Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Nanda]

Does that make sense?

It made sense all along - the problem is, it doesn't work in the practical sense. I understand their position, but there's no way for me to respect it without "undermining them" with my feminist ideals.

 

[Willamena]

It made sense all along - the problem is, it doesn't work in the practical sense. I understand their position, but there's no way for me to respect it without "undermining them" with my feminist ideals.

People don't have to "respect" it --as some posts in this thread would indicate --I would just hope they'd understand.

And practicality is what works in practice. What "undermines" here is the practice of drawing others into our philosophy (figuratively "imposing" one's philosophy on another).

 

[gnomon]

Put it this way, is there any rights that men have that women don't? Not that I'm aware of? Are there rights women have that men don't? Yes. Untill recently it was not legally possible for men to be raped, only sexually assulted with a foriegn object, which did not carry the same force in court that the title rape did. At no point are men allowed to kill thier children, but it's a standard legal right for women (abortion). Etc Etc.

You don't understand anything about providing and citing evidence, do you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People don't have to "respect" it --as some posts in this thread would indicate --I would just hope they'd understand.

And practicality is what works in practice. What "undermines" here is the practice of drawing others into our philosophy (figuratively "imposing" one's philosophy on another).

I think you've put way more thought into this movement than the True Women themselves.

 

[Willamena]

I think you've put way more thought into this movement than the True Women themselves.

Dark cloud, meet silver lining.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

At no point are men allowed to kill thier children, but it's a standard legal right for women (abortion). Etc Etc.

There's nothing illegal about a pregnant man getting an abortion.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't lose sleep over it but I do find it unfortunate, yes. They are identified by a word that was originally meant as a slant against them. Put it this way, imagine if a racial slur caught and stayed, like calling Japanese individuals japs or african americans ******s.

At any rate, you seem to have missed the point of the previous thread.

I don't think the word "lesbian" was ever meant as a slur. (Did not google before posting, so could be wrong.) It derives from our heritage and history, going back to Sappho, who lived on the island of Lesbos.

btw, I have heard that the people who live on Lesbos are angry about it.

 

[Alceste]

That could well be, that I've heard it wrong. But what I did hear is the issue that caught my eye (or ear, as the metaphor may be).

You know, I don't have any issues at all with their personal choice to define themselves according to their interpretation of religious dogma. I am for self-definition, even if the definition we choose is one that abdicates this responsibility / freedom to some religious insititution or fantasy of god.

The only thing that gets on my tits about them is that they have chosen not to just leave it at that. Their interpretation of religious dogma, by which they've chosen to define themselves, demands that they advocate anti-gay bigotry and teach their daughters that all those other women who have struggled for a better life for all women are an abomination in the eyes of God. It smacks of hypocrisy, and I despise hypocrisy. If they are going to disparage feminism and teach their daughters it is wrong, IMO they are ethically obliged to relinquish all the rights they enjoy because of it: voting, owning property, choosing their own husbands, working for a living wage, and protection from sexual harassment and domestic violence.

 

[Willamena]

. . .their personal choice to define themselves according to their interpretation of religious dogma.

Bingo! That is precisely the misrepresentation we are so programmed by a feministic society to impose on them.

 

[Nanda]

Bingo! That is precisely the misrepresentation we are so programmed by a feministic society to impose on them.

How would you interpret it differently?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Bingo! That is precisely the misrepresentation we are so programmed by a feministic society to impose on them.

I still fail to see how anything is being imposed on them.

Additionally, in what way are they not actually defining themselves? Even if they're espousing an ideology which they claim defines them, they are still making a personal decision to identify with that ideology.

It's rather inconsistent.

 

[Willamena]

How would you interpret it differently?

Each individual in the world has their own perspective, and each grouping of people has its own perspective. We can look at a thing from the perspective of one or another, or another, or each alternately.

Both are real, both are correct, both are proper in their context (the perspective of the subject). To suggest that these women have a self-defined role looks at it from only one perspective.

 

[Willamena]

Additionally, in what way are they not actually defining themselves?

I can see (and make a case for) the "way" being monistically.

(Which, ironically, is the case. (pun intended))

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can see (and make a case for) the "way" being monistically.

Please do so.

 

[Autodidact]

You know, I don't have any issues at all with their personal choice to define themselves according to their interpretation of religious dogma. I am for self-definition, even if the definition we choose is one that abdicates this responsibility / freedom to some religious insititution or fantasy of god.

The only thing that gets on my tits about them is that they have chosen not to just leave it at that. Their interpretation of religious dogma, by which they've chosen to define themselves, demands that they advocate anti-gay bigotry and teach their daughters that all those other women who have struggled for a better life for all women are an abomination in the eyes of God. It smacks of hypocrisy, and I despise hypocrisy. If they are going to disparage feminism and teach their daughters it is wrong, IMO they are ethically obliged to relinquish all the rights they enjoy because of it: voting, owning property, choosing their own husbands, working for a living wage, and protection from sexual harassment and domestic violence.

Exactly. The system forbids me from probably ever fruballing Alceste again, but clearly, if you object to women having equal rights, you should at a minimum not exercise them. So do not vote.

 

[Willamena]

How does "objecting to the self-defined roles that feminism supports" get morphed into "objecting to equal rights"?

 

[Kurt31416]

Yeah, lately, things like abortion are far more important to them than equal rights, or things like free medical care for poor pregnant women.

Look at poor Sarah Palin. It was ok to claim she should be at home with the kids, not doing a man's job, because she disagreed with them on abortion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Look at poor Sarah Palin. It was ok to claim she should be at home with the kids, not doing a man's job, because she disagreed with them on abortion.

I'm sure that being a dangerous, inept idiot had nothing to do with nobody wanting her in office.

 

[Willamena]

Please do so.

The universe is composed of ideas about the universe. One common idea, believed by most all, is that there is an "I", a self, that is distinct from and able to interact with the universe. Another common idea is that there is no self that is distinct from the universe, and that what is believed to be "interaction" is actually the universe "acting". As the universe is capable of acting, it owns intent, will, purpose, etc. --all those things that are attributed as "supreme being". They are not actually defining themselves in that they are the actual universe, so defined.

 

[Kurt31416]

I'm sure that being a dangerous, inept idiot had nothing to do with nobody wanting her in office.

It may or may not, but prominent "feminists" literally said she should be at home with her children.

And condemned GW givng free pre-natal care to poor pregnant women, because it might cut down on the number of abortions. Like keeping the volume up is what matters.