Feminism

[durangodawood]

...Is the philosophy compatible with Christianity? No. Is the philosophy compatible with Jesus' teachings?? Yes.

Interesting distinction.

From my outsiders (non-Christian) perspective, we've got Jesus in the Bible instigating basically a spiritual revolution. And then we've got Paul bringing it somewhat 'back to earth' and compatibilizing Jesus revolution with the pervading cultural ethos, which was rather patriarchal.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Care to explain?

In game design, if you build player characters or factions that have exactly the same abilities, you have a balanced game where everybody has the same opportunities, but it makes for a pretty dull game. We call this symmetrical balance. However, if you build player characters or factions that have different abilities, you can still get an equilibrium where everyone stands an equal chance of winning, like a game of rock-paper-scissors. That is asymmetrical balance.

Men and women usually have different goals. Given their role as male, men "win," from an evolutionary standpoint, by maximizing reproductive quantity. Hence why polygyny was so common among rulers in the ancient world. (If you've got a better idea about how to swarm your neighbors with loyal warrior-sons, I'm all ears.) Women "win" more by a balance between quality and quantity. On the one hand, they need to pump out as many of their own children as possible, but on the other hand, because of the resources needed for gestating and nursing children, women have to make sure each child stands a maximal chance of survival. Hence, quality. Consequently, both sexes have different priorities in childrearing. But neither set of priorities is ever "winning" against the other, because they counterbalance. The male's goals keeps the female's in check, and vice-versa. If you remove one, the other runs rampant. It would be like taking "rock" out of the paper-rock-scissors game; scissors would just always win or tie.

The problem I see with feminism (and Marxism generally) is that it talks as if there is only one type of social power, namely the one that most characterizes males. But there are other forms of social power, not so easily noticed, that women have long employed as a way to counterbalance male forms.

 

[durangodawood]

...Men and women usually have different goals. Given their role as male, men "win," from an evolutionary standpoint, by maximizing reproductive quantity. Hence why polygyny was so common among rulers in the ancient world....

....and among our progenitors, the animals, of course. The ancient kings are the bull elephant seal and his brood played out in human terms.

I like to think that the evolution of human culture has opened avenues for us that offer the individual a little more say in how her or his life plays out tho.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I like to think that the evolution of human culture has opened avenues for us that offer the individual a little more say in how her or his life plays out tho.

A dangerous dream.

 

[durangodawood]

A dangerous dream.

Yes!

Growing up means the possibility of making mistakes.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Yes!

Growing up means the possibility of making mistakes.

And surviving means avoiding mistakes.

 

[zephcom]

Interesting distinction.

From my outsiders (non-Christian) perspective, we've got Jesus in the Bible instigating basically a spiritual revolution. And then we've got Paul bringing it somewhat 'back to earth' and compatibilizing Jesus revolution with the pervading cultural ethos, which was rather patriarchal.

It is not just 'rather patriarchal'. It was extremely patriarchal. Remember, the arena in which Paul and the other Apostles formed the earliest version of the religion was conservative Jewish. Paul's background was Jewish.

When Christianity was formalized and became an agency of government in the Fourth Century it was men who created what we now know as Christianity. While the Roman Empire was not as patriarchal as the Jewish religion, by our standards now it was still very patriarchal. And now that the religion was going to have access to the power of the empire, the men creating the official religion had no interest in involving women.

To this day there are people within the religion who honestly believe the 'God, Himself' wants women to continue being inferior to men even though Jesus never even implied it let alone taught it.

 

[durangodawood]

And surviving means avoiding mistakes.

Yes. But one of the great things about being human, rather than "just an animal", is we can aim for better things than just surviving.

Thats new territory tho. And as you noted, there are dangers in new territory. But the alternative is ancient kings and harems as the best we can hope for. No thanks.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

I actually found out we're having a daughter today. I'm very happy that my daughter will be born in Britain in 2020 as it means that compared to her ancestors throughout history or sisters in other parts of the world:
- She will have access to an education of her choosing
- She will have complete civic participation and the right to vote
- She will have equal entitlement to inheritance of our estate as any future brothers she might have
- She will have access to sexual education, contraception and the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not if presented with that situation.
- She is less likely to experience a lack of wage parity because of her sex
- She is less likely to have to tolerate sexual assault or harassment in the workplace or daily life

The fact that I can make this list is thanks, in large part, to the feminist movement. The fact that I have to say 'less likely' rather than 'will not' shows that it's still needed.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Yes. But one of the great things about being human, rather than "just an animal", is we can aim for better things than just surviving.

The survival game is constant, and when you take your eyes off of playing it, it will find a new way to eat you.

 

[durangodawood]

The survival game is constant, and when you take your eyes off of playing it, it will find a new way to eat you.

If youre disposed to concern yourself with just personal and social survival, we call you a conservative.

If youre disposed to think about change and improvement we call you a liberal or progressive.

We need both. Brakes and gas pedal. We've definitely seen times when one or the other has been over-applied. But the net result is always movement somewhere. Change is built into the nature of reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like to think that the evolution of human culture has opened avenues for us that offer the individual a little more say in how her or his life plays out tho.

Once we have paid our dues to society we can do that. It's called retirement.

 

[Tolworth John]

The feminist movement promised equality and choice for women. Has it achieved its aim? Have women leveled the playing field? Or have we paid a heavy price by embracing its principles?

What are the pros and cons of its continuance? Is it time for change?

Is the philosophy compatible with Christianity?

While it was new it challenged the male bias against women and the unequal, unfair pay practises.
This was needed.
But it has gone on to promote sexual permisivnes, divorce and contempt for men.
Strangly many women have recognised that thesel have not brought them happiness.

 

[Robban]

Once we have paid our dues to society we can do that. It's called retirement.

What dues to society?

I have a pension and I pay 58% in tax,

That will say 33% to the community and 25% in vat.

First when we are six feet under can we say we are done.

But that is not much really, over a year it may be enough to keep a F16 in the air for about an hour.

Maybe,

So, think good and it will be good.

Hehe.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

]

What dues to society?

Normal citizen responsibilities.

In retirement we should be able to control how our life "plays out", which was the point.

 

[Robban]

]


Normal citizen responsibilities.

In retirement we should be able to control how our life "plays out", which was the point.

I will not comment anymore, I feel I am derailing the thread.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The feminist movement promised equality and choice for women. Has it achieved its aim? Have women leveled the playing field? Or have we paid a heavy price by embracing its principles?

What are the pros and cons of its continuance? Is it time for change?

Is the philosophy compatible with Christianity?

Some of the basic ideas of Feminism of equal pay, ending sexual harassment etc. were fine. I think many folks don't like the monster it has mutated into as being an ongoing Jihad against white males etc. Hollywood seems to provide us with the best examples of this.

Lately I've been watching some videos on "The Fandom Menace" concerning how various social justice causes have usurped various entertainment franchises (Star Wars and Marvel especially) in the last few years and how the traditional fans have rebelled. (They kill off loved male characters, so they can replace them with Woke characters, they switch their genders from male to female, rather than actually taking the time to make a good female character from the ground up, and by and large they crap on the canon of the universe that was carefully built over decades)

 

[Chesterton]

Before we passed the 19th Amendment, all we did was ride around on bicycles built for two and sip cherry phosphates. Now we've got AIDS, mass shootings and Miley Cyrus. I rest my case.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Showing the absolute need for feminism. Maybe stop with the aggressive resentment and things will improve.

Yeah, sure, let's just change human nature. Those who are born again will obviously respond differently. "Just stop" is not an answer. It does not solve alcohol abuse, obscene executive salaries, drug abuse, racism or any of the many human failings that blight society. The root cause is, of course, the sinful nature. But it is also the natural reaction of the oppressed (even if only perceived oppression) against the oppressor. When people believe that they are unjustly treated, many will react. It rarely goes well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The feminist movement promised equality and choice for women. Has it achieved its aim? Have women leveled the playing field? Or have we paid a heavy price by embracing its principles?

What are the pros and cons of its continuance? Is it time for change?

Is the philosophy compatible with Christianity?

One has to consider the goals of feminism to understand whether or not it's achieved it's aims. As I understand it....the goal was equality under the law....and yes, that has been achieved, long ago.

So why is there still feminism? Why is it still a movement? That's easy enough to explain. Imagine that you're a feminist, you've spent 20 years of your life fighting for equal rights for women....and you achieve it. What do you do now? Pack up your things and go home? Of course not...

You find new things to complain about.

After all, why should you give up your status as the leader of an important movement for equality just because you achieved equality. As long as there's any difference between men and women....you'll have something to complain about.

You may have noticed that several posters claimed that feminism isn't done...that it has more to achieve....yet none of them actually said what it would need to achieve to be done. That's because there is no end-goal anymore. It doesn't matter if you're a feminist or an LGBTQ activist or a racial activist of some kind...the goal is to look for new things to complain about to keep yourself relevant. It's not as if any of them will simply go away once they achieve their goals.

Perhaps at some point in the future, feminism will find a worthwhile pursuit....an actual inequality that needs corrected...as for now though, it's been reduced to professional victims and those who would scapegoat men for their failures.