Feminist "Philosophy"

[AngryAtheist8]

In Spiration, you earlier brought up an article written by David Stove. As I previously mentioned, I don’t agree with David Stove, Betterave, or you. Apparently, David Stove is a favorite of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. I don’t support the Discovery Institute. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design Movement. Are you?

isn’t the Discovery Institute an Intelligent Design/Creationist think tank?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

isn’t the Discovery Institute an Intelligent Design/Creationist think tank?

AngryAtheist8, long ago I was a member of the ARN board trying my best to protect science against proponents of the Intelligent Design Movement. Some of the people on this topic remind me of them. The Discovery Institute isn’t about science. They have a mixed agenda . Foremost, The Discovery Institute wants to create controversy and put their idealogy into science classrooms. There are no science classrooms that tolerate that stuff as far as I’m aware of. Thank goodness.

 

[bhall0689]

Now, it’s not necessarily a sign of exploitation if women do not have the same status in society as men either. Should men begin riots to fight the horrible fact that they’re disproportionately underrepresented in domestic careers such as homemaking? Obviously not. But imagine that our society one day exhibited an irrational worship for motherly nurturing and domesticity, to the point that we even no longer lauded the almighty Triumph of the Will to Power(!). Then we just might feel slighted. Maybe men are only comfortable w/their relative domestic absence because our culture is so ridiculously male-centric that it underestimates and devalues traditionally feminine strengths and domains. That would make Feminism rather ironic, no? That would mean that, in their attempts to become equal to men, feminists were implicitly assuming male superiority.

Maybe I’ll sum up my definite beliefs about all this in a later post. If you understood them, you wouldn’t say I harbor hate, contempt, or negative intentions toward females. It’s tragic that most of them who grow up in Western societies have become collateral damage in an ideological battle.

Why this is a sore issue: I’m young, female, and consider myself fairly successful and intelligent academically. I think the heart of the issue, is that you believe women are naturally-inclined NURTURERS, and men are naturally-inclined BREADWINNERS. Well, I personally don’t feel like getting married, having children, and settling down. I don’t want to do it. I have worked too hard in my educational career to fulfill the dreams I’ve had since I was a little girl.

In the past, our society HAS exhibited an irrational worship of domesticity and motherly nurturing; only within the past 50 years have women began to assume positions of professional power. Feminism is responsible for that. It’s about telling the world that I am not just an unthinking sex-machine suited to a life of child-bearing and menial labor. I don’t mean to undermine the role of a mother - maybe I will wed and have kids of my own one day - but if motherhood is not my calling, why should I be prevented from fulfilling my purpose? To tell me I can’t, that women are by nature maternal and nurturing and that I should “value” those natural things more, is in fact UNnatural. It’s a denial of a woman’s natural gifts and talents outside the home.

You just can’t see past the man and woman aspect of it. It’s not about being a man, or a woman. It’s not about statistics of female monkeys picking “dolls” over “cars.” It’s about being a HUMAN. Women want to have the same human value as men in the family, the workforce, and the world.

I do think that there is something inside of our souls that make us men and that make us women. But I don’t think women are defined by their maternal capabilities - it’s not what I want for my life, and I could point you in the direction of hundreds of other women pursuing their non-domestic dreams. If being female is all about nurture and maternal capability, why is it that so many women long for something more? Why do women succeed professionally? Why do women succeed academically? Why do women succeed as spiritual leaders, such as bishops and preachers?

I don’t think you hate women. I don’t think you UNDERSTAND what it means to be a woman and what feminism is about.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Regarding the first post (sorry, I haven’t read them all…): It is useful to remember that it wasn’t until somewhat recently by historical standards that the ideas of self, culture, and nature were separated from one another on a meaningful scale. This has had its blessings and its pitfalls, ranging from the respect now more given to women on the whole, to scientism and it’s soul-lessness.

There are remnant thought patterns from the time that all three of those were a lump, and there is as well a much needed reaction to patristic attitudes in institutions and the said scientism. I think that Feminist “philosophy” is a somewhat necessary definition of an area needful of consideration by clarifying and drawing attention to some dynamics that might otherwise go unattended. So while it might seem to a young woman to be superfluous given what she might consider fundamental givens, remember that women were not too recently second class and less participants in society. Or even just servants ans slaves of society which relied on and defined status my strength, not principle as we do today, at least to a much greater extent.

The Great female Saints often had difficulties beyond any reason to be heard. And women often had to take male pseudonyms or identities to paint, write, or research. One even was a Pope by those means, if I’m not mistaken. But the philosophy idea of feminism is a momentum of those times even if parts of it might be an overshoot to the more middle of the road of us.

 

[larkin31]

Why this is a sore issue: I’m young, female, and consider myself fairly successful and intelligent academically. I think the heart of the issue, is that you believe women are naturally-inclined NURTURERS, and men are naturally-inclined BREADWINNERS. Well, I personally don’t feel like getting married, having children, and settling down. I don’t want to do it. I have worked too hard in my educational career to fulfill the dreams I’ve had since I was a little girl.

In the past, our society HAS exhibited an irrational worship of domesticity and motherly nurturing; only within the past 50 years have women began to assume positions of professional power. Feminism is responsible for that. It’s about telling the world that I am not just an unthinking sex-machine suited to a life of child-bearing and menial labor. I don’t mean to undermine the role of a mother - maybe I will wed and have kids of my own one day - but if motherhood is not my calling, why should I be prevented from fulfilling my purpose? To tell me I can’t, that women are by nature maternal and nurturing and that I should “value” those natural things more, is in fact UNnatural. It’s a denial of a woman’s natural gifts and talents outside the home.

You just can’t see past the man and woman aspect of it. It’s not about being a man, or a woman. It’s not about statistics of female monkeys picking “dolls” over “cars.” It’s about being a HUMAN. Women want to have the same human value as men in the family, the workforce, and the world.

I do think that there is something inside of our souls that make us men and that make us women. But I don’t think women are defined by their maternal capabilities - it’s not what I want for my life, and I could point you in the direction of hundreds of other women pursuing their non-domestic dreams. If being female is all about nurture and maternal capability, why is it that so many women long for something more? Why do women succeed professionally? Why do women succeed academically? Why do women succeed as spiritual leaders, such as bishops and preachers?

I don’t think you hate women. I don’t think you UNDERSTAND what it means to be a woman and what feminism is about.

right on

and best wishes in all your pursuits, whether they involve being a domestic family figure or not

 

[larkin31]

…Of course culture and environment play major roles in behavior. You just seem to underestimate the power of Mother Nature while elevating the autonomy of Man. I suggest you balance your Gender Studies research with the literature on the other side of the divide.

Just what, specifically, do you mean by “Mother Nature” in this post? What is being underestimated by feminism? Feminism wants more freedom of choice for women. How is that a denial of “Mother Nature”?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Actually, some societies that are matrilineal or worship Mother Nature are, or were, very advanced in regards to having female leadership in everything from economics to war. We are, in our society, just at the edge of discovering the resource inherent in our women and in the contributions that all the variations in all the sexes can offer. Are some of the men or women here still living in pre-color Pleasantville?

 

[Betterave]

If your going to insult people Betterave (and experience shows that you generally are) try not to make so many spelling errors while doing it. Especially when your questioning someone else’s intelligence.

LOL! So intelligent people are perfect typers, is that it? Too funny!

(I can’t believe this guy calls ME a troll!)

 

[Betterave]

bhall,

You’ve come off pretty civil so far, so I hope I don’t offend you too much. Keep in mind that when I speak of “women”, I am speaking generally, in the same way as when I say, “Women are shorter than men.” If you find that I hurt your feelings, that I seem implicitly insensitive or crude, then I encourage you to trust when I explicitly say that my intention isn’t to insult either you or women. I actually *have *taken a class on “gender” differences. (Universities these days force you.) One of the lessons dealt with communication styles. Men and women have a tendency to misinterpret each other as a result of these. It’s probably best to interpret everything I say in a limited, direct, more literal sense and avoid “reading between the lines”.

Of course that’s good advice, but it’s certainly good also for some of the silly ganders here, not just the gooses!

 

[Betterave]

Why this is a sore issue: I’m young, female, and consider myself fairly successful and intelligent academically. I think the heart of the issue, is that you believe women are naturally-inclined NURTURERS, and men are naturally-inclined BREADWINNERS. Well, I personally don’t feel like getting married, having children, and settling down. I don’t want to do it. I have worked too hard in my educational career to fulfill the dreams I’ve had since I was a little girl.

In the past, our society HAS exhibited an irrational worship of domesticity and motherly nurturing; only within the past 50 years have women began to assume positions of professional power. Feminism is responsible for that. It’s about telling the world that I am not just an unthinking sex-machine suited to a life of child-bearing and menial labor. I don’t mean to undermine the role of a mother - maybe I will wed and have kids of my own one day - but if motherhood is not my calling, why should I be prevented from fulfilling my purpose? To tell me I can’t, that women are by nature maternal and nurturing and that I should “value” those natural things more, is in fact UNnatural. It’s a denial of a woman’s natural gifts and talents outside the home…

Not once in this thread (I challenge you to prove me wrong) did InSpiration either state or imply that *all *women are called to motherhood and that women should thus be *prevented *from fulfilling their non-domestic ‘purposes’, whatever those happen to be for a given woman. That kind of assertion is completely contrary to the thesis being advanced, which is that differences in performance are not reducible to social-political pressures. Please don’t forget the horse-and-cart problem - I can almost guarantee you that your gender studies professors did, and quite likely that is why you are doing the same. (If they didn’t, I’d love to hear what they said about it.)

 

[Betterave]

inocente,
If you say you really did read the article, okay. But in that case your reading comprehension is clearly very poor. You imply here that Stove’s case is idiotic, based on his completely ignoring the possibility that there might be a cause for historical performance differentials other than an innate differential capacity. Here’s what you wrote:

I only speed-read it, but thanks, hilarious, very good ad for feminism and cause and effect. Don’t educate slaves and hey presto they won’t turn out to be so bright, proving there’s no point educating them. Continually treat homosexuals badly and hey presto they have a higher suicide rate, proving there’s something wrong with them. Isn’t it amazing there’s just enough news to fill-up the newspaper every day! A fine dead-pan satire.

Anyone who read the article, however, should be able to very easily see that Stove is not that stupid, and that you have badly mischaracterized his argument. Do you really want me to quote the article for you to prove this? I suggest you read it again and just admit your mistake and admit that your comments were irrational and rude, towards Stove, and towards InSpiration who posted the article. I think you are capable of far better contributions here than the idiotic polemics of people like angryatheist and larkin. I believe in you - please don’t let me down.

So when you go on to insist:
“No, I read it. Embarrassing, over 8,000 words to cover up his lack of evidence and pot-holed logic. I mean if you started as an uncritical member of his choir then I guess it might just work but if you take a critical agnostic stance it’s risible. Stove may have done some good work (I’ve not read any of his other stuff) but imho this one essay has hurt his reputation for all time.”
…this is really very ironic, given your embarrassingly crude straw-man caricature of his position.

 

[Betterave]

My friend Betterave,

What would Hypatia think of all this fuss if we were to speculate?

I think she would recognize that the issue is not *what *we say, but *how/why *we say it, what *reasons *we have to offer for what we say, and how what we say constitutes a sincere pursuit of the *truth *of the matter in question.

 

[Betterave]

Fun fact: In my English class we have been discussing linguists’ theory that people use less forms of politeness online than they do face-to-face. We are to identify politeness strategies (or lack thereof) in an online discourse and analyze it for tomorrow. I’m using Betterave’s posts in pages 11-12. Thanks, Betterave! Your rudeness has finally benefitted me for once. I highly doubt that anyone will bring in as strong of an example for tomorrow. I can’t wait to discuss with my professor.

Please do let us know the results of your little rap session on rudeness.

I’m curious: I would have said that others rather than myself - inocente, logisticsbranch, and above all angryatheist (as usual) - have been rude in this thread. What’s your take on that?

Here’s the real question, for you and for these others: *What constitutes ‘rudeness’ in the context of a philosophical dialogue? *(And there is also the related prior question: What constitutes a ‘philosophical dialogue’?)

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Betterave
Maybe your comments are delightful lunacy, simplistic inanity, bigoted buffoonery? Where’s the substance? (Name-calling isn’t substance; your resorting to scandalized name-calling precisely confirms Stove’s thesis, whether you notice it or not.)

Self-awareness: that is important. That’s what angryatheist obviously lacks. In any case, for inocente, perhaps you will understand this? (I feel confident that AA8 will not, so I won’t address him):

Reflecting your comments towards somebody else back on to you is supposed to get your mirror-neurons firing and to make you think about the fact that you at least might be hoisting yourself with your own petard - without being aware of it, obviously (i.e., you lack rational self-awareness). Do you understand the point of doing this, that its function is not to insult you, but to recall you to reason?

Some people (e.g., AA8) seem to be completely uninterested in rational self-awareness, but it seems like you might be different(?).

 

[inocente]

inocente,
If you say you really did read the article, okay. But in that case your reading comprehension is clearly very poor. You imply here that Stove’s case is idiotic, based on his completely ignoring the possibility that there might be a cause for historical performance differentials other than an innate differential capacity.

Hey dude, don’t drag me into who’s got the best odds for winning the 2011 Rudeness Stakes. Stove published the essay himself, it’s open to criticism and deserves satirizing, he’s not holy or anything.

There’s a basic moral principle in major religions and in the secular world that all humanity are one. Whenever that principle is denied by arguing for superiority on any general grounds, be it religion, ethnicity, class or gender, we have loads of empirical evidence that it’s spurious and turns out for the worse.

So fine, let’s discuss possibilities and opinions here about which might be the weaker sex, but Stove was a professional philosopher who openly published a case attempting to undermine that basic morality. As such he needed a great weight of evidence to make it anything like watertight and failed miserably. He may have done some good work elsewhere, I don’t know, but his sickly philosophy here reminded me of Ratzinger’s phrase “sickly Christianity”, and we can both guess what the Pope would make of it.

Anyone with any other examples attempting to argue male or female superiority please link them, or is Stove the best of a sorry bunch? Either way don’t ask me to read it again, just like alien abduction theories once was more than enough.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

LOL! So intelligent people are perfect typers, is that it? Too funny!

(I can’t believe this guy calls ME a troll!)

That’s understandable Betterave.

People are often blind to their own faults.
I assume that in your mind I am as big a troll as you are in reality.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

inocente,
If you say you really did read the article, okay. But in that case **your reading comprehension is clearly very poor. **You imply here that Stove’s case is idiotic, based on his completely ignoring the possibility that there might be a cause for historical performance differentials other than an innate differential capacity. Here’s what you wrote:

Anyone who read the article, however, should be able to very easily see that Stove is not that stupid, and that you have badly mischaracterized his argument. Do you really want me to quote the article for you to prove this? I suggest you read it again and just admit your mistake and admit that your comments were irrational and rude, towards Stove, and towards InSpiration who posted the article. I think you are capable of far better contributions here than the** idiotic polemics of people like angryatheist and larkin**. I believe in you - please don’t let me down.

So when you go on to insist:
“No, I read it. Embarrassing, over 8,000 words to cover up his lack of evidence and pot-holed logic. I mean if you started as an uncritical member of his choir then I guess it might just work but if you take a critical agnostic stance it’s risible. Stove may have done some good work (I’ve not read any of his other stuff) but imho this one essay has hurt his reputation for all time.”
…this is really very ironic, given your embarrassingly crude straw-man caricature of his position.

Good job Betterave, your insults (highlighted in black) are improving.

I award you 2 Troll points.

 

[ignatius777]

Good job Betterave, your insults (highlighted in black) are improving.

I award you 2 Troll points.

Why highlight them? Why not just state your arguments?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Also, I think the attacks on the older female who was in opposition to the idea of male intellectual superiority were uncalled for. She said that she was a 50 year-old woman, and I think she deserves respect, at least the same amount of respect, Betterave, that you replied to my posts with. After all, I’m only 21 and not Catholic, and even I think that we should always address our elders with respect. I’m not saying you shouldn’t disagree with her, but the name-calling is disgusting.

Thanks bhall0689. You may like to read what In Spiration has written on another topic.

Feminism promotes the rise in females who put off or neglect marriage in order to develop their careers. This lowers marriage rates, which tends to result in a drop in fertility rates. That drop is mostly buffered by out-of-wedlock children. Women who do marry, limit their pregnancies according to job demands, and also increase the baby’s health risks the further the woman is from peak fertility age. Career women also increase the amount of abortions done in order to save her career options. Abortion damages a baby 10 times out of 10, studies show.

Feminism has promoted divorce and abortion, as well as convinced women that these are not sinful, rendering them ignorant of the fact they need to repent.

Feminism is damaging to individual men, women, and children, as well as society and civilization in general (thus further affecting individuals). That was my clear point. The damage of sin is only part of its total damage in general. I’m not going to try to figure out how you interpreted me to be saying that either of those two things above is necessarily sinful in the eyes of the Church. (One could of course argue that they’re usually indicative of sin, at the least, but that would lead us into an unnecessary theological argument and derail us from the simple fact that feminism causes many damages.)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526647&page=5
InSpiration also said this on that topic, “What is wrong with Feminism?”, “Feminism is damaging to individual men, women, and children, as well as society and civilization in general (thus further affecting individuals).”

I left that topic and decided to come over here. I didn’t think it was a safe environment since it was males bashing women as far as I could see it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Please do let us know the results of your little rap session on rudeness.

I’m curious: I would have said that others rather than myself - inocente, logisticsbranch, and above all angryatheist (as usual) - have been rude in this thread.

Then you have obviously not been paying attention.

I have pointed out your rude remarks multiple times in this thread. Often with the aid of helpful quotes to show the specific words.