Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Willamena]

And yet we sin, and God does not sin. So what part is God and what part is us? There must be a difference, or else God sins, and God does not sin. So we are a lower form, that is why we kill

We've gotten a wee bit off topic.

The assertion of "sin" is not in evidence. We do bad things, and we do good things; we steal, and we donate; we inflict harm, and we promote health; we kill, and we eat; we murder, and we render justice. If our state is "sin," then all of that is "sin," because all of that is us.

I throw the question back at you: what part of the world could possibly stand apart from God?

 

[columbus]

I thought I answered it. The Bible is not there to be easily understood. So it would imply the same with the understanding that is allowed us by God. It is not there to allow people in easy.

This is one of the things about abrahamic religion that makes absolutely no sense.

God doesn't want us to know about Him or what He wants or else He would tell us. Telling ancient prophets is not the same. The large majority of the human race is either following a false prophet or come to the conclusion that all prophets are false.

I can understand why primitive people like Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad would not understand this. But it makes no sense whatsoever to claim God doesn't or cannot.

Tom

 

[Riverwolf]

If the excuse is that if we step on an ant and kill it is a defence for killing animals and eating them, or killing people, it is not defence. We sin in trying not to sin, that is clear. But we should not just ignore everything because of that, you have to do the best you can through life, that is also clear. We given vegetation at the beginning, and if possible, that is what we should eat. Killing people is out of bounds, we all answer at the last judgment for that which we do whilst in the body.

We're omnivores, and so have "been given" both meat and plants to eat, among a few other things. We were never "meant" to eat one instead of the other.

Killing for food is not bad. We still live in a survival environment, even if we've developed tools sophisticated enough to pretend we don't.

But we also have certain psychological barriers that keep us from killing our tribesmen, and even stronger barriers that keep us from eating other humans or apes. (I've never heard of a culture that ate other apes, anyway).

Have you ever heard of the Red Lady of Paviland?

And there are many negative things which come from it also, which you fail to mention or perhaps admit. Just because men in the past have not dealt wisely with their position, does not mean that we have to make it worse. Man is the head of woman..as it is written

As it was written by men. Not a very credible source. What is written can be erased.

Life comes from women; men plant the seed.

Hence why the God and Goddess should lie together as equals, neither one above the other. The head of woman is woman; man is the head of man.

Besides, all solutions carry new problems. Doesn't mean we should stagnate.

If one is going to go back to the First Cause of everything, then how does one explain it without the accusation of circular argument? It is a pointless argument, and therefore a cop out. If you want cause and effect in physical terms then stick with the world. The world brings death.

And Death is the Mother of Life.

Without Death, there is no Life.

I thought I answered it. The Bible is not there to be easily understood. So it would imply the same with the understanding that is allowed us by God. It is not there to allow people in easy.

"Not easily understood" is itself a cop-out, and a very common one.

Being difficult to understand doesn't mean being the Word of God.

After all, I have a lot of trouble understanding Shakespeare.

And yet we sin, and God does not sin. So what part is God and what part is us? There must be a difference, or else God sins, and God does not sin. So we are a lower form, that is why we kill

LOL If killing is sin in all cases, God sins all the time in the Bible.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We've gotten a wee bit off topic.

The assertion of "sin" is not in evidence. We do bad things, and we do good things; we steal, and we donate; we inflict harm, and we promote health; we kill, and we eat; we murder, and we render justice. If our state is "sin," then all of that is "sin," because all of that is us.

Ok

I throw the question back at you: what part of the world could possibly stand apart from God?

What do you mean apart from God. 'Not with', do you mean? In one sense all is God. Does that lead you to where you want to go in this conversation? Are you now saying that God has sin? If this is what this question is about, then you would have to understand what and who God is and his Nature

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is one of the things about abrahamic religion that makes absolutely no sense.

God doesn't want us to know about Him or what He wants or else He would tell us.

He tells us in many ways but we do not see it

Telling ancient prophets is not the same. The large majority of the human race is either following a false prophet or come to the conclusion that all prophets are false.

In a way, yes

I can understand why primitive people like Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad would not understand this. But it makes no sense whatsoever to claim God doesn't or cannot.

He does know, and he can. But he sees the heart of the person. We are what we are. We are what we seek.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We're omnivores, and so have "been given" both meat and plants to eat, among a few other things. We were never "meant" to eat one instead of the other.

"never"; how far back are you going. Back to the beginning of life? back to the beginning of the Divine Consciousness?

Killing for food is not bad. We still live in a survival environment, even if we've developed tools sophisticated enough to pretend we don't.

if you have to you have to, and then you thank God; but you kill yourself.

But we also have certain psychological barriers that keep us from killing our tribesmen, and even stronger barriers that keep us from eating other humans or apes. (I've never heard of a culture that ate other apes, anyway).

Have you ever heard of the Red Lady of Paviland?

that is because we are not supposed to kill, it is part of the Higher Consciousness of God

As it was written by men. Not a very credible source. What is written can be erased.

What is above is below. All is reflected. Perhaps you don't believe anything written by man then

Life comes from women; men plant the seed.

Life come the Masculine, through the Feminine

Hence why the God and Goddess should lie together as equals, neither one above the other. The head of woman is woman; man is the head of man.

The head of woman is man. Remove the head and the body will fall

Besides, all solutions carry new problems. Doesn't mean we should stagnate.

true

And Death is the Mother of Life.

true

"Not easily understood" is itself a cop-out, and a very common one.

Being difficult to understand doesn't mean being the Word of God.

After all, I have a lot of trouble understanding Shakespeare.

we are speaking of Scripture

LOL If killing is sin in all cases, God sins all the time in the Bible.

[/QUOTE]
good point; then which God???

 

[Riverwolf]

"never"; how far back are you going. Back to the beginning of life? back to the beginning of the Divine Consciousness?

Certainly before our species first showed up. If we were ever fully herbivores, it would likely have been well before apes developed. But the first mammals that evolved alongside the dinosaurs would have had to have been omnivores; they wouldn't have been able to survive otherwise.

if you have to you have to, and then you thank God; but you kill yourself.

And my dead self becomes the grass to be eaten by others, providing life.

If you're worried about losing the ability to empathize and sympathize with other animals, I ask again: have you heard of the Red Lady of Paviland?

that is because we are not supposed to kill, it is part of the Higher Consciousness of God

No, it's part of our inherent nature as a social species. The same tendencies are observed in other social species, especially ones that engage in overt tribal behavior, like Chimps.

However, some people are born without this tendency. They suffer from a mental disorder.

What is above is below. All is reflected. Perhaps you don't believe anything written by man then

I believe what's able to have independent confirmation. I'm pretty sure you don't believe everything you read.

The books of the Bible were written by various men from a very specific geographic region; its mythology is not represented anywhere else. Hence, far as I'm concerned, if it's the word of any God, it's the word of a local God, not a Supreme Creator.

Besides, what's above is hardly the same as what's below.

Life come the Masculine, through the Feminine

Neither one without the other. But the egg is forever; the seed is ever dying and being reborn.

Life comes from both the Masculine and Feminine equally; it cannot come from just one. (Except in the case of certain amphibians that can change their sex.)

The head of woman is man. Remove the head and the body will fall

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. All of my experience and observations have reinforced for me the notion that women are just as capable as men in pretty much everything. I've never seen any indication that "the head of woman is man" in the real world.

we are speaking of Scripture

The Biblical canon is just as much Scripture to me as Shakespeare.

Besides, my point remains: being hard to understand doesn't mean it's the Word of God.

good point; then which God???

I'm a polytheist, remember? I believe in many Gods. Some are friends to us, some aren't, most probably don't care.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Certainly before our species first showed up. If we were ever fully herbivores, it would likely have been well before apes developed. But the first mammals that evolved alongside the dinosaurs would have had to have been omnivores; they wouldn't have been able to survive otherwise.

And my dead self becomes the grass to be eaten by others, providing life.

If you're worried about losing the ability to empathize and sympathize with other animals, I ask again: have you heard of the Red Lady of Paviland?

No, it's part of our inherent nature as a social species. The same tendencies are observed in other social species, especially ones that engage in overt tribal behavior, like Chimps.

However, some people are born without this tendency. They suffer from a mental disorder.

I believe what's able to have independent confirmation. I'm pretty sure you don't believe everything you read.

The books of the Bible were written by various men from a very specific geographic region; its mythology is not represented anywhere else. Hence, far as I'm concerned, if it's the word of any God, it's the word of a local God, not a Supreme Creator.

Besides, what's above is hardly the same as what's below.

Neither one without the other. But the egg is forever; the seed is ever dying and being reborn.

Life comes from both the Masculine and Feminine equally; it cannot come from just one. (Except in the case of certain amphibians that can change their sex.)

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. All of my experience and observations have reinforced for me the notion that women are just as capable as men in pretty much everything. I've never seen any indication that "the head of woman is man" in the real world.

The Biblical canon is just as much Scripture to me as Shakespeare.

Besides, my point remains: being hard to understand doesn't mean it's the Word of God.

I'm a polytheist, remember? I believe in many Gods. Some are friends to us, some aren't, most probably don't care.

We have much we don't agree on I think.

What of the Lady?

"Polytheist", I did not remember. So then you see one God is evil and One not

 

[Riverwolf]

We have much we don't agree on I think.

Ya think? ^_^

What of the Lady?

A human skeleton found in a seaside cave, covered in ivory jewels and some kind of red powder, next to the head of a giant elephant. Because the person who found the skeleton was a YEC, it was assumed that this was a prostitute from Britain's Roman times. Hence, Red Lady.

Not so. This skeleton wasn't even of a woman. And in truth, this man lived many thousands of years ago: in Britain before the last Ice Age. The skull, of course, was that of a mammoth. Though the cave is seaside now, back then it overlooked a vast plain.

This hunter, and what likely was his pray, entombed together for all eternity.

Killing animals out of necessity doesn't mean we respect or honor them any less.

"Polytheist", I did not remember. So then you see one God is evil and One not

...no, many Gods. As in thousands of Gods, not just one or two.

Good and evil aren't concepts that apply to the Otherworld, and thus don't apply to the Gods.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ya think? ^_^

A human skeleton found in a seaside cave, covered in ivory jewels and some kind of red powder, next to the head of a giant elephant. Because the person who found the skeleton was a YEC, it was assumed that this was a prostitute from Britain's Roman times. Hence, Red Lady.

Not so. This skeleton wasn't even of a woman. And in truth, this man lived many thousands of years ago: in Britain before the last Ice Age. The skull, of course, was that of a mammoth. Though the cave is seaside now, back then it overlooked a vast plain.

This hunter, and what likely was his pray, entombed together for all eternity.

Killing animals out of necessity doesn't mean we respect or honor them any less.

...no, many Gods. As in thousands of Gods, not just one or two.

Good and evil aren't concepts that apply to the Otherworld, and thus don't apply to the Gods.

So if evil does not apply to the Gods, then does evil come from?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Feminism: Focuses on females.

Just to take this post back to Willy's first OP, I agree with that statement. This means though that females who are feminists are therefore hypocritical, chauvinist, s--ist, and therefore selfish. Considering their idea is always about money and power, then it is merely greed wrapped up in a big bow saying 'Equality' which it certainly has nothing to do with. When was the last time a woman offered to clean the drains out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just to take this post back to Willy's first OP, I agree with that statement. This means though that females who are feminists are therefore hypocritical, chauvinist, s--ist, and therefore selfish. Considering their idea is always about money and power, then it is merely greed wrapped up in a big bow saying 'Equality' which it certainly has nothing to do with. When was the last time a woman offered to clean the drains out.

Keep this up, Robert. You certainly don't seem to be sparing any effort to make me believe even more strongly that feminism is needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just to take this post back to Willy's first OP, I agree with that statement. This means though that females who are feminists are therefore hypocritical, chauvinist, s--ist,

Nah, it doesn't mean that.
To be focused on their own gender is as natural as for MRAs to be focused on their own.

and therefore selfish. Considering their idea is always about money and power, then it is merely greed wrapped up in a big bow saying 'Equality' which it certainly has nothing to do with. When was the last time a woman offered to clean the drains out.

You've never offered to clean out me drains either.

 

[Robert.Evans]

To clarify what this thread is about, I put "feminist" in quotation marks because I do not identify
with the label. But I favor gender equality as do many mainstream feminists. Heckfire, I even
took a test which classified me as a feminist. (Shocker, eh?)
So why eschew the label?
Tis because I see feminism as a movement embodying some general (with some diversity) traits.

Feminism:
- Focuses on females.
Sure, sure, some feminists also address disadvantages visited upon men.
But by & large, it's about the females. I noticed that they were very
silent about the military draft of men.
- Tends to dismiss the MRM (men's rights movement) as reactionary,
anti-feminism, whiny, or a subset of feminism (since their approach to
gender equality would fix all men's problems too).
- Advocates increased government authority. Affirmative action was a
fine tool for women, but it legalized active discrimination against men.
- Tolerates hostility in its own ranks against males. All gender inequity
is chalked up to "patriarchy", ie, it's the man's fault.
- Sees women as victims, failing to recognize & use the power they already have.
- Polarizes the abortion debate, making anti-abortion advocates out to be
anti-woman. I'm pro-abortion, but see this as a question of when life & attendant
civil rights begin. The whole "war on woman" campaign seems dishonest & divisive.

Is anyone else here a "non" (non-feminist) despite sympathy for the cause?
Why?

Note:
Don't take my generalities too far. I only see them as slight group tendencies.
Moreover, I don't say my perspective is THE TRUTH or any such foolishness.
I merely explain what I see, how I react, & what I believe.

Rules for this thread:
- Be civil to each other. After all, we're just disagreeing about important things.
- Go ahead & generalize, but be careful about over-generalizing.

In England, one year, in order to increase the women represented in government, they actually stopped men from having a job just because they were men! Hypocrisy and stupid. The man might have been better, but they keep him out because he is a man. And that is wrapped up in the bow of equality, yet showing that they definitely are not.

But women have the vote now, eh, so we have to listen to them, otherwise the government lose half of the vote. Power is what it is about, nothing to do with equality. Of course the men who allow the women in, they all have good careers, right.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In England, one year, in order to increase the women represented in government, they actually stopped men from having a job just because they were men! Hypocrisy and stupid. The man might have been better, but they keep him out because he is a man. And that is wrapped up in the bow of equality, yet showing that they definitely are not.

But women have the vote now, eh, so we have to listen to them, otherwise the government lose half of the vote. Power is what it is about, nothing to do with equality. Of course the men who allow the women in, they all have good careers, right.

You have a problem with women's being able to vote?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You have a problem with women's being able to vote?

I know you will think it old fashioned; but why did they need it? Did not the man represent them? If the two are one flesh in marriage, then why do they both have to speak and say the same words? Now you will say that not all are married. That is the point...at least in part

 

[Revoltingest]

In England, one year, in order to increase the women represented in government, they actually stopped men from having a job just because they were men! Hypocrisy and stupid. The man might have been better, but they keep him out because he is a man. And that is wrapped up in the bow of equality, yet showing that they definitely are not.
But women have the vote now, eh, so we have to listen to them, otherwise the government lose half of the vote. Power is what it is about, nothing to do with equality. Of course the men who allow the women in, they all have good careers, right.

We've seen similar things here, eg, hiring prohibitions against white males back in the 1970s.
Fortunately, those days are over, but we do now have more covert efforts to give preference
to those in traditionally disadvantaged groups. Could this be called "privilege"?

 

[Robert.Evans]

We've seen similar things here, eg, hiring prohibitions against white males back in the 1970s.
Fortunately, those days are over, but we do have more covert efforts to give preference
to those in traditionally disadvantaged groups. Could this be called "privilege"?

I apologize for taking things so off topic before; it must be annoying.

Prohibitions on white males, really!!

It is certainly privilege. I think as people, two basic things go on: one we try to include everyone, because that is right and in line with the law (mosaic) and then, two, we look after ourselves, our family, because we are by nature, selfish. This is part of the First Principle, the separation. (I know you are not interested) So we fight the two.

Women's insecurity complex about men makes them attack all the time; men on the other hand always tend to protect them especially if this means attacking another male; it is a win win situation to a male, (primordial). But there is certainly a break up of the family now, and I don't see it as good long term or short, even though it will stabalise, things always do

 

[Debater Slayer]

I know you will think it old fashioned; but why did they need it? Did not the man represent them? If the two are one flesh in marriage, then why do they both have to speak and say the same words? Now you will say that not all are married. That is the point...at least in part

Wow...

Because they are not children who are supposed to be "represented" by someone else; they are adults with their own opinions and worldviews. Furthermore, women don't have to be married to voice their opinions, and the belief that people become "one in flesh in marriage" isn't shared by everyone, so it is rather arbitrary to restrict women's rights based on such belief.

Also, going by your logic, I could just as well say that men aren't supposed to vote because women represent them. The fact that someone would argue in favor of restricting women's rights based on a belief that could go either way only reflects gender-based chauvinism on their part rather than anything else, in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I apologize for taking things so off topic before; it must be annoying.

You've livened things up! I've annoyed a great many too...it's gonna happen even when trying not to.

Prohibitions on white males, really!!

At the University of Mich (when I applied for a Phoenix Memorial Lab reactor
operator job) & at Ford (when my father was directed not to hire them).

It is certainly privilege. I think as people, two basic things go on: one we try to include everyone, because that is right and in line with the law (mosaic) and then, two, we look after ourselves, our family, because we are by nature, selfish. This is part of the First Principle, the separation. (I know you are not interested) So we fight the two.

I'm OK with being selfish.....ethical selfishness.

Women's insecurity complex about men makes them attack all the time; men on the other hand always tend to protect them especially if this means attacking another male; it is a win win situation to a male, (primordial). But there is certainly a break up of the family now, and I don't see it as good long term or short, even though it will stabalise, things always do

I just don't see this picture you paint.