Feminist "Philosophy"

[Timothy17]

Its not quite that simple.

Its hard to say how much of the misogyny of pre-modern Western societies was due to the influence of the Christian churches and how much was beyond the control or influence of the churches. However the fact that it was a factor is undeniable.

Priests and pastors wrote a great deal about how women were too weak and emotional to be trusted with political power, or for that matter any autonomy from their fathers/husbands. Such writings were often referenced when barring women from professions like the law or political office.

The ideal woman (according to this misogynistic viewpoint) was modest, quiet, submissive, and obedient. Traits like strength, self-discipline, and intellect were considered masculine.

As a result, when people today talk about Biblical femininity (or far that matter authentic Catholic femininity), feminists and independent women of all kinds think of the old ideas of female inferiority and weakness.

This may not be fair, but it is certainly understandable.

I call bull.

Holy Mother Church is not, and never has been, about victimizing women in any way, shape or form. The Church, the highest authority on earth for Christians, is personified as female, as the very Spouse of Christ.

You referenced His Holiness John Paul II giving a blanket statement apologizing for any time or instance when the Church may have done any injury to women. What you miserably failed to realize is that, of course, the Church would apologize for even the hypothetical existence of such instances, as there is nothing in her that does damage to women nor would ever permit it.

Post-Christian societies have converted women into tokens of sex : nothing more. We have done more damage in the post-Christian world to authentic femininity than any period of the Christian epoch ever did. Christian morality and decency is the only thing preventing me from flooding you with a litany of proof that this “modern” society has done nothing but reduce women to slaves of their own sex. Modern society is the most perverted, anti-human, anti-natural - in fact, it is the worst time in history to be human - your pompous self-deceits notwithstanding.

Women today are nothing more, in the popular image, than objects of gratification. I have to ward it off and avoid it constantly. Turn on your television and actually look at what you see, and once you have done that, enjoy your sudden restoration to what we call the real world. Once done, you can cease to invent in your mind an imaginary period when women were worse-off when, in reality, they were never better treated. The entire idea of a “lady” is a Christian construct. In all other societies women are treated purely as sex-gratification entities or as slaves, submission being relegated to an issue of natural powers (i.e., being the man’s perogative, she rarely ever being able to over-power him in that field).

It’s not a coincidence that spousal abuse, especially of women, is a popular stigma in Christian countries. It is not and never considered a serious issue elsewhere. It’s an offense to Christian sentiments above all else.

Go take your false high-horse that is really a cheap and crippled pony, and ride somewhere else.

Sincerely,
AngryChristian.

 

[John21652]

And as I said in the Franco thread, quietly and meekly accepting any and all abuse is not a strength, or even a virtue. It is a weakness, and an invitation to be abused.

While I might pity a woman unwilling/too weak to defend herself or others, I could never respect such a creature.

Unwillingness and/or the inability to defend oneself or someone else is not gender based. Nor is it something all individuals have the ability to control.

I find your statement the height of arrogance.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Now we get to the fun part!

I see the woman in her weakness and have the urge to exploit her.

Then the thought: her weakness dictates my urge.

Whose will is really influencing whom?

My will has been overborne by her weakness, whether I exploit or relent.

I am ashamed of my self, respecting her.

Five smooth stones, and the champion of the Hittites lies slain.

Are you really saying that…if you abuse a weak vulnerable woman its her fault because her vulnerability enticed you?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I call bull.

Holy Mother Church is not, and never has been, about victimizing women in any way, shape or form. The Church, the highest authority on earth for Christians, is personified as female, as the very Spouse of Christ.

You referenced His Holiness John Paul II giving a blanket statement apologizing for any time or instance when the Church may have done any injury to women. What you miserably failed to realize is that, of course, the Church would apologize for even the hypothetical existence of such instances, as there is nothing in her that does damage to women nor would ever permit it.

Post-Christian societies have converted women into tokens of sex : nothing more. We have done more damage in the post-Christian world to authentic femininity than any period of the Christian epoch ever did. Christian morality and decency is the only thing preventing me from flooding you with a litany of proof that this “modern” society has done nothing but reduce women to slaves of their own sex. Modern society is the most perverted, anti-human, anti-natural - in fact, it is the worst time in history to be human - your pompous self-deceits notwithstanding.

Women today are nothing more, in the popular image, than objects of gratification. I have to ward it off and avoid it constantly. Turn on your television and actually look at what you see, and once you have done that, enjoy your sudden restoration to what we call the real world. Once done, you can cease to invent in your mind an imaginary period when women were worse-off when, in reality, they were never better treated. The entire idea of a “lady” is a Christian construct. In all other societies women are treated purely as sex-gratification entities or as slaves, submission being relegated to an issue of natural powers (i.e., being the man’s perogative, she rarely ever being able to over-power him in that field).

It’s not a coincidence that spousal abuse, especially of women, is a popular stigma in Christian countries. It is not and never considered a serious issue elsewhere. It’s an offense to Christian sentiments above all else.

Go take your false high-horse that is really a cheap and crippled pony, and ride somewhere else.

Sincerely,
AngryChristian.

You have amused me Angry Christian.

I absorb your insults and anger and grow stronger.

I have been in cult and was bullied as a child. It will take more than your petty insults to leave any sort of real impression on me.

As for your ridiculous idea that there is nothing in the Catholic Church that does damage to women or would even permit it, I direct your attention to the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, Irish Catholic institutions that imprisoned women and used them as forced labor for ‘crimes’ like being raped, flirting, and or even simply being too pretty (source: CBS News cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/sunday/main567365.shtml).

Furthermore, there is a huge inconsistency in your post. You claim that only Western/Christian societies take spousal abuse seriously, yet you also claim that modern (and presumably Western) societies degrade women more than any other.

It can be one or the other AC, not both.

Moreover you say that only Christian decency restrains you from saying to me what I deserve. But let me encourage you to speak freely.

I haven’t been flamed in a while and would enjoy the novelty.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Unwillingness and/or the inability to defend oneself or someone else is not gender based. Nor is it something all individuals have the ability to control.

I find your statement the height of arrogance.

I was responding to what Warrenton said.

He was praising the ‘virtue’ of quiet patient suffering and implying that it was a feminine quality.

 

[In_Spiration]

I’d like to at least introduce a side of these arguments that often gets suppressed nowadays. Obviously, it’s usually found impolite and socially unacceptable to suggest that one sex may potentially be better than another. I think we should at least weigh some contrary evidence, especially since our era’s opinions are somewhat at odds with the “democracy of the dead”.

Some food for thought (from the alleged words of King Solomon):

26 And I have found a woman more bitter than death, who is the hunter’s snare, and her heart is a net, and her hands are bands. He that pleases God shall escape from her: but he that is a sinner, shall be caught by her. 27 Lo this have I found, said Ecclesiastes, weighing one thing after another, that I might find out the account, 28 which yet my soul seeks, and I have not found it. One man among a thousand I have found, a woman among them all I have not found. 29 Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he has entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Who is as the wise man? And who has known the resolution of the word?

[Ecclesiastes 7]

Anyway, what precisely does everyone mean by “equal”? I really can’t even say yet whether I affirm or deny this ambiguously termed equality among men and women. To be honest, I would probably reject it in regard to both physical and mental capacity. As a consequence, I will say this: concerning philosophical aptitude, I don’t think women are on the same level as men. Never to instigate, of course, but I’m curious: what does everyone think of philosopher David Stove’s “The Intellectual Capacity of Women”?

Request: Please try your best to refrain from inferring much about my personal character and judging beyond the theoretical scope of my posts. Muchas gracias.

 

[John21652]

Its not quite that simple.

For one thing Catholicism and the other Christian churches in the West did argue for a long time that women were weaker, intellectually inferior, etc. As Pope John Paul II admitted here:

1. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry (source: Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html).

Its hard to say how much of the misogyny of pre-modern Western societies was due to the influence of the Christian churches and how much was beyond the control or influence of the churches. However the fact that it was a factor is undeniable.

Priests and pastors wrote a great deal about how women were too weak and emotional to be trusted with political power, or for that matter any autonomy from their fathers/husbands. Such writings were often referenced when barring women from professions like the law or political office.

The ideal woman (according to this misogynistic viewpoint) was modest, quiet, submissive, and obedient. Traits like strength, self-discipline, and intellect were considered masculine.

As a result, when people today talk about Biblical femininity (or far that matter authentic Catholic femininity), feminists and independent women of all kinds think of the old ideas of female inferiority and weakness.

This may not be fair, but it is certainly understandable.

You are now using the term “misogyny” a lot. The notion of Christian scoieties being misogynictic is a rewriting of history. It comes about from the feminists use of literary deconstruction which has created a noion of misogyny where none existed. A typical tactic to portray woman as victim. Your reference to the Pope’s letter proves nothing other than he is operating in a certain political environment. One merely needs to take notice of the qualifying adjectives he uses to understand that point. For further reference I suggest one click on the link to the hand written letter he wrote. The link is in the body of his letter.

To label any society as misogynist is to deny the reality of male-female relationships, to deny the importance of the nuclear family down through the ages and it is to deny the fact that women have held positions of power, prestige and honour throughout most of recorded history. yes, to the rule there are always exceptions and even I could dredge up examples of where women have been oppressed. I could also dredge up examples of where men have been oppressed. The point is, to label an entire society, over time, as women hating, is an insult to every man who ever existed, his motives and the women he loved and protected.

Your query to Timothy that he furnish proof of his claim that women were the main beneficiaries of his success is strange in the light of the historical importance the nuclear family has played in the development of society throughout history. Don’t ou get that men love their women and their children?

I notice that you wrote " I have been in cult and was bullied as a child" and I am sorry for whatever harm that has caused ou. However, I urge you not to allow your personal experiences to colour your view of the whole world. Despite the historical revisionists rewriting of history, the leagacy of male and female human relationships has been profoundly good. It still is, despite the attempts by feminists to marginalise and destroy that relationship.

 

[inocente]

Never to instigate, of course, but I’m curious: what does everyone think of philosopher David Stove’s “The Intellectual Capacity of Women”?

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.

 

[Warrenton]

Are you really saying that…if you abuse a weak vulnerable woman its her fault because her vulnerability enticed you?

Fault is not the right word. “Cause,” I think, is more accurate.

Her vulnerability excites my desire to exploit.

I admit that the desire to exploit is preexistent, but the desire requires an object.

If I were surrounded by no one but stronger people, I would still have the desire to exploit, but not an object.

That which makes the realization possible - the vulnerable woman in our hypothetical - is the proximate cause of the exploitive act. The person who holds the power to realize something has the real power.

In our hypothetical, we are not looking at fault, which implies a moral viewpoint. I thought we might be able to agree on that. In Catholic morality (as well as under the law, I think), the lesser agent can still be more morally culpable than the primary agent.

 

[Warrenton]

I was responding to what Warrenton said.

He was praising the ‘virtue’ of quiet patient suffering and implying that it was a feminine quality.

I have to defend Angry on this one!

I did praise patient suffering as a virtue.

And what is more, Angry is correct that I implied it was a feminine quality. It is not, of course, exclusive to females. The Lamb of God is the ancient image we use to illustrate the virtue, and as we know, the Lamb is a young ram, and not a ewe.

Angry said that he could never respect that kind of patient suffering. I like an atheist like that!

I’ll take a Lenin any day over that mamby pamby Gervais. Have any of you ever read what Lenin wrote about Tolstoy? It’s caustic! And yet, the Man of the People still moved into the Kremlin, where I expect he enjoyed many good meals and drank out of crystal. Think Lenin lost any sleep over it?

But as much as I like Angry, and Lenin too, in a way, neither could create something like the Pieta, or even a cheap Russian icon of the Theotokos.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’d like to at least introduce a side of these arguments that often gets suppressed nowadays. Obviously, it’s usually found impolite and socially unacceptable to suggest that one sex may potentially be better than another. I think we should at least weigh some contrary evidence, especially since our era’s opinions are somewhat at odds with the “democracy of the dead”.

Some food for thought (from the alleged words of King Solomon):
[Ecclesiastes 7]

Anyway, what precisely does everyone mean by “equal”? I really can’t even say yet whether I affirm or deny this ambiguously termed equality among men and women. To be honest, I would probably reject it in regard to both physical and mental capacity. As a consequence, I will say this: concerning philosophical aptitude, I don’t think women are on the same level as men. Never to instigate, of course, but I’m curious: what does everyone think of philosopher David Stove’s “The Intellectual Capacity of Women”?

Request: Please try your best to refrain from inferring much about my personal character and judging beyond the theoretical scope of my posts. Muchas gracias.

I read the article you posted a link to.

I will be charitable and call it garbage.

Among its many faults are:

*An unwillingness to even consider the evidence on the other side (which the author admit to).
*Ignorance (which the author also admits to) regarding the effect that educational initiatives for girls and women have had on the intellectual capacity of women.
*Incoherency and excessive wordiness, over half of the text is drawn out explanations of the explanation.

But the most damning thing about the article is the fact that author admits that if compelling evidence of the intellectual equality of women turned up, it would not change his mind.

As for you In Spiration, you claim to be a Catholic in the information at the top of all your posts. Therefore you cannot claim that women are inferior (intellectually or otherwise) without going against your own Church.

On a personal note, I don’t care what King Solomon or any other ancient Israelite had to say about women. The ancient Israelis were racist, murderous, and frequently genocidal slaveholders, moreover they were quite proud of it.

We cannot use the ancient Israelis as any sort of example of decent and humane behavior.

When it comes to the larger issue of the ‘democracy of the dead’ the dead don’t get a vote.
Nor should they.

Things like human rights, proper hygiene, and the idea that slavery is wrong are all relatively modern. They are not something our ancient dead would have embraced (when alive).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Request: Please try your best to refrain from inferring much about my personal character and judging beyond the theoretical scope of my posts. Muchas gracias.

Request denied.
I make judgments on the information available to me.

If you are promoting the idea that women are stupid, you should at least have the honesty to admit that you believe women are inferior.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

To label any society as misogynist is to deny the reality of male-female relationships, to deny the importance of the nuclear family down through the ages and it is to deny the fact that women have held positions of power, prestige and honour throughout most of recorded history. yes, to the rule there are always exceptions and even I could dredge up examples of where women have been oppressed. I could also dredge up examples of where men have been oppressed. The point is, to label an entire society, over time, as women hating, is an insult to every man who ever existed, his motives and the women he loved and protected.

When an intelligent, reasonable person reads things like this, the natural response is to get angry or laugh. In this instance I choose to laugh.

On a more serious note:

There are societies (mostly in Africa) where girls regularly have their genitals mutilated to ensure their chastity. Leading to scarring, serious medical complications (that often lead to chronic pain and/or death), and an inability to enjoy the ‘marital act’ (in fact, sex is often acutely painful for such mutilated women).

You claim THESE societies are not misogynistic

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive, cannot be out in public without a male guardian, and if a woman goes to the police because she was raped she might very well be charged with adultery and stoned to death.

You claim THIS society is not misogynistic

Moreover, people are individuals.

Just because some men (or even male dominated societies) abuse and degrade women, that does not mean that ALL men abuse and degrade women. Such a theory denies human variety and free will.

I choose to treat the women in my life decently, regardless of what other men decide. It is an issue of personal choice and responsibility.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Fault is not the right word. “Cause,” I think, is more accurate.

Her vulnerability excites my desire to exploit.

I admit that the desire to exploit is preexistent, but the desire requires an object.

If I were surrounded by no one but stronger people, I would still have the desire to exploit, but not an object.

That which makes the realization possible - the vulnerable woman in our hypothetical - is the proximate cause of the exploitive act. The person who holds the power to realize something has the real power.

In our hypothetical, we are not looking at fault, which implies a moral viewpoint. I thought we might be able to agree on that. In Catholic morality (as well as under the law, I think), the lesser agent can still be more morally culpable than the primary agent.

What exactly are you trying to say?

That if vulnerable people are exploited or abused, they bear partial responsibility for that because they looked so vulnerable

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I have to defend Angry on this one!

Angry said that he could never respect that kind of patient suffering. I like an atheist like that!

Why should I respect someone who can never stand up for him or herself?

Someone unable or unwilling to defend himself or others?

 

[Warrenton]

On a personal note, I don’t care what King Solomon or any other ancient Israelite had to say about women. The ancient Israelis were racist, murderous, and frequently genocidal slaveholders, moreover they were quite proud of it.).

Well, at least they were angry!

 

[Warrenton]

What exactly are you trying to say?

That if vulnerable people are exploited or abused, they bear partial responsibility for that because they looked so vulnerable

The terms (such as “resonpsible” and “they looked”) you are using suggest a decision making aspect on the vulnerable person’s part that really does not enter into my analysis.

I take it is given that the vulnerable person is in fact vulernarble, relative to me in the hypothetical. That I am strong, and the other is weak are just neutral facts.

What I am saying is that we tend to focus so much on individuality that we fail to recognize its limitations. It is as if a rock were to say “I am so strong, that I rolled down the hill myself.” Obviously, the hill has a role to play in the rolling, to make a bad pun.

I go farther. I say that the hill has more influence than the rock in this scenario. Once the rock starts rolling, the hill dictates the rest. My will - which is evil in the hypo - is just like someone kicking the rock. The hill is the deciding factor of whether the rock goes up, down, or stays in one place.

So also the vulnerable person: she reveals the limitations of my “strength” which is in actuality, an illusion. or at least largely so.

 

[Warrenton]

Why should I respect someone who can never stand up for him or herself?

Someone unable or unwilling to defend himself or others?

You shouldn’t. You should not respect anyone else, regardless of who they defend or don’t defend.

That is, if by “respect” we mean “esteem,” and not “the refraining from physically or psychologically harming the other person.”

If the latter, we come to a separate question.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You shouldn’t. You should not respect anyone else, regardless of who they defend or don’t defend.

That is, if by “respect” we mean “esteem,” and not “the refraining from physically or psychologically harming the other person.”

If the latter, we come to a separate question.

I should not respect/esteem anyone else

 

[Warrenton]

I should not respect/esteem anyone else

No, your subjective feelings of esteem can only cloud your thinking about how to maximize your gain when interacting in a given situation.

There is no moral component to your subjective feelings, certainly if they are not expressed outwardly.