No; it asks a group of Christians, how would you define feminism?
Ok so as a Christian I am saying the definition of feminism includes all women including women who disagree with Christianity. Otherwise its contradicting its own ideology by descriminating against women from different beliefs or non belief. Its declaring all women are welcome except for those who disagree with Christianity.
No, it's not. Or, to be more accurate, different strands of thought within feminism are profoundly influenced by different religious traditions. Christian feminism is a very rich school of thought.
Yes just one strand which cannot dictate to others. Why are non Christian strands less worthy. That is descrimination as far as egalitarianism which is a fundemental aspect.
It's about the definitions of a group of Christians on a Christian forum. Other people in society can't participate here.
Ok I am a Christian who disagrees with feminism as an ideology. Its a secular concept that has to include non Christians as an egalitarian ideology.
I don't think it's that they disagree with the definition; it's that they disagree with the value judgement then placed on that definition. That is, some of us see it as a bad thing, others see it as neutral or a good thing.
Some disagree with the concept altogether. There are many Christians who disagree with the ideology. Feminism is a political ideology. Some disagree in associating with an idea that originated as a secular ideology.
You can't hijack a secular ideology and then call it Christian. It still is immersed in all the secular values. Otherwise your negating its concept of egalitarianism. Its then being descriminatry which its not suppose to do.
I don't think anyone made such a claim.
- the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
- an act or instance of oppressing or subjecting to cruel or unjust impositions or restraints.
- the state of being oppressed.
- the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.
When we're discussing patriarchy, we are largely talking about the second sense listed there, where women are subjected to unjust impositions or restraints.
Yes and I am saying that ther determination of what is just, cruel and oppressing are subjective determinations. People may disagree on what constitutes cruelty and oppression.
For example part of feminism is that women are free and independent to setup their own lives according to their beliefs be it secular or Christian. You can't start denying certain women based on their beliefs or political ideologies. All women are suppose to be equally included regardless.
Not at all. We can analyse any beliefs, and by doing so we're not imposing anything on anyone. We are simply thinking critically about what is put before us.
You are if you determine that certain beliefs are denied. All beliefs and political ideologies need to be included. Otherwise your contradicting the basic tenet of equality. In this case descriminating against certain beliefs and political ideologies.
You can't then say to women with a belief you disagree with that they are not included in the protections of feminism. Which is basically a political ideology and not some dogmatic religion imposing their beliefs on others.
It takes people's lived experiences seriously as a source of valuable information. But it does so within a structured analytical framework, so I think it is overstating the case to dismiss it as subjective.
But peoples experiences themselves are subjective. This is circular reasoning. Tassking something subjective to argue its not really subjective.
No, it isn't. When we can point to how oppression results in greater poverty, poorer health outcomes, poorer educational outcomes, and so on, (all of which are demonstrable in the case of the oppression of women), there's nothing subjective about that at all.
This is also subjective dependind. Povery may be caused by many factors besides oppressing women. All these facts may be caused by a number of demographics.
Like I said even if there was a causal link this still subjective because one person may see something as oppressive and another does not. I have used the example of trad marriage. Feminism classes this as oppression. Yet when wives agree to commit to such a relation through faith they rae not oppressed. So its a subjective belief and not something you can critically determine by facts.
The fact would be for feminist that this wife would be in a situation of oppression. But to the Christian women she sees this as a Godly marriage.
Denying women the ability to own property, is not just a "relative belief." It is demonstrably harmful. And I have no problem saying that it is wrong.
But was it harmful back in the day under those circumstances. If men were the ones who built and went to war and conquer land. Then it is natural that society back then respected this and allowed men that position. Considering they were the ones who wrought the land and the society would not have such land.
So back when nations were conquering land to establish themselves this was a different time with different circumstances. Men were the builders and were in that position to have that control. For the simple fact they were the ones who gained the land and built upon it. All society respected and accepted that situation. It was morally right for that situation.
I would point out to you that in this forum, it would be a violation of the SOP to argue for the social inequality of women.
No one is doing that. In fact under the true definition of feminism all beliefs and political ideologies are included. By denying these women their beliefs its actually arguing for social inequality.
Even argiung for a Christian only feminism for all women is promoting social inequality according to fundemental principles of feminism.
