In response to Brandon's post "His Eye for Hers" (March 1, 2012):
Another advantage to using 'they' as a singular pronoun is that it includes everyone, regardless of gender. Some might say that we can achieve this same effect by using the clunky, but politically correct 'he/she', but this is not the case. Recently, some people have chosen to use alternative pronoun sets, such as 'zhe/zir', etc. Still others have chosen to go by the singular 'they' at least in speech - and they would likely choose to use the same pronouns in writing if doing so were accepted as grammatical.
As it is not, I shall, in formal written contexts, continue trying to modify my sentences so that I can use plural pronouns rather than singular ones. When writing informally, however, I shall continue to use the singular 'they,' in hopes that doing so may help its acceptability eventually spread to formal writing as well.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Holdover from Last Week
In response to Tyler's post "Shave Your Beard" (February 27, 2012):
It is true that pianists' playing on pianos does not deprive them of the use of their hands, except temporarily; but homosexuals' use of their reproductive organs does not deprive them of the ability to use those organs heterosexually. They may not choose to do so, just as a pianist may choose to spend hours and hours every day playing on the piano, but at no point do they lose the option.
Also, it is true that as humans have discovered other ways to keep their faces warm, beards are no longer necessary. However, humans are no longer having trouble in ensuring the survival of the species due to a lack of reproduction, or survival of offspring - if anything, we would be better off if fewer people had children, or if the same number of people had fewer children. In this way, reproduction is no longer universally necessary either. The only way in which homosexuality would pose a threat to the survival of humanity would be if everyone decided to engage exclusivly in homosexual relations - a highly unlikely eventuality. Even then, though, we have now developed ways for people to reproduce without directly engaging in sexual relations at all (artifical insemination and so on). Thus, a world composed completely of gay men and lesbians would still be able to produce children at the same rate as a world composed entirely of heterosexuals, and certainly at the same rate as a world composed of a mix of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, and so on.
It is true that pianists' playing on pianos does not deprive them of the use of their hands, except temporarily; but homosexuals' use of their reproductive organs does not deprive them of the ability to use those organs heterosexually. They may not choose to do so, just as a pianist may choose to spend hours and hours every day playing on the piano, but at no point do they lose the option.
Also, it is true that as humans have discovered other ways to keep their faces warm, beards are no longer necessary. However, humans are no longer having trouble in ensuring the survival of the species due to a lack of reproduction, or survival of offspring - if anything, we would be better off if fewer people had children, or if the same number of people had fewer children. In this way, reproduction is no longer universally necessary either. The only way in which homosexuality would pose a threat to the survival of humanity would be if everyone decided to engage exclusivly in homosexual relations - a highly unlikely eventuality. Even then, though, we have now developed ways for people to reproduce without directly engaging in sexual relations at all (artifical insemination and so on). Thus, a world composed completely of gay men and lesbians would still be able to produce children at the same rate as a world composed entirely of heterosexuals, and certainly at the same rate as a world composed of a mix of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, and so on.
Problematic Implementation
While the readings on the morality (or immorality) of prostitution were extensive, they glossed over quite a number of points which I thought were of extreme importance to the issue. Before presenting those points, however, I will give an overview of my thoughts on the matter as presented by the articles.
Firstly, I disagree with the argument that prostitution necessarily reinforces patriarchal ideas of male dominance. There are some male prostitutes in existence, a small number of which are heterosexual. It is difficult to argue that these men are reinforcing patriarchal ideals, unless one argues that sex itself reinforces them - which would bring up a whole new issue. While there are fewer male prostitutes, I think that is a result of society's views on the matter, not the cause of those views. One could say that it is a result of lesser demand by women for sexual services, but again, I think that lower demand is a result of society (and even if it were not, then the fact that there would be a lesser demand for male prostitutes does not mean that prostitution in itself is immoral.) If prostitution were recognised as a valid career option, it seems likely that many men would choose to work in the field.
Secondly, the idea that prostitution results in the weakening of family values is, I think, both invalid and not necessarily a bad thing if it were valid. Sex does not necessarily create love, and neither is it required for love (between two people of the same age and with no biological relation) to exist; the fact that most (not all) loving, married couples have sexual relations with one another does not mean that they need to do so in order to love one another, or that having sexual relations outside the marriage would result in a lessening of love between them. Also, if one took the idea that parents must have sexual relations with (and exclusively with) one another in order to raise their children properly, that would mean that single parents who are not in steady relationships are incapable of raising well-adjusted, happy children - something which is evidentially not the case. The idea that parents who raise their children badly will cause those children to lack moral values as adults, or rather lack self-esteem which results in moral values, is also, I believe, seriously flawed. It is true, perhaps, that children with loving parents are more likely to share their parents' moral viewpoints, but that is not always a good thing; in fact, I think it is better if children formulate their own independent moral viewpoints, as parents' moral viewpoints are all too often flawed. Loving parents do have a tendency to instill their children with higher self-esteem, which is a good thing, but at this point we are deviating too far from the initial subject (that of prostitution, if you still remember.)
Thirdly, I agree with Ericsson that the lack of psychological well-being of prostitutes is largely due to society's attitude towards their line of work, and by extension, towards them as well. In addition, even if there are some elements of psychological damage inherent in the work, that does not mean that society should ban the option of taking up that work. As long as as no one was forced into prostitution, or forced to remain there, then it would be entirely their own choice to risk that psychological damage - and removing their right to make such a choice is, I think, highly paternalistic.
This does not, however, mean that I support the legality of prostitution. There are two vitally important and related factors which all four of the essayists neglected to address - firstly, that of the possible reproductive consequences of prostitution, and secondly, that of the current ratio of voluntary prostitutes to coerced prostitutes. Both of these would require extremely strict regulatory measures (obligatory contraception in the case of the first, and some sort of intensive qualification procedures in the case of the second) to prevent, and I do not think that society is currently in a position to enact those measures. Until society has progressed far enough to make the implementation of such regulation possible, I think that prostitution should remain, or become, illegal.
Firstly, I disagree with the argument that prostitution necessarily reinforces patriarchal ideas of male dominance. There are some male prostitutes in existence, a small number of which are heterosexual. It is difficult to argue that these men are reinforcing patriarchal ideals, unless one argues that sex itself reinforces them - which would bring up a whole new issue. While there are fewer male prostitutes, I think that is a result of society's views on the matter, not the cause of those views. One could say that it is a result of lesser demand by women for sexual services, but again, I think that lower demand is a result of society (and even if it were not, then the fact that there would be a lesser demand for male prostitutes does not mean that prostitution in itself is immoral.) If prostitution were recognised as a valid career option, it seems likely that many men would choose to work in the field.
Secondly, the idea that prostitution results in the weakening of family values is, I think, both invalid and not necessarily a bad thing if it were valid. Sex does not necessarily create love, and neither is it required for love (between two people of the same age and with no biological relation) to exist; the fact that most (not all) loving, married couples have sexual relations with one another does not mean that they need to do so in order to love one another, or that having sexual relations outside the marriage would result in a lessening of love between them. Also, if one took the idea that parents must have sexual relations with (and exclusively with) one another in order to raise their children properly, that would mean that single parents who are not in steady relationships are incapable of raising well-adjusted, happy children - something which is evidentially not the case. The idea that parents who raise their children badly will cause those children to lack moral values as adults, or rather lack self-esteem which results in moral values, is also, I believe, seriously flawed. It is true, perhaps, that children with loving parents are more likely to share their parents' moral viewpoints, but that is not always a good thing; in fact, I think it is better if children formulate their own independent moral viewpoints, as parents' moral viewpoints are all too often flawed. Loving parents do have a tendency to instill their children with higher self-esteem, which is a good thing, but at this point we are deviating too far from the initial subject (that of prostitution, if you still remember.)
Thirdly, I agree with Ericsson that the lack of psychological well-being of prostitutes is largely due to society's attitude towards their line of work, and by extension, towards them as well. In addition, even if there are some elements of psychological damage inherent in the work, that does not mean that society should ban the option of taking up that work. As long as as no one was forced into prostitution, or forced to remain there, then it would be entirely their own choice to risk that psychological damage - and removing their right to make such a choice is, I think, highly paternalistic.
This does not, however, mean that I support the legality of prostitution. There are two vitally important and related factors which all four of the essayists neglected to address - firstly, that of the possible reproductive consequences of prostitution, and secondly, that of the current ratio of voluntary prostitutes to coerced prostitutes. Both of these would require extremely strict regulatory measures (obligatory contraception in the case of the first, and some sort of intensive qualification procedures in the case of the second) to prevent, and I do not think that society is currently in a position to enact those measures. Until society has progressed far enough to make the implementation of such regulation possible, I think that prostitution should remain, or become, illegal.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Response: Useless Organs
In response to Brandon's post "Not Using = Misusing?" (February 26, 2012):
I agree that Levin might well think that not using something is essentially the same as misusing that thing. Considering that he used the term 'asexual' to refer to people who wished to have sexual relations with others but for whatever reason were not able to do so, it seems likely that he is not aware of that particular orientation, and would likely disbelieve in its existence if someone informed him of it.
Furthermore, I think this idea of not using being the same as misusing probably extends to nonreproductive body parts as well. However, once one does extend it, it becomes harder to support. Canine teeth are intended to tear meat - does this mean that all people who do not consume meat are misusing their canine teeth? There are muscles in the body which, in modern society, almost no one ever uses. Also, what of apparently useless organs, such as the appendix? Is it possible that the appendix did, historically, have a use, which is no longer utilized due to changing conditions? If so, this might mean that all of humanity is guilty of misusing (due to not using) their appendixes. Alternately, the appendix might truly be a useless organ, the only purpose of which is to sit there in a person's body and occasionally require surgical removal. In that case, could one not use this to argue that not every part of the body has a single, fixed use?
I agree that Levin might well think that not using something is essentially the same as misusing that thing. Considering that he used the term 'asexual' to refer to people who wished to have sexual relations with others but for whatever reason were not able to do so, it seems likely that he is not aware of that particular orientation, and would likely disbelieve in its existence if someone informed him of it.
Furthermore, I think this idea of not using being the same as misusing probably extends to nonreproductive body parts as well. However, once one does extend it, it becomes harder to support. Canine teeth are intended to tear meat - does this mean that all people who do not consume meat are misusing their canine teeth? There are muscles in the body which, in modern society, almost no one ever uses. Also, what of apparently useless organs, such as the appendix? Is it possible that the appendix did, historically, have a use, which is no longer utilized due to changing conditions? If so, this might mean that all of humanity is guilty of misusing (due to not using) their appendixes. Alternately, the appendix might truly be a useless organ, the only purpose of which is to sit there in a person's body and occasionally require surgical removal. In that case, could one not use this to argue that not every part of the body has a single, fixed use?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)