So we should just acquiesce and go along with it for fear of ridicule and hardship? Since that's the case, we should challenge it even more. Yeah, you just go along pretending that everything will be okay if we just do as society dictates because we're afraid. As far as I'm concerned, disguising this as an argument why not to do it is an intellectual crime. Things don't change by going along with the status quo. Things change by getting attention and making a statement: that you're mad as hell and you aren't going to take it anymore.
This wasnt what i was saying at all, and you're bending my words. I'm not saying that society won't change and that we should just go along due to fear. Society does change, it just takes time, and a certain amount of manpower. A society in which there are only a handful of these people who have this view is not going to change to fulfill their views in their lifetime. Yes, maybe ideologically you should fight it. But is it worth the negative impact on you and your children?
We cannot challenge our nature? We challenge viruses with our vaccines and treatments, we challenge genetic defects with cures and knowledge. Just because something is natural does not mean we should go along with it. There will be people pushing back, but they better have a good damn reason, because you'll find plenty of intelligent and resolute people at the forefront staring down their competition. I know more than a few mothers that do not respond well to their child being heckled on this issue, and they'll be vocal, that I can promise you.
This, again, does not respond to my point actually at all. You can challenge genetic defects and viruses because they are foreign things in our body that cause harm. The way you word it, it sounds like you're saying we should challenge sex, as in the biological and psycological things that differentiate a man and woman. I really dont get what you're going at, and it seems mostly like a crazy way of trying to debunk my argument, while not really giving a good response back.
I think you underestimate society's opposition. It isn't called the seeds of change without reason.
Yeah, because there's totally no logical reason why gender roles exist. Oh wait, it's called that men and women are inherently different.
Society doesn't change? Could you make a more uneducated statement? And crappy life? You mean a life in which they know that they control? Quit fearing change, it isn't a proper argument.
Okay, i should have said that it doesnt change in the short run. My bad. As far as fearing change, I don't, and i dont see how you got that from that section. Once again, you're almost attempting to debunk my argument with random rabblings, which dont really help or further the argument.
Sir Ken Robinson seems to disagree.
I understand what you're getting at, but there are much better ways of getting to it than through un-schooling. Okay, look at it this way. Kant had this thing called the categorical imperitive (at least if i remmeber correctly it was kant) which was flawed in some ways but worked wonders in ethics at the same time. It says that for you to determine if something is right, you have to apply it universally. Think about unschooling in this way. If everyone was unchooled, what would the world be like? How many people do you think would willingly take the time to learn physical and organic chemistry in order to develop new fibers and such to further society? I doubt many. The free-reign way of doign things has proved in many experiments to not work. There are better ways imo to allow creative freedom and still teach what needs to be taught.
And please, stop trying to debunk arguments using strange tactics that dont further the actual argument.
EDIT:
This kind of view refrains the society from progressing. No one should ever comply to it, period.
Dealing in absolutes is always dangerous (lol kinda an oxymoron).
You say the philosophical view I advocate it impractical? I reply your stagnant view is impractical.
Examples? I can't really seem to get what you mean. Practicality basically refers to how easily it is applied. The philosophical view that, in a way, society should change, is much more difficult than the view that they should just conform themselves. For every one of them, there are millions that are already rooted in their views that aren't going to change for them instantaneously.
I believe this whole issue about over-passing our prejudices in regards to men wearing pink and such is rather minor (in the sense that it is easy to get over it), and it's only a matter of time before society gets to realize it and surpass it. The only thing it takes is education. This is far from being impractical.
I think that view is kind of naive (no offense). You know how difficult it is for people to let go of their views? Even with education, i dont see gender roles going away any time soon, because it's something that is based off of an actual concrete difference. The reason civil rights did not work the same way was that the physical and psychological differences were not the basis of the roles, but was based more on prejudice.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 26 2011, 7:05 am by ShredderIV.
None.