|
Seph N Haven - Did you happen to be brought up in the western world? Did you happen to have Equality preached upon you in repetition, without a right to refute any claims or accusations made? And let me guess it was all given from a position of Gynocentrism? But to refute it, is Sexism? Now that is a laughing matter indeed.
|
For you who are unaware I'm a father. A Father of 3 daughters. A Father of 3 daughters, who will laugh directly in your face for giving him a single argument of gyno criticism or andro criticism. Either or. It truly is a laughing matter.
Also for you who are unaware any argument given from from, either or, of those points of view (no matter how clever sounding), is invalid via its original point of reference. It doesn't need to be debated, it doesnt need to be argued. It needs to be valid and then we can see the value it may or may not hold.
Sexism is Sexism.
Any argument given, as Gynocentric or Androcentric, starts from a point of unequal weights and measurements. In judaism we are taught to be very careful never to miss this.
Whether be in business dealings, agreements, arrangements or even arguments. Any deal in which one party or the other is refusing to apply the same standards for the engagement, is no different than that party proclaiming the opposition is of a lower class of humanity then themselves. Fair dealings cannot be found.
When an argument about what is good or bad for humanity is taken from any point of view, which does not start with the point of view being that of humanity. It starts from a point of prejudice and bias. In reality it is just a bigoted statement from its very creation, from before it's even spoken. A Fact I know many feminists and M.R.A./MGTOW alike may not find to their liking.
In this world of "Gender" or just Sexist Politics, the matter at hand being argued is generally society at large. However societies are numerous and many with no common standard or measurement which can be applied across all. One may argue from the point of the individual, humanity or family as individuals, but not society.
Also the individuals point is not free from standards.
Individuals may be as varied and numerous as all the grains of sands in the seas, but they all have the exact same basic needs. So from that point one may argue as the standard is equal across the board. There is no portion of individuals, which the argument does not cover in its claim, while maintaining no positive or negative valuation for any individual. Likewise Humanity is just one. There is not two, or three, or four for that matter. But only 1.
While with starting from an individual point of reference, one always has to further reduce to basic needs in order to find the equal standard. Which actually brings you to the reference point of humanity as a whole. So why ever start with the individual? What's the point? Because only an individual can make an argument about humanity. Humanity can give no arguments upon the individual.
If the argument is given by an individual claiming to be speaking for humanity about humanity (instead of an human individual speaking about humanity). Well then again we have no equal standard, but the sole arbiter of truth --- Which has proclaimed their voice, that of all the individuals within humanity.
One can only argue in reference for what is best for society, a nation, humanity or individuals from; first starting as an individual, then finding a standard across all humanity to work from. Then and only then can one proceed to confirm one's argument via that foundation built and that foundation alone.
Not because I say so, but because the universe just has not given us another way to do it.
And the same applies with family.
Only individuals within a family can give arguments about families. You cannot start at the point of the family without proclaiming yourself arbiter of truth for all families or individuals within families at the same time. If you do not first base your argument on the basic needs of the individuals within humanity or within the family system. Your refusing equal weights and measurements across the deal.
When our arguments start form points reference such as of sex, gender, race, religion, belief or even personal view we are always making the claim that: We can be correct in our arguments about humanity while starting from a point of reference, which is discriminating against one portion or another from its very conception. Nothing else.
As far as unequal weights and measurements. Those who proclaim themselves arbiters of truth for millions of differing values and opinions, well they have set themselves above the bar, above the rules and above the standards everyone else must follow. Likewise when one party proclaims the other has no right to the same standards for the deal as they receive. This is setting someone below the bar, below the rules, and below the standards which this individual human, is rightfully entitled to.
Unless equality was always about gynocentrism and nothing more then a big game. We might want to stop making arguments and statements based purely upon discrimination, pulling elements of truth in too make them sound good. Abolishment of 95% critical theory subsets may also be an imperative.
I'm going to take International women's day for what it is. A Sexist bullying campaign which discriminates against one portion of humanity for the sole benefit of the other. Not a victim, not a hero, but a villian. A well funded one, but a villian all the same.
So why don't we just call today what it is. International bigot day.
I'm only interested in equality. No sexism at all please.
And please keep it off my doorstep. I get enough ideological fanatics showing up.
***
Author's Note: Additionally I really don't want my daughters growing up in a world that pleads examples of discrimination, abuse and sexism as acceptable behaviours. They got better things to learn.
Seph N Haven
Also for you who are unaware any argument given from from, either or, of those points of view (no matter how clever sounding), is invalid via its original point of reference. It doesn't need to be debated, it doesnt need to be argued. It needs to be valid and then we can see the value it may or may not hold.
Sexism is Sexism.
Any argument given, as Gynocentric or Androcentric, starts from a point of unequal weights and measurements. In judaism we are taught to be very careful never to miss this.
Whether be in business dealings, agreements, arrangements or even arguments. Any deal in which one party or the other is refusing to apply the same standards for the engagement, is no different than that party proclaiming the opposition is of a lower class of humanity then themselves. Fair dealings cannot be found.
When an argument about what is good or bad for humanity is taken from any point of view, which does not start with the point of view being that of humanity. It starts from a point of prejudice and bias. In reality it is just a bigoted statement from its very creation, from before it's even spoken. A Fact I know many feminists and M.R.A./MGTOW alike may not find to their liking.
In this world of "Gender" or just Sexist Politics, the matter at hand being argued is generally society at large. However societies are numerous and many with no common standard or measurement which can be applied across all. One may argue from the point of the individual, humanity or family as individuals, but not society.
Also the individuals point is not free from standards.
Individuals may be as varied and numerous as all the grains of sands in the seas, but they all have the exact same basic needs. So from that point one may argue as the standard is equal across the board. There is no portion of individuals, which the argument does not cover in its claim, while maintaining no positive or negative valuation for any individual. Likewise Humanity is just one. There is not two, or three, or four for that matter. But only 1.
While with starting from an individual point of reference, one always has to further reduce to basic needs in order to find the equal standard. Which actually brings you to the reference point of humanity as a whole. So why ever start with the individual? What's the point? Because only an individual can make an argument about humanity. Humanity can give no arguments upon the individual.
If the argument is given by an individual claiming to be speaking for humanity about humanity (instead of an human individual speaking about humanity). Well then again we have no equal standard, but the sole arbiter of truth --- Which has proclaimed their voice, that of all the individuals within humanity.
One can only argue in reference for what is best for society, a nation, humanity or individuals from; first starting as an individual, then finding a standard across all humanity to work from. Then and only then can one proceed to confirm one's argument via that foundation built and that foundation alone.
Not because I say so, but because the universe just has not given us another way to do it.
And the same applies with family.
Only individuals within a family can give arguments about families. You cannot start at the point of the family without proclaiming yourself arbiter of truth for all families or individuals within families at the same time. If you do not first base your argument on the basic needs of the individuals within humanity or within the family system. Your refusing equal weights and measurements across the deal.
When our arguments start form points reference such as of sex, gender, race, religion, belief or even personal view we are always making the claim that: We can be correct in our arguments about humanity while starting from a point of reference, which is discriminating against one portion or another from its very conception. Nothing else.
As far as unequal weights and measurements. Those who proclaim themselves arbiters of truth for millions of differing values and opinions, well they have set themselves above the bar, above the rules and above the standards everyone else must follow. Likewise when one party proclaims the other has no right to the same standards for the deal as they receive. This is setting someone below the bar, below the rules, and below the standards which this individual human, is rightfully entitled to.
Unless equality was always about gynocentrism and nothing more then a big game. We might want to stop making arguments and statements based purely upon discrimination, pulling elements of truth in too make them sound good. Abolishment of 95% critical theory subsets may also be an imperative.
I'm going to take International women's day for what it is. A Sexist bullying campaign which discriminates against one portion of humanity for the sole benefit of the other. Not a victim, not a hero, but a villian. A well funded one, but a villian all the same.
So why don't we just call today what it is. International bigot day.
I'm only interested in equality. No sexism at all please.
And please keep it off my doorstep. I get enough ideological fanatics showing up.
***
Author's Note: Additionally I really don't want my daughters growing up in a world that pleads examples of discrimination, abuse and sexism as acceptable behaviours. They got better things to learn.
Seph N Haven
RSS Feed
