Political Spectrums are too vague

This will likely be boring af to read through, but if I’m going to avoid being sucker punched because people are being labelled Nazis, White Supremacists, and “woman hating misogynists” then I should probably have my views listed somewhere so that I don’t have to spend more time rebutting than AntiFa take to think about their baseless accusals.

 

These questions are taken from https://www.politicalcompass.org/test which is considered a good test by many. However with the complexity of the questions and their ramifications, comes an over-simplification from the answer format. Furthermore placing oneself into a category/party/ideology/community based on some but not all of that group’s stated beliefs, will inherently cause both internal conflict and the result of giving that group the negative external appearance of the worst elements.

(Addendums will be added after the end if necessary as and when my views change with evidence.)

 

1

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. An “if” question supposing a future hypothetical outside my control. Good start. If it’s economic then it will serve corporations by it’s nature. I wouldn’t be in favour of forcing economics to serve humanity further than maybe regulating the monopolisation of resources.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. No. Would anyone answer “yes”? How would that be justified? (please comment)
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it. Nationalism for the sake of nationalism isn’t useful, but citizens contribute to the nation so there’s no reason here against being proud if one’s nation is worthy.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. All races have statistical variances in “qualities” but the ranges overlap such that I wouldn’t promote or disparage based on race rather than merit.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For the purposes of overthrowing the enemy this can be a useful short term solution, but society often conflates association with overall shared views. Hence this post.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. Yes, by that if a nation justifies an action then they don’t agree with the international law. How can law be truly international in such circumstances?
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. The worry for me comes more from the public acceptance of each as the other. Whilst it is preferable that each media outlet stick to the field to which it advertises itself, I feel that consumers should research what they find before allowing it to instruct their behaviour. That would solve a lot more problems.

2

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality. Neither. We’re physically divided by nationality but the internet has helped in that regard. No-one knows what class you are when you post anonymously, and that’s wonderful.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. I don’t know enough about economics to have much of an opinion on this, but I feel that it’s easier to control inflation directly. Employment is largely at the whim of the free market.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. I agree. Governments primary function should ideally be to grant and protect rights in accordance with the will of the people, those rights extend to others, animals, and the environment, if the people will it. If the people demand that nature has the right not to be unduly damaged by our presence (and thus possibly damage us in return) then I see no issue with the government granting and enforcing that right according to the researched effects of the actions of corporations.
“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea. Only if you want to deny personal  freedoms, in which case what’s the point of existing? To continue to exist? It’s circular, what’s the *point*?
It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. It’s amazing that we’re capable of such. In principle the demand and supply of portable clean water isn’t bad. The willingness of people to buy it at ludicrous prices because of some perception of quality beyond reason is the sad part.
Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold. A strange idea, nonetheless necessary in a population where nomadic lifestyle isn’t tenable.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. If they contribute nothing to society then what’s the harm? It’s regrettable when that fortune isn’t wielded for the betterment of the species.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Anti-protectionism would only work if all nations did it.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. If a company has no other social responsibilities then a rival would be more agreeable to consumers and the demand would surely force the hand of the greedy company. The only other necessary responsibility for a fair free market would be a level of transparency.
The rich are too highly taxed. “The rich” is too vague, and countries differ in their taxation. Disincentivising the accumulation of wealth removes the impetus for improvement in a capitalist society.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . I don’t see why not. If they can pay more then the right is also applicable for someone else to provide whatever a “higher standard”.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. If the public demand that detrimental action should be met with punitive measures, then this follows logically.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. Monopolies restrict opportunities of others so; yes.

(Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?)

The freer the market, the freer the people. Only in terms of freedoms relating to the market. Capitalism has a track record of being in line with general higher standards of living, although when people are starving because they don’t have enough little green pieces of paper the whole thing looks a little silly.

3

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal. “always”? Only a sith deals in absolutes..

Abortion is not a simple topic.

Only women give birth, but the right to choose to be a parent is inherently enmeshed in the debate, so as a man I’m anti-abortion until there’s a legal equivalent for me.

As a scientist I’m fine with abortion before 24 weeks from a neurological POV, but damage to the mother in terms of ability to carry in future etc should be considered too.

Philosophically the consequences of  sex should be part of the decision to have sex. Abortion past maybe 4 weeks(?) shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Economically the right to abortion shouldn’t mean the right to free abortion (i.e: at the tax payer’s expense) except in the case of  medical concerns.

All authority should be questioned. Nothing should be exempt from being questioned.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Seems fair. Intent should modify the punishment somewhat though.

Also if someone is repentant then punishment often has a negative psychological effect (i.e: If they’re going to get punished even if they feel genuinely remorseful then what’s the incentive for remorse and the behavioural change that follows?)

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis. Taxes are spent as per the will of those we elect to serve our best interests. It’s much cheaper to keep these institutions going than to build and destroy them as the cycle of whim rolls forward. However, we are now in the position to make our own choices from a vast array of entertainment choices and the government supplying such art opportunities for the public is fast becoming outdated.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. Education is integral to the betterment of society and the economy. Classroom attendance should be compulsory in order to give each child the full range of opportunities arising from a basic education.
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind. “kind”?

If this means race then no, if this means class then no, if this means sex then no, if this means age then no, if this means ideology then no, if this means keeping dangerous mentally unstable criminals in unsafe circulation then yes.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children. Pain is a quick was for the brain to associate behaviour with action, but I’ve never had to spank my children so I don’t think it necessary in such a safe society when our biological development takes such a relatively long time as this gives greater opportunity for slower, more conscious methods of learning.
It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents. Yes, it develops specific areas of the mind.

Also as parents we don’t own our children. We are their wards and thus don’t necessarily have the right to know everything they think.

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence. If it were legal I wouldn’t have to buy it from a guy who also sells heroin, so it would be safer for society not to criminalise such a drug, especially when compared with the effects of alcohol and tobacco etc..
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. *to have the opportunity (in terms of knowledge) to follow any career/artistic endeavour/interest they enjoy and are suitable for, whilst entering society with as few incorrect beliefs as possible.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce. Given advances in genetics this won’t be an issue. Restricting something we can work on limits our advances in those fields.
(Take pesticides for example, sure we made mistakes, but if all farms were forced to be organic, we couldn’t learn from the mistakes we’re not making and couldn’t get any better.)
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline. That would lay the groundwork for an authoritarian society. Who do you trust to decide what your child should be disciplined for?
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. There’s no sense in labelling a culture “savage” unless the people within that culture display savage behaviour.

People can learn however, and given the opportunity, shouldn’t then be forgiven for continued savagery because of the culture they came from.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support. Without merit, why reward?
When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. If the source of the trouble is ignored then it can have potential to get worse. Troubles should be analysed and addressed if necessary.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country. “never”? These absolutes are silly. Of course they potentially can. Factors like individual capacity and culture of origin massively affect the outcome. It may be much more difficult to acclimate an 80 year old fundamental muslim into a secular humanist society than a 5 year old atheist, but that doesn’t mean “never”,
What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. “always”? The wording of these questions inherently ensure my disagreement and skew the result, despite for example the consequence of growing companies employing more people and stimulating the economy etc etc
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding. Public can fund whatever broadcasting they want. On what grounds would anyone even argue the restrict that? (comments welcome)

4

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. If we’re not free to potentially revolt then what protection do we have against the misuse of our governments?
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. That advantage comes at the heavy cost of removing the influence of the people and their differing ideologies. Not worth it.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried. Privacy doesn’t imply wrongdoing.  Surveilling those who do no wrong can only be the result of the public becoming a product. Who finds our personal information so valuable as to expend the resources necessary to gather it?
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes. Death denies the opportunity for remorse. I don’t consider the taking of life to be suitable as a punishment.
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. In the governance of a free society those positions should always be reversed.
Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all. Abstraction isn’t the same as meaninglessness. This question however seems less to do with politics and more to do with personal aesthetical considerations. What bearing does it have?
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation. Punishment implies rehabilitation (in the same way that consent must be informed).
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. Definitely. But until we try, until we give the opportunity, how could you possibly make any determination as to who should be denied?
The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Production could survive without art, but art could not survive without production.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Not unless they choose that duty.
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Some of them, more than likely yes. What does this have to do with my politics? You want me to be against people having the opportunity to earn more in a sweatshop than they would in the field due to the governance of other countries? I don’t have the right to directly intervene in the policies of other sovereign nations, all I can do is appeal to the people to better inform their government as to what they want and need.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. The two aren’t mutually inclusive.

5

Astrology accurately explains many things. Astrology is evidentially inaccurate.
You cannot be moral without being religious. Morality is subjective, but as religion is evidentially inaccurate I can’t find cause to find it would be morally worth while.
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged. Without a low level of social security not everyone could have the same opportunities. I would say that basic human rights should be afforded to those without the means to self supply but beyond that I leave it to an informed democracy to decide which causes warrant charity.
Some people are naturally unlucky. Luck is a description that which happens despite influence or lack thereof. It is not something people *have*.
It is important that my child’s school instills religious values. *It is important that my child’s school DOES NOT instil religious values, but seeks to rid the child of a many false beliefs as possible.

6

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral. As marriage isn’t the only standard of consent; I disagree.
A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. I see no reason the should be excluded. If there is an overabundance of people seeking adoption, all other things being equal then statistical likelihood of abuse should inform as to which combination of sexes should be preferred.
Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population. There is no obvious reason for this not to be the case.
What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state. Agreed. Consent being the key word there in regards to sexual activity.
No one can feel naturally homosexual. If sheep and deer can I see no reason that humans cannot.
These days openness about sex has gone too far. Openness as in; freedom of access to information about? When has that ever been a bad thing?

Thus ends the quiz.

Out of curiosity whilst collecting these questions I arbitrarily clicked “agree” to all, the result would seem to imply a slight bias on behalf of the questions. Thoughts and comments welcome 🙂

chart

Posted in politics, society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Protesters

The most popular chant seems to be

“No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!”

Which I find perplexing. 

“No Trump” is a statement inherently against democracy. Whatever you don’t like about Trump, he was elected democratically.

“No KKK” at a Trump protest can be disregarded because no evidence has been presented that Trump has anything to do with the KKK. In stark contrast to Hillary who cited an ex KKK recruiter as “a mentor”.

“No fascist USA” is similarly pointless. Fascism has in it’s proper usage the following qualities;

“Fascism claims to be neither capitalistic nor socialistic.
It maintains private property but places its use under State
control. Class struggle is rejected and industrial disputes are
forbidden. Trade unions and manufacturers’ associations, both
Fascist-controlled, are to co-operate in the corporations. The party is anti-democratic and anti-liberal.”¹

Here fascism can be seen to be something not inherent in the political stance of the Republican party or Trump himself. In point of fact the socialistic, anti-liberal,  anti-democratic sentiments and class-struggle narratives seem to be held by the protesters themselves. 

¹ 1939 Penguin Political Dictionary

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Definitions

It’s subtle but right there in the definition;

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Did you catch it?

It’s not “Equal rights for men and women” but “women’s rights”, the rest is subjective. There’s no call for women to have the same rights as men or visa versa, but the acquisition of rights in order to feel like they women aren’t put down. 

This is why the fact that women not only have all men’s legal rights, but have more rights than men, doesn’t bother them in the slightest.

It’s rare to to find a feminist who advocates for men’s rights because as soon as they realise what feminism really is, they stop being a feminist.

Posted in Feminism, MRA | Tagged , | Leave a comment

I’m a feminist*. But I’m not your Feminist.

Feminism is: Equal rights for men and women.

That’s Gender Egalitarianism by the way..

Women have all the rights that men have.

Men don’t have all the rights that women have.

Women are paid less than men.

Nowhere I have worked is this true. There’s laws against it.

Women are under-represented.

Everywhere I have worked has equal opportunity rules which only exclude; white men.

i.e. If an employer hires no white men, that’s the only time they won’t get in trouble.

Without introducing men into the equation this will likely create an unfair balance. It’s a good driver of demand for educated women in all areas of work, but where will it end? How can we ever pull the plug without being criticised by the indoctrinated public?

The Patriarchy!

What patriarchy?

There’s more male MPs than women.

THEN FUCKING VOTE FOR MORE FEMALE MPs, WITH THE EQUAL VOTING OPPORTUNITIES YOU HAVE!

We would but; Women don’t want to be MPs because of the Patriarchy.

The clue there is that they have a choice to end the dynamic, yet don’t. the opportunity to become and MP is there. Political education doesn’t take place on men-only golf courses.

The wage ga-

I don’t believe all these lies and biased propaganda you’re spreading which only result in women being placed higher than men.

You have to believe those, because that’s what we believe.

Then I’m not a feminist.

But Feminism is equal rights for men and women. You want that, yes?

Yes. But then you’re not a Feminist.

That’s the No True Scotsman Fallacy! You can’t tell us what we are!

Well then; I’ll go as far as to say that I’m a feminist up until around 2nd Wave theory.

Then you’re a misogynist! 

I thought this was a gender egalitarian movement?

It is.. we want equal rights for men and women. But only women are oppressed.

Show me where.

The Patriarchy!

What Patriarchy?

-Rinse and repeat-

*There are places in the world where the empowerment of women is being oppressed by patriarchal rape cultures who use religion as an excuse to place women beneath them. This is not an accurate description of US/UK. We fixed women’s rights here, how about we fix men’s rights too and use our feminist ideology (i.e. the understanding that women are the more oppressed of the sexes)  in places where it applies. Otherwise you’re just giving extra to an already disproportionately over-“privileged” and over-protected group because of a bias towards believing that things which were once true, are still true, under threat of ostracisation(?). Modern feminism has become dogmatic, with none-to-gentle handling of apostates. Lying about apostates to the faithful in order to keep them believing more lies. Does this sound familiar to any of my atheist readers?

Posted in Feminism, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Women can’t rape – guest post by @RobbieHalls w/ sources via @HoneyBadgerBite

image

Sexual assault upon men seems to be left out of the narrative I see every day from outspoken feminists who insist that there is a rape culture in US/UK when no definition of such a culture applies to most civilised western societies.

Rape of men by women isn’t something that can be legally prosecuted under UK law by legal definition despite it being unwanted penetration, it falls under sexual assault law. This detracts from the weight of the act indirectly by diminishing the social impact of statistics and reporting.

This needs to change.

Below* is the verbatim link dump from the HoneyBadgerRadio episode Rantzerker 41: Rutgers student femsplains Milo protest

Please watch, listen, understand, and support.

———————
*
38% of the victims of rape were men in the 2012 National Crime Victim Survey. (This study requires men to classify their victimization as rape and as a crime, both requirements lead to a reduction of admitted male victims relative to other survey instruments so this number is only a lower bound on the number of male victims of rape.)

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph

43% of college men and high school youth report being sexually assaulted or raped. 95% by women.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/men-a0035915.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/nsdsxgg

51% of college men report being sexually assaulted or raped since the age of 16. 95% by women.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/men-13-3-243.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/qgjzfwk

According to the CDC’s 12-month statistics on sexual violence(the most accurate statistic on prevalence, 50% of the victims of “forced sex” were male. According to the CDC’s lifetime statistics(the most accurate statistic regarding who is raping who) on who is perpetuating sexual violence, 80% of the men were raped by women. 

http://i.imgur.com/Ps9wW.jpg

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Here’s a recent world wide survey that found that 3% of college men men reported forced sex in their heterosexual relationships and 2.3% of college women reported forced sex in their heterosexual relationships. 

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

Also recent results on sexual exploitation in correctional facility finds extremely high rates of female on male abuse.

“Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.”

From “Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09″

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

“Most victims of staff sexual misconduct were males; most perpetrators were females. Among male victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% of those in prison and 64% of those in jails reported sexual activity with
female staff. An additional 16% of prison inmates and 18% of jail
inmates reported sexual activity with both female and male staff.”

From “Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09″

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Hilarious rants by emanuel14486948 in response to @Boing_Flip parody Tweets #follow

These rants by emanuel14486948 in response to the parody account @BoingFwip were so fantastically blinkered that I can’t resist just laying it out for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy 🙂

(I’ve highlighted my favourite bits in bold for my own pleasure)

BoingFwip:
“MT
@emanuel14486948: listen to science when i ask questions and i can prove the earth is spherical or the moon is real
#BoingFwip”

emanuel14486948:
“no you cant, because i can look through a telescope and see a lunar wave, when the hologram updates and moves slightly.
there is a real moon. Its in the bible, but there is another one used to make the earth seem round. And im pretty sure eclipses
Are fake.
you cant prove the earth is a sphere either because you would need a fulk view live video. You will never be able to get that
And if u think u have a full view live video of earth rotating and spherical, its a cgi video.
heres more for you. The sun is close, the moon can be seen over austrailia from nevada, and luminatee all seeing eye pyramid is
the bottom line is flat earth, the two sides are the angle of the suns rays and the eye is the sun.”

Boing_Flip:
“MT
@emanuel14486948: i know how to reason. Im smarter than the average man because Evolution makes me so.
#BoingFwip”

emanuel14486948:
“evolution cant make anyone smart btw, its a theory composed of ideas composes of assumptions and likelyhoods.
let my try to explain that. In a way you will understand. Different species cannot mate with one another even though their dna
Is nearly identical, example humans and chimps. A cro magnon or whatever can only mate with another and only produce a cro
Magnon. A caveman can only mate with another cave man and only produce a caveman etc etc. For humans to exist as they do today,
there had to be and adam and eve. Thats the bottom line. There is no arguing with that. You separate a fly from its own species
and change something and the fly adapts a little and is now no longer able to mate with its own species. You cant have a human
Come from a caveman. Dna does not allow it. Dna only allows the same species to mate. Adam and eve were real and they werent two
separately evolved cro magnons of the opposite sex who by chance were able to mate and not create a child that died in its youth
thats also common. Two slightly different species creating children that are stillborn or die early.
Dna corrects errors and does not allow evolution and crossbreeding. And please dont mention a Liger because thats not natural”

Posted in Evolution | Tagged | 3 Comments

Feminism and Philosophy – guest post by @TekThatEnglish

image

With almost the entirety of popular Feminist speakers proclaiming that Feminism is “simply the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” to the point where this has become the definition described by most dictionaries, despite that this is very clearly “Gender Egalitarianism” and the very formation of the term “feminism” required the particular belief that observed women’s rights and opportunities were less that that of men’s, I thought it apt to allow the philosophical definition of feminism to be aired for consideration.

I’ve also included Humanism, which has of late become a more generalised catch-all for the secular advocation of rights for all humans regardless of ethnic origin, and sex etc.

Gender has a short piece but does not touch upon the gender spectrum and all its nuances which appear to be exponentially overcomplicating themselves as intersectional philosophies echo themselves around Tumblr instead of being studied psychologically as should be the case.

Feminism;

“The approach to social life, philosophy, and ethics that commits itself to correcting biases leading to the subordination of women or the disparagement of women’s particular experience and of the voices women bring to the discussion.
Contemporary feminist ethics is sensitive to the gender bias that may be implicit in philosophical theories (for instance, philosophers’ lists of virtues may be typically ‘manly’ or culturally masculine), and in social structures, legal and political procedures, and the general culture.
One controversial claim (made by Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, 1982) is that women approach practical reasoning from a different perspective than that of men. The difference includes emphasis on community, caring, and bonding with particular individuals, in place of abstract impartiality. It is controversial whether or not this is a real difference, and if so whether it arises from innate differences in male and female psychology, or whether the different values reflect the way men and women have been taught to form different aspirations and ideals.

Feminist epistemology has asked whether different ways of knowing, for instance with different criteria of justification, and different emphases on logic and imagination,  characterise male and female attempts to understand the world. Such concerns include awareness of the ‘masculine’ self-image, itself a socially variable and potentially distorting picture of what thought and action should be. A particular target of much feminist epistemology is Kantian or Enlightenment conception of rationality, which is seen as a device for claiming mastery and control, and for refusing to acknowledge differing perspectives and different relations to life and nature.
Although extreme claims have been made, such as that logic is a phallic and patriarchal device for coercing other people, it is still unclear how differences between individual capacities, training, and culturally reinforced aspirations, work together in explaining how people aquire knowledge.
Again there is a spectrum of concern, from the highly theoretical the the relatively practical. In this latter area particular attention is given to the institutional biases that stand in the way of equal opportunities in science and other academic pursuits, or the ideologies that stand in the way of women seeing themselves as leading contributors to various disciplines.
However, to more radical feminists such concerns merely exhibit women wanting for themselves the same power and rights over others that men have claimed, and failing to confront the real problem, which is how to live without such asymmetrical powers and rights.”

Humanism;

“Most generally, any philosophy concerned to emphasise human welfare and dignity, and either optimistic about the powers of human reason, or at least insistent that we have no alternative but to use it as best we can.
More particularly, the movement distinctive of the Renaissance and allied to the renewed study of Greek and Roman literature: a rediscovery of the unity of human beings and nature, and a renewed celebration of the pleasures of life, all supposed lost in the medieval world.
Humanism in this Renaissance sense was quite consistent with religious belief, itself supposed that God had put us here precisely in order to further those things the humanists found important. Later the term tended to become appropriated for anti-religious social and political movements.
Finally, in the late 20th century, humanism is sometimes used as a pejorative term by postmodernist and especially feminist writers, applied to philosophies such as that of Sartre, that rely upon the possibility of the autonomous, self-conscious, rational, single self, and that are supposedly insensitive to the inevitable fragmentary, splintered, historically and socially conditioned nature of personality and motivation.”

Gender;

“The distinction between sex and gender is attributed to the anthropologist Margaret Mead (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, 1935). Sex is the biological category, whereas gender is the culturally shaped expression of sexual difference: the masculine way in which men should behave and the feminine way in which women should behave. It is emphasised by de Beauvoir that in this system woman is the Other: the kind of person whose characteristics are described by contrast with the male norm. It is a central aim of much feminist thought to uncover concealed asymmetries of power in deferences of gender, and to work for a society in which the polarisation of gender is abolished.”

Egalitarianism;

“The doctrine that moral and political life should be aimed at respecting and advancing the equality of persons.”

—————-
Addendum;

A note on Men’s Rights Advocates;
Someone who advocates for the rights of males.
i.e.
Men,
“Human males”
Rights,
“Legal rights exist in virtue of positive law; moral rights are sufficiently independent of it to give a platform from which legal arrangements may be criticised.”
Advocacy,
“Support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy”

—————-

Sources; Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy by Simon Blackburn. ISBN 978-0-19-954143-0

Posted in Feminism | Tagged , | Leave a comment