Re: Сексистки хроники
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:01 am
Бавен уикенд е било кат гледам стените от текст
А, на съгласие не отказвам.Ordo Malleus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:15 pmAmelia, ако всъщност смяташ насочеността на конвенцията към жените за нужното натъртване кой страда повече и кой причинява повече страдание, един вид вдигане на awareness-а относно проблема, но подплатено със законов ъпдейт, донякъде бих се съгласил, не бях се замислял от тази гледна точка. Дълбоко не те вълнува моето мнение и съгласие, ама да си кажа.
+1.Фокусът им е върху това, че баланс ще се постигне не като тея без привилегиите спрат да страдат, а като тея с привилегиите почнат да страдат и това за мен е ужасно сбъркан начин на мислене.
Без да вземам никакво отношение към конкретния случай и кой е виновен, има един мноооооого правилен български лаф:Matrim wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:00 pmМалко да разведрим темата с поредните сюрреалистични събития отвъд океана - и Маргарет Атууд вече стана неудобна за някои "феминистки": https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e37591823/
Това е за мен най-същественото от статията ѝ.The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.
If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. Fiction writers are particularly suspect because they write about human beings, and people are morally ambiguous. The aim of ideology is to eliminate ambiguity.
Думата, която бих махнал от последния цитиран абзац, е "controversial", защото сме достигнали епоха, в която всяка тема е controversial. И съответно изречението би станало "Anyone who disagrees with you on any subject, even a little bit, is incorrigibly dumb or evil or suspect." Или, както казва Атуут - "In times of extremes, extremists win. Anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated."But it’s actually a worthwhile episode to unpack, because it highlights a disturbing, worsening tendency in social media in which tribal allegiances are replacing shared empirical understandings of the world. Or maybe “subtribal” is the more precise, fitting term to use here. It’s one thing to say that left and right disagree on simple facts about the world — this sort of informational Balkanization has been going on for a while and long predates Twitter. What social media is doing is slicing the salami thinner and thinner, as it were, making it harder even for people who are otherwise in general ideological agreement to agree on basic facts about news events.
That’s because the pernicious social dynamics of these online spaces hammer home the idea that anyone who disagrees with you on any controversial subject, even a little bit, is incorrigibly dumb or evil or suspect. On a wide and expanding range of issues, there’s no such thing as good-faith disagreement.