Spin off thread: those feelings and 2nd wave feminism

M

mrisin

Guest
boy-eng-med.jpg
 
Upvote 0

favoritetoyisjoy

Regular Member
Nov 12, 2004
600
82
✟21,661.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
MM,

"Sometimes you don't know until somehow someone leaks the information that x job is expected to get x wage, and someone is getting paid higher and they were hired at the same time as you." :sorry:


Sometimes you don't know, true, and it's happened to me. That's when you can ask for a raise (or demand it) if you choose to, or find a better opportunity. If an employer offers you an amount and you accept it, that's on you just as much as it is on them. It took both of you to make the deal. Or, if you determine to find an employer who has the moral character to pay what you're worth, or the same as others, fine, that's another choice you can make.

"Then it comes down to the company involved to do what is right by their employees."

I agree, but I think that's only one side of the coin. The other side is that since employees can, by their own choice, accept "x wages" or not, employees are equally responsible (to themselves).

Morally right or not, sexist or not, in regard to hiring practices, this is the world we live in, we may be subject to unfairness , but we don't have to submit to it.

All else being equal, do I personally think that female employees should be paid less than males? Absolutely not.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
here are often single women without children in certain jobs and they still get paid less. There are plenty of statistics to prove such, even to this day.

Those stats are flawed in that they don't account for the factors I mentioned. The simply look at the median income of women versus that of men which is a flawed way of looking at things. Comparing truly equal amounts of education and experience, if there's a case where a man and a woman are making different amounts, there's be a lawsuit in 3 seconds. Not only that but if companies really could do that, they'd only hire women anyway because it would be cheaper and better for the bottom line.
 
Upvote 0
H

hijklmnop

Guest
http://www.christianforums.com/t7616142/

Right here in the thread I'm quoting you see the concept: if a MAN complains he is not getting enough sex, maybe he should just accept it. If it were a woman posting you'd see sympathy. Double standard.

Supporting feminism is not in the interest of any man or woman who advocates good relations between the genders. It is not in the interest of people who are interested in freedom for all people, not just women.

Actually lots of advice was offered, including expectation/priority adjustment. I have not seen it play out the other way around, ever. So you're just assuming what the reactions would be.

If you're referring to my advice to this guy at all, I suggested open communication but if nothing changes, not fixating on the issue (as you can't change another person) so as not to let it suck the joy out of the rest of his life. On a different thread I have congratulated Jane on being able to do so within her marriage (be grateful for the good and endure the tough stuff with a positive attitude, not fixating/obsessing and harassing and letting it suck the joy out of the rest of her life). Not a double standard from me at all.
 
Upvote 0
H

hijklmnop

Guest
Exactly. In a recent thread where a man is asking about his sexual relationship with his wife, aside from me and McScribe, the responses were about his self-control and whether or not he views inappropriate content or lusts after other women. Certainly the issue couldn't be with his wife...Unthinkable.

No one said it couldn't be. However, he was persistently omitting any info about himself which was a worthwhile point to ask about as it turns out some suspicions of common sex life problem-causers were confirmed. You yourself told him how it is re. how lusting after other women is wrong and will affect his wife's response.

Anyways I digress...I realize we shouldn't be talking about other threads but if people are going to use it as an example of hypocrisy I think the other side of that coin should be allowed to be shown as well.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Reading through the thread again, what I see from the feminist quarter is generally:

1. Is the man looking at inappropriate content?
2. Could he maybe not be so obsessed with sex?

I also see a fair bit of 'maybe if he is more loving things will be better". This is not feminist or even gynocentric per se, but the reactions are. On this forum if the woman for example is encouraged to be more sexual because her man is not very affectionate, it is considered an outrageous suggestion.

And I'm not sure how what was posted by you can be considered to be about communication. I see it as stating "If you have already tried to talk about it and nothing has changed, then let it go." Now I don' think that this was meant unkindly per se, but this is more feminist canon than it is biblical, in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
H

hijklmnop

Guest
Reading through the thread again, what I see from the feminist quarter is generally:

1. Is the man looking at inappropriate content?
2. Could he maybe not be so obsessed with sex?

I also see a fair bit of 'maybe if he is more loving things will be better". This is not feminist or even gynocentric per se, but the reactions are. On this forum if the woman for example is encouraged to be more sexual because her man is not very affectionate, it is considered an outrageous suggestion.

And I'm not sure how what was posted by you can be considered to be about communication. I see it as stating "If you have already tried to talk about it and nothing has changed, then let it go." Now I don' think that this was meant unkindly per se, but this is more feminist canon than it is biblical, in my opinion.

Too bad that's all you got from my post. It's certainly not a fantastic summary of what I said. But oh well! I do believe that at some point, if you have hashed out and re-hashed out an issue (for 25 years as he said!) that shows no signs of changing and counseling is not on the table, what are you going to do? Continue to dwell and grow bitter? or let life go on and enjoy all the rest of it despite the one thing that's not as you wish? At some point everyone has to poo or get off the pot (divorce or learn to live with stuff). I stand by that advice...it's not meant to be unkind. I have learned that you can't change others but you can change your reactions to them so as not to be destroyed. Regardless, if this advice is supposed to be evidence of how I'm biased against men then you've proved nothing. As i already said, I have congratulated Jane for being able to do as such in her own marriage. Did you see me telling this guy to spiffy himself up and lose some weight? Not a chance. That's the kind of insensitive advice women like Jane have gotten though.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Too bad that's all you got from my post. It's certainly not a fantastic summary of what I said. But oh well! I do believe that at some point, if you have hashed out and re-hashed out an issue (for 25 years as he said!) that shows no signs of changing and counseling is not on the table, what are you going to do? Continue to dwell and grow bitter? or let life go on and enjoy all the rest of it despite the one thing that's not as you wish? At some point everyone has to poo or get off the pot (divorce or learn to live with stuff). I stand by that advice...it's not meant to be unkind. I have learned that you can't change others but you can change your reactions to them so as not to be destroyed. Regardless, if this advice is supposed to be evidence of how I'm biased against men then you've proved nothing. As i already said, I have congratulated Jane for being able to do as such in her own marriage. Did you see me telling this guy to spiffy himself up and lose some weight? Not a chance. That's the kind of insensitive advice women like Jane have gotten though.


Generally the advice from the feminist quarter was 'sex isn't that important.' Your post supported this. This is at root pure 2nd Wave Feminism.

I have yet to see a single thing from the feminists here actually addressing how 2nd Wave Feminism has influenced thoughts about relationships with men, but have seen diversionary tactics. Talking about how an individual poster talks about something and trying to has that out is simply a distraction.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My intention is not to accuse you personally--I apologize if I gave that impression--but to talk about general tendencies and influences.

The degree of influence that 2nd Wave Feminist radical leadership has cannot be underestimated. Here is a good example of how much influence even one of them has: Catherine MacKinnon. It cannot be underestimated.

In the accolades in this video introducing Catherine MacKinnon, you can see how this writer, professor and influencer of politics and matters of social importance. I do not think she can be dismissed as being an out there whacko.

Catharine MacKinnon- "Gender:The Future" part 1 (intro) - YouTube
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JanniGirl

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2010
1,263
248
✟2,188.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From Wikipedia: inappropriate contentography
MacKinnon, along with feminist activist Andrea Dworkin, has been active in reforming legal postures towards inappropriate contentography, framing it as a form of sex discrimination and, more recently, a form of human trafficking. She (and Dworkin) define inappropriate contentography as follows:
"We define inappropriate contentography as the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and words that also includes (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest or other sexual assault; or (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up, cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or (v) women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or (vi) women's body parts — including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks — are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or (viii) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual."[1]
MacKinnon characterizes inappropriate contentography as a particularly graphic and violent means of subordinating women. In Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, she writes, “inappropriate contentography, in the feminist view, is a form of forced sex, a practice of sexual politics, and institution of gender inequality.”[2] MacKinnon chooses a few points to focus on specifically. She depicts the sexual exploitation of women as a neans of showing their inferiority by dehumanizing them, and displaying them as sexual objects, things or commodities. She argues that any display of women enjoying humiliation or pain should be a violation of the law. She writes, “inappropriate contentography contributes causally to attitudes and behaviors of violence and discrimination which define the treatment and status of half the population.”[3] MacKinnon also highlights how inappropriate contentography reduces women to their sexual body parts (vaginas, breasts, or buttocks’). This is a central part of her argument of dehumanization, as women are simply seen as sex parts, i.e., objects, things, or commodities for the sexual enjoyment of men.

And I absolutely agree 100%
 
Upvote 0
M

mrisin

Guest
Our understanding of the influence of emotions, we believe, will benefit from
adopting a pragmatic perspective. Classical pragmatism, with James (1907/
1995, 1909/2002) as one of its originators, tries to interpret each notion by
tracing its respective practical consequences (see also Fiske, 1992; Menand,
2001). James (1890/1990) argued that “my thinking is first and last and always
for the sake of my doing” (p. 669). Thus, in the original rendition of
pragmatism, truth is found in the practical consequences of ideas, and “. . .
the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires”
(James, 1907/1995). Following this line of reasoning, Fiske (1992)
used the phrase “Thinking is for doing” to illustrate her pragmatic stance
with respect to social cognition. We apply this notion of pragmatism to emotion
and loosely refer to it as the “feeling-is-for-doing” perspective. The core
element of our approach is that the concept of emotion must prove its worth
by virtue of its correlation with an external criterion, such as behavior. Pragmatism
thus fits well with Averill’s (1982) take on the emotion anger. He
stated: “the desire to gain revenge on, or to get back at the instigator of anger
can almost be taken as a definition of anger” (p. 178). Note that a pragmatic
approach is not synonymous with being atheoretical or with being
practical or realistic. Although a realist sets aside his theory or norms, rather
than putting them to the test, when more pressing practical concerns matter,
a pragmatist develops theory based on its practical implications and rigidly
tests it.
Our pragmatic approach to the study of emotions in decision making can
be summarized in a number of broad propositions described in Table 7.1. We
elaborate on these propositions in the next sections.
Taken together, adopting the pragmatic perspective not only forces one to
study the effect of emotions on behavior, but it also implies that one should
focus on the meaning of emotion for the decision maker’s action and take seriously
the motivational aspect of emotion (see also Frijda, 2005)

http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/tiber/who/zp.pdf

as relates to perceptions of inappropriate contentography as a topic, the article title, :Thinking is for Doing" says a great deal about inappropriate content and how it is discussed emotionally.
 
Upvote 0

Tannic

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2007
959
35
✟1,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From Wikipedia: inappropriate contentography
MacKinnon, along with feminist activist Andrea Dworkin, has been active in reforming legal postures towards inappropriate contentography, framing it as a form of sex discrimination and, more recently, a form of human trafficking. She (and Dworkin) define inappropriate contentography as follows:
"We define inappropriate contentography as the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and words that also includes (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest or other sexual assault; or (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up, cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or (v) women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or (vi) women's body parts — including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks — are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or (viii) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual."[1]
MacKinnon characterizes inappropriate contentography as a particularly graphic and violent means of subordinating women. In Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, she writes, “inappropriate contentography, in the feminist view, is a form of forced sex, a practice of sexual politics, and institution of gender inequality.”[2] MacKinnon chooses a few points to focus on specifically. She depicts the sexual exploitation of women as a neans of showing their inferiority by dehumanizing them, and displaying them as sexual objects, things or commodities. She argues that any display of women enjoying humiliation or pain should be a violation of the law. She writes, “inappropriate contentography contributes causally to attitudes and behaviors of violence and discrimination which define the treatment and status of half the population.”[3] MacKinnon also highlights how inappropriate contentography reduces women to their sexual body parts (vaginas, breasts, or buttocks’). This is a central part of her argument of dehumanization, as women are simply seen as sex parts, i.e., objects, things, or commodities for the sexual enjoyment of men.

And I absolutely agree 100%

Starting to sound like a religion to me in the extreme point of view. This can be taken in so many ways.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Pragmatism is the name of the game. Consider these quotes by MacKinnon:
(Taken from "A Conversation with Catherine MacKinnon on PBS)


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]MR. WATTENBERG: Okay, fine, but that that's what they are interested in, that everyone --that women get a fair shot at what's going on.

The gender feminists, as -- at least as some of the equity feminists -- as Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia described it on this program, the gender feminists are saying, in a sense, that men are the enemy, that men are at fault for subjugating women, and that the gender feminists say there is an ongoing war between the sexes, that women have been losing it, and that's the essence of the argument.

MS. MacKINNON: It's just a -- it's a phony distinction. I think it's about the extent to which one wants to -- if you want to subject yourself to abuse by actually saying who's doing what to whom in the equity problem you point out, that actually, for the most part, men are treating women unequally and are benefiting from it. I guess that gets you called a gender feminist.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]MR. WATTENBERG: Who says that anybody is saying rape is okay?

MS. MacKINNON: It is not taken seriously in this society.

MR. WATTENBERG: Oh, that's just not true. I mean --

MS. MacKINNON: I mean, I'm glad that you take it so seriously, but I think it would behoove you to realize --

MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, do you think that people --

MS. MacKINNON: -- that the society you live in does not.

MR. WATTENBERG: -- that people who are husbands and fathers and brothers don't take rape seriously?

MS. MacKINNON: Well, not only don't they, but the incest figures suggest that they participate in it to a considerable degree.
[/FONT]

There we have it, in two quotes alone--along with MacKinnon's desire to have women treated more justly we also have the idea that men are predominantly bad. I can offer up more of this. And you see this is philosophical pragmatism at its best, in the sense of best being effective.

Now this is contrary to Christianity. For those who say that feminism and Christianity are compatible, well it might be if what we are talking about is egalitarianism. But what 2nd Wave Feminism generally stands for and 3rd Wave is taking up the banner for is not really about egalitarianism. It's about Gynocracy. Heck, some of them even blatantly SAY that.

Christianity by contrast says that humanity is fallen from grace, and that through Jesus Christ we are redeemed, and that if we love Christ we will love one another. This has been a terribly hard struggle and we've seen to our chagrin how societies supposedly devoted to Christ have been anything but. That doesn't remove the truth of it. This is redemptive.

Now feminism, by contrast, offers no redemption at all until patriarchy is smashed. There is no grace or redemption in feminism; there is no acknowledgement of sin. Women are excused everything because they are victims; men are unilaterally condemned because they are oppressors.
 
Upvote 0

JanniGirl

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2010
1,263
248
✟2,188.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pragmatism is the name of the game. Consider these quotes by MacKinnon:
(Taken from "A Conversation with Catherine MacKinnon on PBS)







There we have it, in two quotes alone--along with MacKinnon's desire to have women treated more justly we also have the idea that men are predominantly bad. I can offer up more of this. And you see this is philosophical pragmatism at its best, in the sense of best being effective.

Now this is contrary to Christianity. For those who say that feminism and Christianity are compatible, well it might be if what we are talking about is egalitarianism. But what 2nd Wave Feminism generally stands for and 3rd Wave is taking up the banner for is not really about egalitarianism. It's about Gynocracy. Heck, some of them even blatantly SAY that.

Christianity by contrast says that humanity is fallen from grace, and that through Jesus Christ we are redeemed, and that if we love Christ we will love one another. This has been a terribly hard struggle and we've seen to our chagrin how societies supposedly devoted to Christ have been anything but. That doesn't remove the truth of it. This is redemptive.

Now feminism, by contrast, offers no redemption at all until patriarchy is smashed. There is no grace or redemption in feminism; there is no acknowledgement of sin. Women are excused everything because they are victims; men are unilaterally condemned because they are oppressors.

Yes. Patriarchy -- where men have the majority of power and women are second class citizens -- needs to be smashed. I agree.
 
Upvote 0

JanniGirl

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2010
1,263
248
✟2,188.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pragmatism is the name of the game. Consider these quotes by MacKinnon:
(Taken from "A Conversation with Catherine MacKinnon on PBS)







There we have it, in two quotes alone--along with MacKinnon's desire to have women treated more justly we also have the idea that men are predominantly bad. I can offer up more of this. And you see this is philosophical pragmatism at its best, in the sense of best being effective.

Now this is contrary to Christianity. For those who say that feminism and Christianity are compatible, well it might be if what we are talking about is egalitarianism. But what 2nd Wave Feminism generally stands for and 3rd Wave is taking up the banner for is not really about egalitarianism. It's about Gynocracy. Heck, some of them even blatantly SAY that.

Christianity by contrast says that humanity is fallen from grace, and that through Jesus Christ we are redeemed, and that if we love Christ we will love one another. This has been a terribly hard struggle and we've seen to our chagrin how societies supposedly devoted to Christ have been anything but. That doesn't remove the truth of it. This is redemptive.

Now feminism, by contrast, offers no redemption at all until patriarchy is smashed. There is no grace or redemption in feminism; there is no acknowledgement of sin. Women are excused everything because they are victims; men are unilaterally condemned because they are oppressors.


Are you arguing that incest doesn't occur? Do you think her data is skewed? .... or do you think that it's no big deal, too?

Clarify -- I don't find anything wrong with her line of reasoning.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
She said the following:
1. That men who are husbands and fathers and brothers don't take rape seriously.
2. For the most part men are treating women unequally and are benefiting from it.

So basically she sweepingly accuses men in general of not taking rape seriously, and of treating women unequally.

How exactly are women second class citizens? According to my understanding, a second class citizen is someone who has limited legal rights, civil rights and economic opportunities and are systematically mistreated. They are restricted in their movements and prevented from owning property in the same way as other citizens.
 
Upvote 0