Feminist "Philosophy"

[Betterave]

Here is your first post in this thread:

I’m another Catholic, so I’ll speak up.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, tisk, tisk for you.

Er… okay.

Apparently, you can’t comprehend the conversation as it unfolded.

Apparently one of us can’t…

Obviously, I don’t support David Stove, In Spiration or your views.

Yeah, obviously. (Thanks for pointing out the obvious.) You don’t agree with Stove’s views; but you do provide anecdotal support for them, anecdotally illustrating the truth of his claims.

The Pope regards men and women equal.

Right. He also regards them as different.

There are women on his scientific advisory committee and other committees!

No way!

Hey, and don’t forget Mother Teresa. She was incredibly intelligent.

Yeah, she was great. Mary Ann Evans also blows my mind.

Your continued attack on women lacks charity.

What attacks?? Seriously??

As far as I’m concerned, your current etiquette is hurtful and a great disappointment, considering you claim to be a Catholic. You haven’t added anything worthwhile to the topic as far as I am concerned except for rhetoric.

I’m afraid I disagree with your assessment.

I also would like to thank AngryAtheist8 for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it. Best wishes to you.

Group hug!

 

[Betterave]

You cannot understand why the claim that men and women are essentially equal contradicts the idea that women are intellectually inferior?

Really

You obviously don’t know what the word equal means.

LOL! You obviously don’t know what the word ‘essentially’ means. (Hint: it’s not a synonym for ‘intellectually.’)

 

[davidv]

LOL! You obviously don’t know what the word ‘essentially’ means. (Hint: it’s not a synonym for ‘intellectually.’)

Excuse me. This isn’t 4th grade recess. Please address the topic and not each other.

 

[Betterave]

Here is what you actually wrote:

Originally Posted by Betterave View Post
With this post I take it you’re trying to support the feminist cause by proving that there are plenty of stupid men

Unpleasant, but he deserved a little tit for tat, a little reality check. I was responding to him effectively calling Stove and, by implication, InSpiration stupid.

and in the second sentence you accuse him of being obviously ignorant of the subject material. But there is nothing about his actual argument or claims in your post.

Just insults.

I did not accuse; I pointed out that he obviously didn’t read the article in question. If you read what he wrote then read Stove’s article, that should be perfectly obvious. And obviously this was a claim about his argument - what on Earth do you think it was about? Ridiculous!

 

[Betterave]

Excuse me. This isn’t 4th grade recess. Please address the topic and not each other.

Tell me david: how is this not addressing the topic?

 

[Betterave]

Stove’s article is delightful lunacy, simplistic inanity, bigoted buffoonery, with lines like: Child-bearing is so extremely obvious an impediment to intellectual performance… :whacky:

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.)

Stove called his essay The Intellectual Capacity of Women, and Jenny Teichman wrote a diplomatic reply which she called The Intellectual Capacity of David Stove:

*David Stove’s essay “The intellectual capacity of women” was first published in 1990, in the Proceedings of a Sydney philosophical society. It has been re-published twice since his death. It seems though that during his lifetime Stove himself refused to agree to its being re-printed. This raises two questions: Did Stove believe his essay on women contains mistakes? And: does it contain mistakes?

The main flaws in the essay stem from a rash adoption of simplistic ideas about probability coupled with a question-begging definition of capacity. The work also contains contradictions and exaggerations and some unwise forays into social history. Stove was an intelligent man so it seems likely that he would have recognised those flaws. - journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=64567*

Yes, nice abstract. I’m guessing you didn’t read that article either?

Teichman is female of course so I guess we should also discount her claims, along the lines of asking where does the dear lady get it into her pretty little head that she can think when everyone knows women should be seen and not heard. Yikes dude.

You’ve again proven that you didn’t read Stove’s article and that you are content to attack a silly straw man caricature instead of the real argument being offered. (Maybe that’s all you’re capable of? I don’t know, dude.)

 

[bhall0689]

I wish someone would respond to my critique of feminism, seeing as it actually contains CONTENT and not mindless, unChristian name-calling. I feel left out!

 

[Betterave]

On a side note, no one has ever denied in my gender studies classes that men are generally stronger and more athletic than women. This is a difference that is determined by sex, though, NOT gender.

Funny story: When I was in high school I once pointed out in Social Studies class that men were superior athletically to women. You could tell it was something somewhat ‘taboo’, my saying so, but all of my fellow students knew it was true. My (male) teacher, however, denied it, and as evidence claimed that there had been a woman on the US olympic men’s basketball team - like playing with Jordan, on the Dream Team! I just had to tell him, sorry, mister, but I don’t believe you. I don’t know how often stuff like that happens, but it was pretty funny/sad.

My point is, is that many of the perceived “differences” between men and women are not so much catalyzed by their physical sex, but by the different ways that society initiates men/women into adulthood.

Of course that’s something to consider, but also consider that “the different ways that society initiates men/women into adulthood” may well derive from differences in the natural capacities in the sexes, which in turn may well derive from differences in physical sex. That was a major point in Stove’s article.

 

[bhall0689]

Funny story: When I was in high school I once pointed out in Social Studies class that men were superior athletically to women. You could tell it was something somewhat ‘taboo’, my saying so, but all of my fellow students knew it was true. My (male) teacher, however, denied it, and as evidence claimed that there had been a woman on the US olympic men’s basketball team - like playing with Jordan, on the Dream Team! I just had to tell him, sorry, mister, but I don’t believe you. I don’t know how often stuff like that happens, but it was pretty funny/sad.

Of course that’s something to consider, but also consider that “the different ways that society initiates men/women into adulthood” may well derive from differences in the natural capacities in the sexes, which in turn may well derive from differences in physical sex. That was a major point in Stove’s article.

Of course I can only give a very surface-level analysis of these things since I do not hold a degree in sociology or gender studies, but there are all sorts of sociological implications that certainly do come into play. I DO think that gender is constructed by society, and gender shifts to fill different roles as society changes.

Really, all I’m trying to throw on the table is that making blanket statements such as ‘women are less intelligent than men’ contributes to the gross inequalities that women experience in society and the workforce. As a strong, educated, thinking woman I also find such a statement terribly short-sighted and offensive, although that probably doesn’t mean anything. It’s just as offensive as saying ‘black people are stupider than white people.’ Bigoted language reinforces negative stereotypes and seeks to oppress, not unite, which strikes me as unChristian.

I guess someone could say, ‘Well, one exception does not negate a rule,’ but every single female professor and student I have encountered in my educational career also seems to negate it.

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.

 

[StrawberryJam]

My friend Betterave,

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist8, I do want to thank you for all that you have done to help promote females. You are truly an inspiration. Again, thank you for your continued support.

Your welcome, but other than trying to treat women decently in my own life, and occasionally calling people like In Spiration and Betterave on their BS I haven’t done that much. Frankly, I don’t have the kind of influence or power to do much in this area.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The first remotely rational post I read since I posted last is this one, from the guy who suspects that women are intellectually less capable than men. Now his suspicion may or may not be correct, but it certainly makes it obvious that people don’t generally reject this view and accept the equality thesis as a result of being rational. So score one for David Stove.

Of course you like his post Betterave. It (and Stove’s article) uses troll logic

I also think you should be made aware that you have gone from making simple (and unsupported) insults to making unqualified praise.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Let *me *at least say thank you. Wilful diocy is depressing. You cheered me up.

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.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

LOL! Great question! Hmmm… why could that be?

I think the honest answer is that because I am an atheist on a Catholic board I am an outsider (here) by definition. Besides I enjoy asking difficult questions and calling people (such as you Betterave) on their BS.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Every man has a moral duty to tame these base urges. Not only would I fail to be offended by a girl saying men are only interested in sex, but if I had a daughter, I’d actively do my best to warn her of this all-too-common fact.

Hopefully you will never have any daughters.

Girls have enough problems without adding a father that believes them to be inferior (just because they lack a masculine brain).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I appreciate the attempt to argue point-by-point, but you’ve simply failed to comprehend what Stove argued. I suggest you re-read him carefully.

If the flaws in my arguments are so obvious why don’t you say specifically what they are (as I have noted the specific flaws in Stove’s argument). If you don’t, I can only assume that you cannot, and that your words about flaws are nothing but empty words.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I suggest you read the entirety of the my comment from page 10 and not quote mine. Perhaps you should reread everything I’ve said on this topic, especially page 11. By the way, I’m an adult female over 50 years old. I don’t need to call your mommy. Stop “flaming” the women on this topic. Also, I haven’t used one tad of emotion within the context of any of my posting to this topic. Like I earlier stated I don’t agree with you or Stove! You just won’t except that. I recall one topic you were on that I posted to that you stated you have to deal with your demons. Interesting. Your the first person I’ve ever known that has demons.

Unlike the troll Betterave, In Spiration appears to attempting to use reason to argue his point. So I am beginning to suspect that he is not a troll, but simply a sincere misogynist.

Of course that is arguably worse, and if In Spiration really is a misogynist, we should hope that he has no power over any women in real life.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Translation:
“Group hug for those who agree with me. :HUG: And all you stupid bigots who have insulted me by disagreeing with me: screw you. I’m surprised you even exist. And no, I won’t respond rationally to your rational arguments. My general expression of self-righteous outrage is response enough. I am woman - hear me roar!”

[YOU can’t take ME too seriously? You just *can’t

? Gee, that’s a shame. I wonder why (I’m sure you must have a good reason so it would really be superfluous for you to say what it is).]

When have you ever responded rationally or used reason in this thread?

Most of your posts are insult based.

Betterave I name thee troll.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist8;7547185:

Here is your first post in this thread:

I’m another Catholic, so I’ll speak up.

, and that are are uninterested or unable to take in new information and process it and respond to it rationally. If you are simply unable, that’s unfortunate. If you have simply been uninterested up to this point, maybe you should try to get interested, at least if you wish to continue the discussion.

No, actually I very obviously was directly dealing with your “arguments/evidence,” and as I pointed out, if you can’t see that the fault may or may not be your own - **you might just be congenitally defective **when it comes to rational thinking skills (obviously I don’t know) or you may be culpably negligent exercising those skills (as I suspect).

You’re just proving my point. I presented two options: uninterested or unable. You reduced this to one: unable. So what to say? … Q.E.D.?

More insults, once again unsupported by sources, reason, or any sort of evidence. But I will give you props for using insults that are more creative than your usual (lowest common denominator) standard.

Good troll

SEE EVERYONE, TROLLS CAN LEARN!