Xavier
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Scott
26 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's a feminist definition of feminism. Do you also accept a Nazi's definition of Naziism?

Quote

You can insist on your definition if you like and demand that everybody else use your definition. 

 

I got my definition from the dictionary.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott said:

Call me nobody then because I do care about the true definitions.   I do agree that  women should be treated as equals, and they should have rights such as the right to vote, right to fair educational opportunities, etc.  That really is part of true feminism. 

This definition has already been achieved (and yes, I hate the passive tense). The majority of college students today are female, for example. In many schools, including religious ones, the ration is 3:2 f/m. As others have indicated, much of today's 'feminism' seems centered on anti-male grievance and government funding for abortion and birth control. If I were to predict the next wave of American feminism I might suggest Gender Reparations. :animatedidea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

I got my definition from the dictionary.

Strange. Which dictionary, exactly?

Because your definition that you got "from the dictionary" is word-for-word identical with the introductory sentence to the Wikipedia entry for Feminism. And that entry's introductory sentence in turn references two other openly feminist works:

  1.  Hawkesworth, Mary E. (2006). Globalization and Feminist Activism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 25–27. ISBN 9780742537835.
  2. Beasley, Chris (1999). What is Feminism?. New York: Sage. pp. 3–11. ISBN 9780761963356.

Here is Mary Hawkesworth's Wikipedia page, which begins:

Quote

Mary Hawkesworth (born June 26, 1952) is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey. She is a political scientist trained in feminist theory and has conducted extensive research in women and politics, gender, and contemporary feminist activism.

"Chris Beasley" appears to refer to Professor Christine Beasley of the University of Adelaide. She does not appear to have a Wikipedia page, but here is her Researcher Profile, which begins:

Quote

Chris Beasley is Professor in Politics, and from 2009-2013 she was Co-Director of the Fay Gale Centre for Research on Gender, at the University of Adelaide. She primarily teaches in three areas of Politics—social and political theory, gender and sexuality studies, and cultural politics.

Beasley describes her research interests as follows:

Quote

Professor Beasley is engaged in several research directions. She is located in POLIS (Politics and International Studies) but is linked with The Fay Gale Centre for Research on Gender (University of Adelaide), GEXcel: Centre for Excellence in Gender (Sweden), the Centre for Law, Gender and Sexuality (UK) and the Indo-Pacific Governance Centre.

Her main current projects include

  • socio-political theory on social change
  • social change and sexualities, especially heterosexualities
  • social change and masculinities, especially hetero-masculinities
  • masculinity and violence
  • boys’ schooling and advancing gender equity
  • women and politics: comparative issues
  • embodied ethics. the politics of the body, and revaluing care
  • older people, sexuality and care services
  • internet dating
  • the impact of neoliberalism upon the welfare state, the academy and on academic practices
  • the politics of 'Hollywood' film, of mass media
  • the politics of visual art
  • issues in 'intersectionality': class, gender and culture

Do you still maintain that your chosen definition is unbiased? Or are you willing to concede the obvious fact that it's a feminist definition of feminism?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Strange. Which dictionary, exactly?

Because your definition that you got "from the dictionary" is word-for-word identical with the introductory sentence to the Wikipedia entry for Feminism. And that entry's introductory sentence in turn references two other openly feminist works:

Were as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism

Are real dictionarys and tend to be much more neutral in tone on the subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Quote

 

Strange. Which dictionary, exactly?

Because your definition that you got "from the dictionary" is word-for-word identical with the introductory sentence to the Wikipedia entry for Feminism. 

 

Darn; right you are.  Tough day today (I took it off mostly to deal with our insurance company).  It hasn't been a good day (probably seven hours on the phone with the insurance company). Consider that a brain fart.   You are correct; it came from wiki. 

Quote

 

Were as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism

Are real dictionarys and tend to be much more neutral in tone on the subject

 

Sounds good; I'd go for either definition (although I still think that the original wiki one wasn't that bad).

Let's just use these:

Marriam Webster:

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

Dictionary.com:

1.  the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

I would agree with either definition.  True feminism as defined in the dictionary about isn't a negative in my opinion.  I think woman should have the same rights as men as defined in the definition above.   That doesn't mean that they are the same as men, but they should have the same rights.

Here is my original statement (I'll change the quoted definition to the Dictionary.com one):

When looking at the true definitions, I don't really see true feminism as a negative thing.  Woman should be treated as equals, and they should have rights such as the right to vote, right to fair educational opportunities, etc.

If feminism is used to try and erase all differences between the genders; yes I would have to disagree with that.   Although that sometimes comes to mind, that really is not the goal of true feminism.  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2018 at 12:42 PM, Xavier said:

Recently, I was having a conversation with an investigator and at one point, she made a very interesting observation. 

In the scriptures when describing humanity as a whole, the Lord uses “and the children of MEN”, or, “if MEN humble themselves...” . 

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

I made the attempt to express that in any language, the general way to describe humanity as a whole, it was by using the word “MEN” and that in noway it’s used to demean women. She wasn’t sastified with that answer. 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

I have concerns that this type of thing is trained willful blindness and seeking to be offended. I'm not sure there is anything you can do or say that will change her mind. However, our very own @anatess2 is proof that progress can be made. I can remember a time when she and I would dispute feminism and it seemed to me she was defending it, now she calls it cancer and such and speaks of it with more vitriol than I.

As far as will feminism destroy humanity - I certainly think a lot of things that I associate with feminsim are bad for society and have been causing grave damage and will continue to do so. Will they eventually do away with 'toxic" masculinity? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I have concerns that this type of thing is trained willful blindness and seeking to be offended. I'm not sure there is anything you can do or say that will change her mind. However, our very own @anatess2 is proof that progress can be made. I can remember a time when she and I would dispute feminism and it seemed to me she was defending it, now she calls it cancer and such and speaks of it with more vitriol than I.

As far as will feminism destroy humanity - I certainly think a lot of things that I associate with feminsim are bad for society and have been causing grave damage and will continue to do so. Will they eventually do away with 'toxic" masculinity? I doubt it.

You must have had a faulty memory.  I'm a Filipino-usage-of-the-word feminist.  Just like I'm a Filipino-usage-of-the-word liberal.  American Feminism since Roe vs Wade is 3rd Wave Feminism which I have never ever supported.  Ever.  And, of course, I can't be liberal in the American usage of the word especially under the US Constitution.

There's a HUGE, GIGANTIC difference between the feminist activities of Camille Paglia (which I don't agree with 100% but is where we are at in the Philippines) and the people running the American Unis today.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2018 at 6:19 AM, anatess2 said:

There's a HUGE, GIGANTIC difference between the feminist activities of Camille Paglia (which I don't agree with 100% but is where we are at in the Philippines) and the people running the American Unis today.

If Camille Paglia were representative of American feminism, I would...well, not call myself a feminist, certainly, but...have a lot more respect for the feminist viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 2:38 PM, Scott said:

Darn; right you are.  Tough day today (I took it off mostly to deal with our insurance company).  It hasn't been a good day (probably seven hours on the phone with the insurance company). Consider that a brain fart.   You are correct; it came from wiki.

My point was not that it came from Wikipedia, but that it was a highly biased definition. Do you concede that (rather obvious) fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The term Woman has the term man as part of it. It relates to the story of Eve being taken from the rib of Adam. Woman means, "From Man." If she is not capable of seeing this then she is on an irrational foundation.

2. Yes, it is certainly what radical feminists are attempting. It will take a miracle for radicals of any kind to come to their senses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 4:38 PM, Scott said:

Darn; right you are.  Tough day today (I took it off mostly to deal with our insurance company).  It hasn't been a good day (probably seven hours on the phone with the insurance company). Consider that a brain fart.   You are correct; it came from wiki. 

Sounds good; I'd go for either definition (although I still think that the original wiki one wasn't that bad).

Let's just use these:

Marriam Webster:

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

Dictionary.com:

1.  the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

I would agree with either definition.  True feminism as defined in the dictionary about isn't a negative in my opinion.  I think woman should have the same rights as men as defined in the definition above.   That doesn't mean that they are the same as men, but they should have the same rights.

Here is my original statement (I'll change the quoted definition to the Dictionary.com one):

When looking at the true definitions, I don't really see true feminism as a negative thing.  Woman should be treated as equals, and they should have rights such as the right to vote, right to fair educational opportunities, etc.

If feminism is used to try and erase all differences between the genders; yes I would have to disagree with that.   Although that sometimes comes to mind, that really is not the goal of true feminism.  

 

True definition. I'd agree. What they've changed is the meaning of equality. The movement now wants women to be"more"equal than men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 1:02 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The term Woman has the term man as part of it. It relates to the story of Eve being taken from the rib of Adam. Woman means, "From Man." If she is not capable of seeing this then she is on an irrational foundation.

This is actually not so. Etymologically speaking, "woman" is a modern form of the Middle English word "womman", meaning an adult female human. The word was also spelled "wifman", the same root word from which we get "wife". Another term, "werman", referred specifically to males. The suffix "-man" simply meant "human being".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, and motivated by 2nd and 3rd wave feminism,  since 1985 various self-appointed Christians have re-translated the Bible in gender neutral terms. There are 13 gender-neutral versions listed HERE. The same article lists two "culturally adapted" version for the more ardent PCers and SJWs.

So, if the woman in question can't rise above her own unwitting sexism, she may still read the Bible in a language more to her liking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest threat with feminism is in the destruction or removal of the patriarchal order in society and the home. The father presides, or should be presiding, in the home but feminism is trying to destroy that role. Strong families are those where the father presides in righteousness. We still have a few of them but it's getting to be rare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vort said:

This is actually not so. Etymologically speaking, "woman" is a modern form of the Middle English word "womman", meaning an adult female human. The word was also spelled "wifman", the same root word from which we get "wife". Another term, "werman", referred specifically to males. The suffix "-man" simply meant "human being".

I knew I could count on someone over-complicating a pretty straightforward concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The biggest threat with feminism is in the destruction or removal of the patriarchal order in society and the home. The father presides, or should be presiding, in the home but feminism is trying to destroy that role. Strong families are those where the father presides in righteousness. We still have a few of them but it's getting to be rare. 

Many wives are complicating this by taking over the traditional patriarchal role as well. They are not doing it intentionally, but they are doing it nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I knew I could count on someone over-complicating a pretty straightforward concept.

Well, an incorrect concept is incorrect regardless of how straightforward it is.

You can come up with your own understanding of the words man and woman.  Just like how I like to think that the word Christian comes from the ideology that without Christ you're left with ian = I am Nothing.  But that's not the true origin of that word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Many wives are complicating this by taking over the traditional patriarchal role as well. They are not doing it intentionally, but they are doing it nevertheless.

Many wives are taking the traditional patriarchal role because of weak husbands.  They are doing it intentionally because somebody has got to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I knew I could count on someone over-complicating a pretty straightforward concept.

As a philosophical tenet, I believe the truth is ultimately the simplest and most straightforward way to proceed. False etymologies can be useful for rote learning (e.g. the Japanese hiragana for "ni" looks like a knee, and the hiragana for "no" looks like the cross-out symbol for "no parking"), but in the long run we do better if we have an actual understanding of things and not just mnemonic shortcuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Many wives are taking the traditional patriarchal role because of weak husbands.  They are doing it intentionally because somebody has got to do it.

True, but to a great extent that begs the question. Why are the husbands weak? Just bad, useless men? Or does it maybe have something to do with a feminist society that seeks to break men down from the time they're children? Boys need to be trained up to be men, and feminism is explicitly designed to turn out weak, useless men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

True, but to a great extent that begs the question. Why are the husbands weak? Just bad, useless men? Or does it maybe have something to do with a feminist society that seeks to break men down from the time they're children? Boys need to be trained up to be men, and feminism is explicitly designed to turn out weak, useless men.

You have struck the chord exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

True, but to a great extent that begs the question. Why are the husbands weak? Just bad, useless men? Or does it maybe have something to do with a feminist society that seeks to break men down from the time they're children? Boys need to be trained up to be men, and feminism is explicitly designed to turn out weak, useless men.

Just because there are female harpies that break men down doesn't excuse weak men.  Feminism may be designed to turn out weak, useless men - but each of these men are their own persons and that's not counting the fact that they can't possibly exist without fathers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Every situation is unique, but I think there is truth in his point. Weakness is often a result of abuse in all its forms.

Sure.

I say, if you're abused and you go around claiming you can't do X because you're a victim of abuse, you are using your abuse as an excuse to fail. 

You sound like a guy who is familiar with Candace Owens - Victor versus Victim mentality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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