Saturday, July 21, 2012

Why is it only Sexist when bad things happen to Women but not the other why around?



Aaron Egon Moser asks a great question regarding my blog post Sexism entitled, Incredible Japanese Sexism and Racism! Watch From 2:23! Shocking! (and in the comments section about Japanese women not flying first class): 

Aaron says, "Why is it only Sexist when bad things happen to women but not the other why around?"

And, he sends some food for thought.... From the ITV, no less....


I can answer though, Aaron, people who claim racism and sexism don't think deeply enough to realize that their claims conflict. They fail to see the difference between private property and public property.

One the one hand, like at privately owned property, i.e. restaurants, they complain that people aren't treated equally. Then, on the other hand, in another case of private property, they complain that women, not be judged by their merits, but that they be given "special consideration."

It's laughable.

Folks, there's an easy fix for this: Private property is private property; People can do and discriminate as they wish. Privately owned establishments like restaurants, businesses, homes, etc., are private property.

Public property is paid for by taxes and, therefore, discrimination is not allowed (never mind the fact that the government doesn't allow us free access to supposedly public places).

If you don't realize the crucial and fundamental difference between private and public property, your demanding "fair treatment" to people in one case, then turning right around and demanding unfair treatment in another are nothing short of ignorant hypocrisy. And will give you due criticism.

As always, thanks Aaron Egon Moser for some good common sense.

11 comments:

Andrew Joseph said...

Women have had the short end of the stick for centuries. It's not JUST sexist when a woman has something bad to her. I've accused women of being sexist when they rail against men. Screw that! Rail against the man who pissed you off, but don;t you dare rail against me - a decent person who is all for equality amongst the sexes, races et al.
At a dinner today, I was the only man amongst three women. I like the odds! But, they talked about how 'ladies first' should be observed as long as it's a benefit to them.
Is that sexist? No! It's smart!
But Mike... it can be sexist when bad stuff happens to men... but I bet you few men would admit to it. Men get raped by women (rarely), but I bet that never gets reported... like what's wrong with you, man... you just had sex! Shut yer damn mouth!
That's the male view. But, if you really didn't want to have sex with those women at gunpoint or knifepoint, or you were saving yourself... or you are married and believe in only having sex with your wife, or maybe anonymous sex with strangers isn't your cup of tea or you don't want an STD... why not be upset? But no... a man who reported a rape would be ostracized.
I know it's all different from the article, but the point remains.
I will call women out on being sexist... but the smart women I know will at least admit they are wrong. Few men ever will.

Mr. Nobody said...

Hello Mike,
Hello Mike,

Regarding your comments about property and aggression, it begs a few questions in my mind.

To what degree do you believe that private property is private? What do you consider aggression?

1. What is ownership?

2. When can a group take your property?

2a. When do they have an ethical or moral right? For example, when it is used to build a school? When it is used to build a temple? When it is used to build a factory? When it is used to build a military base?

3. Should one be able to declare independence from the Japanese government, or any government for that matter?

4. Can one totally divorce one self, or one's property, from society, or a nation? Should one be allowed to do so?

5. Should one be able to transfer sovereignty, of property, or oneself, from one jurisdiction to another? Although it may not be practical to want to have ones property under the jurisdiction of the Netherlands in downtown Tokyo, should one be allowed to do so?


What is aggression in your view?

1. What about those vans that blast noise everywhere seemingly at all hours during election time? Is that aggression?

2. What about those satellites, planes, and drones, that if the rumours are true, routinely spy on N. Korea? It that an act of aggression?

3. What about the actions of the current head of Tokyo with regards to Senkaku? Is seemingly attempting to foment trouble with a foreign power, to gain politically at home, a form of aggression?

4. If the Japanese military, even under international cooperation, is searching for Somali pirates, possibly violating Somali waters, is this a form of aggression?

5. Is the Japanese government's consistent prodding of the Soviets, and currently Russians, for return of territory they relinquished under treaty in the 1950's, a form of aggression?

6. Is the Japanese government's financial benefits, and material support, for the American military, a form of aggression?

6a. Bringing back Mr. Ishihara, hasn't he said numerous times that Japanese business does not just support the American arms industry, but is in fact the lynch-pin of it? If so, are Japanese businesses engaging in aggression if not directly, then by proxy in the American arms industry? Is this a form of aggression?

All the best!

mikeintokyorogers said...

Hi Mr. Nobody,
I've been wondering where you've been. As usual, you ask very good questions. I don't profess to have all the answers to all ills, but I think my answers to these might be, if nothing else, logical and consistent with Anarchist or Libertarian philosophy.
Here's your questions:
1. What is ownership? Ownership begins with every person. The most basic ownership is ownership of yourself. You can do with yourself as you wish as long as you don't commit aggression against anyone person. If you understand this, then everything falls into line. Read: "Argumentation and Self-Ownership".

2. When can a group take your property? The group never has the right to forcibly take your property. That would violate the non-aggression philosophy of the above.

2a. When do they have an ethical or moral right? For example, when it is used to build a school? When it is used to build a temple? When it is used to build a factory? When it is used to build a military base? The group never has the "moral right" (that is a very subjective term and should be rejected - for example, we had Christian US presidents in Bush & Clinton who had no problem killing brown skinned people in the Mid East.) The group can never take your property forcibly, that woud be aggression.

3. Should one be able to declare independence from the Japanese government, or any government for that matter? Yes.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Part 2:
4. Can one totally divorce one self, or one's property, from society, or a nation? Should one be allowed to do so? In a truly free society, yes. That people cannot do so, lead to the so-called Civil War and 600,000 dead Americans. When people were allowed to go free, as in the case of "‪Czechoslovakia‬". Peace reigned. Vaclav Havel, who was president at the time, was a Libertarian and published many works in the Cato Journal (a very famous Libertarian publication).

5. Should one be able to transfer sovereignty, of property, or oneself, from one jurisdiction to another? Although it may not be practical to want to have ones property under the jurisdiction of the Netherlands in downtown Tokyo, should one be allowed to do so? Yes. Yes. But I don't know why anyone would do so. Also, I doubt that governments would allow it. We do not live in free societies.

What is aggression in your view? Aggression is aggression. Semantics will not change anything.

1. What about those vans that blast noise everywhere seemingly at all hours during election time? Is that aggression? Yes. They are interfering with other people's property (loud noise on my property, interrupting my children's sleep).

2. What about those satellites, planes, and drones, that if the rumours are true, routinely spy on N. Korea? It that an act of aggression? Of course. Espionage is not, though, an act of war under international law (see? Governments are such hypocrites!)

3. What about the actions of the current head of Tokyo with regards to Senkaku? Is seemingly attempting to foment trouble with a foreign power, to gain politically at home, a form of aggression? Tough one. But not aggression... yet. The international courts should decide this, but one big problem is the USA is meddling in this (surprise!) and says those islands are Japan's... Bad precedent.

4. If the Japanese military, even under international cooperation, is searching for Somali pirates, possibly violating Somali waters, is this a form of aggression? Not if they are defending property... If they are on search and destroy missions, yes. As far as I know, the Japanese are not involved on search and destroy. The are reacting to distress calls and monitoring the situation.

5. Is the Japanese government's consistent prodding of the Soviets, and currently Russians, for return of territory they relinquished under treaty in the 1950's, a form of aggression? No. Arguments, even heated ones, are not aggression.

6. Is the Japanese government's financial benefits, and material support, for the American military, a form of aggression? Yes. If nothing else it is aggression against the Japanese people who don't want US troops on their soil.

6a. Bringing back Mr. Ishihara, hasn't he said numerous times that Japanese business does not just support the American arms industry, but is in fact the lynch-pin of it? If so, are Japanese businesses engaging in aggression if not directly, then by proxy in the American arms industry? Is this a form of aggression? Supporting any military in any way that is involved in wars of aggression is aggression and fait accompli.

Marc Sheffner said...

The answer to the question is that "sexism", like racism, was never intended to be fair to both sexes. According to Marxist thinker Marcuse, when the playing field isn't level, you have to tilt it the other way IN FAVOUR OF THE OPPRESSED SIDE, to achieve "equality" (yeah, I know, but that's Marxist "logic" for ya). It's INTENDED to be biased. That way, you get a level playing field. (And if you don't follow that reasoning, you're a capitalist pig, an enemy of the workers, and a running dog for the ruling class).

Marc Sheffner said...

Come on, Mike, define aggression, you wimpy bastard! (oops, forgot to take my tablets). A clear definition would have answered at a stroke most of Mr. Nobody's questions. But your answers were illuminating, so I'm glad you took and he the trouble.

Anonymous said...

Egon, Mike Debitou. You guys keep up the good fight! I hope you don't mind if I don't wait around until more people agree with you, cause I doubt they ever will.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Ha! ha! Ha! Marc, OK! You win!
I think the Merriam Webster definition of agression works pretty well for me, so let me copy it:
Definition of AGGRESSION

1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

mikeintokyorogers said...

Anonymous at 12:28 says something really hilarious: "Egon, Mike Debitou. You guys keep up the good fight! I hope you don't mind if I don't wait around until more people agree with you, cause I doubt they ever will." Oh? So having a majority believing in something makes it right, does it? Just like Global Warming; 95% of the US public supporting Bush; Obama wins by a landslide; "63.1% of adults in the U.S. were either overweight or obese in 2009.".
Yeah... Being on the majority side is the way to being right... Just like in the 1500s when people knew the world was the center of the universe and the sun circled it. Go back to watching TV, we'll call you when more people wake up and open their minds to logical thinking.

Marc Sheffner said...

Mike, I would say aggression is any attempt to force someone else to do something they don't want to do. Force, not persuade. Course, now I should define "force" and "persuade", but that's for another blog post, eh?

mikeintokyorogers said...

Marc, that would fall in my dictionary as "coercion." and not aggression... Both odious but one is threats, the other is activation of those threats. Hate to get legalistic (and anal retentive!)