Why Feminism is Bad


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'm going to assume that the you in your above statement is referring to female members of the LDS church. What do you suppose that the male members shouldn't complain about so that they can also build for themselves a new ethic based on submission to truth, untainted by world influence?

M.

As far as the new ethic goes, It's aimed at both men and women. I perhaps should have aimed the priesthood thing at anyone who desires priesthood for women and not just women. And not say there is an inherent lack of faith. But rather, just merely a lack.

Edited by Snigmorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

Beautifully well put. I agree with all of this.

To be fair, I've heard comparisons of motherhood being the female gift of power from God while the priesthood was the male. But then someone brought up something that I found interesting as well; there's a whole chunk of the plates that wasn't translated. There's a lot of revelation we haven't received yet because we're not ready and have not yet mastered or even accepted what we've already been given. So, we actually don't know if women could hold the priesthood someday(during the Millennium, maybe? After?) but we won't ever know or be up to the task if we don't accept and put into practice the things we've already had revealed to us.

What you say here in regards to not knowing if women could "hold" the priesthood someday, potentially during the millennium or the like, is technically true. We don't know.* However, untranslated plates aren't exactly the crux of the matter. We have living prophets. God reveals to them what He will in regards to His kingdom. We don't need to find lost scripture to find out God's will. That could, theoretically, be a means. But untranslated/lost/missing scripture is no blocker for God revealing His will, ways, and intentions to His people.

*We don't know...but there are a whole host of things we do know that imply very strongly otherwise, imo. Some of these we could discuss, some of them are a bit more sensitive, being temple related ideas and the like. Regardless, it doesn't matter if women will or will not technically "hold" the priesthood someday. In the end women and men will inherit all that the Father (and Mother) have, and whatever roles there may be in eternity for the exalted will bring a fullness of joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What you say here in regards to not knowing if women could "hold" the priesthood someday, potentially during the millennium or the like, is technically true. We don't know.* However, untranslated plates aren't exactly the crux of the matter. We have living prophets. God reveals to them what He will in regards to His kingdom. We don't need to find lost scripture to find out God's will. That could, theoretically, be a means. But untranslated/lost/missing scripture is no blocker for God revealing His will, ways, and intentions to His people.

*We don't know...but there are a whole host of things we do know that imply very strongly otherwise, imo. Some of these we could discuss, some of them are a bit more sensitive, being temple related ideas and the like. Regardless, it doesn't matter if women will or will not technically "hold" the priesthood someday. In the end women and men will inherit all that the Father (and Mother) have, and whatever roles there may be in eternity for the exalted will bring a fullness of joy.

I understand that and I didn't mean to imply that. I sometimes go back to original thoughts or things that I've discovered by bringing up the thing that I discovered it with. In this case, a BoM study guide which talked about the plates and the banded parts of them and why we haven't had that history/part of them revealed to us; it came down to, "We have not yet fully utilized or read and studied the parts we have been given as much as we should." So, that was the part that I was focusing on.

Also, I don't really care either way whether women do eventually get the priesthood or not. I was still mostly focusing on the "appreciate and practice what we have already" aspect of it. In the end, there's a lot we don't know and won't officially and definitively know until Christ comes again, or even until we get to the Spirit World, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • 3 weeks later...

Yeah, the author does the same thing done in this thread - stick a "this is the REAL definition of feminism" flag in the sand, dig in, and start hurling bombs at everyone else standing around their "REAL definition of feminism" flags.

There are plenty of stripes of feminism who are indeed anti-male, who are not interested in equality, who are most absolutely 100% anti-father and anti-traditional family.  Just Michelle hasn't encountered any of them.  But they're out there, fighting to have their stripe of feminism accepted as the REAL stripe.

The word, I'm afraid, has lost all of it's descriptive value, much like 'bigot' and 'homophobe'.  Another casualty in the war of left vs right.

The article rocks, and I'm all down with just about all of that.  Except for the "if you disagree it isn't feminism" claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 Except for the "if you disagree it isn't feminism" claims.

Well duh. We all know that if you disagree with me you are a racist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this author feel the need to use feminism as a vehicle to achieve equality?  Why aren't we simply advocating for equality?  By focusing on one special interest you are ignoring all the others.  This is no different than those who claimed they were of Paul, or of Cephas.  It is the incorrect and falsified application of true principles.  There is only one truth; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.  Similarly there is only one true equality in the Lord's way.

Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. both advocated for civil rights; except Malcom X and the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam group at the time believed in and taught the inferiority and satanic nature of the white race.  Martin Luther King simply sought for equality.  The title of feminism alone sets itself apart as an "ite" as @NeuroTypical wisely conveyed.  This is more of a problem than many of the things they seek.  It also gives them a wall to hide and cry foul behind when something is not according to their liking.  We all should seek for truth and equality, the poster in the article laid out many wise and righteous things.  However, to say feminism is needed in order to achieve or educate about those things, is false and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, the author does the same thing done in this thread - stick a "this is the REAL definition of feminism" flag in the sand, dig in, and start hurling bombs at everyone else standing around their "REAL definition of feminism" flags.

There are plenty of stripes of feminism who are indeed anti-male, who are not interested in equality, who are most absolutely 100% anti-father and anti-traditional family.  Just Michelle hasn't encountered any of them.  But they're out there, fighting to have their stripe of feminism accepted as the REAL stripe.

The word, I'm afraid, has lost all of it's descriptive value, much like 'bigot' and 'homophobe'.  Another casualty in the war of left vs right.

The article rocks, and I'm all down with just about all of that.  Except for the "if you disagree it isn't feminism" claims.

I also enjoyed the article and agreed with pretty much everything.

Except what you already said.

If feminism truly is such a broad and contradicting movement, isn't the term in over its head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article I linked:

Quote

Because LDS men are free to jog shirtless, and boys can show up to mutual in tank tops and shorts, but we teach young women modesty. Either modesty is important for all of us or none of us. And the covenants we both make when we put on sacred garments tell me that it’s important for all of us.

I certainly don't feel like men jogging shirtless is acceptable to the church. (I've always heard that the garment should be worn whenever possible -- jogging and garment wearing aren't mutually exclusive in my mind.) And the modesty teachings I've received have imbued themselves in me so that I would certainly feel immodest if I were to jog shirtless. I always thought tank tops were immodest, even for teens showing up at mutual. Does the church not teach this?

That said, this statement just feels strange to me because it tends to ignore differences in basic biology of the sexes. If we compare a woman jogging shirtless, and a man jogging shirtless, would we really say that they've achieved the exact same level of immodesty? That's what it sounds like she's saying. Maybe she wouldn't actually say that, but whenever women complain about men jogging shirtless, it either sounds like they're ignoring basic biology, or they're jealous. I just don't get it. It's statements like this that make feminists sound silly. -- Not saying they're actually wrong... just saying it sure sounds silly to probably a sizable proportion of conservative, red-state Utahans.

If she really wants us men to wear shirts while swimming, she should own it and just say that. I'm actually not necessarily opposed to that point of view. If bare-chested men at the swimming pool is a problem for women, it would be helpful to know that. Men can wear rash-guards at the pool (I sometimes do).

 

Edited by eddified
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We will never achieve equality when a group that fights for it call themselves "feminists".

If feminism is really about equality, than theoretically could I form a major Maleism movement without any backlash from feminists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, eddified said:

That said, this statement just feels strange to me because it tends to ignore differences in basic biology of the sexes. If we compare a woman jogging shirtless, and a man jogging shirtless, would we really say that they've achieved the exact same level of immodesty? That's what it sounds like she's saying. Maybe she wouldn't actually say that, but whenever women complain about men jogging shirtless, it either sounds like they're ignoring basic biology, or they're jealous. I just don't get it. It's statements like this that make feminists sound silly. -- Not saying they're actually wrong... just saying it sure sounds silly to probably a sizable proportion of conservative, red-state Utahans.

On second thought, I suppose an LDS woman complaining about a man jogging shirtless is somewhat similar to an LDS man complaining about women wearing short shorts. So I think that is a more fair way to interpret what she is saying-- i.e. give her the benefit of the doubt.

Edited by eddified
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.

The article is mostly good, but with a lot of bad.  It's frustrating.

The bad part is common among young people.  EQUALITY does not mean the same.  Why are women interrupted more than men?  Is that because they're disrespected?  Do you know that women interrupt women just as much as men interrupt women? 

If you are REALLY a feminist, you will at least try to understand why Men do the things they do and why Women do the things they do.  They are DIFFERENT. 

Women get interrupted because they speak and think differently than men.  They instinctively communicate with an appeal/regard to feelings.  Men instinctively communicate with an appeal/regard to "Git R Done" effectiveness.  The woman takes a longer route to convey the message.  Men instinctively want to prod the conversation on because that's how their brains function.  When a woman goes into a manufacturing/technology field - fields that are "Git R Done" environments - they learn to talk with "Git R Done" effectiveness.  So they start interrupting women too.  THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DISRESPECT.  It's one of those things where Men and Women are different so instead of calling men out for disrespect, Women and Men need to work through these differences when they are in mixed company and meet in the middle.  Men need to learn to listen with a nod to feelings and Women need to learn to speak with a nod to effectiveness.  THAT'S FEMINISM.  Pounding men as disrespectful for trying to align the conversation to the male brain IS MISANDRY.

And what is bad about people close to you advising you to put Motherhood as a priority over a doctorate in Medicine?  Do you know that in Poster-Children-of-Feminism countries like Sweden they see a reduction of women going into STEM fields?  Wow, what a surprise - women actually do prefer having more time for families than becoming doctors and engineers when they have the utmost freedom of choice.

And what Church is teaching modesty only to Women?  Surely not the LDS Church!  Yes, men can go to the beach shirtless.  That's not immodest.  It's a different BIOLOGY.

Women are more scared to go anywhere alone because fact of life - they are weaker.  Women can be overpowered easily, even by other women.  Men can't.  They have this thing called physical strength.  Again.  Biology.  Being scared is a GOOD THING - that means your instinctive sense of self-preservation is completely intact to compensate for the lack of strength.  Domestic abuse is not exclusive to women.  Men get abused, you don't hear about it much because it is more difficult to overpower them with strength.  Rather, they are emotionally abused and manipulated.  Scars are hidden.  They tend to respond with violence as is their natural instinct... which makes these male victims of abuse get counted with the domestic abusers.  Double whammy.  A woman thinking she is scared to go anywhere alone because MEN ARE CRUEL... again... MISANDRY.

Yes, children are growing up misunderstanding the proper role of women... and this article is spreading that misunderstanding.

But yes, there are good points there.  But the good things lose their impact because we have to wade through the bad stuff.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

If feminism is really about equality, than theoretically could I form a major Maleism movement without any backlash from feminists?

Its analogous to having black history month but not having white history month. Like equality with racism, it will never be achieved until we do away with all holidays or celebrations that spotlight one race. So too it is with feminism. Their agenda will always promote driving the wedge further between how women are oppressed by all men.

Me and my wife are equals but we have differences. Even though feminists will not agree on just how those differences add up men will always be the root problem no matter what and therein lies the problem.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

The article is mostly good, but with a lot of bad.  It's frustrating.

The bad part is common among young people.  EQUALITY does not mean the same.  Why are women interrupted more than men?  Is that because they're disrespected?  Do you know that women interrupt women just as much as men interrupt women? 

If you are REALLY a feminist, you will at least try to understand why Men do the things they do and why Women do the things they do.  They are DIFFERENT. 

Women get interrupted because they speak and think differently than men.  They instinctively communicate with an appeal/regard to feelings.  Men instinctively communicate with an appeal/regard to "Git R Done" effectiveness.  The woman takes a longer route to convey the message.  Men instinctively want to prod the conversation on because that's how their brains function.  When a woman goes into a manufacturing/technology field - fields that are "Git R Done" environments - they learn to talk with "Git R Done" effectiveness.  So they start interrupting women too.  THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DISRESPECT.  It's one of those things where Men and Women are different so instead of calling men out for disrespect, Women and Men need to work through these differences when they are in mixed company and meet in the middle.  Men need to learn to listen with a nod to feelings and Women need to learn to speak with a nod to effectiveness.  THAT'S FEMINISM.  Pounding men as disrespectful for trying to align the conversation to the male brain IS MISANDRY.

And what is bad about people close to you advising you to put Motherhood as a priority over a doctorate in Medicine?  Do you know that in Poster-Children-of-Feminism countries like Sweden they see a reduction of women going into STEM fields?  Wow, what a surprise - women actually do prefer having more time for families than becoming doctors and engineers when they have the utmost freedom of choice.

And what Church is teaching modesty only to Women?  Surely not the LDS Church!  Yes, men can go to the beach shirtless.  That's not immodest.  It's a different BIOLOGY.

Women are more scared to go anywhere alone because fact of life - they are weaker.  Women can be overpowered easily, even by other women.  Men can't.  They have this thing called physical strength.  Again.  Biology.  Being scared is a GOOD THING - that means your instinctive sense of self-preservation is completely intact to compensate for the lack of strength.  Domestic abuse is not exclusive to women.  Men get abused, you don't hear about it much because it is more difficult to overpower them with strength.  Rather, they are emotionally abused and manipulated.  Scars are hidden.  They tend to respond with violence as is their natural instinct... which makes these male victims of abuse get counted with the domestic abusers.  Double whammy.  A woman thinking she is scared to go anywhere alone because MEN ARE CRUEL... again... MISANDRY.

Yes, children are growing up misunderstanding the proper role of women... and this article is spreading that misunderstanding.

But yes, there are good points there.  But the good things lose their impact because we have to wade through the bad stuff.

Wow, thank you! This is what I was feeling but couldn't put into words. It *is* sad what violent men do to women in dark alleys at night, but that stuff is already illegal. Why do we need feminism to teach this? And as you pointed out, as long as violent men do violent things in dark alleys, it is a *good* thing women feel unsafe there - it's a tool of self-preservation.

We *do* need to teach our boys and men to respect women - and I think the church does this! We *do* need our boys and men to learn modesty - and the church helps with this too!

When it comes to swimwear, apparently victorian-era swimwear was much more modest -- men covered their torso just as much as women. I'm ok with that. If that's the way we want to go with swimwear, I'm totally fine with it. It sounds to me like men bare-chested at the beach is a cultural norm. In the victorian era, men wearing bathing suits which covered their chests -- that was also the cultural norm at the time. I guess I'm agreeing with the author after all -- let's stop the bare chested men. It's something I can get behind, but it's really not a huge problem. There are much bigger issues to worry about, which is probably why people don't really care to get on the "let's stop bare chested men" bandwagon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its analogous to having black history month but not having white history month. Like equality with racism, it will never be achieved until we do away with all holidays or celebrations that spotlight one race. So too it is with feminism. Their agenda will always promote driving the wedge further between how women are oppressed by all men.

I don't really mind black history month. It can be a good thing. But I totally agree today's racial politics has the effect of driving a wedge between the races rather than uniting them.

 

36 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

If feminism is really about equality, than theoretically could I form a major Maleism movement without any backlash from feminists?

I believe it would be called "masculinism". :P

Edited by eddified
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its analogous to having black history month but not having white history month. Like equality with racism, it will never be achieved until we do away with all holidays or celebrations that spotlight one race. So too it is with feminism. Their agenda will always promote driving the wedge further between how women are oppressed by all men.

Ya, once we feel like we no longer need to put a handi-cap on a race or tie a races hand behind their back to create equality, then we have figured it out. 

Things like affirmative action that tie white males hands up in college acceptance and other programs or ideologies that sway a scale one way or another are always difficult to argue one way or the other. It is true that more blacks people live in poverty, that more males pursue science, that most Native Americans have it REALLY hard. But is swaying the competition one way really the best thing to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eddified said:

We *do* need to teach our boys and men to respect women - and I think the church does this! We *do* need our boys and men to learn modesty - and the church helps with this too!

 

It's not just the Church.  Everywhere teaches this!  Human decency teaches this!

The idea that Men do not respect Women is a Feminist victimhood mentality that is wrong.  When did Titanic sink?  1914?  That's over 100 years ago... and that's just one proof that it has ALWAYS been Women and Children first on the boats!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, eddified said:

I believe it would be called "masculinism". :P

This is a real movement that is trying to get themselves heard as much as Feminists pound them to the ground.  They are collectively called Men's Rights Activists.  Some issues MRA is fighting for:

1.)  Custody of children in divorce.  This doesn't need much explanation - most states grant custody to the mother even when the mother is clearly incapable of raising children.

2.)  Jobs.  Through the recession, women were gaining employment, men were losing employment.

3.)  Education.  The current educational environment structure, especially in higher learning, are hostile to the way men absorb information.

4.)  Reproductive Rights.  They want a voice in their children being aborted.

5.) Rape - yes, men get raped.  They don't report it because not only are they not believed that they are raped, the society norm is to think they should be grateful they got sex.

6.) Domestic abuse - yes, men are also victims of domestic violence.  this is mostly emotional abuse.  unfortunately, a lot of times, the man snaps and resort to their survival instinct of aggression.  They end up getting charged as perpetrators of domestic violence instead.

There are so many other issues.  So, of course, the leading MRA organization - A Voice for Men - got marked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“Men’s rights is a tougher-than-necessary fight in a world that believes that men made the rules and have all the rights to begin with.  It's seen as a King asking for rights." - some leader for A Voice for Men.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the rebuttal article:

Quote

The first several comments consisted of a group of people (mostly men) discussing what they thought of as feminism, which they imagined as a prideful group of women who want to take away what men have and keep it for themselves.

Let's not discredit someone because of their gender. Knowing someone's gender can help you interpret their views, but let's be careful not to discredit someone's views simply because of their gender--that's sexism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eddified said:

I suppose the upside of feminism is that maybe more men are realizing how women feel. I think it's a good thing if men become more understanding that women feel scared out at night, for example.

This is a fact instinctively known to the human race.  This is how humans developed where men protect women.  It is in their instinct.  It is a vital part of Masculinity.  A normal man hitting a woman is a deviation from the norm.  A man shooting a woman in battle is a deviation from the norm.

These deviations from norms get culturally entrenched BY WOMEN.  For example - a woman insisting on joining the battlefield.  Ronda Rousey wanting to fight Floyd Mayweather.  A little girl insisting on playing Football with boys and getting applauded as the video goes viral.  A woman mocking a man who offers to open her door.

All throughout man's existence as a whole - from the beginning of human history to the modern era, women produce offspring at a 1:1 ratio.  That means, on average, every woman pass their genetics to the next generation. Men produce offspring at a 2:1 ratio.  That means, only 1 out of very 2 men gets to pass his genetics to the next generation.  Women, therefore, has always had the power that determined the genetic strength of the next generation whereas Men has had to compete with the other Men to get a contribution.  The women choosing, the men competing has shaped human instincts since the dawn of time - women, then, has always determined the outcome of humanity.  Hello, Eve. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, eddified said:

Wow, thank you! This is what I was feeling but couldn't put into words. It *is* sad what violent men do to women in dark alleys at night, but that stuff is already illegal. Why do we need feminism to teach this? And as you pointed out, as long as violent men do violent things in dark alleys, it is a *good* thing women feel unsafe there - it's a tool of self-preservation.

The fact that it's illegal doesn't stop it from happening at alarming rates. And the bigger problem is enforcement of the law and sentencing of criminals. You have collegiate and professional athletes who get away with horrific sexual crimes because they're talented athletes. A BYU-I student was recently convicted of voyeurism and didn't have to register as a sex offender because it was his first offense. Our justice system is soft on sexual assault far too often. That's why feminists make such a big fuss over rape culture. Our culture itself is problematic, but the "justice" system makes it so much worse. 

 

57 minutes ago, eddified said:

I suppose the upside of feminism is that maybe more men are realizing how women feel. I think it's a good thing if men become more understanding that women feel scared out at night, for example.

Agree 100%. Our society is abundant with dangers for women. It's good that a significant number of men are starting to see that, and we largely have feminism to thank for it.

45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is a real movement that is trying to get themselves heard as much as Feminists pound them to the ground.  They are collectively called Men's Rights Activists.  Some issues MRA is fighting for:

4.)  Reproductive Rights.  They want a voice in their children being aborted.

The day that a man's bodily autonomy is affected by a pregnancy, I will gladly support this. As it is, I'm certainly not against the father having some input, but ultimately the decision is the mother's, because it's her body that is carrying the infant. Is it fair? No. But it's one area where a woman should have the greater right for simple biological reasons. 

Quote

5.) Rape - yes, men get raped.  They don't report it because not only are they not believed that they are raped, the society norm is to think they should be grateful they got sex.

6.) Domestic abuse - yes, men are also victims of domestic violence.  this is mostly emotional abuse.  unfortunately, a lot of times, the man snaps and resort to their survival instinct of aggression.  They end up getting charged as perpetrators of domestic violence instead.

Most feminists that I know (and I know a LOT of feminists) are plenty vocal about these issues, and the child custody issue seems to be gaining traction as well. Interesting that I cross paths with so many feminists, but only very rarely encounter one of those man-haters that are brought up so often in these discussions. They exist, sure, but you would think that I would see more of them given the company I tend to keep, if the generalizations brought up here are to be believed.

MRA sounds to me a lot like the folks who respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter". Our society has come a long way in regard to gender equality and women's rights, but there are still some hurdles to overcome. Our society is still a man's world in many ways. Decreasingly so, but it's still a fact that men have the most advantages in our culture. So excuse me if I find it difficult to view my gender as oppressed.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share