Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Heneni]

ha ha...

no, I want you to use the bible or whatever you want...
I am interested in your views...

I was on :cloud9: when you said....'i want you to use the bible' and then came crashing down with 'whatever you want'.

Honestly mr cheese....you and i both know, that when i use the bible you are simply going to discredit it.....easy peasy pie. So.....................

Lets go :snorkle: instead....at least we can both agree that sharks have real teeth or so the survivers tell us

 

[Mr Cheese]

Another thing to note, that they are also basically asserting that women's lives were so much better prior to the feminist movement. I don't think they make a very good argument for that.

:clapAmen

I vote we go back to lobotomizing women who have orgasms

That was a funny "pre feminist notion"

(yes I'm beign sarcastic for anyone that wants to complain)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Heck, if women want a man to cook and clean for and to tell them what to do, they don't need to start a movement - just head down to any dive bar on a weeknight and you'll have plenty of choices.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I was on :cloud9: when you said....'i want you to use the bible' and then came crashing down with 'whatever you want'.

Honestly mr cheese....you and i both know, that when i use the bible you are simply going to discredit it.....easy peasy pie. So.....................

Lets go :snorkle: instead....at least we can both agree that sharks have real teeth or so the survivers tell us

no no no

I want to know what biblical texts you beleive justify your assertions

I am interested

I promise

 

[Autodidact]

I bet they don't mind enjoying the rights that feminists have fought for and won for them, such as the right to vote and to own their own property.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I bet they don't mind enjoying the rights that feminists have fought for and won for them, such as the right to vote and to own their own property.

You never know...

 

[Sunstone]

Men and women are different in almost every single way. To say that they're the same, as many people have and do, is just plain foolish.

Physically they are different. I think that the differences physically are obvious.

Emotionally they are different. I think that this too is quite obvious.

You're good at making such claims, but you do not seem nearly so good at substantiating such claims. For instance, men and women may be physically different, and that might be obvious, but it is also just as obvious that for every difference there are similarities. How do you account for that? Aren't you selectively noticing differences and ignoring similarities?

 

[Willamena]

Equality does not necessitate the elimination of differences, but instead it necessitates that we respect and value our differences.

But I do believe that their recognition of the role of women as opposed to the role of men is valuable. More valuable than the current cultural outlook on the roles of men and women.

While I don't agree with all your post, these bits are well said. And the first is extremely important in understanding the "women's" right.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Ah! The Cult of Domesticity strikes again!

I'm happy that there are folks who are pleased in this way of life. Luckily, they have the freedom to voice their happiness and teach it to others.

Not for me, though. I wouldn't mind being a house husband to my hard working female.

 

[TheKnight]

I seriously doubt you can substantiate such a wild and unreasonable claim.

I thought it was obvious that men and women are different...

men and women arent physically all that different, how do you think sex changes occur so easily...?

I think a sex change is about as foolish as suggesting that a person can change their sexuality.

Emointionally? Oh please.... The Ancient Greeks thought women werent capable of rational thought.... Your assertion is largely as weak....

They are. Men and women think different, their outlook is different, their perceptions are different, their priorities are different.

What are those differences?
Are those differences truly substantial?

Males and females are inherently different in that one is described by having testes and the other ovaries and a uterus. The essential primary difference.

Men and women are defined as social extensions of male and female known as gender.

An individual born with undescended testes, a vagina and no uterus is defined basically how they define themselves. Unfortunately they do not match any definition from those who follow Abraham.

Observations of a difference in the male brain v. the female brain while informative may also lead us to find differences in the male brain v. another male brain. In other words, a male individual whose brain shows functionality on average closer to that of the female brain. This would most likely be due to hormonal development.

It's about expanding our concept of individual identity, social gender construction and individual sexual development. All of which are denied by those described in the article from the OP and their own website. They are retreating to absolutist definitions on the authority of scripture.

Is their anyway to take such scriptural concepts and finding common ground with a greater understanding of human development that does not match traditional concepts?

Another thing to note, that they are also basically asserting that women's lives were so much better prior to the feminist movement. I don't think they make a very good argument for that.

As I said I don't agree with all of what they say. But I do believe that their view is all in all more coherent than society's current jacked up veiw. And I can really only speak for Americans because I haven't had much experience with non-Americans.

I can't tell you how annoying it is that people in America think like teenagers. Not just young people, but adults too. It's like one day America got stuck in a teenage mindset and hasn't grown out of it.

All in all, my personal problem is the fact that society in general doesn't recognize a spiritual aspect to existence. And I believe that that part of our existence is key. Spiritually, men and women are different (with women being more spiritually apt). The differences, both physically and spiritually, account for the different roles that they're to play.

You're good at making such claims, but you do not seem nearly so good at substantiating such claims. For instance, men and women may be physically different, and that might be obvious, but it is also just as obvious that for every difference there are similarities. How do you account for that? Aren't you selectively noticing differences and ignoring similarities?

I don't care about the similarities. This topic has nothing to do with their similarities. The women in the OP are not saying that men in women have nothing in common. They are simply refusing to ignore the differences. Focusing on similarities and ignoring differences is criminal.

"There is no greater form of inequality then to describe to inequal things as equal." I believe Aristotle said that quote (although in different words I'm sure).

Men and women have similarities and they have differences. Feminists tend to only look at the similarities and want to ignore the differences. Men and women are equal in value, they are both human beings, they both are entitled to an opinion, to an identity and to develop their own ideas. But to ignore their differences, both in role and in nature, is to ignore the very things that make their identity unique. People are different from each other, to say there are no differences is cause people to become confused. Difference are what separate us. Not all separation is bad.

While I don't agree with all your post, these bits are well said. And the first is extremely important in understanding the "women's" right.

Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Men and women are different. Therefore women should be subservient to men. Doesn't follow. There is no reason on earth that women should be subservient to men.

 

[Heneni]

Men and women are different. Therefore women should be subservient to men. Doesn't follow. There is no reason on earth that women should be subservient to men.

And what are your religious reasons for this conclusion if i might ask?

 

[Sunstone]

I thought it was obvious that men and women are different...

You also seem to have thought it was obvious that "Men and women are different in almost every single way." Are you backing off that wild and unreasonable claim now?

I don't care about the similarities.

Obviously, you don't care for reason either. It's fine with me if you want, for some irrational reason, to believe that "men and women are different in almost every single way" -- and then defend that belief by airily waving off any criticism with "I don't care about the similarities" but please don't attempt to fob off your opinions as reasonable. They are not reasonable.

Focusing on similarities and ignoring differences is criminal.

Nor are your opinions rational.

 

[Autodidact]

And what are your religious reasons for this conclusion if i might ask?

My reasons aren't religious, Heneni, I'm an atheist. What is your non-religious reason for asserting the contrary?

 

[TheKnight]

Men and women are different. Therefore women should be subservient to men. Doesn't follow. There is no reason on earth that women should be subservient to men.

I agree. Women should not be subsirvient to men and I don't believe that anyone in this thread has suggested that (other than the women in the OP).

You also seem to have thought it was obvious that "Men and women are different in almost every single way." Are you backing off that wild and unreasonable claim now?

Oh. Yes. I still mean that men and women are different in almost every single way. They have similarities, but they also have plenty of differences. I think the differences outnumber the similarities.

Obviously, you don't care for reason either. It's fine with me if you want, for some irrational reason, to believe that "men and women are different in almost every single way" -- and then defend that belief by airily waving off any criticism with "I don't care about the similarities" but please don't attempt to fob off your opinions as reasonable. They are not reasonable.

Apparently you misunderstand the usage of the word "almost". That means that there are a lot of differences, but that men and women are not entirely different. I simply believe that there are more differences than similarities, hence my use of the word almost.

They are not even rational.

Neither are your unbacked assumptions.

 

[Willamena]

My reasons aren't religious, Heneni, I'm an atheist. What is your non-religious reason for asserting the contrary?

I may be corrected if I've got this wrong, but as I understand it, the marriage between a man and a woman directly symbolizes the relationship between a person and "God". The pious man subservient to "God" is symbolized in the pious woman subservient to the husband.

 

[gnomon]

As I said I don't agree with all of what they say. But I do believe that their view is all in all more coherent than society's current jacked up veiw. And I can really only speak for Americans because I haven't had much experience with non-Americans.

I can't tell you how annoying it is that people in America think like teenagers. Not just young people, but adults too. It's like one day America got stuck in a teenage mindset and hasn't grown out of it.

All in all, my personal problem is the fact that society in general doesn't recognize a spiritual aspect to existence. And I believe that that part of our existence is key. Spiritually, men and women are different (with women being more spiritually apt). The differences, both physically and spiritually, account for the different roles that they're to play.

The issue here is the puzzle.

The whole universe is a puzzle to us. We take all the pieces that we see and fit them together as best we can to try to understand the universe. It is also evident that we, in all probability, never see all the pieces to the puzzle. For all we know there is no end to it. But for our temporal lives it is most assuredly boundless.

What people like the women in this movement are doing is taking a select number of the pieces, drawing a boundary around it and ignoring whatever holes there may be or pieces they know exist outside of the boundary.

And you tell them there are pieces left out.

"Where is that piece?"
"It's right there."
"Well it won't fit."
"Because you forced all these pieces together to make them fit and left those out."
"I like it this way. This way it's perfect."
"But it's not complete. You can't leave that piece out and say you're done."
"But it won't fit the way I want it to."
"I see. It's all about you."

It is irresponsible to ignore something because it will not fit a preexisting model one wishes to uphold. That's what these women have done. They have ignored those who are constitutionally different from them. Excluded them from their model. They wish to teach their incomplete concept to their children.

What gets me is that so many people, and the number appears to be increasing, have no problem looking at all the pieces and accepting them. We may not always fit them together the same but we do not ignore them.

I do agree with your teenager analogy. Teenagers can be highly self conscious and idealistic. We begin to develop our own grand ideas when we are teenagers and hold to them dearly.

What great effort it takes to look at our own ideas and admit we may be wrong. That we do not know everything therefore we cannot state absolutely this is how the world works.

There is no reason to congratulate in any way a group of people who have pieced together an incomplete puzzle based on reasons they do not fully understand and put it forth as whole.

The same thing can be said of the feminist movement when it started by its exclusionary nature as well. It started as a white, heterosexual movement of women that left minorities out of the picture.

The key is to expand our understanding rather than creating arbitrary boundaries. Even though doing so may seem easier.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh. Yes. I still mean that men and women are different in almost every single way. They have similarities, but they also have plenty of differences. I think the differences outnumber the similarities.




Apparently you misunderstand the usage of the word "almost". That means that there are a lot of differences, but that men and women are not entirely different. I simply believe that there are more differences than similarities, hence my use of the word almost.



Neither are your unbacked assumptions.

Your notion that "There are more differences than similarities" between men and women is an unbacked assumption. You are good at making it, but -- so far -- you are lousy at backing it up. Are you just going to repeat your assumption over and over and over again -- or are you going to get around to backing it up?

 

[TheKnight]

It is irresponsible to ignore something because it will not fit a preexisting model one wishes to uphold. That's what these women have done. They have ignored those who are constitutionally different from them. Excluded them from their model. They wish to teach their incomplete concept to their children.

Who have they ignored?

Your notion that "There are more differences than similarities" between men and women is an unbacked assumption. You are good at making it, but -- so far -- you are lousy at backing it up. Are you just going to repeat your assumption over and over and over again -- or are you going to get around to backing it up?

I see it as something that's obvious. How does one go about convincing another that the sky is blue? One simply tells the other to look at the sky. Similarly, if you wish to see the differences between men and women, all you have to do is observe how they each behave.

 

[Willamena]

It is irresponsible to ignore something because it will not fit a preexisting model one wishes to uphold. That's what these women have done. They have ignored those who are constitutionally different from them. Excluded them from their model. They wish to teach their incomplete concept to their children.

But there are two models at play on them as women --one that society at large supports and one that they support --and they've chosen their model at the expense of what society thinks.

Regardless that the motivators behind the movement have fixed ideas about those outside their group, I began this thread to look at that particular idea --that society upholds a "freedom" for these women that robs these women of a freedom.

That's an astounding idea. And probably far from unique.