K
Kaninchen
Guest
Perhaps one should wrap up anti-feminism under the heading of filling up a bit of time being provocative on message boards?
- Status
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
A place for everyone, and everyone in their place
This might seem like a good organizing principal for those at the top of the cultural/religious/social hierarchy (or who simply assume that they would be) but its not a so good for the rest of us.
Are you a member of Quiverfull Cambridge?
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
- What would be wrong if he were?
- How is that relevant?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
How about educating them to fulfill their potential, in whatever vocation to which they are called. Not all are called to marriage and motherhood. What of those women who are called to neither marriage nor religious consecration? Are they to be left to be servants and maids to their fathers and brothers?
L
larkin31
Guest
His/her remark did not really deserve an earnest response.
Feminism is not opposed to marriage nor to motherhood. Most feminists have been both. Several posters here have their own narrow agendas to promote here, and give no real reasoning for their positions.
K
kozlosap
Guest
Please tell me that you were just being sarcastic in this post and don’t really believe that it’s a “good thing” that women have the ability to become educated (if they desire), vote (if they chose to participate) and work outside the home (in this economy by force, unless of course you are married to someone who makes $200,000 a year and you don’t worry about food, clothes and college tuition). The good things that feminism has produced are mostly tangible, especially if you are a widow or single parent and raise your children on your own. I don’t think I know one man who thinks that it is “a step backwards” for women to be educated. It’s almost as if you are from another planet or maybe just playing the devil’s advocate to bait the women on this forum…I guess you could call that the “consensus opinion,” but I think it is superficial at best and just plain wrong, at worst. Basically, those things are toxic to families and hence, nations.
Naturally, they would be toxic to religious bodies as well. So, it is hard to believe, unless one is a “lover of death,” that those are positive things. However, you probably think I’m just nuts or something
Still, I feel like explaining myself. So… I think, in order to claim that Feminism has resulted in anything positive, you would first have to prove that Patriarchy had resulted in anything negative, because Feminism has undermined, attacked and tried to replace Patriarchy (with, somewhat ironically, Matriarchy). A lot of people would think that proving Patriarchy was wrong/needed major reforming, would be easy to do, but I don’t
However, I do think that men and women became corrupted by their leaders, who had become Degenerates. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude, that neither party (man or woman) felt they could trust the other party anymore. So, Degeneracy seems to have led to an understanding among the corrupted, that they needed “protection” from each other! I guess you could call Feminism a sort of cultural prophylactic. The logic I’m using here reminds me of a controversial comment, some would say recklessly, made by a sitting Pope.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Aside from the fact that Quiverfull is extremely misogynistic, and believes in a strategy of dominating the United States by essentially out-breeding everyone else (reducing women to little more than domestic servants and breeders)?
You can read more about these would be Christian fascists here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull#From_feminists
And here is the story of a woman who escaped the cult-like Quiverfull movement:
nolongerquivering.com/2009/03/12/to-those-who-may-be-shocked-disappointed-and-hurt-by-the-news-of-my-apostasy/
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I believe Warren Buffet once said something to the effect of “there is a class war… and my class is winning.”A place for everyone, and everyone in their place
This might seem like a good organizing principal for those at the top of the cultural/religious/social hierarchy (or who simply assume that they would be) but its not a so good for the rest of us.
A male might say the same about gnender inequality, “my gender is winning,” though such a straightforward approach probably wouldn’t sell quite as well ideologies constructed to allow every group to to believe that, by helping themselves, they’re really helping everyone.
Of course, I also find that those at the bottom of the heirarchy do not necessarily have the interests of everyone at heart either. It is not outside the realm of possibility that some feminists really do only care about elevating their own gender, like their misogynist counterparts, rather than achieving equality and nothing less or more. Thankfully the more extreme positions are mostly confined to academic theorists of gender studies departments of universities, many of whom have lost all credibility with me because of their obsession with nonsensical charlatans like Jacques Lacan, but my reservations about esoteric gender theory would be quite a tangent. Quite a tangent indeed.
C
Cambridge
Guest
You talk about widows, when we have a divorce rate over 50% and over 70% of those divorces are filed by women! Over 36% of all births in The U.S.A. are illegitimate and, for the most part, CHOSEN to be so, by liberated mommies. 100% of abortions are CHOSEN by “liberated” murderesses. Feminism and The Sexual Revolution have the same parents. Are you only seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest?Please tell me that you were just being sarcastic in this post and don’t really believe that it’s a “good thing” that women have the ability to become educated (if they desire), vote (if they chose to participate) and work outside the home (in this economy by force, unless of course you are married to someone who makes $200,000 a year and you don’t worry about food, clothes and college tuition). The good things that feminism has produced are mostly tangible, especially if you are a widow or single parent and raise your children on your own. I don’t think I know one man who thinks that it is “a step backwards” for women to be educated. It’s almost as if you are from another planet or maybe just playing the devil’s advocate to bait the women on this forum…
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
Your hatred will ruin your life, you know.
Where’s the compelling evidence — not the spin — which shows it one way or the other.
I also notice you didn’t answer my second question: How is that relevant?
Ah. The Handmaid’s Tale argument. Insofar, however, as “have as many children as you can” is something freely agreed on by mother and father as coequals, I have no objection. Insofar as it isn’t, it is obviously what you say.
Where’s the compelling evidence — not the spin — which shows it one way or the other.
I also notice you didn’t answer my second question: How is that relevant?
L
larkin31
Guest
… such as philandering and abusive husbands?
Divorce is an important legal option for failed (or worse) marriages. Divorce needs no apologetics in modern society.
Your blaming of women here for these ills you see is very interesting.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
And that justifies saying that women’s right to vote, to own property, and to not be abused by husbands is “toxic to families”? You’re nuts, that’s all there is to it.
K
kozlosap
Guest
Your answer has nothing to do with the OP’s query or, as a matter of fact, the real world. Now you have come to the conclusion that women are the cause for most divorces in this country (USA) and that they are evil murderesses. Yes, I only have a MA in behavioral science, but IMHO you need to get thyself to a psychiatrist post haste. Hate is an illness that unless dealt with will ruin your life and those of the people around you. I think we all need to pray that you find some help.
P
Pug
Guest
No vote does not equal slavery. Many political systems have no voting at all. A monarchy, for example, is not slavery for the people. But where I live, there is such thing as some pretense to a popular vote. If entire blocks of people are to be excluded from the vote, then typically some reason is given, like they are in federal prison. Since I live in such a system, it is quite natural of me to wonder, for what reason would you exclude an entire block of people from the vote, in a system with a concept a popular vote? Since women aren’t incarcerated, mentally incapacitated, aliens, juveniles, etc., what is your reason? I notice you didn’t give one.
I suggested a comparison to slavery, not to indicate that women are slaves, but to indicate a line of reasoning that I could imagine someone making to exclude them from a popular vote - to keep power fairly distributed, under a particular notion of fairness, with some kind of assumption that having a wife who can vote gives a married man more representation for his interests or something, just as I could imagine someone thinking if slaves had the vote then plantation owners would have preferential representation on that account. Is this your reason? If not, perhaps you could tell us the real one.
I somewhat differ from you about educating girls. I think there are vocations that do not involve marriage, and sometimes the situation overlaps. One might be a wife and have some other gift one is to share.
Just to throw a little, tiny bone out there, just for fun…a highly educated woman has a lower percentage of her children born out of wedlock. Hopefully that can manage to be marginally irritating.
I know, not much of a chance…
T
TheWatcher
Guest
Highly educated women also have less abortions as well, if you want to heap that on top of yours too.No vote does not equal slavery. Many political systems have no voting at all. A monarchy, for example, is not slavery for the people. But where I live, there is such thing as some pretense to a popular vote. If entire blocks of people are to be excluded from the vote, then typically some reason is given, like they are in federal prison. Since I live in such a system, it is quite natural of me to wonder, for what reason would you exclude an entire block of people from the vote, in a system with a concept a popular vote? Since women aren’t incarcerated, mentally incapacitated, aliens, juveniles, etc., what is your reason? I notice you didn’t give one.
I suggested a comparison to slavery, not to indicate that women are slaves, but to indicate a line of reasoning that I could imagine someone making to exclude them from a popular vote - to keep power fairly distributed, under a particular notion of fairness, with some kind of assumption that having a wife who can vote gives a married man more representation for his interests or something, just as I could imagine someone thinking if slaves had the vote then plantation owners would have preferential representation on that account. Is this your reason? If not, perhaps you could tell us the real one.
I somewhat differ from you about educating girls. I think there are vocations that do not involve marriage, and sometimes the situation overlaps. One might be a wife and have some other gift one is to share.
Just to throw a little, tiny bone out there, just for fun…a highly educated woman has a lower percentage of her children born out of wedlock. Hopefully that can manage to be marginally irritating.
C
Cambridge
Guest
They are also much less likely to have children and much more likely to get divorced and if they do get divorced, it is almost 100% of them that file it. It should beg the question, what are they teaching in those schools, that makes women so infertile and unfaithful. But, then again, if I was an Atheist, which I used to be, I can’t see how I would care, outside of maybe being concerned about the future of my father’s line and, by extension, my ethnic group. But, a lot of people think that any concern for that would be just the result of some sort of cultural conditioning, by *Old Patriarchal Oppressors In Smokey Back Rooms *or something like that. So, whatever
C
Cambridge
Guest
O.k., I think I get your point now. I was a little confused about this. So, I’m glad you’ve been bringing it up, because it helped me to think about it. Although, I have got a very long ignore list and a lousy reputation now, as a result of posting what I actually think, in this super-politically-incorrect threadNo vote does not equal slavery. Many political systems have no voting at all. A monarchy, for example, is not slavery for the people. But where I live, there is such thing as some pretense to a popular vote. If entire blocks of people are to be excluded from the vote, then typically some reason is given, like they are in federal prison. Since I live in such a system, it is quite natural of me to wonder, for what reason would you exclude an entire block of people from the vote, in a system with a concept a popular vote? Since women aren’t incarcerated, mentally incapacitated, aliens, juveniles, etc., what is your reason? I notice you didn’t give one.
I suggested a comparison to slavery, not to indicate that women are slaves, but to indicate a line of reasoning that I could imagine someone making to exclude them from a popular vote - to keep power fairly distributed, under a particular notion of fairness, with some kind of assumption that having a wife who can vote gives a married man more representation for his interests or something, just as I could imagine someone thinking if slaves had the vote then plantation owners would have preferential representation on that account. Is this your reason? If not, perhaps you could tell us the real one.
I somewhat differ from you about educating girls. I think there are vocations that do not involve marriage, and sometimes the situation overlaps. One might be a wife and have some other gift one is to share.
Just to throw a little, tiny bone out there, just for fun…a highly educated woman has a lower percentage of her children born out of wedlock. Hopefully that can manage to be marginally irritating.
Alright, so your point is, shouldn’t women get the vote, if men have it. And, I wondered why you kept bringing it up, because I thought I made it clear the first time I mentioned voting, that I could care less about voting, because I think it’s just a scam anyway. But, you seem really into it and I think that is because you are an American and Americans are supposed to think that voting is a really big deal, because of the American Revolution, but what seems to get lost in the schools and media is that The American Revolution was motivated by Radicalism. Radicalism is motivated by a profound rejection of Rank. Hence, the rejection of the rank of The King. Since The King is the ultimate Patriarch (at least in a national sense), then all Patriarchy could be invalidated, by extension, by that revolutionary thought. Since voting is supposed to replace the rule of The King and, as good Radicals, we are supposed to believe that all people should have the same Rank, then it stands to reason, that all people should have the vote, regardless of any possible exception and that this would be a big deal, almost or perhaps as big a deal, as a king’s right to rule.
youtube.com/watch?v=o5kXYUv_0FE
B
benedictus2
Guest
Because they are quite adept at contraception? Hardly a good argument.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I think you made a very good point there.They are also much less likely to have children and much more likely to get divorced and if they do get divorced, it is almost 100% of them that file it. It should beg the question, what are they teaching in those schools, that makes women so infertile and unfaithful. But, then again, if I was an Atheist, which I used to be, I can’t see how I would care, outside of maybe being concerned about the future of my father’s line and, by extension, my ethnic group. But, a lot of people think that any concern for that would be just the result of some sort of cultural conditioning, by *Old Patriarchal Oppressors In Smokey Back Rooms *or something like that. So, whatever
B
benedictus2
Guest
I agree with you.
Feminism in its current form is masculinism. So really it is a misnomer.
Real feminism would be when child rearing is given equal value as running a corporation.
When washinig dishes, feeding children, cleaning the house is considered as worthwhile as working on computers, selling cars, trading in the stock market.
When women are willing to pay their childcare provider the same salary that they will earn doing a man’s job.
When women’s self esteem rest not on what they do but on the intrinsic dignity of being a child of God.
- Status