I liked it. That being said.
Am I missing something here? She's saying what others have been saying for a long time. Granted its sound and well delivered, but I came here expecting a performance akin to Tyrion Lannister's speech to his father after being accused of being Joffrey's murderer. I was expecting the King's Speech. I was even expecting Maximus' dying words to the Rome after he killed emperor Commodus.
Quite frankly I'm underwhelmed.
I also agree with this. Not only do I agree with this but I think specifically many articulate CV users have made posts with as much power, grace and validity, across various threads, just you know, they usually get lost among people disagreeing with each other without actually trying to understand each other, a bunch of users trying to be funny but failing and about 10 GIF's or memes that appear in threads over and over again. Its a great speech, on the other side I wish more attention was given to a lot of the posts made by CV users that cover the same ideas. Seen great posts about the topic by Razzatazz, Laflux, Bumpyboo, MrDeceptioconLeader, many, many others. Usually the attention is on posts that users find easiest to argue or refute. Low hanging fruit so to speak.
Good speech but why not be a humanist?
Mainly because its worth fighting for ideas rather than continually having to adopt a new name for the idea because some people decide to assert its something than what it was. I mean a Humanist right? Does that mean Humanists think non humans should be tortured and treated with cruelty and only humans deserve respect and consideration? Why be a Humanist when you can be an Animalist? Respect and consideration for all animals, even non intelligent ones? Then again does that mean that we shouldn't care about the Earth or Oceans? How about a Goodinist? As in being good? Well I don't, that sounds like its anti freedom, so how about we be Freedomlists instead? Why not be both? Why let people taint an idea and move to another just because it sounds more generically good for the time being until people invariably misunderstand it?
Their are usually historic and biological reasons why minorities including woman got unfair negative treatment, but thats not to say that by trying to address that imbalance the intent is to only benefit one gender, knowing why and how the imbalance exists and what balance means benefits everyone. Fastest way to make life better for so many third world areas plagued with poverty is to empower woman specifically. Usually things like the areas traditional, religious, societal norms and practices have woman essentially as baby makers and prizes for men, but studies have demonstrated that if you gave such places woman the same educational, and career opportunities as men, how many children they have and when is pushed back, when they do have children they are better educated and healthier, families are more stable, and that stability usually translates to areas workplace, economy, negative crime statistics lowers, positive health benefits rise. It applies to everyone. I mean in theory everyone should be empowered and educated, just in practice in these areas the fastest and most efficient way is to untangle the things that traditionally hold woman back. So its not really a gender thing per say, more like a science or logic thing about how to get different puzzle pieces to fit. Their are biological and cultural reasons why many males in first world countries don't get health checks as much as females, in oversimplified terms its because guys can have a lot more pressure to be stoic and strong, to go to a doctor and ask for help is weak. Hence if its understood that strength and stoicism isn't just for men, and that being mindful of your own health isn't a weakness, more people benefit. Hence why many desire more strong tough female fictional characters, but… well its more complicated than that.
Humanist, feminist, doesn't really matter to much, as far as people just wanted other people to be okay and healthy and well, the other thing about humans though that we also know because of studies, science, so on, most overestimate how reasonable they are. So we have people thinking they are being reasonable when they might not actually be. This is important to note because it means we still have a long way to go before people in general can legitimacy and sincerely disagree and agree with ideas in a way thats honest and accurate. I mean that's still quite rare, what's more common is that people will distort ideas they have an emotional dislike or suspicion towards in a way that makes it easier to discredit and criticize because that usually feels better. People still value feeling good more than they value intellectual transparency and dialogue. I don't really know any modern groups or labels that aren't opposed by others as much because of distorted ideas than taking the group's idea or ideology at its best and most valid.
Sorry long post, I just think you raise a very very good valid point and question and it deserved to be addressed. Even despite my relatively long post it really only scratches the surface of the subject. By the way I am not a feminist anymore, but I use to be, but I still think above applies.
Log in to comment