? positive and negative views are all welcome please. Is The European Migrant Crisis Leading To War? | Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux
https://youtu.be/iZrGeq3aKTU
Since this is the only posting that hasn't been taken down let me explain why i posted it. Why i do admit that the views presented in the link are extreme, "I personally don't agree with the arguments or ideas of Stefan Molyneux." I thought it to be a important debate and brought up a-lot of interesting points to be agreed with on both sides. It looks at main stream Feminism in different views, talks about political correctness, and about real rape culture. These issues that are presented are very controversial but as adults i felt that they could be viewed and discussed as a topic of equality. Everyones views on either side were welcomed. I have to admit that i was also a little bit fueled to post this video. by the new story of Somali intelligence officials released a video showing two airport workers handling a laptop believed to have contained a bomb that later exploded in a passenger plane.
http://www.9and10news.com/story/31163....
These attacks as do the rape attacks in Europe personally enrage me. If I offended anyone I do apologize.
Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird.You are not suggesting freedom,..."
whoever started this conversation.
Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird.You are not su..."
You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird.
Man + topless + mall = weird
Woman + topless + mall = weird
Fair enough.
Man + topless + beach = not weird
Woman + topless + beach = weird
Still fair?
You are not suggesting freedom, you are suggesting idiocy.
there are places for women to go topless like beach if they want to but asking to go topless in a mall and everyone playing cool is selfish. wouldn't you weird out if the man sitting next to you in a bus is naked?
Where in the world did I advocate allowing men and women running around naked unconstraint? All I’m asking is, at places where men are allowed to go topless (like pools, beaches, parks, their own backyard, etc.) shouldn’t women be allowed to do the same?
Also I said topless because you can’t deny that men and women get viewed about the upper level of their torsos differently. I have never at any one point argued that men and women should be allowed to swing their dicks in public or expose their pussies.
If you have a problem reading, I suggest you stop commenting because all you do is make a fool of yourself.
p.s: with all the things we could talk about in favor of gender equality, I can not believe going naked is your favorite.
Every issue big or small is an issue. Whether you choose to ignore it or not makes all the difference between a civilized and a barbaric society.
Mod
..."
I have been wanting someone to say this for so long! Woman only want the right to go topless where men can--of course there are places where it will be inappropriate for woman to go topless, as it would be men. There are just some times and at some events where you don't do it. But men can go topless at a beach, while woman get fined for public indecency if it is not a nude beach. That is not fair. Nor is it fair in other places where men can currently go topless and woman can't.
I'm just gonna leave this herehttp://www.jumblejoy.com/never-breast...
make sure you actually click and read don't judge before you read the article all the way. As the saying goes 'looks can be deceiving'
Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird...."
First of all I'm not here to fight you or take your right from you, I just think differently so let's not treat each other like enemies.
You are suggesting men to be more open minded when women go topless but men consider this going half naked but that is not the issue here.
I think it's all matter of perspective.
if a man with nice body go topless he will get attention as much as a girl would but he will be less object.
if you want to go topless in a park i think you should have the freedom but you are going to receive (maybe too much) attention.
my English is a bit rusty so it's hard to explain what I want to say but i guess all I'm saying is you should have the right to go topless in a park for example but you should also accept that it's going to attract more attention.
Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a mall it is weird...."
Well said Jing Wen!
We are asking the impunity for women to go topless only in place men are allowed to.
Milad wrote: "whoever started this conversation."
Isn't this getting a little personal now. That is feminism too. If men can go about without a shirt, why not women? If you despise the idea, you are free to not do so. If women going topless has been successfully accepted by the society, then no one is forcing the women to go topless. It is not mandatory for her to do so; she can refrain from being half nude as well.. We're trying to say the women should be able to do the same as men without any objection. They are not entitled to do so if they feel uncomfortable.
Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a m..."Milad, if you read a couple of the previous comments, Savannah has mentioned that going topless, which includes breastfeeding, I'd considered a felony in some states in the US. I don't know much about the US, so I don't know how strict they are about it. As you said, women are getting more attention, but they're ignoring the men.
Similarly, if a man goes topless, no one harasses him. If a women does, she gets into trouble. I'm not sure if I can ignore the perverts. You might want to think of what happens when a man sees a woman's chest in the public now.
Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Milad wrote: "You can go topless anywhere you like anytime you like but you can not ask people not to feel weird about it. if a man go topless in a m..."First of all I'm not here to fight you or take your right from you, I just think differently so let's not treat each other like enemies.
Which would be great and all. But not with personal attacks like those below.
1. You are not suggesting freedom, you are suggesting idiocy.
2. p.s: with all the things we could talk about in favor of gender equality, I can not believe going naked is your favorite.
You are suggesting men to be more open minded when women go topless but men consider this going half naked but that is not the issue here.
Not sure what u are trying to say with that. Maybe rephrase?
I think it's all matter of perspective.
if a man with nice body go topless he will get attention as much as a girl would but he will be less object.
You are definitely wrong here. Western countries, Middle Eastern countries, Asian countries, men could go topless regardless of body type, be it sculpted like a greek god or flabby like fudge. Regardless of attention attracted, nothing demeaning happens to them. Women on the other hand would be ogled, harassed or insulted for doing the same thing. Those “nudist beach”, that you all like to quote in your defense of equality, exist in so few numbers that their presence is insignificant. For each “nudist beach” you could name, I could probably name a few hundred other beaches where going topless for women is still a stigma.
if you want to go topless in a park i think you should have the freedom but you are going to receive (maybe too much) attention.
Exactly my point. But society are stigmatizing women who want to have that same freedom of going topless at places where it is appropriate for men to go topless.
my English is a bit rusty so it's hard to explain what I want to say but i guess all I'm saying is you should have the right to go topless in a park for example but you should also accept that it's going to attract more attention.
If you followed this thread and actually read all my post, I did at one point infer why it is currently so difficult for women to go topless. Check out message 73. But even so, we should attempt to do the right thing no matter how difficult, and not be content with something that’s wrong no matter how easy it would be.
Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me because you are feeding a child. Why should you have to hide to feed your child? To co..."
In Canada it is a law that women have a right to breastfeed in public. People who shame women for doing that are opressing their right and can be told so by the police. No charges for opression, but at least our right is protected.
Gabrielle wrote: "Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me because you are feeding a child. Why should you have to hide to feed you..."While I do agree that we have the right to breastfeed in public, I don't agree that somebody commenting on it is oppression. A random strangers comments does nothing to remove another person's rights.
Jessica wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me because you are feeding a child. Why should you have t..."It's interesting. Definitely a cultural thing. Nobody bats an eye here, but then we have a sauna culture that is about a normal, naked body, too.
It's not like a breast is hanging all loose and free and for everyone to see, but it is covered by a baby. And if a nipple is showing, you're invading her personal space and need to back the heck off.
I seriously don't get what the fuss is about, since nobody shames people with cleavage like they seem to hate on new mothers.
Our Shared Shelf
Books mentioned in this topic
So You've Been Publicly Shamed (other topics)Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (other topics)
I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban (other topics)
[psi] (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jon Ronson (other topics)Daniel Okrent (other topics)
Laura Ingalls Wilder (other topics)
Laura Ingalls Wilder (other topics)
Charles Bukowski (other topics)
More...
I'm not talking about the percentage of women who can breastfeed (such percentage is not great).
I'm talking about t..."
The cops and your neighbours are idiots. Sorry to hear about that experience. For those who think otherwise, please shower with your clothes on.