What does God make of feminism?

[Calliso]

Calliso;3979466]

I know this from listening to those who research the ins and outs of elections, in an effort to get their guy elected. They study elections so they know when to make certain moves, like George Bush had a DUI right before the election.

Nope. And don’t worry, once the Libs give, it is almost never taken away. And funny how the existance of the slippery slope comes into play when convenient.

So we need all of this(feminism) so a woman can charge her husband with rape? And I guess we just disagree on which slippery slope is worse. I see the feminist slippery slope as damaging to the society as a whole. Yours effects only women.

I still donlt believe though that the MAJORITY of women donlt do any research into candidates before voting. Same as I donlt believe that somehow men vote so much wiser then women do. Do SOME women vote like that? Yes but so do some men! You can;t just paint every single woman with a broad brush. And let me ask you a question if you were to vote would you research the candidates? If so why can;t you then accept that many other women would as well?

Really now you really think that if the government took away women’s right to vote that nothing else would change? I mean for that to happen…societies attitude would have to change back to the attitude that women were lesser beings. And look how society has treated people who were looked on as lesser beings throughout history. And in many places in the world attitudes like that still exist. In many parts of the world women are basically property. Can you say that some form of feminism isn;t needed in those countries? And remember there are more then one form of feminism. Most feminists just want equality, they want to be treated as equal human beings and to not be expected or even forced into certain roles simply because they are women.

As for the rape thing that is just an example. And you shouldn;t dismiss it so off hand. How would you feel if your husband raped you and you could not legally prosecute him? Or if at worst he got a slap on the hand in comparision to what a rape charge would have gotten him? Like I said though it is just one example, probably a lot more bad stuff would happen.

Really what it comes down to is if you want to live your life obeying your husband and not voting and whatever else you think women should or should not do, you can do so. But how is it fair to make the rest of us live the way you want to and how would it trully make society better. I mean look at society when women were treater like lesser beings was it really a better society then now?

 

[Shredderbeam]

cheese_sdc:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings. –Cheris Kramerae, author of A Feminist Dictionary, 1996

Seconded.

I cannot know for certain, but I have a feeling that, if a God exists, it probably wouldn’t be the sexist, genocidal, wrathful God of the Old Testament.

 

[elts1956]

Seconded.

I cannot know for certain, but I have a feeling that, if a God exists, it probably wouldn’t be the sexist, genocidal, wrathful God of the Old Testament.

I wonder if the difference in perspective about the nature of God is the result of the evolution of society to something more civilized, or could it be the difference of male and female descriptions? Just a thought.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Good question. Perhaps it’s related to the changing “moral Zeitgeist”, as Dawkins put it.

 

[fix]

Rather than power, think empowerment. With empowerment comes the power of choice.

I am all for choosing what is good. If that is what you mean then we agree.

 

[Sair]

Oh nonsense. There are plenty of women here who act exactly how the man in her article supposedly behaved. Watch The View.

The author of this tripe is a Liberal, Feminist,Communist.

She is clearly wrong and clearly biased.

And I tend to agree with this WOMAN who wrote this article:

Of course there are women who behave that way. Usually, in my experience, towards other women who happen to be in positions of less power. The oppressed generally kick downwards.

By dismissing this as ‘tripe’ and ‘clearly biased’, you are in fact giving credence to Solnit’s thesis. As for Amy Alkon’s response, the fact that she too dismisses Solnit’s article as “too stupid to publish” suggests two things to me - either she doesn’t want to engage with an argument that bites too close to the bone, or she is trying to wheedle her way into the good opinion of precisely the kind of men whose attitudes Solnit condemns. And in case you didn’t notice, Solnit explicitly did not claim that all men behaved in this way.

 

[neat62]

Calliso;3981415]

I still donlt believe though that the MAJORITY of women donlt do any research into candidates before voting. Same as I donlt believe that somehow men vote so much wiser then women do. Do SOME women vote like that? Yes but so do some men! You can;t just paint every single woman with a broad brush.

1. Besides, Women Keep an Open Mind

“October 2004, women accounted for 60 percent of undecided likely voters”

nytimes.com/2008/02/03/magazine/03womenvoters-t.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all

It;s kind of like cramming for a final. If you do your homework, you are prepared for the test. If you cram and do not know the information on the day of the test, you end up guessing for the answer. And since women make up 60% of undecideds, and since women generally vote Democrat, it seems clear that the undecideds vote Democrat.

And let me ask you a question if you were to vote would you research the candidates? If so why can;t you then accept that many other women would as well?

I do. I never said all women do this or that.

Really now you really think that if the government took away women’s right to vote that nothing else would change? I mean for that to happen…societies attitude would have to change back to the attitude that women were lesser beings. And look how society has treated people who were looked on as lesser beings throughout history.

And does our society look like Utopia to you now? Look at the inner cites and the kids being killed daily because they have no fathers. Look at the school shootings. Abortion. Taxes. Divorces. Single moms, as a good thing… Latchkey kids. Gay marriage. Growth of government and socialism. All of these things are linked. Linked to Liberalism, which is highly linked to feminism/Marxism.

And in many places in the world attitudes like that still exist. In many parts of the world women are basically property. Can you say that some form of feminism isn;t needed in those countries?

For argument, let’s say I do. You admitted the existance of the slippery slope. Can you say that giving some rights will stop at that? Or will it embolden other causes like it has done here?

And remember there are more then one form of feminism. Most feminists just want equality, they want to be treated as equal human beings and to not be expected or even forced into certain roles simply because they are women.

Sure. And the unintended consequences of that have caused big, fundamental problems in the US, and has moved us closer to socialism. (more women vote Democrat)

As for the rape thing that is just an example. And you shouldn;t dismiss it so off hand. How would you feel if your husband raped you and you could not legally prosecute him? Or if at worst he got a slap on the hand in comparision to what a rape charge would have gotten him? Like I said though it is just one example, probably a lot more bad stuff would happen.

That is really stretching it, don’t you think?

Really what it comes down to is if you want to live your life obeying your husband and not voting and whatever else you think women should or should not do, you can do so. But how is it fair to make the rest of us live the way you want to and how would it trully make society better. I mean look at society when women were treater like lesser beings was it really a better society then now?

See, you are looking only at how things pertain to women, not as society as a whole. I do not see it as beneficial to alter all of society because of a minority in the past. Especially when those same issues exist today!

Also, there are women who are treated poorly today. There are men who are treated poorly today. In the past, in some cases, both were treated poorly one way or another.

 

[Sair]

the unintended consequences of that have caused big, fundamental problems in the US, and has moved us closer to socialism. (more women vote Democrat)

I find it extraordinary to see so much condemnation of socialism on this forum, when socialism, as a political philosophy, most closely resembles the charitable ideals of Christianity. If feminism has taken us closer to socialism, I can’t see how God would disapprove.

See, you are looking only at how things pertain to women, not as society as a whole. I do not see it as beneficial to alter all of society because of a minority in the past. Especially when those same issues exist today!

How is it possible for you to refer to ‘society as a whole’ yet imply the exclusion of slightly more than 50% of the population? That hardly constitutes a minority.

 

[neat62]

Sair;3982368]

Of course there are women who behave that way. Usually, in my experience, towards other women who happen to be in positions of less power. The oppressed generally kick downwards.

So that is the equality woman wanted, huh? So you are saying that the three woman on The View, are so oppressed by men that they pick on Elizabeth Hasselback?

By dismissing this as ‘tripe’ and ‘clearly biased’, you are in fact giving credence to Solnit’s thesis.

Hardly. That woman stands for everything I loathe. That article was nothing more than man bashing and to prove it, most people know women who act the same way, yet she does not mention them.

As for Amy Alkon’s response, the fact that she too dismisses Solnit’s article as “too stupid to publish” suggests two things to me - either she doesn’t want to engage with an argument that bites too close to the bone, or she is trying to wheedle her way into the good opinion of precisely the kind of men whose attitudes Solnit condemns.

Or she see’s it for what it was: Man bashing feminism at it’s best.

And in case you didn’t notice, Solnit explicitly did not claim that all men behaved in this way.

I did read the article. So what is her point then? Why didn’t she mention women who behave the same way, in the instance of “equality” and bash them too and just title the article: How People Are Impolite

She is a hardcore feminist. That article was pure propaganda, nothing more.

 

[neat62]

Sair;3985098

I find it extraordinary to see so much condemnation of socialism on this forum, when socialism, as a political philosophy, most closely resembles the charitable ideals of Christianity. If feminism has taken us closer to socialism, I can’t see how God would disapprove.

Socialism is totally against Catholicism because it demands that the State, rather than the individual care for those in need. “charitable ideals of Christianity” is not equal to forced charity. God would disapprove of that.

How is it possible for you to refer to ‘society as a whole’ yet imply the exclusion of slightly more than 50% of the population? That hardly constitutes a minority.

Because society as a whole, refers to all people, not just one select group of people. Feminism has effected all people in negative ways. High divorce rates not only effect women, but men and children as well. Many women now either want babies or go to a spermbank for one because they have changed the roles of both men and women to where they may not help eachother. That is not fair for a child who has no father. Prices have gone up because of feminism, to where it has effected, say, even senior citizens, both male and female.

Your comment seems to imply that this is men against women. Society as a whole is made up of both men and women, obviously. And feminism has effected, negatively, both men, woman, and child. Not all women are in love with the unintended consequences of feminism. You assume that all women are support feminism. I never suggested that feminism was bad for men only. It is actually worse for women and children, I think.

 

[marietta]

neat62:

“Your comment seems to imply that this is men against women. Society as a whole is made up of both men and women, obviously. And feminism has effected, negatively, both men, woman, and child. Not all women are in love with the unintended consequences of feminism. You assume that all women are support feminism. I never suggested that feminism was bad for men only. It is actually worse for women and children, I think.”

Yeah, a testosterone-driven patriarchate really floats my boat.

marietta

 

[Calliso]

Calliso;3981415]

1. Besides, Women Keep an Open Mind

“October 2004, women accounted for 60 percent of undecided likely voters”

nytimes.com/2008/02/03/magazine/03womenvoters-t.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all

It;s kind of like cramming for a final. If you do your homework, you are prepared for the test. If you cram and do not know the information on the day of the test, you end up guessing for the answer. And since women make up 60% of undecideds, and since women generally vote Democrat, it seems clear that the undecideds vote Democrat.

I do. I never said all women do this or that.

And does our society look like Utopia to you now? Look at the inner cites and the kids being killed daily because they have no fathers. Look at the school shootings. Abortion. Taxes. Divorces. Single moms, as a good thing… Latchkey kids. Gay marriage. Growth of government and socialism. All of these things are linked. Linked to Liberalism, which is highly linked to feminism/Marxism.

For argument, let’s say I do. You admitted the existance of the slippery slope. Can you say that giving some rights will stop at that? Or will it embolden other causes like it has done here?

Sure. And the unintended consequences of that have caused big, fundamental problems in the US, and has moved us closer to socialism. (more women vote Democrat)

That is really stretching it, don’t you think?

See, you are looking only at how things pertain to women, not as society as a whole. I do not see it as beneficial to alter all of society because of a minority in the past. Especially when those same issues exist today!

Also, there are women who are treated poorly today. There are men who are treated poorly today. In the past, in some cases, both were treated poorly one way or another.

Oh I see so most women donlt vote republican that is the true problem with women voting I see. Somehow I imagine if they were voting republican you wouldn;t be complaining would you? Really though if you wonlt vote you have no right to complain when others vote and you donlt get what you what you want.

No I donlt think our society is a Utopia now did I say I did? But how in the world do you think making women second class citizens is going to help that? Taking away peoples rights isn;t the answer. Also what does feminism have to do with gay marriage or marxism. I mean seriously now…maybe super radical feminism which most women donlt believe in either. And really look at society before the feminist movement…do you really think it was better? And how is taking away peoples rights going to change that?

Considering that in some areas of the world women have ZERO rights yeah I think being granted some basic rights would be helpful to them donlt you? As for the other things that come along with that I dont know if they would neither do you.

As for the rape thing no I donlt think that is stretching it look up martiel rape laws yourself.

And once again how is making women second class citizens going to help things? And you are naive no offense if you still think it will stop at that. Really by the end of it all losing the right to vote will probably be the least of the issues women would have to face. Oh and by your own logic it seems I guess we should ban black people from voting as well huh? I mean donlt most of them vote democratic as well? Yes that sounds like a good idea…lets take away the rights of everyone who isn;t a white male republican that surely will make this a truely great society huh!?

And yes I realize men and women were both treated poorly in the past…yet somehow you think making women second class citizens is going to change that. Is anyone other then me failing to see the logic in that?

 

[neat62]

Calliso,

I’ll reply tommorrow.

 

[Sair]

Sair;3985098

Socialism is totally against Catholicism because it demands that the State, rather than the individual care for those in need. “charitable ideals of Christianity” is not equal to forced charity. God would disapprove of that.

Because society as a whole, refers to all people, not just one select group of people. Feminism has effected all people in negative ways. High divorce rates not only effect women, but men and children as well. Many women now either want babies or go to a spermbank for one because they have changed the roles of both men and women to where they may not help eachother. That is not fair for a child who has no father. Prices have gone up because of feminism, to where it has effected, say, even senior citizens, both male and female.

Your comment seems to imply that this is men against women. Society as a whole is made up of both men and women, obviously. And feminism has effected, negatively, both men, woman, and child. Not all women are in love with the unintended consequences of feminism. You assume that all women are support feminism. I never suggested that feminism was bad for men only. It is actually worse for women and children, I think.

I doubt very much that God would object any more to forced charity than to a society that forced half of its citizens into effective slavery. Once again, we get back to the matter of choice. It’s certainly no worse to force the rich to support the poor than it is to force women to bow to the wishes and whims of men.

Feminism, despite its interpretation by some more radical proponents, is not and never has been a bad thing, in an of itself. Neither, for that matter, has socialism. The negative consequences of both ideologies have come about because the ideals to which they aspire don’t sit well with our dystopian, capitalist, patriarchal society that champions selfishness and oppression of the weaker by the stronger.

 

[Sair]

Sair;3985098

“charitable ideals of Christianity” is not equal to forced charity. God would disapprove of that.

Well, at least it seems that my arguments have come full circle. I recall wondering where was the virtue in choosing right if there was no choice. Clearly, there can be no virtue in charity if one is forced into it (although that’s not the same as saying there is no virtue in a society that is structured around the ideal of each person giving what they can and receiving what they need, which is the core of socialism).

Likewise, I suspect there is no virtue in choosing to be a wife and mother and a helpmeet to one’s husband if one has no other choice. Thankfully, because of feminism, women are now legally entitled to make choices about how they live their lives, rather than simply having to make a virtue of necessity.

 

[neat62]

Sair;3986020

I doubt very much that God would object any more to forced charity than to a society that forced half of its citizens into effective slavery.

??? Say what? Slavery?

Once again, we get back to the matter of choice. It’s certainly no worse to force the rich to support the poor than it is to force women to bow to the wishes and whims of men.

??? Where are you getting this from? Not from me.

Feminism, despite its interpretation by some more radical proponents, is not and never has been a bad thing, in an of itself. Neither, for that matter, has socialism. The negative consequences of both ideologies have come about because the ideals to which they aspire don’t sit well with our dystopian, capitalist, patriarchal society that champions selfishness and oppression of the weaker by the stronger.

Well said Karl Marx.

 

[neat62]

Sair;3986129

(although that’s not the same as saying there is no virtue in a society that is structured around the ideal of each person giving what they can and receiving what they need, which is the core of socialism).

And the government tells me how much I can pay, by their terms, and throws me in jail if I do not pay. I prefer freedom over others telling me what they consider acceptable. Socialism is anti freedom. Private charity is not forced charity and that should be encouraged.

Likewise, I suspect there is no virtue in choosing to be a wife and mother and a helpmeet to one’s husband if one has no other choice.

Who said anything about taking that freedom away from woman?

Thankfully, because of feminism, women are now legally entitled to make choices about how they live their lives, rather than simply having to make a virtue of necessity.

And they have hurt society in the proccess. Where is the virtue in that?

 

[Dale_M]

I find it extraordinary to see so much condemnation of socialism on this forum, when socialism, as a political philosophy, most closely resembles the charitable ideals of Christianity.

The membership of CAF skews heavily to the right. Its one of the reasons why the discussion of political races has been banned - effectively CAF was acting as an advocate for the right wing party and this threatened the tax status of CAF.

 

[Sair]

Sair;3986129

I prefer freedom over others telling me what they consider acceptable.

As do I and most other women, which is why feminism was and still is necessary. What is patriarchy other than men telling women what they consider acceptable, and women being forced and/or coerced into compliance?

Socialism is anti freedom. Private charity is not forced charity and that should be encouraged.

Socialism is certainly against the freedom to exploit others for monetary gain. But in essence, it supports other freedoms which are far more fundamental, such as freedom from the constraints of poverty. At no point have I said, by the way, that socialism as it has been applied by governments has been a success - clearly it has not, but that doesn’t make the philosophy itself inherently bad or wrong. It’s just not compatible with the widespread exercise of self-interest upon which capitalism thrives. Neither, for that matter, is Christianity…

Who said anything about taking that freedom away from woman?

Um…you seem to have been saying pretty much that - that many of the social evils surrounding us today have resulted from the initial freedoms granted to women, like voting, and the resultant slipper-slope effect. Not so much taking the freedoms away, perhaps, but wishing they had never been granted?

And they have hurt society in the proccess. Where is the virtue in that?

Your implication seems to have been that women, as distinct from ‘the rest of society’ have caused widespread damage by being allowed to take charge of their own lives. Presumably, you mean the victims have been men and children, and that life was better for them before the bluestockings gained a voice.

Somehow, I doubt that was the case. Firstly, I would question any benefit to ‘society as a whole’ that was gained by subjugating half of the adult population. Secondly, I doubt that men and children were better off back in the bad old days when domestic violence, adultery (on the part of the husband, anyway) and child labour were officially or tacitly sanctioned. Do you think the social evils we have now are really any worse than those that existed before the spread of feminism?

 

[Sair]

Sair;3986129

I prefer freedom over others telling me what they consider acceptable.

As do I and most other women, which is why feminism was and still is necessary. What is patriarchy other than men telling women what they consider acceptable, and women being forced and/or coerced into compliance?

Socialism is anti freedom. Private charity is not forced charity and that should be encouraged.

Socialism is certainly against the freedom to exploit others for monetary gain. But in essence, it supports other freedoms which are far more fundamental, such as freedom from the constraints of poverty. At no point have I said, by the way, that socialism as it has been applied by governments has been a success - clearly it has not, but that doesn’t make the philosophy itself inherently bad or wrong. It’s just not compatible with the widespread exercise of self-interest upon which capitalism thrives. Neither, for that matter, is Christianity…

Who said anything about taking that freedom away from woman?

Um…you seem to have been saying pretty much that - that many of the social evils surrounding us today have resulted from the initial freedoms granted to women, like voting, and the resultant slippery-slope effect. Not so much taking the freedoms away, perhaps, but wishing they had never been granted?

And they have hurt society in the proccess. Where is the virtue in that?

Your implication seems to have been that women, as distinct from ‘the rest of society’ have caused widespread damage by being allowed to take charge of their own lives. Presumably, you mean the victims have been men and children, and that life was better for them before the bluestockings gained a voice.

Somehow, I doubt that was the case. Firstly, I would question any benefit to ‘society as a whole’ that was gained by subjugating half of the adult population. Secondly, I doubt that men and children were better off back in the bad old days when domestic violence, adultery (on the part of the husband, anyway) and child labour were officially or tacitly sanctioned. These were the days when, amongst other things, a man was legally allowed to beat his wife, if he saw fit, as long as he didn’t use a stick any thicker than his thumb, and could quite easily get her committed to an insane asylum in order to conveniently get rid of her - especially if she complained about his latest mistress.

Do you honestly think the social evils we have now are worse than those that existed before the spread of feminism? Incidentally, the evils I mentioned above still exist in societies where women’s human rights go unrecognised under the ruling ideology.