• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

The Big Dog said:
a good friend of mine is an investment banker who has literally spent his whole career putting together deals to build, expand or equip children's hospitals.

so......
Click to expand...
So that's how things are done in the USA. Merchant banking is involved in a wide range of activities. Perhaps in Europe hospitals are built using public funding and bankers have a smaller role. Does that mean you now favour the expansion of the state sector? Once a feature becomes part of society it plays all kinds of roles. I'm sure that slaveowners in 1860 Alabama provided the labour force for many socially necessary activities. Would we excuse slavery on such grounds? "My great great grandfather" you might say "was a slave merchant, but supplied many households with wetnurses for mothers who couldn't suckle their own children. So .... " well these things were done that way because slavery was how labour was supplied. There are better ways.

Whether merchant banking can be done away with or ought to be done away with, I don't know, but the excesses of the 2003-2008 bubble indicated that it could do with some cleaning up, because its members unfortunately didn't spend all their time equipping children's hospitals, though of course some of them did.
 
theprestige said:
Merchant bankers are but one of the countless improvements that humans have been making to human civilization since human civilization first became a thing.
Click to expand...
That begs the question whether they will be replaced with something even more effective. The horse collar was a great advance in transportation...in its day. But then something better came along. Enslaving prisoners was better than eating them, as was done in primitive times; but now we have machines and have no need to do either of these old fashioned things.
 
Craig B said:
So that's how things are done in the USA. Merchant banking is involved in a wide range of activities. Perhaps in Europe hospitals are built using public funding and bankers have a smaller role. Does that mean you now favour the expansion of the state sector? Once a feature becomes part of society it plays all kinds of roles. I'm sure that slaveowners in 1860 Alabama provided the labour force for many socially necessary activities. Would we excuse slavery on such grounds? "My great great grandfather" you might say "was a slave merchant, but supplied many households with wetnurses for mothers who couldn't suckle their own children. So .... " well these things were done that way because slavery was how labour was supplied. There are better ways. .
Click to expand...

I have no idea how one compares putting together a financing deal to expand a clinic at a hospital to slaveowners in 1860 Alabama, but....:eye-poppi

As far as the article?

A photo of the article's author is here:

https://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/people/faculty/suzanna-walters/


Another view
 
The Big Dog said:
I have no idea how one compares putting together a financing deal to expand a clinic at a hospital to slaveowners in 1860 Alabama, but....:eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Just arguing that there are different ways of achieving the same result, even if it's a socially desirable result.
As far as the article?

A photo of the article's author is here:

https://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/people/faculty/suzanna-walters/


Another view
Click to expand...
She appears to be a serious and sincere person, and I think we should take her at her word.
 
cullennz said:
She is a twat

1. a woman's genitals.
2. a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.
Click to expand...

That's basically the equivalent of calling someone a dick. Nobody seems to get their panties in a twist about the gender implications of that insult.
:duck:
 
Ziggurat said:
That's basically the equivalent of calling someone a dick. Nobody seems to get their panties in a twist about the gender implications of that insult.
:duck:
Click to expand...

To me, for what that's worth, neither "dick" nor "twat" carry gender implications the way a word like "bitch" does.
 
Meadmaker said:
Cultural difference. In the US, that word is just never used for anything other than meaning number 1.
Click to expand...


Regional differences. Lived my whole life in the US and in the places I've lived the word is rarely used at all, but when it is it's pretty much evenly distributed between #1 and #2. Case #2 even occasionally used about men.
 
An interesting counter article from an evangelical Christian, I think his last point is the most telling


I do believe that this seeming justification of hatred toward all men (whatever nuances and exceptions were implied) is not a mature, helpful response to the misdeeds of especially so many male celebrities (and others). I am surprised the Washington Post even published it. Would that newspaper publish a column raising the question whether it might be justified to hate all Muslims because of the misdeeds of some? Of course not. At least I hope not!


But I would ask the author of the column this question: Do you think it might be okay to hate all or even most Muslims because some have been and are terrorists? I’m sure she would say no. Then why is it okay to even raise the question whether it might be okay to hate men?
Click to expand...


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/06/is-it-okay-to-hate-men/
 
I wouldn't use the argument about punishing one person or group of people for oppression committed by others, because it starts by accepting the claim that they were oppressors in the first place. Both genders being stuck in prescribed gender-based social roles is not oppression of one by the other.
 
autumn1971 said:
To me, for what that's worth, neither "dick" nor "twat" carry gender implications the way a word like "bitch" does.
Click to expand...

Outside of a few mammals, none of which are human, there is no gender implication to the word "bitch."

bitch
biCH/Submit
noun
1.a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
2.informal
a difficult or unpleasant situation or thing.
 
qayak said:
Outside of a few mammals, none of which are human, there is no gender implication to the word "bitch."
Click to expand...
You'd have to be remarkably ignorant of modern feminism in order to claim such a thing.

Personally I'm trying to reduce my use of the word "dick". Largely, this takes the form of refraining from insulting people at all.
 
arthwollipot said:
You'd have to be remarkably ignorant of modern feminism in order to claim such a thing.

Personally I'm trying to reduce my use of the word "dick". Largely, this takes the form of refraining from insulting people at all.
Click to expand...

Damn. It must really suck to be you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom