C
CaptBell800
Guest
There are a lot of rude people in the news and philosophy places. But I haven’t been here long enough to see what they used to be like, so maybe they are better.
- Status
J
Julianna
Guest
early feminism… what did the “early feminists” want>?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Really I don’t know but I just scratched around a bit. I’d imagine a good part of it was women’s suffrage. (The 19th amendment giving them suffrage was done in 1920.) At some point equal opportunity, equal pay, gosh I don’t know. Those are the types of things I’ve always heard feminism was about. I’m guessing all but a very few elite realized why those families and organizations promoted them – thus they wouldn’t be wary of the way things would ultimately get twisted around to become what feminism has become…early feminism… what did the “early feminists” want>?
What I do know is this: in an organization, you really have no idea what’s going on unless you are an insider.
Once I had a good book on feminism from a perspective of a former feminist who says feminism has gone wrong. (I gave it away to my daughter in Indiana.) It talked about how legislatures required rewriting of textbooks to pretend that historical stories were from a “women’s perspective.” So they came up with bizarre, contrived ways of rewriting stories as if from women’s POV. She used two terms to distinguish two types of feminists. The one she claims to be, “XX feminist” (I forgot her term) who was concerned with equal rights, etc. I think “gender feminist” was her term for what mainstream feminism had morphed into, and provided evidence that it was much more about man-hating than about equality. That would be the likes of Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland, for example, leading the man-hating “gender feminism” movement.
It was a really good book, and I’d recommend it based just on the first parts I read. It’s called Who Stole Feminism, by Christina Hoff Summers. There is a “look inside” at Amazon.
Alan
J
Julianna
Guest
In granting women the right to vote, equal pay for equal work,…is that a bad thing?
L
littlenothing
Guest
I believe our dear mother Eve started women’s lib.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I don’t think so. I think equal pay for equal work is not only makes sense. Equal opportunity? Yes, but back when companies actually hired people for careers instead of just until they’re done with them and brush them off like they do now, I could actually see the corporate point of view that a women was statistically more likely to take extended leave. I’ve heard feminists say that was a myth, so I guess it’s about whether you believe women are more likely to quit or take long leaves, or not. So yes I’d like to say that is wrong of them, but when you get to it, they saw it as getting less for the same money so I get why they would resist. So I’ll reserve judgment at this point.
My own wife had to quit working when pregnant with our first, and she never went back to work for a couple reasons, including a mental problem that came out of post partum depression after our second. Meanwhile I was out busting my butt, dealing with fools and worse, having to go out of town and away from my family every couple months, working late for weeks in a row and not even seeing my kids except Sunday. I had to ask myself, why would any mother in her right mind, given a choice, opt for this lifestyle rather than staying home with the kids and helping shape their future and enjoying them while they still live at home?
Plus there was a social stigma for “just” being a stay at home mom. The working women among our parish school parents couldn’t volunteer for many of the activities needed because “they had to work,” so the stay at homes took up the slack while the working women treated them as “less than.” I understand they had a great deal of pressure, and they did come to evening events some of the time, but gee you’d think they’d look up to the people who were toeing their lines.
When I got my first job out of college in 1981 and moved to Wichita to work for Boeing, a few weeks after I started I held a door for a woman because when I had worked summer jobs in Chicago, that was the custom. Somebody had to get the door first, so all other things being equal it was the man. But instead of the expected mumbled “thank you,” the woman sneered at me in a bitter voice, “I can get it MYSELF.” I was flummoxed; I’d never seen behavior like that. That was my first personal experience with a gender feminist. A few minutes later, after thinking about it, I wished I’d just gone through and then slammed it in her face.
Now I do think “affirmative action” is conceptually wrong, because that’s just shifting from one discrimination to another discrimination. And of course it isn’t just with women, but all “designated minority” groups. I remember in the 70s (I was young teen) when my uncle, a 727 pilot and head of the Tenneco corporate flight department, told of a meeting where they were instructed by company lawyers that they needed to hire more designated minorities. My uncle asked, “what if I’m hiring a crew member, and out of the ten most qualified the fourth one down on the list is a minority and the top three are not?” The lawyers replied, “according to affirmative action law, you must give preference to the designated minority.” My uncle then replied, “when I have an emergency over the middle of the Atlantic and have to ditch the plane, I’m going to regret that decision.” Everybody applauded but the lawyers did not change their advice. That has always stuck with me since.
So in theory I reject affirmative action, but is it really wrong in practice? I don’t know. But I do know that affirmative action is not going away any time soon because it’s too great a tool for the government to micromanage the social structure.
When I worked at Bell Labs, there was a female engineer who was incompetant and annoying, and wasted a great amount of time at meetings doing what should have been done with a few emails to the specific parties. So every week 15 of us would sit idle for over an hour, (and this was before WiFi or cell phones) watching her go over detailed checklists that applied only to three of us. After about three weeks of this, when we brought up in the meeting that we were wasting almost everyone’s time and could she please handle these things outside the weekly group meeting, after the meeting she called to complain to her mentor under some women’s mentoring program I didn’t even know existed until then, and then literally went crying to our boss. Then the boss was then called and “informed” by her mentor. The boss had to hold yet a special meeting with the whole group, for the sole purpose to instruct us that we were not to go treat her with disrespect, as she sat in the front right corner of the room, holding back tears. And every week we continued to watch her waste our time. I know that very few professional women were this immature and needy, but maybe you can see why my viewpoint on affirmative action might be tainted.
(continued)
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
(continued)
I thought it might be nice to see some of these characters on video, so I picked out a few not-too-long YouTube videos to share…
Modern mainstream feminist leader Gloria Steinem on “Women Need Abortions More than Breast Screening.” Here she points out that 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer, while 1 in 3 women will “need” an abortion at some point in their lives.
FWIW note that Steinem is in cahoots with the traitorous “Hanoi Jane” Fonda.
Now one from mainstream feminist leader Gloria Allred on “If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot.” This video is boring IMO, but in the first minute she makes her point, that being a feminist is like being pregnant; you either are or you are not. So it seems feminism is a religion, because you cannot pick and choose which of their stated issues you must champion. One logical conclusion: if you’re pro-life, and/or don’t think women need abortions more than breast screening, you are a bigot and part of the problem. What side of gay marriage and abortion rights and contraceptive issue and Obamacare requirements that Catholics provide abortions for their employees, do you suppose mainstream feminists are on?
Now let’s check out Christina Hoff Sommers, who considered herself a feminist but then bailed out when the mainstream movement went south. Most of the videos I found of her were longer than I was willing to screen, so I picked out a 3 minutes one on “The War on Boys” where she talks about her book “The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” which discusses how feminists and scientists try to basically change little boys to act the same as little girls. There’s a look inside at amazon for that book, too.
Another from Sommers, that speaks directly to my experience with the nasty-person incident at Boeing, “Chivalry and Feminism.” Note she uses the dangerous terms “ladies” and “gentlemen.”
Alan
I thought it might be nice to see some of these characters on video, so I picked out a few not-too-long YouTube videos to share…
Modern mainstream feminist leader Gloria Steinem on “Women Need Abortions More than Breast Screening.” Here she points out that 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer, while 1 in 3 women will “need” an abortion at some point in their lives.
FWIW note that Steinem is in cahoots with the traitorous “Hanoi Jane” Fonda.
Now one from mainstream feminist leader Gloria Allred on “If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot.” This video is boring IMO, but in the first minute she makes her point, that being a feminist is like being pregnant; you either are or you are not. So it seems feminism is a religion, because you cannot pick and choose which of their stated issues you must champion. One logical conclusion: if you’re pro-life, and/or don’t think women need abortions more than breast screening, you are a bigot and part of the problem. What side of gay marriage and abortion rights and contraceptive issue and Obamacare requirements that Catholics provide abortions for their employees, do you suppose mainstream feminists are on?
Now let’s check out Christina Hoff Sommers, who considered herself a feminist but then bailed out when the mainstream movement went south. Most of the videos I found of her were longer than I was willing to screen, so I picked out a 3 minutes one on “The War on Boys” where she talks about her book “The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” which discusses how feminists and scientists try to basically change little boys to act the same as little girls. There’s a look inside at amazon for that book, too.
Another from Sommers, that speaks directly to my experience with the nasty-person incident at Boeing, “Chivalry and Feminism.” Note she uses the dangerous terms “ladies” and “gentlemen.”
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I figured Adam was the first engineer. Couldn’t stand just enjoying his world; he had to take it apart and try to improve it…
Alan
R
robwar
Guest
Hi Alan,
I think your thread has really gone off track here. I thougth you started this about civility on CAF but we have taken a detore into a number of political thoughts that have nothing to do with civility. Maybe you need to start a number of threads over a number of issues being brought up here. Just a thought and I’m trying to be civil!
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Of course we could just start :slapfight:‘ing just for old times’ sake…
Right here :hey_bud:
Right now :nunchuk:
Of course we could just start :slapfight:‘ing just for old times’ sake…
Right here :hey_bud:
Right now :nunchuk:
L
littlenothing
Guest
He very well might have been an engineer. Good point! However, when Eve was talking to the serpent about tasty forbidden fruit, I believe he was watching a football game…
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)Hi Alan,
I think your thread has really gone off track here. I thougth you started this about civility on CAF but we have taken a detore into a number of political thoughts that have nothing to do with civility. Maybe you need to start a number of threads over a number of issues being brought up here. Just a thought and I’m trying to be civil!
Yes. I agree, in a very civil sort of a way,
that further posts on the tangential topics should be in a new thread with a link here pointing to it for continuity.OK. I hope you don’t mind my calling in professionals to help me taunt you. Bwahaha.
Figures … hard to blame her for looking for attention elsewhere, eh?
Alan
C
Corki
Guest
I would like to think so but my own experience is that the tone on CAF in general is deteriorating. It’s kind of cyclical. Emotions run high around election time and papal conclaves.Is it just my perception, or has the overall tone of the posts in the spirituality section become much more charitable over the last few years?
I used to get upset at things that were posted, and there was much bickering. :slapfight:
But now I see charitable discussions, frequently even when there is disagreement.
Maybe it’s in the way I choose which threads to read, but I think it’s more than that. :twocents:
Or is it more that I have learned to avoid certain topics?
Could it be that we are gradually becoming more unified and more open and honest in the way we interact as members of the Body of Christ?
Or am I just imagining things? :whacky:
Alan
In the last 24 hours, I have had one poster call me by the name for a breed of dog, another tell the forum that I had posted something I never had and a third badger me for not providing examples, when I had, in fact, even linked to the primary source. I’d like to say it’s because these times bring new people to the forums who aren’t used to being Christian in thier posting but two of the three were long time CAF posters.
This too shall pass.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’ve encountered a few of the long term posters in what seemed to be intentional deception. One was about being Catholic until death. The poster would word things in such a way to give the impression if one wasn’t sufficiently orthodox or whatever, they should not still consider themselves Catholic. The poster knew very well the Church says once a Catholic always a Catholic until death even in cases of renouncement of the faith or excommunication, and was verrry careful to word the posts just a certain way, so that it would give the opposite impression and still be “technically correct” – because this poster, in the name of orthodoxy, disagreed with the Church on this teaching. :whacky: In one such thread after another, we would eventually pick apart their Clinton-esque deception to get to the truth, and then the next thread that came up on the topic, there was this poster, back at square one, saying the same thing in the same was as the last time, totally unrepentant because the poster wanted to exclude Catholics he didn’t like by making everyone think they were not actually Catholic. It was maddening.I would like to think so but my own experience is that the tone on CAF in general is deteriorating. It’s kind of cyclical. Emotions run high around election time and papal conclaves.
In the last 24 hours, I have had one poster call me by the name for a breed of dog, another tell the forum that I had posted something I never had and a third badger me for not providing examples, when I had, in fact, even linked to the primary source. I’d like to say it’s because these times bring new people to the forums who aren’t used to being Christian in thier posting but two of the three were long time CAF posters.
This too shall pass.
Alan
L
Lisa1967
Guest
I agree. I’d rather discuss religious issues than political issues.Hi Alan,
I think your thread has really gone off track here. I thougth you started this about civility on CAF but we have taken a detore into a number of political thoughts that have nothing to do with civility. Maybe you need to start a number of threads over a number of issues being brought up here. Just a thought and I’m trying to be civil!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
In a “spirituality” forum? Who’d have thought it?I agree. I’d rather discuss religious issues than political issues.
Alan
N
njlisa
Guest
- Status