hannahbanana

To a point, I don't really think there's a way to talk about death without it being uncomfortable and a little painful. I'm pretty sure most people are afraid of it, and I don't blame them. Most of the time people use religion or ideas of the afterlife to run away from that discomfort or fear, which is not really accepting death, it's just altering the way you think it is so it's sugar coated. But in the end, it's all the same. Maybe if you talked to your kids about the discomforts that you face when thinking about death, but that you don't try to run away from it, it would help. That way, they understand that it's okay to feel weird about it, and that it's also possible to live a happy life while still accepting the reality of it?

http://junkee.com/watch-sia-explain-the-meaning-of-elastic-heart-with-bananas-over-her-face/49420 Anyone seen this music video? I think it's also more confirmation of the loneliness and inner conflict going on in his mind. In the second video, they mention that the young girl could represent a part of himself, like an inner child, who is wild, mistrustful and fighting with him. But later on, the girl leaves the cage, leaving him alone and trapped. I don't know if I could interpret everything that it's supposed to mean for him, but it definitely resonates with me.

Is that fresh pepperoni? Oh my goodness.

I said it kind of sarcastically, because no one seems to care about Men's Day as much as the other days... I'm honestly surprised that it was able to pass whatever kind of committee or whatever that decides these things, with the way most people feel about this topic.

Really great responses from everyone, thank you so much! I think you've all given me a lot to think about, and maybe an answer to what I was wondering. I think that Kevin might be right in part that the mix of feelings that I described before might actually be due to separate reasons, but I think those reasons are so closely associated that they merge closer and closer to one feeling. Kind of like you could say that baking a cake is actually made of many separate actions, but you could also just leave it at "baking a cake." I also agree that I think the feeling changes depending on how you continually choose to respond. But I think this is common for any feeling; if I was afraid of something, for example, I could change that by facing that fear more and more until it is no longer scary. Maybe the feeling of "injustice" is really just me wanting to act, but also me making myself feel helpless in order to justify the times that I have done nothing. I'm not sure... Indignation sounds like it might work pretty well; I suppose I didn't think of it because I've always associated it as a slightly less powerful feeling, kind of like irritation. Deplore is interesting; is it really an emotion? Or is it more like a verb? Like I can hate something, and say that I'm feeling hate, but can I deplore something and also feel...I dunno....deplorement? Maybe it doesn't matter... Helplessness does seem like a strong part of it...helplessness due to circumstances, as well as self-imposed helplessness.

Maybe it is like a mixture of feelings, but it's such a unique mixture that I'm a little surprised there isn't one word to sum it up. Like if I had a list of all the feelings that go into it, it would be easier to just say one word rather than many, you know? I guess if I had to explain it, it's like a visceral feeling of wrongness. I'd feel angry, because it makes me sick to know that a person could be capable of whatever the injustice is. Even more so if I know in my gut that it's wrong, but am unable to explain it in such a way that the person could see that it's wrong. I'd feel helpless and frustrated because of that, too, since it may seem like whatever I say or do does not change anything. There's also a physical response that kicks in, a fight or flight response telling me to react. And maybe, too, a self-conflict going on between the part of me that wants to act, and the other part that feels like any response would only lead to more frustration. This would probably show up as a feeling of anxiety or restlessness... Maybe there's more to it, but that's the best I can come up with right now...I'm not the best at boiling down feelings to their pure emotions as it is. Needless to say, it feels like it's pretty complicated, and completely unique in my experience. I suppose that's why I started out so vague, because to me I couldn't mistake that feeling for anything else (so it would seem specific in MY mind, not necessarily yours). But maybe this clarifies a little?

hmm...but would oppression fit if the injustice is for someone else, not you? Would you be feeling the other person's oppression?

Does anyone know if there is a specific word that describes the feeling you get when you experience or witness an injustice? Maybe it's just me being weird, but I've always felt like typical emotions like anger, frustration or helplessness just don't quite describe that feeling. It's almost like a mixture of all three. I found an interesting tidbit on Wikipedia about this feeling, applied to a culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_%28cultural%29 Does anyone have any thoughts?

Wait....men's day is a thing?

If you want a mathematical explanation, I'd suggest reading up a little bit on statistics. It sounds counterintuitive, but events that have 1/1000 chance of happening, or 1/1000000 chance of happening, actually happen many times a day. There are just THAT many opportunities for an event, no matter how unlikely, to occur. I'm not sure what the probability cutoff is for an event to be truly unlikely, but it's pretty darn high. So if an event that has a 1/1000000 chance (or something like that) to occur can happen many times in one DAY, imagine expanding that to years, decades, centuries, millennia.....you get the point. Now, this is just talking about in one relatively small place - the Earth. Imagine expanding the probabilities of events out to cover the entire UNIVERSE, which is a pretty big freaking place. Almost anything could happen. The field of statistics can explain these common ratios and events...in fact, I'd even say it would be weird for there NOT to be some similarities when it comes to a sample size as huge as the universe (or even our solar system, for that matter) and ALL of human history. Now, if you want to get into the astronomical ratios and stuff, there are actually mathematical equations that quantify the force of gravity that you can use along with the Newton's laws of physics to show that, since forces will always want to reach the point of least strain, there are "wells of stability" that objects will reach. The forces here are balanced out in such a way that it is very difficult to leave that position. I would guess that the similarities in ratios have something to do with the mathematical equations, as well as the fact that when we are talking the size of suns and planets, differences in mass and distance become very negligible to an extent, so that the ratios become essentially equal in many situations. Of course, I'm not an astrophysicist so I can't say for sure, but I DO know enough about physics and probability to know that there is definitely a mathematical explanation for it, no god needed. I guess you COULD argue that the existence of laws of physics=existence of god, but I really think that's a stretch.

Hmm, good question...I think there are definitely times that I feel afraid to speak my mind about certain topics that are widely accepted here, because I know that people wouldn't like it. But I think it's less about wanting to "fit in," and more about avoiding ridicule or conflict...although I think that those two may be related in a way, in that I can avoid conflict by fitting in. However, I wouldn't say something that I don't think is morally right or true, just because it's the majority opinion. So I suppose I am afraid at times...but do I think I'm doing the wrong thing? Absolutely not. I'm interested in philosophy because I'm interested in what is true about the world. I've always loved science and the scientific method, and I think that that gave me a push in the direction of philosophy. I also like learning about how things work, so I also like hearing about different ideas about how and why people behave, and by extension, how people "should" behave. I feel less bad about being isolated from most people, also, because the few people that I have met who DO share common interests in philosophy give me much more fulfilling relationships, even if they are fewer in quantity. Yes, in fact I think I felt even MORE isolated before. All my siblings are substantially older than me, so I didn't have much connection with them. I wasn't popular in school, people thought I was either weird, too serious, too smart, bossy, things like that. And maybe some of those things were true, but it felt worse when I thought that those opinions mattered more than they did. I was also more isolated from myself, before working on self-knowledge, so that didn't help either. I was actually thinking earlier that maybe getting involved in philosophy can make you feel LESS isolated, since it makes it easier to meet or hear from people who feel similarly, rather than thinking you are the only one out there who thinks differently. What do you think?

I was just thinking something similar to this. I think that there are fewer women interested in philosophy/anarchy - basically ideas that are on the "fringe" of society - because there's really very few reasons for them to question or turn away from the current system. If something is benefiting you, it takes very little effort to ignore the larger over-arching consequences. And as for feminism, many of the issues that they fight for have already been solved within this system, so there is little reason for them to try working outside of it. For me, and for some other women that I've discussed with on FDR, there is usually a common element of feeling separated or disconnected from the majority of people - which I've also heard many men say on FDR as well. It's probably just easier for women to feel accepted by the majority with the way that society runs today: school aged girls may feel more comfortable in school, since over 80% female elementary school teachers; boys, on the other hand, are much more often treated as wild and misbehaving, or are prescribed medication for ADD. I don't know about you, but I'd feel outcast if that happened to me. And that's just one of many examples. So maybe that plays a role as to why there are fewer women around. I can't say for certain, but it makes a decent amount of sense to me. As for the main post, I agree that just because a person isn't involved in philosophy, etc NOW, doesn't mean they can't EVER. There's a first time for everyone, and some people are just not exposed to key ideas needed to continue pursuing philosophy. I'm not sure if I agree with saying you can "make" virtuous, since 99% of the work required to become virtuous lies on the actual person becoming virtuous. But that really comes down to semantics, I suppose. I'm actually pretty sure there was a similar thread to this a while back, but I can't remember its name

Oh! So apparently I missed the memo where smacking a child is supposedly beautiful! Thanks, your popeliness, for enlightening me!

800 likes against 3,300 dislikes? Those can't ALL be fans of Karen. I wonder how many TYT fans got a bad taste in their mouth from this.

I agree; I recently watched an interview of Karen Straughan on TYT where she brings up a lot of the institutional actions that distinctly disadvantage men (circumcision, Father's rights, incarceration figures), and it's a really uncomfortable thing for feminists to hear, since by admitting the "institution" DOESN'T specifically benefit men would tear down the foundation of the movement. Hmm, interesting points. I think you're right that making such distinctions as "feminist" and "anti-feminist" etc. is probably more obstructionist than anything else. Maybe it would be better not to think of it in such a way. I'm not sure. I also don't think I've considered your point about lesbian influences...I'll have to think about that more.

First, just a quick correction, since you've made this mistake more than once now: I'm not 19, I'm 21. Not sure if that makes a huge difference to you or anything, but it was just nagging at me a little. Well, I'm confused if we do, since in my earlier post I gave a definition of narcissism and asked if that was correct, and you said "It is. And it's fine. Don't worry about it." So either we DO have the same definitions, or we don't and I've just been confused about it based on the comment I quoted for most of this conversation. Based on your last post, I'll assume the latter is true. I've read what you've said about the difference between "Narcissism" and "narcissism," and although it was a little confusing, I think I understand what you meant by it. I think you're right that there is a lot of self-centered behavior out there (such as your example about selfies), but in the context of this conversation we have had in this thread,I really wonder what the difference is between your definition of "narcissism" and having a personality/sense of individuality. Of course people think about things in relation to their own life and own experience. And especially on this forum, people ask very personal questions, which have to do with their own thoughts and their own doubts, which can make them pretty vulnerable. I'm still in disagreement with you as to whether THAT is narcissistic, since it is less about getting attention drawn to themselves just for the sake of attention (like taking a selfie), and is more about asking a pretty personal question and asking people for help or for answers. That seems like a pretty positive thing for a person to do, rather than not pay any attention to themselves at all. Now, if what I just wrote about IS "little-n narcissism," then why does it really matter, since it is so prevalent and, as I see it, not necessarily a bad thing? And based on your most recent post, you seem to think that what you define as "little-n narcissism" is a bad thing (that it needs to be "cured"). Saying that any example of thinking of yourself is narcissism (little-n or otherwise) like it's a bad thing just seems like another accusation of "original sin" in human nature. I don't think it's always bad to think of things in terms of yourself. I we didn't, it wouldn't seem like there'd be much motivation to live a happy, peaceful life. When I said "directly addressing it," I meant actually saying "I think that hannahbanana's post is narcissistic," or something to that effect, rather than "I WOULD say that hannahbanana's post is narcissistic, but I won't." Either way you're saying the post is narcissistic, but the second way just makes it feel worse. I'm probably not the only one who would get more irritated by that, and I would think that such an approach would actually lead to MORE aggression and hostility that could slow or block the main purpose of the conversation. I suppose in a way I appreciate your motivations for going about it this way, but I would have never guessed that was the reason, if you hadn't explained it. So all in all, thanks for explaining what you meant by what you said, but I still just don't think I can agree with you on the whole definition and distinctions of narcissism. I also don't want to divert the topic of this thread by continuing to post about something entirely different...maybe you could make a new page for it, if you wanted to.

I agree with Canoe_Captain that the commercial may seem a little distasteful to some people, since it's being compared to commercials about starving kids and abused animals. There's nothing exactly wrong with that of course, it's mostly a matter of preference I personally didn't really enjoy watching it. It just seemed kind of dumb.

Hi! Welcome to the boards I'm really glad you have such a positive outlook on things...and I hope you feel welcome to comment or ask as many questions as you'd like!

First, thank you for the clarification. Second, why would it be fun to make pick on someone without the decency of actually addressing them directly about it? To me, that seems very disrespectful, condescending, and just unempathetic. The guidelines of this forum clearly state to "focus criticism on the theory, and not the individual." It also says "Passive aggressive posts are strongly discouraged." The fact that you hint at criticizing me (not to mention everyone else on this forum) as a narcissist, without actually saying it, seems pretty passive aggressive to me. Honestly, I felt a little shocked and confused by your response. I didn't expect that you would say that. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough, but again it's not so much a concern that other people will treat me in association with other women, but more that I myself am disappointed in these women and don't want to be associated with them because of who they are, and not because of what others will think of me. Maybe I have felt what you've described above in my life, but it is not my main focus here and is not as big a problem or worry to me as what I just described. Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but you WERE excusing my behavior. You even said it right in the last line that I quoted (" I was excusing my behavior and yours"). I just don't agree with you. Even if this culture DID encourage narcissism, it's not an excuse. Just like a person with a history of abuse who has difficulty leading a non-abusive lifestyle. It's difficult, but it's still not an excuse, and I wouldn't want such excuses made for myself in any situation. I don't think our culture encourages narcissism and focus on the self; in fact, I think the opposite. Selfishness and materialism is almost always seen as a term of disgust, an insult. Ideas and institutions like the state, as well as religion, rely on the denial and sacrifice of the self for the "greater good" in order to exist - and they are alive and well worldwide. Herd mentality and conformity are ingrained in children at schools from day one, to avoid the attention of bullies and other abusers. Are there narcissistic people in the world? Yes, since narcissism comes from abuse and the world has many abuses. Does the culture reinforce narcissism in people? I have my doubts. Because there are also many examples of the culture reinforcing self-erasure. No, I did not downvote any of your posts, in this thread or in others. I considered downvoting your second post, because it had very little to do with the topic and seemed more like a veiled insult, but I ended up addressing that directly instead. I would only downvote a post that is either trolling, or downright abusive.

Hi, MMX, I just want a quick clarification...when you say "you" are you referring directly to me, or is it the general kind of use of the word "you?" Completely fine for it to be, I just don't want there to be a miscommunication. If you decided not to make fun of me, why even mention it? You're making the same point anyway. I started this post because I didn't remember this topic being discussed much, and I was curious as to other people's honest thoughts and opinions. I am fully prepared for them to be negative towards me, or to be on a different line from my own thinking. So please, don't hold back. I'm not sure what you mean by a narcissistic viewpoint. I'll admit that it is a slightly selfish reason as to why I have had the thoughts that I wrote in the OP, being that I mentioned my own personal negative feelings when negative points about women as a whole are discussed. But I'd like to explain that the main reason I feel angry or sad when women are talked about negatively is NOT because I feel offended, or because I'd rather people only say good things about women. It is because these negative things are true, I realize it is true, and I am sad because I wish it didn't have to be that way. I'm not trying to fall back on the NAWALT argument. What I'm saying is, since I know that it is possible for women to live in a better way, it frustrates me that a majority of women still aren't, still choose to be ignorant to how they behave and expect others to behave towards them. THAT is what makes me sad. It has nothing to do with me personally feeling singled out, or offended. Of course, if that is not what you were referring to when you said I was acting in a narcissistic way, please tell me what it is that you are referring to. Also, you do realize how hypocritical it is to say that people's behavior can't be helped just because of "culture." That is EXACTLY what feminists say, and if I know anything about you, it is something you hate about them. If I AM being narcissistic, it would be for my own personal reasons. Narcissism is defined as “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.” I just asked a question that affects me personally. If that is narcissism, then almost every single post in this entire forum, and most replies, would be out of narcissism. Thank you for the responses from everyone, by the way. I like seeing each person's take on the issues. I myself think that (especially 1st world) women in general are quite privileged as a whole. I think that if any stance taken by feminists was ever true, it no longer is for these women...it is difficult for me to say what I think of how things were in the past, because 1) I wasn't there, so I don't have personal experience, and 2) history is taught through the lens of women being oppressed as a whole in the past, so I can't be completely trusting of second-hand sources. I can't deny restrictions put on women in other countries based on religious reasons, etc...but in these cases, restrictions are also imposed on men, just in different ways, so I'm not sure if it's really a gender issue, or just an issue of controlling people in general.

So, it's been about a year(?) since I've really started learning about the double-standards and lies within feminism, and listening to the other side of the story through Youtube videos and this forum. And even though a lot of the initial emotions have subsided, I still sometimes wonder if there was even one thing that was true in what I was taught and believed about feminism and gender equality over a year ago. The thought of being lied to and manipulated about how "victimized" women are makes me feel angry, and sometimes kind of like a piece of shit. Hearing the facts and opinions about women in a negative light in these forums makes me feel ashamed sometimes to be associated with women, especially because I realize how true most (or all) of it is. I don't think that this is an overall healthy feeling, since I personally have done, and am doing, as much as I can to defy such negative associations around women. A part of me might have once hoped there was some truth to feminism that I could cling to, but not anymore. But reflecting on this, I guess I wonder what everyone here thinks about the real nature of gender equality, as it pertains to women. For example, many people think that women are equal (if not privileged) today, but were not so in the past. Others, like girlwriteswhat, believe that women have NEVER been disadvantaged. What do you think, and could you give specific examples, if possible?

My old college improv club used to "circle up" at the end of workshops, and I thought they were great. We'd usually do something like "talk about something you did that you liked, and something that someone else did that you liked." I really enjoyed that, because inexperienced improvisors could develop some pride and confidence in their skills, and we could all show some appreciation towards each other. Now, this was among people in their late teens-early twenties. But as I recall as a child, it didn't seem to be that helpful to me. It often became tense, as one of us would want to talk before our turn, and the teacher would have to try to keep things controlled-not a very relaxed environment.

I know what you mean, I've been in that situation before too. Sometimes I say something like "I know, but it makes me sad seeing/thinking of you in such pain" or something like that. It's been pretty successful for me. I think that when they hear that from you, they can recognize that you actually care about them, and aren't just saying sorry because you feel uncomfortable.

....aaaand THAT is the problem with moral systems that are not based on consistent application.

If women ever had a nurturing nature, I don't believe that it is prevalent or even useful as a justification for parenting anymore. What matters more is how the person (man or woman) was raised. A woman who grew up in an abusive home can only change herself through serious work at self-knowlege and education about peaceful parenting; there is no "instinct" that can miraculously save her. If she doesn't do anything about it, she will be just as abusive as her parents. And the same goes for men, unless I am mistaken, which would indicate that parenting abilities are not a gendered issue (I stress abilities because I am aware that there are certain steps in a child's development that require a male role and/or a female role). Basically, just because a woman is a woman, does not mean she will be more nurturing than a man.