Rationalism: a paper tiger?

quote:

---

Some people deride the chasteness of women, calling them prudish, as if chastity is just some antiquated and silly relic of a previous era.

​

But then when she finally does throw off the shackles of what they claim oppress her, she now gets to be a slut by doing the very thing they said would free her. She can't win, not even amongst those of her own sex, who often times are the worst offenders and the most judgmental. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Where can she go that is safe?

---

She can go where the progressives and liberals are, because in my experience, that's where people are most encouraged and allowed to get the information they want and need in order to make the personal choices that are best for them.I was a virgin for far longer than most women in my generation, but I had not a single one of my "liberal" friends chastize me for it. That's mostly because none of them ever thought to invade my privacy by inquiring about it. It wasn't their business. It didn't affect them.The only camp that ever made me feel negative about any of my choices regarding sexuality was the conservative religious camp. Those people did think it was their business, and thought nothing of invading my privacy and giving their opinions where it wasn't asked for.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A good example might be someone that had an abortion. I've found cons willing to accept and help women that have had one. Progs tend to shut down and isolate women that chose not to have one (for personal faith reasons) or ironically have had one (if the specific progs personally don't like it... i.e. its okay for someone else, not people they know).

---

I have no clue what world you live in, but that's never been my experience, nor the experience of anybody I have personally known who has been involved in this sort of thing. It has been the opposite, in fact, to your description.

quote:

---

On your last comment, were you suggesting cons gave you problems for being a virgin?

---

No.I am saying that they gave me a lot of guilt for even considering having sex before I was married, let alone actually doing so. And real facts and information about sex? Had to get that all on my own.Actually, I was pretty much taught by conservatives that having sexual feelings at all was dangerous, and that sex before marriage was a terrible sin and morally repugnant.No liberal ever said anthing to me about my personal choices about sex either way.Again, it has been the conservative, religious parents who have been far more likely to kick their gay/pregnant children out of the house, not the liberals, in my experience.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As a question, have you spent long periods of time within very conservative communities, as in having to live directly with them, and seen them experience things like abortion or someone being gay?

---

Dude, I was raised a Roman Catholic. Twelve years of CCD.But I really don't see why this is relevant. We can exchange personal stories all day, but it doesn't mean that either one of us is "righter or wronger" about the larger tendencies of the community.But seriously, are you expecting me to believe that a woman wanting an abortion is more likely to get real support or a guilt trip from a conservative, considering the typical anti-abortion position of the majority of conservatives?

quote:

---

If you had been having sex, this very well might have been different, no?

---

Well, eventually I did have premarital sex. And nobody but the conservatives had anything to say about it.

quote:

---

I might note there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy going on when such acceptance happens, but it does.

---

Yeah, just a bit of hypocrisy!Calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent gays from getting married while having a gay child is pretty disgusting.

quote:

---

What I meant is that if you have done X (name the sin), which cons tirade against, I have found that on a personal level they will generally not ostracize you. You can keep them as friends, unless you keep in their face about it, and they are forgiving of your "defects". Now that may seem a bit condescending, but you still get their help, by which I meant friendship, or other forms of physical support. And the reciprocal point is true, when they have defects they expect the same from you. Kind of like everyone's all in it together.

​

On the opposite side, I've found libs to be generally unforgiving of friends and family that differ from them, and commit an offense they don't like.

---

Looked at another way, maybe this means that conservatives are really just hypocrites who denounce certain activities as immoral, disgusting, and want to pass laws forcing all of us to live by their moral code or go to prison, but then when they themselves are caught doing those very things, or one of their immediate circle of family and friends, they are suddenly very interested in second chances, redemption, and forgiveness. Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction hypocrisy comes to mind. And that's just if they get exposed. There are conservative girls and women who have had abortions who continue to oppose the right of women to get safe, legal abortions. They think that their own abortions were "different" and they "really needed them", not like those "sluts".This sort of thing is consistent with the psychological profile of the Right Wing Authoritarian Follower personality type.By contrast, progressives may tend to stick to their code of ethics (or whatever) more, and apply it more consistently, even to themselves, and their friends and family. They apply their "rules" to everybody, even those closest to them.This is all just speculation, and in no way should be considered a strongly-held position by me. I'm just sayin'. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm sure you are aware that this dichotomy exists for many women, which is the product of a fractured society which doesn't know which moral it wants to ascribe to.

---

Maybe that's becasue morals are ultimately decided by the individual, not the society.

quote:

---

I mean, is there really a difference between screaming, fanatical fascists from screaming, fanatical socialists?

---

Juggs, "socialists" and "progressives" are not the same group.Neither are "conservatives" and "fascists".The conservatives of old, like Goldwater, had no authoritarian, fascist qualities. The "conservative Christian" of today is really very liberal in that they believe that the government should force everyone, by power of law, to adhere to their moral code. They also have no problem with the government spying on us, invading our privacy, or the reduction of our civil liberties. (Of course, that's only if it only happens to other people, not them or anyone they know)Progressives, on the other hand, are much more like the conservatives of old, in that they want government out of people's personal lives, but know that government has an important role in the protection of the people, be they workers, consumers, the poor or the disadvantaged. Kind of like Nixon. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Okay, this is an aspect of something I was heading for... what does butt plugs have to do with being gay or accepting homosexuality? You can get anal pleasure without a guy being around, and whatever you use does not inherently become a stand in for a phallus. Likewise, if you are gay you can actually hate anal sex. I've known gays that can't stand it and think its disgusting.

---

It doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality and I don't think anybody ever claimed it did; it is just included in the list because it isn't plain vanilla sex between a husband and a wife. Neither were the two wetsuits and rubber underwear he was wearing. Or the ropes he hogtied and accidentally strangled himself with.He was in Alabama, incidentally, where sex toys like buttplugs, are illegal.

quote:

---

I'm not sure I can agree that patriarchy is misogyny by definition. It can be, but it isn't inherent.

---

How isn't it inherently misogynistic to automatically give the male gender power over the female gender for no other reason than that they have penises?Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If the only physical difference you see between men and women is a penis, then I have to ask what planet YOU live on.

---

There exist some women who have more of what people usually think of as "masculine" physical traits than some men. And it isn't just physical traits, either.Some women are stronger, more athletic, more charismatic leaders, taller, more independent, more aggressive, less emotional, more logical, better at business, better at science and math, more self-confident, more likely to take risks, etc., than some men.In a patriarchal society, it doesn't matter that a woman might be as good at or better than a man at one, some, or even all of these things.Patriarchy dictates that being born with a penis, rather than one's abilities or skills, is what determines who is in power.Even the most amazing, brilliant, skilled, talented female leader in such a society will always be undervalued and marginalized by the males, since she is a woman and therefore not "supposed" to lead.Therefore, patriarchy is inherently misogynistic. Like I said.(By the way, I really don't see how your reply explained how patriarchy isn't inherently mysoginistic.)Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Look, if what you are saying is that it's logically possible that a society could be a patriarchy, but the men really hate the system and love and respect women as equals or even betters, and REALLYREALLYREALLYREALLY wish that they could equally share all power and prestige and responsibility with the women, but The Great And Powerful Gorg, Dark Overlord of the Galaxy threatens the society with The Final Annihilation if women are given power or prestige or resposibility that are reserved for men only, then you're right.You're right, but who the fuck cares?You are doing what you always do, Holmes, which is argue for a fantasy scenario that exists nowhere but in your imagination.

quote:

---

Hirsi Ali appears to be a self-promoter

---

Of course she would appear that way to you, based upon your anti-feminist sentiments.

I believe it.The content of his arguments may have changed but the tactics haven't.

quote:

---

As a conservative, previous to your posts of the last several days, I held that ALL liberals were irrational. This at least had been my personal experience.

​

I see now that I was in error, and that we are not in quite as much trouble as I thought.

---

Speaking of irrationality, why don't you join me over at the thread I'm going to start on mind reading and the people, like you, who think they can do it?

quote:

---

The idea that love or respect for anyone requires egalitarian access to role placement, power positions or other, is a specific moral world view and is NOT necessary.

---

Sure it is.Respect between adults is impossible if one side thinks they are fundamentally deserving of power over, and in fact fundamentally superior to, the other by way of their gender.That's what patriarchy is.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.

---

Boy howdy, is that ever true.

You do realize that Petrophysics accuses nearly all liberals of being irrational, while also claiming to be able to read minds, don't you?