I don't want to harp on your parade and life story their pal, but two things. I mean, I could being up others, but I only really want to focus on two.
1) While I don't really agree with Testad's opinions, his culture is his culture and if him and his woman are happy then you really shouldn't be putting your foot in that door to say anything. Hell, you shouldn't be acting like your culture is better.
2) My grandpa does the same thing and my grand ma is perfectly happy with it; actually she's incredibly bothered by the idea of me touching her kitchen. They're from another time and another culture and they're happy
I stress the word happy cause it means that there's no need for you to interfere. You don't need to step in and say they shouldn't be happy and there's no need to try and deprive or change them away from something that makes them happy. At the point you're just doing it for yourself.
Read up on it. It's a pretty simple concept that most people deny out right cause of one basic premise: By accepting it, you accept that you're no position to say there's such a thing as moral progress since all things are relative and nothing it better than the other. Most people hate the idea they can't denounce something as wrong and another as inherently right.
I generally accept the above statement as a realistic truth despite believing in God.
My criteria for saying a cultural perspective/action/view is wrong is very small:
1) Does it hold a society back in a very quantifiable sense (science, industry, ect..?
2) Does it create general misery for the majority of the populace?
Of course there's the always present bonus round:
3) Does it cause upheavel in my, and those I care about, personal life where it's not needed nor desired?
^ But I'm a selfish human bastard that puts me and the few I care about first always. The rest of the world can burn for the most part.
I don't understand. On one hand, you say I am arguing morals. But on the other hand, I am not. I never was. At no point did I say any of this was right or wrong. I could give you a thirty minute rant about why Testad's behavior is controlling, and how that influences women's behavior directly (including providing clear motivation for women to hide their feelings), but I'm not going to. Because he's a straw man at this point, and I frankly don't care.
Now, let's take a look at exactly
what it is that I'm saying.
"Are you seriously going to say,
Originally Posted By: CharityDairy
In first-world countries, there is no sexism against women."
That's it. I was calling into question the postulate that sexism was not present in first-world countries. At what point do I bash Testad's culture? It is a clear example of what has already been defined as sexism. Where did I act like my culture was any better? In the next several paragraphs, where I proceed to bash on it? What did I do next? I presented numerous examples of sexism, in a first-world country. Do you really believe that my grandma didn't want me in the kitchen, helping? My mother constantly forces me to help at home. It made my grandpa
happy when I didn't help. Not her. Not the one who I was assisting, the one who's opinion I should be caring about. But let me read up on Moral Relativism anyways.
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.
And where did I make moral claims? I have a clear argument that sexism does exist, in a first world country. And I do not stray from addressing that. I never said anything about the wrong or right of sexism. I never said that it needs to stop, that it offends me, or anything related to morals or ethics for that matter. The most I said was that I feel insulted by his ignorance, and that's a seperate matter entirely. In short, I feel as though you are putting words into my mouth, by accusing me of saying things I never did. Please stop and reevaluate what I said. I am making an objective statement, with objective facts to back it up, which prove my point. I am objectively right about this. Because this is not a moral issue. It is an issue about the existence of an issue, and by denying that sexism exists - not by being sexist, not by perpetuating sexism, none of that, I'm not saying anything like that - he has personally insulted me. You could even say that he has offended me personally. But my sensibilities, not my morals. No morals are at play in this case. I do not feel that it is sexist of him to say these things, and I do not feel as though he is a proponent of sexism. How I would feel about those is not the point is not relevant, and is why I am not arguing with Testad, because that would truly be a moral argument (although, again, I bring him up as an example because it is objective sexism that he is demonstrating, in a first world country, which contributes directly to my point and therefore this discussion). Instead, it is that I am experiencing a very real feeling that I am being personally attacked by him directly by having the struggles that myself, that my mother, and that so many other men and women have gone through, so rudely dismissed. That is all.
Edit: And I want to clarify, that I never said it was "right" or "wrong" of him to insult me or for me to feel the way I do. What's objectively right is that there is an easy-to-prove case for sexism being very real and very present in a first-world country. I don't care if it was right of him to insult me, I just want it to stop ,which is why I said I would drop it after he further clarified on his point.