Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[Xantippe]

I think a lot of people don’t like having their beliefs’ origins pointed out to them. They like to think that what their college professor told them is the gospel truth received directly from on high and get upset when you mention how their beliefs actually come from Hegel and Marx instead.

As I’ve pointed out before here, the first feminist was Friedrich Engels. Now you think that feminists who consider themselves thoughtful persons would stop and consider what it means that their cherished beliefs come from somebody who also originated an ideology that caused over 100 million premature deaths in the 20th century. But then again perhaps not because these same sorts of feminists are often completely fine with that many deaths of innocent human beings as long as it is done via crushing the skulls of babies, chopping them up into bits and vacuuming them into a sink. What’s a GULAG when you’re fine with abortion? It’s all life unworthy of life under those ideologies anyway. Enemies of the people for the Marxists and non-persons for the pro-abort feminist.

Friedrich Engels lived 1820-1895.

Mary Wollstonecraft lived 1759-1797 (she was the mother of the author of Frankenstein). She wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft

If you look here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

you’ll notice that there are a number of names that pre-date Engels, including several during the 18th century.

 

[Estevao]

My summer reading list complete. Thanks Xantippe.

Well actually if you had a book to recommend about dating and relationships I would appreciate that too.

 

[chevalier]

This kind of gross overgeneralization, complete with cute terms like “manosphere” is exactly what is wrong with contemporary feminism. This kind of stuff drives men who are seeking reasonable discussion of these issues away.

Unfortunately, I need to agree, at least to an extent. I understand where the sentiment comes from, I don’t want to say it’s invalid, it evidently has at least some good basis and possibly a lot more than typically meets a man’s eyes. However, it is also very clearly exaggerated. Talk about sense of justice. (Unless perhaps the men over yonder are consummately bad.)

 

[Xantippe]

My summer reading list complete. Thanks Xantippe.

Well actually if you had a book to recommend about dating and relationships I would appreciate that too.

Gosh, I don’t know any good books for guys on dating, but here are some books I like (but you probably have seen me recommend them):

on how to relate to other people:

Don’t Shoot the Dog!
The Five Love Languages
Boundaries in Marriage (but I strongly disagree with some of the tit for tat advice!)
7 Principles for Making Marriage Work
How Not to Hate Your Husband After Kids (that’s a scary book, especially at the beginning, but people who don’t screw up on the scale that she and her husband did will be able to look at their example and make a detour)

I probably have quibbles with each and every one of those books, but they’ve shaped my thinking the last several years. None of them is gospel truth, but there’s a lot of reality in each of them and I think they cover a huge amount of important ground as a group.

I’ve had a look at dating books recently (as I have a teen girl). I like Dorothy Cummings McLean’s “The Closet’s All Mine: From a Seraphic Single” which is about being a happy Catholic single. The British title is: “Seraphic Singles: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Single Life.” She found her husband and got married almost instantly after writing that book, which is quite a recommendation.

Her Seraphic Singles blog is also worth a skim.

Again, not gospel truth, but there’s a lot of good stuff there.

“How Far Can We Go: A Catholic Guide to Sex and Dating” has a lot of good stuff (although they NEED a new cover so bad).

As you’ll discover, relationship and dating books tend to be aimed toward a female audience, because we buy VAST amounts of these books.

Good luck!

 

[Estevao]

Gosh, I don’t know any good books for guys on dating, but here are some books I like (but you probably have seen me recommend them):

on how to relate to other people:

Don’t Shoot the Dog!
The Five Love Languages
Boundaries in Marriage (but I strongly disagree with some of the tit for tat advice!)
7 Principles for Making Marriage Work
How Not to Hate Your Husband After Kids (that’s a scary book, especially at the beginning, but people who don’t screw up on the scale that she and her husband did will be able to look at their example and make a detour)

I probably have quibbles with each and every one of those books, but they’ve shaped my thinking the last several years. None of them is gospel truth, but there’s a lot of reality in each of them and I think they cover a huge amount of important ground as a group.

I’ve had a look at dating books recently (as I have a teen girl). I like Dorothy Cummings McLean’s “The Closet’s All Mine: From a Seraphic Single” which is about being a happy Catholic single. The British title is: “Seraphic Singles: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Single Life.” She found her husband and got married almost instantly after writing that book, which is quite a recommendation.

Her Seraphic Singles blog is also worth a skim.

Again, not gospel truth, but there’s a lot of good stuff there.

“How Far Can We Go: A Catholic Guide to Sex and Dating” has a lot of good stuff (although they NEED a new cover so bad).

As you’ll discover, relationship and dating books tend to be aimed toward a female audience, because we buy VAST amounts of these books.

Good luck!

Wow thanks!

I actually have one “What Women Wish you Knew About Dating” by Stephen Simpson geared toward men. I was going to browse through it before a date on saturday so I’m not totally clueless, but I’ve seen some of those books you’ve mentioned before and I’m glad I can get them down now.

Thanks again!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

My summer reading list complete. Thanks Xantippe.

Well actually if you had a book to recommend about dating and relationships I would appreciate that too.

‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’

I’ve never read it, but my boss swears by the book, and a lot of well-known people do too…including Charles Manson.

I’m really not big on “dating advice”, but anything that improves your general confidence and communication skills should help in every area of your life, romance included.

 

[Estevao]

‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’

I’ve never read it, but my boss swears by the book, and a lot of well-known people do too…including Charles Manson.

I’m really not big on “dating advice”, but anything that improves your general confidence and communication skills should help in every area of your life, romance included.

Thanks. I found his book “how to stop worrying and start living” very helpful in getting out of a bout of anxiety a while back. I’m still working on it but I feel a lot better. But I will have to get that one since it’s more famous eh? Also a wake-up post you made to me about the mid-point of 2015 also really helped me. Perhaps you don’t remember it, but I do. Thanks BEL

I think I agree about “dating advice” too. Just be yourself, right? (I can hear Dalrock’s commenters calling me a beta already.)

But be the best version of yourself!

 

[Xantippe]

Christianity explains that better than feminism

Unfortunately, having grown up in Protestantism like DarkLight (but fortunately not quite as weird a Protestantism), what she says matches my experience. As I’ve mentioned before on CAF, when I was a young woman, I wound up with an idea of dating for the young Christian woman being like being a hockey goalie. The woman is supposed to deflect the pucks, and eventually she gets rewarded with marriage for being so good and pure.

This was a very silly idea, but (as I’ve discovered from online reading) not uncommon. Having this view, I did not expect any self-control from men. As I believe Dark Light has mentioned, the problem with this view is that encourages young women to put up with behavior they should not tolerate and it means that men can engage in bad behavior and it will just be seen as just part of the normal “hockey game.” You wind up with very low expectations for male behavior.

It really is not uncommon (and it’s even a fairly traditional view) to see chastity as being solely the woman’s job. (How often have you seen guys on CAF talk about women as being the “gate keepers” of sex? I’ve seen it a lot.)

This is definitely an example where feminists do have something to offer women that too many Christians are not offering (even though they should)–the understanding that men (or women) who do not accept a “no” are dangerous to be around, and that we should run away from them as fast as our feet can carry us.

 

[Xantippe]

Wow thanks!

I actually have one “What Women Wish you Knew About Dating” by Stephen Simpson geared toward men. I was going to browse through it before a date on saturday so I’m not totally clueless, but I’ve seen some of those books you’ve mentioned before and I’m glad I can get them down now.

Thanks again!

You’re going on a date!

That’s wonderful. Have a good time!

 

[Xantippe]

Thanks. I found his book “how to stop worrying and start living” very helpful in getting out of a bout of anxiety a while back. I’m still working on it but I feel a lot better. But I will have to get that one since it’s more famous eh? Also a wake-up post you made to me about the mid-point of 2015 also really helped me. Perhaps you don’t remember it, but I do. Thanks BEL

I think I agree about “dating advice” too. Just be yourself, right? (I can hear Dalrock’s commenters calling me a beta already.)

But be the best version of yourself!

Yeah.

It’s not possible to pretend to be somebody completely different than who you are long term–and even if you could, it would require a huge investment of effort.

But being the best version of yourself (or at least a better version of yourself) is within reach and is a sustainable goal.

Plus, even if nobody turns up to share your life in the short term, the better version of you will be happier, more easily contented, easier going, friendlier–just a much more fun person to be around.

 

[DarkLight]

For accidental raping one’d need to be unresponsive, so that’s a bit of a far cry, not saying it couldn’t happen. I can see why even a spouse could feel violated if it happened without prior discussion, not that I necessarily feel it should be regarded as any form of real rape (normally just an honest mistake, but let’s not get into detail with hypotheticals). Otherwise, however, I’d rather people had more understanding than more protocol. And understanding starts with willingness to understand. And it goes both ways. I don’t think one can have a healthy relationship with too much protocol, too many rules etc. Spontaneous display of affection is important.

Honestly, I think part of the problem is trying to fit everything into the model of “rape” or “perfectly ok sex,” with rape being a legal crime. There are a lot of things that shouldn’t be legal crimes that you still shouldn’t do. And that’s really where I think affirmative consent comes into play. Not as a legal standard, but as a moral (and perhaps pragmatic) principle that one should generally refrain from trying to pressure, manipulate, or coerce people into sexual situations that they don’t want to be in. I’m also firmly of the belief that this doesn’t just apply to sex itself - for example, I would not recommend the surprise kiss unless one is quite sure it is going to be welcomed.

That said, sadly, there are enough men out there who think raping an unconscious, unresponsive woman is an ok thing to do - see the Brock Turner case.

 

[DarkLight]

Unfortunately, having grown up in Protestantism like DarkLight (but fortunately not quite as weird a Protestantism), what she says matches my experience. As I’ve mentioned before on CAF, when I was a young woman, I wound up with an idea of dating for the young Christian woman being like being a hockey goalie. The woman is supposed to deflect the pucks, and eventually she gets rewarded with marriage for being so good and pure.

This was a very silly idea, but (as I’ve discovered from online reading) not uncommon. Having this view, I did not expect any self-control from men. As I believe Dark Light has mentioned, the problem with this view is that encourages young women to put up with behavior they should not tolerate and it means that men can engage in bad behavior and it will just be seen as just part of the normal “hockey game.” You wind up with very low expectations for male behavior.

It really is not uncommon (and it’s even a fairly traditional view) to see chastity as being solely the woman’s job. (How often have you seen guys on CAF talk about women as being the “gate keepers” of sex? I’ve seen it a lot.)

This is definitely an example where feminists do have something to offer women that too many Christians are not offering (even though they should)–the understanding that men (or women) who do not accept a “no” are dangerous to be around, and that we should run away from them as fast as our feet can carry us.

Sadly yes, this is a common view I’ve found. It’s considered normal/expected for men to push boundaries and not listen to a woman telling them “no”. When the proper reaction to such a guy is, as Xantippe said, to run away from the guy and find one who respects boundaries. A guy who doesn’t respect boundaries is not a guy you want to be involved with.

I doubt this mentality does the young man any favors either, but I don’t feel I know enough on that experience to comment.

 

[Xantippe]

Honestly, I think part of the problem is trying to fit everything into the model of “rape” or “perfectly ok sex,” with rape being a legal crime. There are a lot of things that shouldn’t be legal crimes that you still shouldn’t do. And that’s really where I think affirmative consent comes into play. Not as a legal standard, but as a moral (and perhaps pragmatic) principle that one should generally refrain from trying to pressure, manipulate, or coerce people into sexual situations that they don’t want to be in. I’m also firmly of the belief that this doesn’t just apply to sex itself - for example, I would not recommend the surprise kiss unless one is quite sure it is going to be welcomed.

That said, sadly, there are enough men out there who think raping an unconscious, unresponsive woman is an ok thing to do - see the Brock Turner case.

Right.

 

[Xantippe]

Sadly yes, this is a common view I’ve found. It’s considered normal/expected for men to push boundaries and not listen to a woman telling them “no”. When the proper reaction to such a guy is, as Xantippe said, to run away from the guy and find one who respects boundaries. ** A guy who doesn’t respect boundaries is not a guy you want to be involved with.**

And lack of respect for boundaries is still a problem outside the sexual or romantic context.

I think parents are making a mistake when they never allow their children to say “no.” If kids are never allowed to say “no” to things at home, how are they supposed to say “no” to bad things outside the home?

 

[DarkLight]

Yeah, that’s a shame.

Yeah, I’m a criminal lawyer, I would know.

Yup.

Wow. Looks like some guys somewhere are in real need of a serious talking to. Preferably physical argumentation. I’m so sorry to hear that. I always wonder where those guys come from. It’s beyond me how a man could act like that.

I would add that there are a subset of Christian men (and women) who confuse a woman being attractive, even sexually attractive, with that woman being immodest. To the point that it’s the woman’s job, not just to refrain from sexualized attire, but to ensure that she is unattractive enough to prevent men from thinking about her in a sexual manner.

Sexual attraction is a thing that happens. Even if a woman is modestly dressed, there are times where a man may look at her and think about sex. That’s simply nature being nature. But when you’re in an environment where any sexual thought about someone not your spouse is a major issue, there can be an unreasonable pressure on women to ensure they couldn’t possibly be distracting.

That was where my comment on certain bodies being more sexualized came in. If you’re of a body shape that tends to be considered more “sexy”, you find that there’s a lot more pressure on you. Not just to be decently covered up, but to actively work to minimize what you naturally look like. Let’s be honest here, unless I wear a chest binder or something, my breasts are going to be obvious in a turtleneck. At some point you have to tell the men that’s life.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Honestly, I think part of the problem is trying to fit everything into the model of “rape” or “perfectly ok sex,” with rape being a legal crime. There are a lot of things that shouldn’t be legal crimes that you still shouldn’t do.

I agree yet to be fair this is an issue that many “sex positive” type feminists have some responsibility in as well, in asserting that women have a right to have casual sex with no strings attached, and that it is oppressive to have ANY taboos on sexual activity, I can even think of radical feminists who would find it abusive for a man to expect monogamy from a woman in a relationship, even if those men are committed to monogamy themselves, and would frame this in the light of “a man trying to control a woman’s sexuality”.

The only way to bridge the gap between the ideal of “free love” and the reality of many people being selfish in this matter, is to expand the definition of “rape” to the point that it becomes almost meaningless.

That said, sadly, there are enough men out there who think raping an unconscious, unresponsive woman is an ok thing to do - see the Brock Turner case.

Or Bill Cosby, who has actually admitted to giving “Qualuudes” to women yet claims it was still consensual when he had sex with them.

Yet the standard of “it’s only rape if the victim said no” that some posters have advocated for here, would indeed result in acquittals for anyone who raped an unconscious, unresponsive woman.

ETA: Or a man, for that matter.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Or Bill Cosby, who has actually admitted to giving “Qualuudes” to women yet claims it was still consensual when he had sex with them.

Yet the standard of “it’s only rape if the victim said no” that some posters have advocated for here, would indeed result in acquittals for anyone who raped an unconscious, unresponsive woman.

ETA: Or a man, for that matter.

Uh…yeah, that was me. Affirmative consent has nothing to do with taking advantage of someone unconcious. That’s already illegal and wrong under other statues and principles. Just like minors and people with severe mental deficiencies can’t consent, neither can unconcious people. But, consent is still the absence of ‘no’, not the presence of ‘yes’.

Unless an institution needs grounds to crack down on an assault problem, affirmative consent is both impractical and wildly unsexy. No one lives by this, not even (especially not?) the most happily married couples. Even in the context of college, it’s a policy that really only comes into play when they want to “throw the book at someone”. The military is notorious for keeping policies like that in their back pockets too.

 

[Xantippe]

Uh…yeah, that was me. Affirmative consent has nothing to do with taking advantage of someone unconcious. That’s already illegal and wrong under other statues and principles. Just like minors and people with severe mental deficiencies can’t consent, neither can unconcious people. But, consent is still the absence of ‘no’, not the presence of ‘yes’.

Not exactly, because as you pointed out, unconscious or incapacitated people cannot consent.

So legal consent involves not just “the absence of ‘no,’” but the presence of ability to say yes or no in some sort of meaningful way–which is what is absent in the case of unconscious/intoxicated people, minors and people with severe mental deficiencies.

I think we really need to steer away from the phrasing that consent is the absence of “no” even just in the legal context, because it gives too much cover to Brock Turner/Bill Cosby types.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Not exactly, because as you pointed out, unconscious or incapacitated people cannot consent.

So legal consent involves not just “the absence of ‘no,’” but the presence of ability to say yes or no in some sort of meaningful way–which is what is absent in the case of unconscious/intoxicated people, minors and people with severe mental deficiencies.

I think we really need to steer away from the phrasing that consent is the absence of “no” even just in the legal context, because it gives too much cover to Brock Turner/Bill Cosby types.

No, it doesn’t. One gives consent by not saying ‘no’ or otherwise protesting, not by saying ‘yes’. It’s a moot point when it comes to passed out or otherwise incapacitated people, because they can’t give consent by either means anyway.

The idea that you can’t take advantage of passed out people in alleys was well established culturally and legally long before affirmative consent came on the scene. The fact is, most consensual sexual encounters don’t involve asking to escalate at every stage, and most people, of either sex, would laugh at someone who tried that. Affirmative consent wouldn’t have changed the outcome of Cosby or Turner. What they did was already illegal under the law and immoral to anyone with half a brain or heart.

And even if it somehow would have, hard cases make bad law, and even worse public policy.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It’s a two step thing:

Can this person consent?

Do they?

Affirmative consent has nothing to do with the first, but tries to redefine the second in a very impractical way. I’m open to discussing the benefits of these policies on college campuses, but to expect people to actually live them out as adults is silly.