Posted by Roarkiller on 03.17.2012, 12:25 PM:
quote: Originally posted by Saddletank You are missing the point, equality does not mean urinals for women and tampons for men, or penises for women and breasts for men. You're being silly.
Equality means being treated equally in societal matters such as salaries, job opportunities, and all other areas where men and women can and should be treated equally.
In those areas equality can and should happen.
You'd be surprised how many women actually expect these things as well. Which is why I brought up the point.
TOTAL equality is impossible because of my stated reasons, which is what a small group of women actually want (sadly).
Fortunately, as I believe everyone here agrees, what should happen is SELECT equality, in areas where merit should prevail, not gender. And so we can safely ignore this.
The problem, however, comes in dress sense, which is the current topic, and is very hotly debated about even in the real world right now.
Problem: Women want the freedom to wear whatever they so choose, while at the same time, be protected from hot-blooded males.
The logic against this argument is simple enough to understand. Men are hot-blooded by nature, and seeing skin gets the blood pumping. "No smoke without fire" is the right statement here; you cannot expect to not attract attention when you're wearing skimpy clothes.
So now we get to the finer details.
quote: All the cultures that habitually go unclothed are very ancient cultures - some African tribes, some Amazonian tribes, some Polynesians... Cultures that would be far more widespread on the earth if Christian missionaries and Christian colonial powers had not exploited and destroyed them. The majority of people on this planet live in the medium to high northern latitudes where textile coverings are simply useful in order to keep warm; it is also these cultures who, a few hundred years ago, took their Christian values to the simpler cultures in the tropics and... destroyed them, or implanted their own beliefs and practices.
Had this not happened a far larger percentage of the earth's population would practice nudity as a simple fact of social normality.
Now this is a very flawed argument to begin with. Human beings are the only know creatures to be able to use their head in such sophistry, to create culture an fashion and technology.
In short, we advance. We improve.
To say that it is okay to practice the ways of old is flawed simply because current society norms reject an equal, if not larger, amount of old customs.
If it is okay to be nude now because our ancestors did it, then it should be equally okay to marry your mother and cannibalise your dead enemy.
But we don't.
We can argue that in-breeding will lead to complications in the future. But this is a select scenario: cannibalism, an extremely taboo act, has what complications? None. We cannot say it is 'dirty meat' or that it has bacteria, because cooking kills that argument. You cannot argue that not all bacteria is killed in cooking, because other meat contains the same properties (pork is one famous example). And you cannot argue that we cannot eat the same species, because it happens in the wild, and you used that same argument to allow nudity "beautifully displayed in the wild, of animals and flowers". You can't even argue that it's reducing the population because we're a bloated enough species as it is, and no known predators to boot.
So why is cannibalism taboo? Why is it illegal? Social norms? Yeah, how convenient that excuse is.
The fact is, I have to agree with saviour on his barbarism argument: not so much about the ways of old, but it's dictionary meaning.
To be barbaric is to be uncivilised.
Drop by any pub or disco on a saturday night on you'll see people downing alcohol like water. Yes, you can control your intake, but being drunk is a very real problem. When you are drunk, you don't think straight. A functional alcoholic is not only rare, they have a bigger medical problem than normal alcoholics.
And yet drinking is legal, and even encouraged as a form of "socialising". I never did understand how intoxicating yourself is a good thing.
So we have these two examples. A banned taboo with seemingly no negative consequences at all, and an accepted norm that has obvious implications.
The latter, in my opinion, can border on barbaric. Partying can go so far beyond control that it can be officially classified as barbaric. Pure, uncivilised behaviour.
Sidetracking too much, so back to the current topic. Dressing.
Why is skimpy clothing accepted? Fashion? To look good? You can't look good in a long skirt? And nudity. Seriously, what's the point? The same way footwear were invented to protect out feet, clothes were invented to protect us from the elements. The only "nude" cultures mentioned before do so only because of their climate: hot and humid. I repeat: it's not fashion. It's logic.
They have a reason. We don't. Those naturalist are, to me, off their rockers. By all means, do so if you wish, but it still makes no sense to me.
So skimpy clothing. I'm sorry girls, but if skimpy clothing is your way of snagging guys, then what's with wanting guys to see your inner beauty? If guys can impress with their PhDs, why not you girls?
And so linking to the main topic. Girls dress to attract. If you are dressing to attract, you're not dressing for business. Any employer will tell you that revealing clothes is one of the sure-fire ways of not getting hired; in fact, it's why we have formal wear in the first place. The original reason for it may be different, but the reason now is clear: we want workers, not whores. Equality be damned, first impression matters, and that first impression was bad.
Hence we go to the root of the problem: freedom. There;s no such thing as total freedom, rules are NEEDED for society to function. So no, there's no such thing as free will. There's free choice, as in you are free to choose, but it doesn't mean you made the right choice, or a good choice.
Skimpy clothing is just plain bad because no matter how you argue it, no matter how idealistic you want the world to be, men will always be animals. You cannot argue that it is their onus to keep off if you are dressed in a sexually attractive manner. Yeah it makes you feel good an confident and all, but sorry girls, guys don't see it that way.
We're misunderstanding? Well that sucks, because that's how we're wired.
Wanting guys to bear the onus is inequality in itself, because it's saying that women can dress as provocatively as they want, sex themselves up as much as they want, yet want all the blame to fall on the guy.
Please, stop the hypocrisy.
I've argued this before, but here's a repeat: there is a reason why police advises us to not flaunt our wealth in public. It attracts thieves. Yes, legally they are to blame, go to jail and you don't, but why did you flaunt your wealth so much in the first place? Because it makes you feel confident? Look where that got you.
Argue this last point above with a policeman and get back to me with the results, because this is a PERFECTLY parallel case with clothing and sexual harrassment.
quote: Oh, BTW Roar, internet etiquette - too many upper case words and people can get the idea you're shouting and being overly aggressive
I AM NOT BEING OVERLY AGGRESSIVE I AM BEING ASSERTIVE AND YOU CANNOT STOP MEEEEEEE!!!!!!
But really though, I just hate typing in the bold/italics, so sue me. And netiquettes is oh-so-sensitive, I don't even know what is what half the time anymore :\
__________________ I am me. I am who I am. I am Roarkiller. No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net Isakaya High RPG Site
quote: Originally posted by fenkashi Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|