What does God make of feminism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thomfra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There only seems to be one extremist posting on this thread and all he does is to ascribe mirror images of his own kinds of motivations onto others.
 
It does seem curious that, after all this time, a group of women are bothered to waste time trying deal with the prejudices of one extremist male.

Somehow, I don’t think that it’s what feminism was about.
 
edwest2 said:
So, if calm, reasoned argument won’t do, burn your bras and vilify all men? Isn’t this what’s done when facing an enemy in war? Turn him into some evil creature? Then, when the bombs stop falling and the shooting stops, sign a treaty and just resume trade? However, you’ll notice the feminists never mentioned an end to the conflict they helped to make much worse.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed,men aren’t any more evil than women unless that path is chosen by either gender, but, neither are they any more sacrosanct than women. I cannot speak for individuals of either the male nor female gender, but I do think men and women through societal expectations and necessities that began long ago have been brain washed to believe both women and men have absolute roles. Man the authoritarian figure. Men earn the bread, women clean the toilets.

If you look at the underneath structure of society today in which blacks are said to have equal ranking with whites, ie. same opportunities, same respect as whites etc. you will see there are many subtle indications this is not true. We still see that black skin, some of us anyway and no matter how hard we try not to, our (my) racism comes out in my first initial contact with many black people. Not all, but many. Being a child of the 40s, 50s and 60s, that is the way I was raised. No excuse here, but an adaptation to a specific culture. Not boldly racist, but given the understanding there is a 'difference" and blacks were a level down from whites.This is the same attitude many males have toward women, especially those who were children and teenagers at the same time as I. I try to overcome my racism by looking, not at the skin, but into the eyes and there find the soul. So gentlemen, look into our souls, look at the reasons some of us fight so hard for equality, whether we work outside the home, or make our homes our only career. We fight for equality and respect in whatever we do. But there are many indications equality between the sexes has not happened with us as a whole in our society, just as it hasn’t happened with blacks.
 
thomfra said:
I think you are more of a feminist than you give yourself credit for. It’s just weird that the word is so constantly used in the perjorative sense. Women should be proudly feminist!

Every movement has extremes. They are sometimes necessary to drag the bulk of people at least somewhere along the way to change.

PS: You can be very anti-abortion, but a feminist at the same time…you clearly are!
Click to expand...
Yes, apparently that is so. I am one example of such and will continue to be. The more I see some men denying there is a problem with the way society is organized, the more feminister I get.👍
 
elts1956 said:
The more I see some men denying there is a problem with the way society is organized, the more feminister I get.👍
Click to expand...
Indeed. Part of the problem these days is that there are far too many people - both men and women - who think that feminism was just a phase that a radical group of women went through before they were born. They don’t see that the attitudes that created the social conditions against which feminist activists fought are still very much alive today. This is in some measure understandable, precisely because the social conditions have changed.

There are still deeply-entrenched attitudes regarding what people feel is ‘appropriate’ behaviour for men or for women. People whose inclinations don’t fit the existing social norms still struggle to realise their potential - because society expects them to keep aspects of their personality in check, if those aspects don’t fall within the acceptable limits. To give a very superficial example which still illustrates my point - why is it now perfectly acceptable for women to wear trousers, but not for men to wear skirts? The latter is still very much on the fashion fringe. As I said, a superficial example, but a telling one nevertheless.

Some would say we were better off before the social conditions changed. To my mind, this represents a refusal to understand that what needs to change, still, is the belief that all people need to fit themselves into a little box, clearly delimited by social expectations. This belief does of course go further than feminism - it’s only that the box always was smaller for women.
 
edwest2 said:
So, if calm, reasoned argument won’t do, burn your bras and vilify all men? Isn’t this what’s done when facing an enemy in war? Turn him into some evil creature? Then, when the bombs stop falling and the shooting stops, sign a treaty and just resume trade? However, you’ll notice the feminists never mentioned an end to the conflict they helped to make much worse.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
To be honest Ed, I don’t think many men actually feel vilified by the femenist movement. I certainly don’t.

One question though: Why is “bra-burning” so inflammatory (no pun intended) for people? What exactly is it about smouldering undergarments which is so confronting?
 
I think it has to deal with the connotations associated with bra burning,the symbol of casting away traditional values and reducing them to ashes. That’s why bra burning is so inflammatory (punny:))
 
thomfra said:
To be honest Ed, I don’t think many men actually feel vilified by the femenist movement. I certainly don’t.

One question though: Why is “bra-burning” so inflammatory (no pun intended) for people? What exactly is it about smouldering undergarments which is so confronting?
Click to expand...
To answer your questions: most ladies undergarments are designed by men. Corsets, bras and the like. Burning it was a symbol of freedom from the clothing men had given to women to wear for their own, obviously perverted reasons.

Unfortunately, women today are paying money for a piece of string with a tiny piece of cloth attached and calling it underwear. Nonfunctional and degrading. Not to mention pants that don’t even go up to their natural waists. I doubt anyone put a gun to their heads when they entered the store.

God bless,
Ed
 
Sair said:
Indeed. Part of the problem these days is that there are far too many people - both men and women - who think that feminism was just a phase that a radical group of women went through before they were born. They don’t see that the attitudes that created the social conditions against which feminist activists fought are still very much alive today. This is in some measure understandable, precisely because the social conditions have changed.

There are still deeply-entrenched attitudes regarding what people feel is ‘appropriate’ behaviour for men or for women. People whose inclinations don’t fit the existing social norms still struggle to realise their potential - because society expects them to keep aspects of their personality in check, if those aspects don’t fall within the acceptable limits. To give a very superficial example which still illustrates my point - why is it now perfectly acceptable for women to wear trousers, but not for men to wear skirts? The latter is still very much on the fashion fringe. As I said, a superficial example, but a telling one nevertheless.

Some would say we were better off before the social conditions changed. To my mind, this represents a refusal to understand that what needs to change, still, is the belief that all people need to fit themselves into a little box, clearly delimited by social expectations. This belief does of course go further than feminism - it’s only that the box always was smaller for women.
Click to expand...
“social conditions”? You mean Sex and the City where role-models play act being the male chauvenist pigs the 1970s feminists told women to avoid?

The only changed social condition is the constantly advertised message to have sex with anyone 24/7 and to simply discard that person when he or she becomes inconvenient. This is just a straight line continuation of the Hippie Free Love.

“social expectations”? Change by itself is not automatically good. Biology dictates the roles of men and women. There is no new biology. You don’t send your baby out on stage at 3 months with a Fender Stratocaster.

Why can’t men wear skirts? More 1970s drivel and the creation of the Unisex concept. Unisex haircuts, unisex bathrooms.

If your lament is “why do things always have to be the same”? this is valid only for those who do not understand the difference between things that are legitimately absolute and unchanging and those choices that one makes as an individual.

What’s stopping anyone from realizing their potential - the other guy? Society at large? Baloney. Realizing your potential takes careful planning, a commitment and hard work, usually years of it. But if most people think the core of their lives has to start with varied and sundry sexual relationships constantly going on in the background while they try to realize their potential, they are hamstrung already. A lack of restraint and a series of dysfunctional relationships are hindering far too many people. The word commitment is practically unknown to people today under 30 and those who are older and still stumbling about in the dark of the sexual revolution.

And what is your suggestion for changing things for real?

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 writes:

“You don’t send your baby out on stage at 3 months with a Fender Stratocaster.”

You do if s/he can play like Jimmy and Stevie Ray Vaughn.

marietta
 
I’m under 30 and I understand the meaning of commitment, as well as the fact that I’m not ready for one yet. Therefore, I don’t have a relationship at all, because I’m not ready to undertake one. I don’t like the “have your cake and eat it too” attitude that my peers have. The same people who don’t want to get married till 30 complain about not having an SO. 🤷

I don’t think it’s wrong, and think it’s good for:
A) Women to vote
B) Women to have access to higher education/careers
C) Women to receive equal pay per hour for doing the same job
D) Women to have economic independence

I think it’s wrong to:
A) Make men out to be monsters
B) Have an abortion
C) Degrade women and men through media
D) Criminalize stay-at-home mothers and large families.

Feminism is good. Radical feminism is bad.
 
sanctamaria17 said:
I think it’s wrong to:
A) Make men out to be monsters
B) Have an abortion
C) Degrade women and men through media
D) Criminalize stay-at-home mothers and large families.
Click to expand...
What’s the standard sentence applied by the courts in the US to SAHMs and those with large families?
 
Not by the court system, I meant ostracize and used the wrong word:)

Women in our society are constantly criticized for choosing either of those. It’s neither right or fair.
 
The sentence? Being confronted with daily radical feminist ideology. You are Ms. Your reproductive freedom includes killing your unborn baby on demand. Realizing that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle (feminist icon Gloria Steinem).

After that, you are usually sentenced to reading The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.

Peace,
Ed
 
sanctamaria17 said:
Not by the court system, I meant ostracize and used the wrong word:)

Women in our society are constantly criticized for choosing either of those. It’s neither right or fair.
Click to expand...
Well, I was a SAHM for a number of years and I don’t remember anybody criticizing me for it - even when we lived in the US!
 
edwest2 said:
The sentence? Being confronted with daily radical feminist ideology. You are Ms. Your reproductive freedom includes killing your unborn baby on demand. Realizing that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle (feminist icon Gloria Steinem).
Click to expand...
My goodness, ‘confronted with daily radical feminist ideology’!
After that, you are usually sentenced to reading The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.
Click to expand...
If you think Betty Friedan is a ‘radical’, you know nothing about radicals. For that you need somebody like Mary Daly - she’d improve your clichés enormously.
 
Kaninchen said:
My goodness, ‘confronted with daily radical feminist ideology’!

If you think Betty Friedan is a ‘radical’, you know nothing about radicals. For that you need somebody like Mary Daly - she’d improve your clichés enormously.
Click to expand...
Isn’t she the one that got fired for refusing to teach male students? You are correct she is about as radical as they come.
 
estesbob said:
Isn’t she the one that got fired for refusing to teach male students? You are correct she is about as radical as they come.
Click to expand...
Yup. She would improve Ed’s ‘Feminist ate my hamster’ lines though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top