I wish there was a perfect society.

Post Reply New Topic

That would be a perfect society for Atheist anti-feminists.

Of course the problem is that different people have different ideas of what would be a perfect society.

We could have the perfect society if we were all the same. Then we'd soon have the society that we all agree that we want--whatever society that might be.

Well, I'll just say that I prefer the solution called "partition". Separate societies, entirely separate countries, for people who want different societies. Why should people who want different societies have to all live in the same society? It doesn't make any sense.

But of course partition isn't going to happen either.

As it is, there are people who aren't Atheists, and there are people who care about equality for women.

There can never be a perfect society of humans, or even a halfway-good one. ...because of human-nature. So I wouldn't recommend wasting any time wanting that or hoping for it.

I was raised Atheist, and I was Atheist when I was your age.

I don't consider religion to be a debate-issue, but let me just say this:

Yes, most here would agree that we disagree with Biblical-Literalism. Most likely none of us like to be insulted and abused by certain door-to-door denominations (whom I won't name). But I don't criticize the beliefs of Biblical-Literalists or Atheists, and I appreciate it that Atheists don't go door-to-door.

But much of the disagreement between Atheists and non-Literalist religious people is definitional. ...disagreement resulting from a difference in definitions, terms, language, and assumptions about what someone else means.

...disagreement resulting from misunderstanding.

Such disagreement and debate is entirely unnecessary and unproductive. It's easy to succumb to the temptation to believe that we understand the beliefs of a broad and diverse category of people, and go from there to blanket-evaluating their beliefs.

We can't have a good society, but we can live our own lives well. ...which means: as we like, and in keeping with fairness, consideration and helpfulness to others.

Though it sounds trite to say this, it's important to not let others decide your purposes and priorities. Sometimes it's necessary to sit down and say, "Wait a minute, what's going on here? What's important?".

Michael829














, everyone would give to society and society would give to them, there would be a flexible school system that teaches people of all ages whatever they want to learn rather than forcing people to learn things they don't like.[/quote]

[/quote]

The religious feminists could leave our society and go to america or something.

...and no doubt they're saying the same thing about you.

How productive is that?

Michael829

I am in America. I wouldn't insult your country like that.

Sadly, I am american as well.

I don't believe in a perfect society because imperfections and contradictions are what makes the nature run and evolve. If any society could reach the point where nothing could be improved, it would lose its whole dynamics and thus become very far from being perfect.

I even sort of believe that for a healthy society we need different political options arguing constantly over things. One perfection would destroy it.

^^^ This is related, I believe, to the notion that a "perfect" species without mutations will, inevitably, become extinct because of its lack of ability to adapt to its environment.

Did you know that in some states in the first Presidential elections women were allowed to vote the same as men.

Some women and some men, anyway. Each state had their own rules about who could vote and one or two only allowed those who own property to vote without regard to their sex.

Atheist non-feminists, perhaps.

Anti-feminists necessarily need feminists.



Even if we assume to be true the premise that 'feminists emancipated women in society', the people you're talking about have little in common with third wave, outrage culture, victim hierarchy feminists.



Brave New World
Nineteen Eighty-Four

Read them if you haven't already, then share your thoughts - if so inclined.

Both are dystopic works.

I like them. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in either one of those places.

I'd rather live in Thomas More's "Utopia," or Jonathan Swift's society where the horses were the "humans."

One would hope not!

It's only a few short steps from here to there.

That sounds good. Except that except for having only atheists, I'd like it so that everyone's religion was accepted. And there wouldn't be any feminists not because being a feminist is bad, but because there would be no inequality, so there wouldn't be any need for feminism.


Just because things are better doesn't mean there aren't still problems.

And yet feminists exist where equality is codified into law.

Funny how that works.

Just because equality is codified into law doesn't mean there isn't still inequality and bigotry.

But it's as far as you can go without infringing on civil liberty.

I'd prefer we keep our society free of fascistic thought police.

There are other ways you can fight for equality without needing to change laws. For example, raising awareness about social issues to change people's attitudes towards them and stand up against them.