I am not necessarily against some form of health care rights (if by that you mean welfare system), and one that would include mechanisms for abortion, etc.
Well, in the U.S. it is men, especially Republican men, who take rights from women. If you are offended by a truth then it must be true to you or you wouldn’t get so offended by the statement.
1 Like
I feel offended because I am a man and your sentence says “It is men who attempt to take rights”.
This sentence is also antagonizing.
You have to be concerned with the group in order to get rights for the individual or nothing will happen. I don’t think you understand how laws work. Not only that, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few” when it comes to getting rights for people. Activists have to go for the group or the individual will get nothing.
1 Like
Fine. If that’s how you feel, that is your feelings. Keep in mind, you asked me directly who my favourite feminist thinker is and if I have her as a role-model, how do you think I’m going to say things? You post things like Barbie, I’d say you aren’t much of a feminist thinker. Barbie is not a feminist, though she is female.
I think left-leaning feminists are too much collectivistic, this is my point. They start and end at the group. I care about the individuals.
Did you watch the video?
Yes and I don’t agree with her that the Barbie movie is about feminism. Barbie is not. I don’t agree with her on anything she said about Barbie.
Research by Developmental Psychology, a peer-reviewed academic journal, revealed that girls from ages three to eight who were given the “original Barbie” had lower self-esteem and more body image issues than girls who had no Barbie at all. While such expectations can fade with time when girls become women and realize that the Barbie body is entirely unrealistic and unattainable for anyone, those standards often imperceptibly linger.
I’m sorry, but big boobs and an anorexic body is not something any woman should idolize. Twiggy is out in the modern day world.
And Barbie
has faced plenty of backlash over the years. Much of it has focused on the dolls’ unrealistic body image: Researchers have found that if Barbie
were a real person, she would have to walk on all four because of her proportions. Studies have linked playing with ultra-thin dolls to negative body image and increased risk of eating disorders in children.
The only redeeming quality to Barbie in recent years is that she comes in many ethnic types, but the body image is still horrible.
The other thing is, when it comes to Barbie, this is one of those things you can search the internet and find anything that supports your view on Barbie. Barbie isn’t a Feminist Manifesto. She is only an icon to those who like the plastic unrealistic image of the Feminine Physic.
This is a classic conundrum. Individuals believe they achieved their existence individually. On the surface, it sure appears that way. But we are a social animal. Our ancestors selected for cooperation, naturally, a long time ago. No society condones throwing babies out and seeing if they survive. Our punishment system is based on removing you from the cooperation system. It’s fundational.
It’s the encouragement of the cooperating society to “go out and find your own way” that appears to be individualism. But you can’t have that without the group.
1 Like
Last one and I do believe you fell for right-wing propaganda if you believe the Barbie movie is Feminist.
Yes we are social animals, but as humans we are also individuals. I think this is precisely what defines us as humans: the capacity and the desire for autonomy.
Communist and socialist tend to start and end at “we are social animals”.
The Barbie dolls are not feminism (I would agree on that, see my very first post on this thread), but the interpretation of the Barbie movie McCloskey made is to me interesting feminism.
Yes.
I was not talking about the Barbie doll. Only about the interpretation by McCloskey about the Barbie movie.
whatever ideology you want to talk about, you can’t put aside the social animal part.
You’re right that we have the desire for autonomy. But capacity? That’s why I started with the baby example. We are completely dependent in our first few years, as in, we would die. That capacity does not set us apart from other animals. Some animals are much better at it than we are, never interacting with parents after the first few moments, and some, never at all.
When I was considering my career choices, living in the woods alone was in the running. But as I thought about what I would need to do that, I realized I would not really be alone at all. Just the land to live on would need to be defended by a government, by other people trained specifically in defense. I would need to make a contract setting my borders. Then there’s all the stuff I would need. I envy those who choose that life, but it’s not for me, and it’s not individualistic, or something an individual does completely on their own.
But I do not put aside the social animal part! I acknowledge it.
I think progress is to develop the human capacity and desire for autonomy, because humans have these acute capacity and desire (that distinguish them from other animals).
Each human is extremely unique, and therefore it is moral to respect this individuality by giving it space. This is called individualism.
Oh, maybe you confuse individualism with egoism.
Did you read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill? It’s one of the most beautiful book I ever read.
It’s about individualism, while Mill was kind of a social democrat, so you see, both are not incompatible.
The movie is nothing more than a 2 hour ad for Mattel’s Barbie doll. That’s all the movie is, as mentioned in one of the links I posted. I saw your video and I totally disagree with the woman. I do agree with Harvard’s assessment though, which is the movie is not feminism and neither is Barbie. Did I mention I never liked Barbie even when I was a girl? Regardless of whether or not I like Barbie, the movie is still a 2 hour ad for a little doll.
I don’t know what you are getting at here, but feminism mixed with discussions about markets only appeals to academics.
No.
You’re getting off topic. Avoiding what I said.
Here is a passage where I develop about how the “social animal nature” and the “individualist nature” of humans converge.
It doesn’t seem you are ever going to respond directly to points raised. Have read any critiques of utilitarianism?