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.
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.
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.
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.
What is it exactly that you are agreeing with? Do you believe that inappropriate contentography is a form of violence against women?
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%
[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]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]
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.
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.