Feminist "Philosophy"

[John21652]

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.

AngryAtheist, the very first line of my post read thus - “The notion of Christian scoieties being misogynictic is a rewriting of history.”

Your attempt at answering this question totally sidestepped what I was writing about. You have fallen for the feminist meaning of ‘misogyny’ It does not and has never applied to Christendom. If it were true, there would be no Christianity today. Your attempted ‘defense’ drew on examples from Africa and Saudi Arabia. Hardly examples of the failure of Christianity.

In fact, your answer has highlighted another of the great failings of Feminism. Feminism is very adept at rewriting the history of Christian society, and in the process highlighting what it percieves as wrongs. Yet all the while it ignores the wrongs perpetrated against the woman of non-Christian countries such as those you mentioned. Where is the so called moral outrage over what women endure in Africa and under muslim rule? Why are they not marching in the streets and filling our papers and magazines with the outrages women must suffer in these countries? What about the honour killings in Muslim lands? Or the trafficking of women from Asia. Oh, you might try and blame the big bad west and in the process forget that Christian lands passed anti-trafficking laws over 100 years ago. What about the outcry over the supposed rape of the women of Darfur? The feminists of the west mention it in passing, but do not march in the streets. Possibly because they forget to tell us that the population of Darfur after the war was approximately 70% women.

The feminists of the west are so busy trying to crack the so called glass ceiling, they have forgotten the real issues and have wasted everyone’s time by rewriting the history of Christendom. If you doubt that, then look up the academic persuit of deconstruction.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist, the very first line of my post read thus - *“The notion of Christian scoieties *being misogynictic is a rewriting of history.”

Your attempt at answering this question totally sidestepped what I was writing about. You have fallen for the feminist meaning of ‘misogyny’ It does not and has never applied to Christendom. If it were true, there would be no Christianity today. Your attempted ‘defense’ drew on examples from Africa and Saudi Arabia. Hardly examples of the failure of Christianity.

You wrote:
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.

If you are going to accuse me of something, at least bother to remember what you said in your previous post addressed to me.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In fact, your answer has highlighted another of the great failings of Feminism. Feminism is very adept at rewriting the history of Christian society, and in the process highlighting what it percieves as wrongs. Yet all the while it ignores the wrongs perpetrated against the woman of non-Christian countries such as those you mentioned. Where is the so called moral outrage over what women endure in Africa and under muslim rule? Why are they not marching in the streets and filling our papers and magazines with the outrages women must suffer in these countries? What about the honour killings in Muslim lands? Or the trafficking of women from Asia.

This is because Western Feminism is focused on the issues and concerns of Western women. This Western-centric attitude may be selfish, but it should not be surprising.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What about the outcry over the supposed rape of the women of Darfur? The feminists of the west mention it in passing, but do not march in the streets. Possibly because they forget to tell us that the population of Darfur after the war was approximately 70% women.

The mass rapes in Darfur have been reported by multiple eye witnesses, journalists, and news sources over an extended period of time. Why do you dismiss it so casually?

 

[John21652]

You wrote:
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.

If you are going to accuse me of something, at least bother to remember what you said in your previous post addressed to me.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist8;7539468:

You wrote:
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.

The subject of my response was “Christian societies”,

I am not responsible for your inability to write clearly.

You literally said ‘any society.’
If you actually meant something substantially different (which you are now claiming) that is your fault, not mine.

 

[In_Spiration]

*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.

I don’t really see how warranted or damning any of these charges are. Stove said he probably wouldn’t change his mind *on the basis of *his argument to the effect that the requisite evidence couldn’t be discovered within his lifetime. He didn’t state any unwillingness to consider counter-evidence; instead, he clearly gave his own reasons for thinking that a lot of so-called contrary data is, or wouldn’t, in fact be such (that is, wouldn’t really discount his conclusion and count as “evidence”). Stove *did *point out what sort of evidence *would *legitimately counter his view and really support its opposite, namely a long period of intellectually dominant performance by females (i.e., one roughly matching men’s thus far). As far as I can see, he made arguments for all his points and you’ve merely (and haughtily) noted that you reject his conclusions.

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.

The truth of this claim is contingent upon our nailing down a workable definition of what we mean by ‘equality’ and ‘superiority’/‘inferiority’. My post called for such an elaboration, and you’ve yet to provide yours or any potential one. Your point would be better received if you provided the precise source for it also. Then I could examine the context to get an idea of how it uses the term ‘equality’, as well as have a chance to check your outside interpretation of my Church.

I balk at the assertion for a few reasons. First, it should be obvious that no dogma would bar a believer from accepting the inferiority of women in at least some regards that would definitely fall under your “or otherwise” category. I’m thinking particularly about physical/athletic ability, a natural capacity that, by comparison, is indisputably lacking in women.

Second, there just doesn’t appear to be much in the interests of theology that favors the issuing of definite and/or binding pronouncements on various non-essential, natural excellences. A keen intellect is not necessary for salvation; a genius IQ is not a requirement for embracing Christ. It may often help, but the same can be said of several other diverse traits.

Third, if women are held by the Church to complement men, then the differing natural abilities of men and women would seem to only make sense. Women should be superior in matters relating to their sexual role, and men should exceed their “better halves” when it comes to certain “manly duties”. If, for instance, mental as well as physical superiority were more pertinent to God’s intended purpose for a male of the species, then I’d see nothing wrong w/that being the case.

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).

I only mentioned past outlooks as a way of highlighting a prima facie reason to pause before loyally adopting our own modern ones in every case. If a certain idea has garnered the respect and adherence of billions, then anyone would be foolish to suppose there’s nothing but bigotry and hatred behind it. One would be wise to at least consider what reasoning persuaded so many for so long, because everyone can surely agree that no generation – even our own – has any sole, infallible access to enlightenment.

Request denied.

I mostly meant it to concern the outward content of all responses, not one’s internal suspicions. You are free to think I’m a male chauvinist pig, but unfortunately the rules of proper argumentation ought to keep those judgments out of whatever abstract justification may exist for any theory I posit. I’d rather focus on the abstract theory and leave out character-speculation for now. On the other hand, however, in principle, we’re on the same page in maintaining that a man’s beliefs and convictions provide solid grounds for his peers to cast moral judgment.

I make judgments on the information available to me.

Just as you arguably faulted Stove for doing.

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.

I’ve only promoted that idea incidentally, as a consequence of trying to encourage us to question the already widely-promoted modern notion. My mind isn’t locked. I’m still not even sure what the exact nature of the question is. What I can say is that I presently *lean toward *the belief that men are generally superior re: physical and intellectual abilities (viz. philosophical, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.). Finally, for the record: women are naturally more empathetic and compassionate than men.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t really see how warranted or damning any of these charges are…

If you don’t understand my problems with the article, you should not critique my criticism.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’ve only promoted that idea incidentally, as a consequence of trying to encourage us to question the already widely-promoted modern notion. My mind isn’t locked. I’m still not even sure what the exact nature of the question is. What I can say is that I presently *lean toward *the belief that men are generally superior re: physical and intellectual abilities (viz. philosophical, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.). Finally, for the record: women are naturally more empathetic and compassionate than men.

You cannot credibly claim that men are physically and intellectually superior, without also asserting that women are basically inferior.

At least not without asserting that women are spiritually superior (and that it all evens out somehow).

 

[John21652]

This is because Western Feminism is focused on the issues and concerns of Western women. This Western-centric attitude may be selfish, but it should not be surprising.

This answer of yours reinforces that I used the phrase “any society” in the context of discussing western Christianity and feminism, which you tell us here is very western focused.

Your intellectual dishonesty is now open for all to see. In fact, you used a typical feminist tactic, namely deconstruction, to reinforce what most of us now see. That feminism is a poor excuse for a ‘philosophy’, does not deserve the label and your disengenuousness is a living example of why the movement is so badly flawed. It is a trojan horse and has done litle but divide the sexes. You are as much a victim as a perpetrator.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The truth of this claim is contingent upon our nailing down a workable definition of what we mean by ‘equality’ and ‘superiority’/‘inferiority’. My post called for such an elaboration, and you’ve yet to provide yours or any potential one. Your point would be better received if you provided the precise source for it also. Then I could examine the context to get an idea of how it uses the term ‘equality’, as well as have a chance to check your outside interpretation of my Church.

I balk at the assertion for a few reasons. First, it should be obvious that no dogma would bar a believer from accepting the inferiority of women in at least some regards that would definitely fall under your “or otherwise” category. I’m thinking particularly about physical/athletic ability, a natural capacity that, by comparison, is indisputably lacking in women.

Second, there just doesn’t appear to be much in the interests of theology that favors the issuing of definite and/or binding pronouncements on various non-essential, natural excellences. A keen intellect is not necessary for salvation; a genius IQ is not a requirement for embracing Christ. It may often help, but the same can be said of several other diverse traits.

Third, if women are held by the Church to complement men, then the differing natural abilities of men and women would seem to only make sense. Women should be superior in matters relating to their sexual role, and men should exceed their “better halves” when it comes to certain “manly duties”. If, for instance, mental as well as physical superiority were more pertinent to God’s intended purpose for a male of the species, then I’d see nothing wrong w/that being the case.

If women truly are dumber than men then the Catholic Church should advocate for much more lenient treatment of women (than men) by all countries legal systems. After all, the poor dears don’t know any better

But the Church does not advocate for a substantially more merciful set of laws/punishments for women. Indicating that the Church is lacking in justice and compassion or simply too lacking in judgment to realize that women are too stupid to be held to the same standard.

Of course there’s also the possibility the your theory is simply bogus, and the Catholic Church is not as deficient in judgment or compassion as your theory would indicate. I consider this explanation far more plausible.

AngryAtheist8

P.S. Am I the only one that finds it odd that I am defending the Church from a self described Catholic in this thread?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This answer of yours reinforces that I used the phrase “any society” in the context of discussing western Christianity and feminism, which you tell us here is very western focused.

Your intellectual dishonesty is now open for all to see. In fact, you used a typical feminist tactic, namely deconstruction, to reinforce what most of us now see. That feminism is a poor excuse for a ‘philosophy’, does not deserve the label and your disengenuousness is a living example of why the movement is so badly flawed. It is a trojan horse and has done litle but divide the sexes. You are as much a victim as a perpetrator.

You amuse me John.

Please reread your posts in this thread to understand why. I would also appreciate it if you made an effort to post things that are not full of spelling errors.

 

[John21652]

You amuse me John.

Please reread your posts in this thread to understand why. I would also appreciate it if you made an effort to post things that are not full of spelling errors.

It is very typical of those whose arguments are found wanting and whose intellectual endeavours are questionable to try and evade and distract. You have given us ample proof.
Notwithstanding, I do indeed apologise for my spelling errors. I admit, I am not the world’s greatest typist. However, considering how you are want to misinterpret and misrepresent, I doubt any spelling improvements on my behalf would help you any.

 

[In_Spiration]

If you don’t understand my problems with the article, you should not critique my criticism.

I understand what you’re asserting. In fact, henceforth you would do well to just assume I’m familiar with your point of view. I did grow up in the same Western civilization during roughly the same era as you. I did attend public school for most of my early education, and I did sit through classes in the contemporary American university system. I don’t live in a shelter on a deserted island. I have turned on a television before also.

I’m trying to see not so much if there really exist people who believe in absolute equality between men and women, but mostly in what ways exactly – say, if it’s a trait-by-trait give-and-take – and whether anyone adheres to this belief in intellectual equality out of more than anything but the inability to resist ideological/peer pressure. Proponents of left-leaning dogmas hold no qualms about manipulating man’s instinctive need to adopt (or at least pretend to adopt) popular, socially acceptable views. Nobody wants to be the “bigoted, antiquated” outcast. Believe me – I wouldn’t go attempting to bring this up on a first date. I’m fully aware that it’s an inexcusable violation of unwritten law just to question it.

As far as Stove and I can tell, most available evidence strongly suggests the culturally prohibited view, and it seems all the popular, very typical objections are based solely on PC speculation and loyal faith. Since I’m more inclined to lend credence to the *targets *of feminist scorn, I’m likewise less frequently disposed to disagree with the “ignorant patriarchs” they passionately despise (e.g., most humans prior to 1960). Neither does it help that I fail to share everyone’s assumption that being less mentally talented is such a miserable and damning fate.

You cannot credibly claim that men are physically and intellectually superior, without also asserting that women are basically inferior.

At least not without asserting that women are spiritually superior (and that it all evens out somehow).

I get it. You disagree with me and don’t like my point of view. I already knew that. Although I would like to make one clarification. Do you even deny that females are physically weaker than males? In what sense(s) do you think that would render them inferior? (I mean, would it only be in the same sense that a female bodybuilder is superior to Natalie Portman, or no?)

Do you ever give more than a hint of a passing reason for your assertions? Explain your logic for these statements. If you were (a) to actually demonstrate that your outlook is based on evidence and logic, or (b) to appeal to my sense of truth instead of my aversion to being publicly shamed (e.g., calling out my intelligence, character, or Catholic bona fides), or (c) to honestly proffer a chain of thought that I’m unfamiliar with, which makes me think, then you just might advance the discussion.

If women truly are dumber than men then the Catholic Church should advocate for much more lenient treatment of women (than men) by all countries legal systems. After all, the poor dears don’t know any better

But the Church does not advocate for a substantially more merciful set of laws/punishments for women. Indicating that the Church is lacking in justice and compassion or simply too lacking in judgment to realize that women are too stupid to be held to the same standard.

Of course there’s also the possibility the your theory is simply bogus, and the Catholic Church is not as deficient in judgment or compassion as your theory would indicate. I consider this explanation far more plausible.

So if women are generally less intellectually capable than men, then women must be retarded and/or hardly deserving of status within the moral community? Is it your opinion that an increase in IQ is tantamount to a rise in harmonious virtue?

You don’t need to answer those last two (…as if you ever felt compelled to address my points). A debate on what the Church’s definitive or obligatory socio-political positions are would be a frustrating tangent to pursue with you. Let’s stick to the basics. Again, that includes:

(1) A clear definition of ‘equality’, ‘superiority’, ‘inferiority’.
(2) An outline of how or why an absence of it pertains to overall dignity or character.
(3) At least one basic argument in favor of intellectual equality, as well as a sketch of the rationale for rejecting historical/biological evidence to the contrary. (Per Stove: Historical - outperformance, etc.; biological - ancestral adaptation/roles, split resources for child-bearing/rearing, etc.)

P.S. Am I the only one that finds it odd that I am defending the Church from a self described Catholic in this thread?

Someone’s attacking the Church? Hmmm… are you trying to manufacture and then incite religious loyalties and groupthink against a “heretic”? Introspect. Don’t lie.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Someone’s attacking the Church? Hmmm… are you trying to manufacture and then incite religious loyalties and groupthink against a “heretic”? Introspect. Don’t lie.

You are insulting the Catholic Church (or at least its principals) in this instance, whether you realize it or not.

The Catholic Church claims that men and women are basically equal, just like men of different races are not fundamentally superior or inferior (which the Church also asserts now).

But by claiming that women are intellectually inferior (e.g. stupid) and that the Church knows this (or at least should know it) you are dismissing the teaching/moral authority of the Church. The same way that a white supremacist does.

I am not a Catholic, you however claim to be one.
I should not have to tell you this.

Other Catholics should explain such basic theology to you. But since none of them are speaking up at the moment, the task falls to me.

Frankly I don’t even particularly like the Catholic Church. But what your saying is so obviously wrong I feel compelled to respond.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I understand what you’re asserting. In fact, henceforth you would do well to just assume I’m familiar with your point of view. I did grow up in the same Western civilization during roughly the same era as you. I did attend public school for most of my early education, and I did sit through classes in the contemporary American university system. I don’t live in a shelter on a deserted island. I have turned on a television before also.

So you grew up in roughly the same environment I did.

Big deal:shrug:

That doesn’t mean your prejudices are any more valid than mine (or anyone else’s).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Nobody wants to be the “bigoted, antiquated” outcast. Believe me – I wouldn’t go attempting to bring this up on a first date.

Perhaps you should.

If you have any decency at all, you should let a woman know that you think women are stupid/inferior before getting into any sort of serious romantic relationship with her. At least if you feel strongly enough about it for this belief to influence your decisions and behavior to any significant extent.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You don’t need to answer those last two (…as if you ever felt compelled to address my points).

I have been addressing your points.

Your simply not happy with the way I have been dismissing them.

You talk as though you want to have a serious intellectual discussion about a controversial topic. But you have provided no proof of your assertions, or even a decent argument for your case. So I have no reason to take your assertions that seriously.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Do you ever give more than a hint of a passing reason for your assertions?

I have been addressing YOUR assertions (and the lack of proof thereof). You are the one asserting that women are intellectually inferior. Its up to YOU to provide evidence of your claim.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So if women are generally less intellectually capable than men, then women must be retarded and/or hardly deserving of status within the moral community? Is it your opinion that an increase in IQ is tantamount to a rise in harmonious virtue?

I will explain this as simply as I can.

If we use male intelligence as the norm, and assume that women are significantly less intelligent than that, then women are stupid (because they are way below average intelligence wise).

If we use female intelligence as the norm, and assume that men’s intelligence is significantly above that, then the natural conclusion is that men are (for the most part) all quite intelligent and clever (because they are much more intelligent than average). However history seems to indicate otherwise. In fact numerous scientific studies have shown that men are (on average) more prone to risky/stupid behavior than women.

Therefore your claim that, women are significantly less intelligent than men, but that’s no reason to assume that women are stupid, is not credible.