Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[TheKnight]

The whole movement is about redefining feminism. What do you mean it has nothing to do with sexuality?

Nancy Leigh DeMoss
Mary Kassian
Susan Hunt
John Piper
Janet Parshall
Holly Elliff
Carolyn McCulley

All speakers at the first conference. All who advocate that homosexuality is a sin. Some from the "love the sinner hate the sin" shtick to the reforming homosexual shtick.

You don't believe that part of their message, which many have addressed in their radio programs and sermons regarding homosexuality, is to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and that such people should be reformed.

Good luck to the child of any of these people if they fall under the intersex designation. I doubt a single one of them even knows the meaning of the word.

You want me to start posting statements from John Piper. Excerpts from DeMoss's programs crying over a gay child and how they finally saw the light. Writings about the homosexual agenda by some of these people. Carolyn McCulley being disappointed in eHarmony for setting up avenues for homosexuals to date.

Let me clue you in. When the person who founds a movement and practically everyone keynoting, leading or highlighting that movement has as part of their agenda, namely continuing to spread disinformation and lies about homosexuality and human sexuality, and that movement is about feminism, which is always about sexuality, then yes.........the whole thing includes sexuality.

Practically all the speakers at the first conference have writings, especially the key speaker John Piper, at sexuality. Videos of the conference include discussions about marriage and sexuality. Feminism is all about gender identity, sexuality and has worked to expand our understanding of it.

I don't really feel like doing homework for other people the rest of the night.

Seriously, check Mary Kassian's youtube videos on the conference. Shortly in part 2 she is referencing a lesbian!

Get with it.

The movement is about women being women. I fail to see how that ignores people such as homosexuals, intersexuals, transssexuals, or any other sort of sexuality a person may have.

The True Woman movement, and we're discussing that movement and its goals, is about women living in a manner that models their opinion of Biblical womanhood. It has little to do with sexuality.

 

[gnomon]

The movement is about women being women. I fail to see how that ignores people such as homosexuals, intersexuals, transssexuals, or any other sort of sexuality a person may have.

The True Woman movement, and we're discussing that movement and its goals, is about women living in a manner that models their opinion of Biblical womanhood. It has little to do with sexuality.

Okay.

When you learn how to read get back to me.

Anyone who states that redefining feminism, a movement whose leaders reference sexuality a number of times on their own website and their own conference, as well as their own writings, and also most of whom who write about sexuality in their own books, blogs and articles that are related to the movement they represent........is not about sexuality.....isn't reading.

Isn't rational.

Thanks for wasting my time.

I may as well have been reading Kafka to a rock.

 

[Alceste]

The movement is about women being women.

No, the movement is about women being wimps. I'm not going to start following their lead and saying all Real Women are just like me, but I at least have the common sense to know God made as many different kinds of women as there are women, and that wimps are in the minority.

The True Woman movement, and we're discussing that movement and its goals, is about women living in a manner that models their opinion of Biblical womanhood. It has little to do with sexuality.

I agree with gnomon. Feminism can not be separated from sexuality. The heart and soul of patriarchy as we have known it is the suppression of sexuality, especially female sexuality.

 

[TheKnight]

edit: And I'll repeat one of my earlier statements. Nay, expand on it. People such as these and knowing that they are going to teach children, especially desire to teach their children and hope others teach their children, this garbage they are no better than the people who taught, however good meaning, that blacks and other minorities were different.

It's garbage.

There is nothing wrong with teaching that people are different if those people actually ARE different. Men and women are different. Races are different, cultures are different, people in general are different from one another.

The PROBLEM is when you teach that people who are different are inferior. The True Woman movement is NOT teaching that about homosexuals, transsexuals etc etc.


Whites taught that blacks were inferior. Those (at least the vast majority) who oppose gay marriage DO NOT think that gays are inferior (contrary to what many believe). To compare the two is to do injustice to what black people went through. The majority of those who oppose gay marriage, like myself for instance, do not see homosexuals as inferior. They see them as human beings with a problem, just like all the rest of us. We all have our difference, we all have our problems, we all have our struggles when it comes to abiding by religious ideas.

Black people were seen as inferior, as less than human, and as property. Not by a minority, but by the majority of white Americans. And even some non-white Americans. Gay people, as a group, have NEVER been considered and treated as less than human by the majority of people in America. They've been considered sinful, disgusting, abhorrent, but never have they been treated like property, sold as property, stolen from their families and taken to other countries to be forced into labor, or subjugated as a people in such a way that prevents the from living comfortably.

The sheer arrogance, to say even begin to compare their "struggle" (which is basically an issue of finance, benefits, and acceptance--not of actual human rights) with that of black people is a disgusting perversion of justice and history.

 

[TheKnight]

Okay.

When you learn how to read get back to me.

Anyone who states that redefining feminism, a movement whose leaders reference sexuality a number of times on their own website and their own conference, as well as their own writings, and also most of whom who write about sexuality in their own books, blogs and articles that are related to the movement they represent........is not about sexuality.....isn't reading.

Isn't rational.

Thanks for wasting my time.

I may as well have been reading Kafka to a rock.

The movement itself is NOT about sexuality. It's about promoting Biblical womanhood. Instead of using your bias (people with biases tend to read that bias into EVERYTHING--even when it has nothing to do with that particular subject), why not simply read the site...I've already said that it's possible that those who are involved in the movement could be anti-homosexual. However, the movement itself is not about that.

I agree with gnomon. Feminism can not be separated from sexuality. The heart and soul of patriarchy as we have known it is the suppression of sexuality, especially female sexuality.

Sure it can.

Feminism: 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

What about that has anything to do with sexuality?

 

[Father Heathen]

Such unseemly behavior!

True Christian women should be home rubbing their husbands' feet, not out gallivanting around to political rallies.

And since they scorn equal rights for women they should stay the hell away from voting booths.

 

[TheKnight]

And since they scorn equal rights for women they should stay the hell away from voting booths.

Are you suggesting that a person should not be allowed to vote because you disagree with them?

 

[gnomon]

There is nothing wrong with teaching that people are different if those people actually ARE different. Men and women are different. Races are different, cultures are different, people in general are different from one another.

The PROBLEM is when you teach that people who are different are inferior. The True Woman movement is NOT teaching that about homosexuals, transsexuals etc etc.


Whites taught that blacks were inferior. Those (at least the vast majority) who oppose gay marriage DO NOT think that gays are inferior (contrary to what many believe). To compare the two is to do injustice to what black people went through. The majority of those who oppose gay marriage, like myself for instance, do not see homosexuals as inferior. They see them as human beings with a problem, just like all the rest of us. We all have our difference, we all have our problems, we all have our struggles when it comes to abiding by religious ideas.

Black people were seen as inferior, as less than human, and as property. Not by a minority, but by the majority of white Americans. And even some non-white Americans. Gay people, as a group, have NEVER been considered and treated as less than human by the majority of people in America. They've been considered sinful, disgusting, abhorrent, but never have they been treated like property, sold as property, stolen from their families and taken to other countries to be forced into labor, or subjugated as a people in such a way that prevents the from living comfortably.

The sheer arrogance, to say even begin to compare their "struggle" (which is basically an issue of finance, benefits, and acceptance--not of actual human rights) with that of black people is a disgusting perversion of justice and history.

Way to miss the point.

There are no races.

The whole movement to enlighten ourselves about race is to realize that the differences between the so called races were superficial. Genetic diversity within these so called races is as divergent, even more so, within these so called races than between them.

As far as attempting to change their argument by calling me arrogant because you misunderstood and thought I was comparing the existence of homosexuals to that of the slave trade in America really misses.

But if you need an education here it is. Homosexuals, through history, have been eliminated by nations. Many nations have held the death penalty for homosexuals. Homosexuals were denied equal protection under the law by many areas within America. There is even evidence of homosexuals being wholesale murdered by one very well known infamous regime less than a century ago. I would tell you but then you would probably say I Godwined the thread.

The United Kingdom, up until the mid-20th century, would imprison people for homosexual acts! Ever heard of Alan Turing. The man who helped develop a theory for the modern computer and helped lead a team to crack the Enigma code? Committed suicide after being convicted of a homosexual act! His choice was two years prison or chemical castration. He took the latter and killed himself some time later.

Your supposed offense is misplaced.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you suggesting that a person should not be allowed to vote because you disagree with them?

I'm suggesting that they probably shouldn't be exercising the very rights they're protesting against. They can, but it just makes them out to be two-faced hypocrites.

 

[TheKnight]

In any case, I commend the movement for upholding their view. While I don't agree with all that they proclaim, I do believe that their view is more valid than that of current popular social opinion.


With that...:run:I leave.

 

[Father Heathen]

In any case, I commend the movement for upholding their view. While I don't agree with all that they proclaim, I do believe that their view is more valid than that of current popular social opinion.


With that...:run:I leave.

Of course they're free to believe and practice as they wish, but it's kind of silly for them to actually expect the rest of the women in society to surrender their rights and equality just to humor some retarded religious notions.

 

[gnomon]

In any case, I commend the movement for upholding their view. While I don't agree with all that they proclaim, I do believe that their view is more valid than that of current popular social opinion.


With that...:run:I leave.

Well, I guess asking if you even know what the popular opinion is would pointless at this time.

Another time, another thread.

 

[Alceste]

Feminism: 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

What about that has anything to do with sexuality?

I dunno, Knight. Try digging a little deeper than the dictionary and see if you can tell me.

 

[Alceste]

In any case, I commend the movement for upholding their view. While I don't agree with all that they proclaim, I do believe that their view is more valid than that of current popular social opinion.


With that...:run:I leave.

As I said, good luck with that opinion once you start trying to date some of the actual women who live outside your head.

 

[Kathryn]

My husband is a manly man and I'm a girly girl. He is the spiritual and practical leader in our home. He has the final say - but he is also very fair and knows which areas I am more gifted in than him.

He's very opinionated and traditional - and he's also a true gentleman. He helps with the dishes - but he does expect me to cook dinner several nights a week (which I enjoy doing). He opens doors for me and treats me like a lady. He never critisizes me in public and always treats me respectfully, including in the privacy of our home.

In return, I do most of the cooking, all of the laundry, and I give excellent massages and footrubs. He does the yard, and anything involving machinery and tools. We share the housework and I help some in the yard or with projects.

I would say our roles are very traditional - and some would call me subservient in some ways. But I know what I've got - and I've got it good.

Traditional roles can work BEAUTIFULLY - but the man has to be worthy of leadership - and the woman has to be worth the sacrifices of leadership.

 

[Smoke]

The PROBLEM is when you teach that people who are different are inferior. The True Woman movement is NOT teaching that about homosexuals, transsexuals etc etc.

They are not only teaching that about gay people and trans people; they're teaching it about all women who don't agree with them. Why do you suppose they call themselves True Women? They think they are the true women. Independent women, women who have minds and hearts of their own, are false women. Contempt for those outside their movement is inherent to their movement. (In all fairness, I return their contempt, if not in full measure.)

 

[Smoke]

I'm suggesting that they probably shouldn't be exercising the very rights they're protesting against. They can, but it just makes them out to be two-faced hypocrites.

If by "makes them out to be" you mean "shows that they are."

 

[Father Heathen]

My husband is a manly man and I'm a girly girl. He is the spiritual and practical leader in our home. He has the final say - but he is also very fair and knows which areas I am more gifted in than him.

He's very opinionated and traditional - and he's also a true gentleman. He helps with the dishes - but he does expect me to cook dinner several nights a week (which I enjoy doing). He opens doors for me and treats me like a lady. He never critisizes me in public and always treats me respectfully, including in the privacy of our home.

In return, I do most of the cooking, all of the laundry, and I give excellent massages and footrubs. He does the yard, and anything involving machinery and tools. We share the housework and I help some in the yard or with projects.

I would say our roles are very traditional - and some would call me subservient in some ways. But I know what I've got - and I've got it good.

Traditional roles can work BEAUTIFULLY - but the man has to be worthy of leadership - and the woman has to be worth the sacrifices of leadership.

Sure, if "traditional" roles work for you and you're happy, then great. But should that be the standard and only option for every other woman? And do you think that women's rights, equality and liberation movements should be denounced and protested against like those in the OP article did?

 

[Alceste]

My husband is a manly man and I'm a girly girl. He is the spiritual and practical leader in our home. He has the final say - but he is also very fair and knows which areas I am more gifted in than him.

He's very opinionated and traditional - and he's also a true gentleman. He helps with the dishes - but he does expect me to cook dinner several nights a week (which I enjoy doing). He opens doors for me and treats me like a lady. He never critisizes me in public and always treats me respectfully, including in the privacy of our home.

In return, I do most of the cooking, all of the laundry, and I give excellent massages and footrubs. He does the yard, and anything involving machinery and tools. We share the housework and I help some in the yard or with projects.

I would say our roles are very traditional - and some would call me subservient in some ways. But I know what I've got - and I've got it good.

Traditional roles can work BEAUTIFULLY - but the man has to be worthy of leadership - and the woman has to be worth the sacrifices of leadership.

What do you think of their meekness manifesto, Kathryn? You don't strike me as the meek type. Their manifesto doesn't mention who mows the lawn even once, but has a whole heck of a lot of this kind of thing:

When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes
and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority

Also, it seems they don't think you should be working, particularly in the type of manly work that you do (corporate training, was it?). I've got nothing against not working myself, but I was under the impression you really enjoy it.

Are you a True Woman yourself? Because to me you look more like a real one.

 

[Tiapan]

The only reason these women want the male to "lead the household" and "take responsibility for all decisions" is so when he makes a mistake she can say "I told you so...."

There's a hidden agenda in every action, a woman makes.

Cheers