All (Human) Lives Have Advantages

1. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   And to deny this fact is to self-sabotage. Furthermore, it is utterly nonproductive to claim any Faction or group of humans has unfair advantages. We all have untold resources to tap into, just by virtue of being born human.
   
   The Way I See it.
   
   PS Sorry, (NOT,) if this reasoning is politically incorrect.
   
   PSS arguments welcome ... such as, "Yes it IS productive to point out where some people have advantages over others ... for whatever reasons."

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Have you've been reading your history primers?
      
      The entire history of this society is based on removing unfair advantages for some to avoid detrimements to others. There can be no peaceful coexistence with in any democratically based society without it.
      
      Why not go get your whalebone corset and bustle and then tell me about any advantage women gained by not having the vote?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly, ignorance of the issues only creates more! Though I rarely agree with cred, this is spot on.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Kyler

            replyreport
2. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   This is a perfect example / analogy to discuss:
   
   "Why not go get your whalebone corset and bustle and then tell me about any advantage women gained by not having the vote?"
   
   If you look very closely at this knee jerk response you will see how flawed it is.
   
   In the first place, no one forced women to wear whalebone corsets and bustles.
   Women gladly put them on for whatever reasons. It would be very hilarious to determine the reasons but nevertheless, it was their own (un-) doing. They willingly sacrificed some comfort  and freedom in effort to please their egos and men, in that order.
   
   The vote was traditionally not taken by women because they had been content with their lot in life and probably the majority were not prone to follow the politics of the day, what with having to tend to abodes which were not equipped central heating, gas ovens and washing machines, etc. So they were quite occupied and busy trying to care for their husbands and children.
   
   The roles were different and very clear. Men took care of political matters and women held humanity together with their full time devotion to it.
    
   Eventually, women became more interested in politics and society as a whole as they obtained more free-time, thanks to the modern conveniences men lovingly and compassionately invented for them during the era of the Industrial Revolution.
   
   Who fought for the vote?
   Women.
   
   Of course, key men helped them.
   
   Standing up for specific people and spelling out, very clearly, what is needed would be very productive. Then, compassionate assistance would surely arrive.
   
   Positive help will not come from negative rebellion, burning things down and protesting in the streets. Sorry, that kind of destructive, mindless acting-out is counter productive.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think anyone in their right minds would disagree that violence is not an appropriate response to being ignored, but it is an unfortunate product of it. You're right, it was a minority of women who demanded the right to vote and only received it at the behest of men, but that vocal minority began to become more and more of a problem that could have and should have been addressed with fairness much sooner. We should learn from our past mistakes and give every issue a fair listen, not ignore it and hope it goes away.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         "should" is a disgusting word

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Only within the context that people would rather not be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps it is projection upon words that is disgusting, not the words and the definitions themselves. Would you prefer, "need to," in its place?

            replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It was a good example, wasn't it.
      
      Yes, but you miss the point, it is not about the attire of the women, it is more about the time such garments were in the height of fashion, 125-150 years ago. It is about the time when during that period women did not have the right to vote, Wyoming may have been the exception.
      
      Were they really content with the status quo at the time or was it just a rigid control from a male dominated culture where they were explicitly denied a voice? So, I suppose that slaves were content to be slaves, when you read earlier accounts of it written by the enslavers and the supporting establishment culture, slaves were happy and contented. Do you believe that?
      
      There were many feminists beginning with Abigail Adams as far back as the beginning of the 19th century. Check your history. The TRUTH has always been a threat to power that is why it is resisted so much, especially by the Right.
      
      Have you not heard of suffragettes? President Wilson imprisoned a couple of prominent ones as troublemakers during WWI. Men created all these loving modern household appliances? You and all this corny "New Age" stuff. Why don't you read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan? The issue here and again is about control and power, and in the human nature that you speak so often, it is rarely about anything else.
      
      Yes,  woman fought for the vote; the colonists fought for independence from Britain, the slaves fought for freedom, labor had strikes, many of them violent against an arrogant and greedy capitalist class, to prevent unions. We still see some of that today. The word in common is "fight".
      
      Those that take unfair advantage of unearned privilege and power are not going to relinquish it without a struggle. Now THAT is the true human condition.
      
      We had Vietnam, we, as an imperialist and interventionist society determined to control events on a geopolitical scale. There were protests, many violent in regards to the ethics and morality of such a war. Protests and revolts are part of human nature and they are as old as the founding of the Republic.
      
      Things have to wrested from the privileged and those that have unwarranted advantage, because even though it is neither right nor fair they are not just going to submit out of the kindness of their hearts. Just like in the French Revolution heads had to roll, before certain people began to get the message.

      replyreport
3. 76

   Castlepalomaposted 3 years ago

   https://youtu.be/xQu9-LR4GcE
   I agree with Jordan Peterson on how life can be unfair and not always worked out equality smoothly. Whites have had advantages in North America for most part. Yet different times in history with different races have had periods. Where their race in times had been their own kings of their domains. It all changes up and re balances.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      This is a good point.
      
        "It all changes up and re balances."

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Jordan Peterson has often been called the opiate of the disenfranchised white male, and often ignores harsh truths of change in favor of promoting a male-driven agenda. I like his presentations, as well, but he is definitely choosey for the sake of his own financial and reputational growth.
         
         Change on a global scale most often comes on the back of atrocity, a portion of reality we would rather not repeat as we advance in weapons tech. This is why we don't just run a train on the Middle East, atrocity is not a proper long-term solution when the real issues will naturally arise once more.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            change often comes from appreciating what you have.
            
            The Modern Day Matters

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               At the individual level, but as history and society at large continues to show us, the majority will gladly burn what you appreciate down when they don't feel their problems have been addressed properly, or at all.

               replyreport
4. 89

   MizBejabbersposted 3 years ago

   I probably should have tacked this on as a response to Kathryn's corset and bustle statement. Some of you are coming from the position that this country was settled by privileged "white" people of society. Have you not listen in history class or read your history boos, especially the Jacksonian era? You are thinking New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore, even Los Angeles and San Francisco on the West coast. But who settled the West? At one time the area comprising Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, etc., was considered "the West" before it moved on to the territory that we today consider the West.
   Somebody did mention Wyoming, but what about Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and other states in that area of the country?
   Women helping build log cabins or planting crops on the frontier didn't wear bustles. They worked right along side their men to build a life. If they went to a party, it probably was a hoedown, not high society with bustles for ladies and tux and tails on the men. These were the "salt of the earth settlers." There was a time before the Civil War when many of the men in the families in those states were actively helping them to try to get the vote. After the Civil War, many of these same women were disappointed by their husbands and brothers who told them that they had to take a backseat because it was more important that they (the white men) work to get the vote for Black men. And this did happen. The 15th Amendment of 1870 gave "Black Suffrage" to Black men only. It was 50 years later when the 19th Amendment finally won the right to vote for women, mostly white. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 rectified that by giving women of color the right to vote. It took nearly 100 years for citizens other than white males to have a voice in choosing our leaders.
   Judeo-Christian women have always had to settle for second best in male dominated societies. But you are right that in big cities where high society prevailed, these were bustled women of society who marched and worked to get the vote for women. It is no wonder that women are throwing off the yoke of organized religion because they are tired of being patted on the head and told they were good little wives. "Don't worry your little brain about it, ya hear?" You take care of the kids and we'll take care of the guv'ment."
   I think one of the reasons that women fought so hard to be able to vote was because the war came home to them. Even in untouched places in the North, their soldier brothers, husbands, and fathers either died or came home injured and requiring care. Many women had to pick up the reins of being family breadwinners. These weren't just spoiled rich women taking off their bustles in protest like women burned their bras in the 1960s. But the rich white women were able to bring attention to the subject.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      ... and educated, as well.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If I may, all women received the right to vote with the 19th amendment. But just as it was with the black men, having the right and being able to exercise that right were two different things between 1920 and 1965.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         examples please

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I should not have to dredge this up. It is pretty well established history.Throughout the South the Blacks were terrorized away from the polls. Ever heard of "Freedom Summer"? Any number of poll tax and illegal literacy tests were used during the period that I mentioned. If you want the truth in regards to this, it can be found at your local library or anywhere on the web.
            
            Do I have to provide a specific example?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The southerners were suspicious of the way the black would vote.
               Maybe they had good reason, maybe they didn't.
               
               The point is they were not purposefully tyrannizing for the sake of being tyrannic over them.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Geez, that first sentence makes no sense. So, because someone is suspicious of the way I might vote, you can terrorize me and deny me the franchise, right? What type of excuse is that? Maybe that sort of reasoning is what goes thru the mind of all you Trumper types, today?
                  
                  The second sentence is totally nonesensical and reveals how little you know about American History. Let's also look at "Jim Crow"? Do you still hold on that white southerners were not tyrannical on purpose?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Technically speaking, terrorizing people based on political, religious, racial, etc. identities is what everyone in America does under the guise of freedom of speech and debate. A false equivalent as it concerns comparing it to what they did to slaves, but a relevant addition to the considerations.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Kyler, there are limits and boundaries.
                        
                        You cannot blow up my house if I attempt to go to the polls, and you cannot explicetely exclude me from the ballot clearly contradicting 14th and 15th amendments. Who else do you know who have been terrorized  any where approaching this?

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Pretty much any third-world country these days, but I couldn't give you any examples in America outside of felons, illegals, and other individuals who are barred from voting and sent to prison if they get caught doing so.
                           
                           However, I'd like to point out that the long-term consequences of our systemic devaluing of opinions opposing our own will be more dire than if the government/powers that be blew up some people. At least if people were being physically, wrongfully deterred/coerced we'd all have a clear target to take aim at rather than subjective ideals handed down and interpreted through labyrinthine conduits of human understanding. Then again, even the people suffering this sort of treatment struggle to fight back, so I favor our current system over that alternative.
                           
                           I could lawfully, and regularly do, make life hell for people who overstep their bounds in expressing their unfavorable opinions publicly, though. Many people do, and the media labels it, "cancel culture," to give it a pretty face they can stamp on those they don't like. Just because the terror has a prettier face, less of an obvious outcome, doesn't mean it is any less terrorful for its targets and the society that has to face the consequences of such terror.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Thanks Kyler.
                              
                              While we today have an environment of intolerance and sharp divergence of opinion not seen since the Civil War, the "line" denying people the right to vote in response has not been crossed. The examples I provided regarding the white South were instances where the line clearly had been crossed.

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Correct, that's why I said my statement was an important consideration, but also that my statement was a false equivalent if compared to the immediate discussion of the white south. I didn't want to detract from what you were saying, but to add to it the modern-day-context American equivalent. Many people call it micro-aggression and micro-violence, though those terms are severely abused and their definitions mangled for different social movements.

                                 replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   "was it just a rigid control from a male dominated culture where they were explicitly denied a voice?"
   
   NO.
   
   If this were the case, women would not have married men.
   
   (Marriage is an at-will thing)

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That is pretty naive stuff that you are peddling here. Women were not allowed to own property and the society was male dominated. In a male oriented and dominated society, the need for women to marry in the past was more than just a preference.
      
      https://www.ushistory.org/us/13e.asp
      
      Just an appetizer......

      replyreport
6. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   "...  slaves were content to be slaves,
   when you read earlier accounts of it written by the enslavers
   and the supporting establishment culture,
   slaves were happy and contented ..."
   
   or
   
   "was it rigid control by a white dominated culture?"
   
   Slaves had no choice in the matter as they had been bought and sold.(Slavery is a forced thing.) I'm sure they were, each and every one, more miserable than anyone could have possibly known.
   
   The people of the time knew the institution had to be eradicated. I believe Lincoln came with the mission to free the slaves, sent by God, Himself.
   
   Why we have to dredge up this history, I have no idea.
   
   ... but if there are ways to help people who have never been helped,
   and still suffer from the consequences of the slave trade on some intangible level, say in the subconscious of the brain as a result of the continuing psychic record ...
   ... one wonders.

   replyreport
7. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   yes. "need" is better.

   replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Women marry for love. If they have to marry for position or material reasons they make the worst of wives. Pity the man who marries for any other reason than love.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      There was once a time where marriage was reserved only for aristocracy, and it has and will always be a tool for power. Pity the man who marries for no other reason than love.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but that was the past.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            .... and is not according to human nature. Human nature will always win out over evil institutions, which rob people of true joy.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It would seem you want reality to align with your personal beliefs, and I can do nothing in the way of pointing out what is already readily observable. Statistics would say that monogamous, happy, productive marriage is outside of the capabilities of the majority.
               
               Marriage is best used for a combination of love and upward growth socially, and financially. This goes back to our conversation about the subjectivity of the, "ideal," and we'd need to touch on those real-life examples that disagree with our own ideals.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I disagree: love alone. Love for the sake of itself and for the sake of raising offspring. In that order.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Rigidity is attractive only when the ideal encompasses the majority. Love best flourishes when two or more individuals bring each other growth in all facets of life. I suppose this would also branch into the subjective interpretations of that mystical topic we call love, though, so I'd just fall back on my original statement about you wanting everyone's reality to align with your personal beliefs.

                     replyreport
            2. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               That is also just another "pipe dream" that has been shown to be false time and time again.

               replyreport
         2. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            But you're the one that claimed that all human lives had advantages, obviously that has not always been true has it?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The potential is universal and exists on a constant level. It can be realized by anyone. As time goes on, more and more people will realize it.
               
               To deny this possibility is non-productive.
               To pinpoint the negativity of the past is non-productive.
               To rally against imagined tyrants is non-productive.
                 ... which is to say:
               UNPRODUCTIVE!

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  It sounds to me like you simply don't enjoy things being called out for what they are. Under such circumstances no one can go forward, because you only want to address your concerns, your problems, your ideals, and it is almost as if fragility is a problem in your thought process.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     The potential is universal and exists on a constant level. It can be realized by anyone. As time goes on, more and more people will realize it.
                     
                     To deny this possibility is non-productive.
                     To pinpoint the negativity of the past is non-productive.
                     To rally against imagined tyrants is non-productive.
                       ... which is to say:
                     UNPRODUCTIVE!
                     
                     Nothing wrong with all this but I add that appreciation for what came before as protection against its reemergence in other forms is just prudent as ther is nev r an advantage to being ignorant.

                     replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You watch too many soap operas....

      replyreport
9. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Romance movies have been so overly produced that people can't stomach them any more. But the occasional romance movie that does make it to the silver screen is the most beloved.

   replyreport