For those who think feminism is something other than liars lying their packs of lies

[Vort]

A now three-year-old article about the regrets of an old '70s feminist who wrote propaganda (her word) for Cosmopolitan. Murdered her unborn child as a sacrifice to her unholy god. Thank (the real) God she has attempted to repent and turn back her evil, but of course that genie can never be stuffed back into the bottle.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/05/26/she-wrote-fake-news-for-cosmopolitan-and-now-regrets-misleading-women-on-feminism/

[NeuroTypical]

Feminism is such a multifaceted topic.   1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th waves.  Postfeminism.  Gynocentrism.  And the political forms like liberal, radical, materialist, conservative/pro life feminism.  And the social types: Ecofeminism, intersectional, and those with no names but identify groupings of feminists who believe certain things about race, sexuality, and gender theory.   All of 'em battling away with each other, trying to be right.

Probably the most accessible example would be J.K.Rowling and Harry Potter.  Loved and hated by different kinds of feminists.  Hermoine and Molly Weasley are heroic strong feminist characters - oh, wait, they're just bland examples of the binary patriarchical structure.  She always thought of Dumbledore as gay, but she's no alphabet ally, she's a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.   Lots of anger, threats of violence, wishes of a swift end to Rowling's life.

In my large corporate place of employment, I've been involving myself in the various woke progressive groups and networks, to learn what they're thinking and being and doing.  One week I'm in a discussion about gender theory and all the problems with binary thinking and how gender shouldn't matter.  The next week that same group is reveling in a show pushing ecofeminism, that teaches most of the world's food and climate problems are the fault of men, and women have the solutions and better ways.  Then comes our women's group and it's efforts to get more girls and women into STEM fields.  The diversity people ask why they're not using more gender neutral language.  The women's group responds with a claim that although they're inclusive and accepting of gender theory, the majority of the world still runs on the binary, and they're going to serve the existing groups.   Interest and excitement with the true believers waxes and wanes.  Some of them attend a workshop about how to deal with diversity burnout, and rekindle energy and passion.   

(Just out of curiosity, does everyone understand all those words I just used?  I've learned how to speak the language, and I'm interested in hearing if I seem to be speaking a foreign language to anyone.)

To be fair, it's not like there were not horrible awful cultural oppressions and things for women to escape from/destroy/change.  I remember an old book in my parent's house, written in the '50s or '60's.  An investment book.  A paragraph or two on how to understand the stock market.  "The bulk of investors behave as a single woman.  It doesn't reason, it just thinks it reasons.  What it actually does, is have different parts of itself responding in different, sometimes conflicting ways, to the various stimuli experienced at the same time, by different parts of the whole."   People used to believe that.  People who raised me used to believe stuff like that.     I remember encountering folks who genuinely worried about the impact on educating women would have on their reproductive systems, diverting blood flow from uterus to brain and whatnot.  

I'm glad to hear Sue Ellen Browder seems to have reached a little wisdom in maturity. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

41 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

(Just out of curiosity, does everyone understand all those words I just used?  I've learned how to speak the language, and I'm interested in hearing if I seem to be speaking a foreign language to anyone.)

Sure. It means that you're to be trusted because you're not one of those awful conservative Republican evil subhumans.

41 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm glad to hear Sue Ellen Browder seems to have reached a little wisdom in maturity. 

But at what cost? Sacrifice a hundred million so that the one can finally come to some bitter self-realization? Seems the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. It means that you're to be trusted because you're not one of those awful conservative Republican evil subhumans.

But at what cost? Sacrifice a hundred million so that the one can finally come to some bitter self-realization? Seems the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Would you have been happier if she was still promoting feminism and abortion? 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Seems the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Well, think about the atonement, and see if you still want to say that.  Plenty of people have more stuff in their past than they’ll ever be able to make up for. I don’t have her garbage or anything close to it, but like black widow, there’s an awful lot of red in my ledger too.

(I am not in any way, trying to minimize the harm she’s done. I remember thinking such things about that magazine and others, through the ‘90’s and 2000’s, but not having any proof.)

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Plenty of people have more stuff in their past than they’ll ever be able to make up for. I don’t have her garbage or anything close to it, but like black widow, there’s an awful lot of red in my ledger too.

We all give lip service to our sins, but love pointing out the sins of others. It’s more fun that way. 
 

What’s the point of being a Christian if we can’t get forgiveness for sins, even grave ones? Shouldn’t we all just give up? 

Edited July 22, 2023 by LDSGator

[Vort]

51 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Would you have been happier if she was still promoting feminism and abortion? 

No. I would have been happier if she hadn't been complicit in lying to two generations of women and guilty of killing her baby. Of course, that's water under the bridge at this point. But avoiding the evil action is always better than doing it and then saying you're sorry.

If this woman were alone in her responsibility for the evils she promoted, or even if she were one of a small cabal of evildoers, such a comparison would make sense. We might then regard her similar to how the Lord regarded Laban, and say that it is better than one [wo]man be lost than an entire generation. There are two obvious problems with this: (1) We aren't God, and (2) if it had not been Sue Ellen Browder, it would surely have been someone else, someone just as convincing and just as duped. Ms. Browder was, in the cynical words of conspiracy theorists, a useful idiot. Perhaps we all are at some point.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

No. I would have been happier

Well, since someone correctly said we can’t change the past, let’s try to treat her as a lost sheep. 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, think about the atonement, and see if you still want to say that.  Plenty of people have more stuff in their past than they’ll ever be able to make up for. I don’t have her garbage or anything close to it, but like black widow, there’s an awful lot of red in my ledger too.

Obviously. My "juice ain't worth the squeeze" comment is, in the long view, clearly contrary to the very plan of salvation itself. We may assume that if the result of mortal life, sinning, choosing evil, and then possibly repenting were not "worth the squeeze", then we would not be experiencing mortality at the moment.

On the other hand, it's hard to make a rational and coherent argument that her evil works as a writer had any good outcome. Saying otherwise is essentially proclaiming, "I'm so glad for my sins and the evils I have committed toward others, because it led me to be the repentant person I am today." That attitude does not seem justified or justifiable. To what extent do you take that? Abuse? Rape? Murder? Genocide? At what point are you willing to say that, no, the evil was not justified or somehow good just because you said you were sorry?

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Obviously. My "juice ain't worth the squeeze" comment is, in the long view, clearly contrary to the very plan of salvation itself. We may assume that if the result of mortal life, sinning, choosing evil, and then possibly repenting were not "worth the squeeze", then we would not be experiencing mortality at the moment.

On the other hand, it's hard to make a rational and coherent argument that her evil works as a writer had any good outcome. Saying otherwise is essentially proclaiming, "I'm so glad for my sins and the evils I have committed toward others, because it led me to be the repentant person I am today." That attitude does not seem justified or justifiable. To what extent do you take that? Abuse? Rape? Murder? Genocide? At what point are you willing to say that, no, the evil was not justified or somehow good just because you said you were sorry?

Well, I guess it’s hopeless for a lot of us then.  Might as well stop trying.
 

Thanks @Vort, you just gave me an out! 

Edited July 23, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

Ironically I just saw this meme 30 seconds ago. Yes, it’s an oversimplification.
 

But it’s fantastic.  Don’t worry about who you were. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

it's hard to make a rational and coherent argument that her evil works as a writer had any good outcome.

Maybe I missed something, I didn't realize anyone had made that argument.

The good outcome is the lost sheep returning to the fold, the 1 rejoining the 90&9, the repentant sinner confessing publicly, truth coming out.  Yeah?

Edited July 23, 2023 by NeuroTypical