DescentBB

And I thought we had some kooky radical feminists in this country. Well it looks like Sweden has some radical feminists that make our domestic American ones look like wallflower Betty Crocker's.

I think the \"SCUM manifesto\" and the \"man tax\" are what make it for me. You can do this on a few university campuses here in the states and there's some buzz in the papers, but these Swedes want to do it to their whole country.

And they cancelled the Miss Sweden pageant - that's just wrong !!

In hating men, why do most feminists look like men? They dress like men, wear their hair like men... They don't have a dick, yet they act like one.

Testiculese wrote: why do most feminists look like men? They dress like men, wear their hair like men...

if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

Ferno wrote:

Testiculese wrote: why do most feminists look like men? They dress like men, wear their hair like men...

if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

..then it must be a badly confused dog. Yea Test, I've noticed that too. I understand it, but there's not way I could explain it. I find it rather vile actually.

If you try to make women exactly like men, you're not a feminist. If you think, in order to be worthy of respect, women have to act like men, dress like men, think like men, and have the same preferences as men, you're not a feminist. If you think women need to treat men the way male chauvinists treat women, you're not a feminist. If you think \"male\" and \"female\" should no longer exist, but we should have pure androgyny, you're not a feminist.

If you are any of these things, you're *against* letting women be real women, and for making women into something else. The people in the above article don't deserve the label \"feminists\" or anything close to it.

These radicals arent true feminists in any sense of the word. The original feminists believed in equality between the sexes and fought only to get up to the same level as men. These radicals, however, would best be described as feminazis, as they stand for reverse sexism, IE: opression of men and superiority for women. Its the same damned thing that happens every time an opressed demographic nears the point of equality with their counterpart: they start wanting to be superior to their counterparts as their counterparts had been historically regarded as superior to them for so long. The same thing is happening in parts of the racial equality movement. History will remember these people as extremists and sexists. To hell with em.

The Feminist movement has always been about influencing changes to society to make it more feminine oriented than it previously was. As such their manifesto technically has no upper limit to the amount of change they want.

Their current level of power sure adds some interesting options to the table o_O. (I'm not too keen on the man tax).

however:
Find a solid masculinity movement which ISN'T based around religious dogma, only THEN will this discussion be worth a damn.

roid wrote:...however:
Find a solid masculinity movement which ISN'T based around religious dogma, only THEN will this discussion be worth a damn.

Nonsense!
The discussion doesn't have to scrutinize anything other than the subject of the discussion to be "worth a damn"!

Why do you make such a claim? The stench of red herring is getting strong in here...

roid wrote:Find a solid masculinity movement which ISN'T based around religious dogma

Actually, I did once. Heard an interview with them on the radio. But they don't appear to have survived. Too radical I guess. They were called "Mens Rights Incorporated" or Mr. Inc. I was expecting to hear a bunch of sexist/anti-feminsist nonsense. I was quite surprised.

They started by objecting to the term Mz. I thought, yep, here we go. Then they went on to explain that they didn't see any need for the titles Mr. or Mrs either. Unless an employer wants to date you, your sex shouldn't matter to them, so why bother placing a "title" of any kind on your application forms. Or ANYWHERE. Unless someone is wanting to date you, why should they care? And if they are going to date you, hopefully they will be close enough to tell your gender easily. So wo don't need the old gender specific titles, and especially we don't need to add a NEW gender related title.

Hmmmm. This wasn't the direction I expected them to go. Next topic was custody laws. They pointed out that (at the time, 80's I think) unless a woman had been grossly negligent, she almost always won custody of the kids against the father. Mr. Inc. said that men could be just a good at rearing children as women, and OUGHT to be held just as responsible, and ought to be winning custody closer to half of the time. Otherwise men were shirking their duty to their children.

Then they got into the draft issue. Again, to my surprise, they argued that if men and women were to be treated equally, either both should register for the draft or neither.

And finally they pointed out that women live an average of seven years longer than men. And no one cares. If the numbers were that men lived seven years longer than women, it would be a national crisis and we would be focusing all of our medical resources on discovering the source of the problem and fixing it. They felt that improving men's health should be an important issue for us as well.

They left me with my jaw hanging open because it was the first time I had ever heard anyone actually argue against the feminist movement on the grounds that they hadn't gone far enough for equality. Too bad the dissapeared, but I guess it wasn't a popular idea.

Rational thought is rarely popular, Kilarin :/

Kilarin wrote:Too bad the dissapeared, but I guess it wasn't a popular idea.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe that what happend was every woman involved with a man who was part of this organization somehow castrated these men :-/

Men need to take a mroe active role in this sort of thing. There are all sorts of politically active organizations cramming "women this" and "feminizim that" down our throats, but wheres the organization thats fighting tooth and nail to finally see Fathers given the equal chance to raise their kids like they deserve?

Avder wrote:wheres the organization thats fighting tooth and nail to finally see Fathers given the equal chance to raise their kids like they deserve?

There was(though it may still exist) an organization based in Britain known as "Fathers for Justice". Their schtick was to raise awareness by dressing up as superheroes and putting signs about their cause in crowded areas (such as a overpass). Unfortunately they got in a scandal(though I forget about what), which damaged their reputation and may have led to collapse.

The ironic thing is, although we all say that we have freedow of speech and thought, etc., something always oppresses it, in this case, political correctness, which is the perfect oppression because it causes those oppressed to 1.think they are free, and 2.want more of it. Compared to this, Orwell couldn't've oppressed a ant farm.

Sorry about the double post, but the editing function seems to be not functioning.

Am I the only one who has realized that destroying all of us men would cause the rest of them to die out. If they are going to all be concerned about being \"sexually liberated\" businesswomen, wouldn't that mean no kids? Thus, people will, in about 1 generation or 2, see the inherent folly. At least, the rest of us will.

Please get the edit function fixed, and in the meantime please integrate these three posts together, as I can't. Once again, very sorry.

roid wrote:Find a solid masculinity movement which ISN'T based around religious dogma, only THEN will this discussion be worth a damn.

Find a solid femininity movemant which ISN'T based around close-minded spite against what is now a minority of chauvinistic boys(to refer to them as 'men' is an insult to the rest of us), then we can talk rationally.

roid wrote:The Feminist movement has always been about influencing changes to society to make it more feminine oriented than it previously was.

Bull.

There's nothing in the quote-feminist group listed above that's about anything "feminine" at all.

That group is all about making society more GENDER-NEUTRAL, which is most certainly NOT the same thing. They're not about making society more feminine; they're about making society into a completely gender-neutral place (where there is no "feminine" or "masculine" at all) that happens to be low-testosterone.

There was a time when those who called themselves "feminists" actually cared about making the truly feminine more respected and accepted. Both my mom and my dad qualify as classical feminists in this sense. The modern "feminist" movement has no real similarity to the classical movement; the modern movement is all about creating more gender labels while simultaneously reducing the genders into a single androgynous blob. It's a shame true feminists share a label with such losers...

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote:...however:
Find a solid masculinity movement which ISN'T based around religious dogma, only THEN will this discussion be worth a damn.

Nonsense!
The discussion doesn't have to scrutinize anything other than the subject of the discussion to be "worth a damn"!

Why do you make such a claim? The stench of red herring is getting strong in here...

but it's a fact, the most solid masculinity movements are based around patriarchal religions. Since i won't touch those religions, i'm not going to touch any masculinity movement which is chained to a patriarchal religion. It's not a red herring, i'm just trying to quickly get onto the table what i believe to be at the BASIS of prettymuch ALL gender based issues (such as feminism, anti-feminism): Religion.

Much to the distaste of Social Conservatives, The Feminist movement is part of the greater Social Liberal movement which is fighting back against the Social Conservatives. i like it because it's really forcing our society to evolve and change.

From what i've seen, Social Conservatism (ESPECIALLY issues of gender) is directly or indirectly linked with Religious Dogma. "the bible says queers are wrong, the bible says women are subserviant, the bible says the bible says the bible says."

To have a "worth a damn" discussion about gender issues, the issue of Religion has to be brought up quickly so it can be defused and seperated into a seperate disussion.

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:The Feminist movement has always been about influencing changes to society to make it more feminine oriented than it previously was.

Bull.

There's nothing in the quote-feminist group listed above that's about anything "feminine" at all.

That group is all about making society more GENDER-NEUTRAL, which is most certainly NOT the same thing. They're not about making society more feminine; they're about making society into a completely gender-neutral place (where there is no "feminine" or "masculine" at all) that happens to be low-testosterone.

There was a time when those who called themselves "feminists" actually cared about making the truly feminine more respected and accepted. Both my mom and my dad qualify as classical feminists in this sense. The modern "feminist" movement has no real similarity to the classical movement; the modern movement is all about creating more gender labels while simultaneously reducing the genders into a single androgynous blob. It's a shame true feminists share a label with such losers...

I was talking more from a general angle, i didn't really want to discuss the article coz IMHO the article was written for Social Conservatives, not me. When it says things like "Certainly, a pro-polyamory movement among the youth divisions of Sweden’s ruling left-wing coalition bodes ill for the future.", it looses me. I simply don't agree with the Social Conservative agenda.

The message of the article is "Feminists have ruined Sweden, and if we don't fight against them them will ruin America too!".

it said things like this:

Certainly, a pro-polyamory movement among the youth divisions of Sweden’s ruling left-wing coalition bodes ill for the future.

uh... huh?

i'm not saying the article is rediculous - i found it quite enlightening. but it's obviously targeted at a particular political demographic who thinks that "polyamory is an obviously bad thing" - and that means Social Conservatives, which in turn means the Christian right.

The truth of the matter is that it's not just Feminists who want gender equality. It's all kinds of camps withing the gender and sexuality reform camps. The article is just trying to lump all "gender reform" camps together under the label of "insane women who want to hate all men". I'm sorry but that crap, i'm just not swallowing it.

(disclaimer: wrote the last part of this a little drunk)

roid wrote:i'm just trying to quickly get onto the table what i believe to be at the BASIS of prettymuch ALL gender based issues (such as feminism, anti-feminism): Religion.

It's a HUMAN issue, which is why it has been a part of virtually every belief system (religious or not).

The greeks debated if women were even sentient. And don't forget that while they are rarer, there HAVE been societies who's religion was matriarchal. And gender issues didn't disappear in the atheist soviet union.

It is human nature to divide the world into "us" and "them". And we will divide along any kind of difference we can notice. Gender, race, religion, ear lobe length. ANYTHING.

Christianity is often accused of being a system that was particularly bad on women's rights. But the only way to see it like that is to ignore the historical context. To use an example I've used before:

Deut 21:10-14, at first glance, just makes you want to vomit. It basically says that after you have killed off all the menfolk in war, you can take any woman you want and force her to marry you. Then if you get tired of her later you can throw her out.

But look more closely and think about the text in the context of the periods general standards of warfare. The accepted method was (and in many places still is) that the conquering warriors rape any and all women they find, then strut away feeling proud of themselves. Deut 21:10-14 made this illegal in Israel. It said the only way you could have any of those prisoner women was to actually MARRY them, and once you had done so, she either stays as your wife, with full privileges, or she walks away free. No slavery for that victim, period.

It may seem like to small a step, at least it does to me, but it was a VERY BIG step for the people of that day and age, one so big that they didn't generally succeed in following it. God was leading his people, in baby steps, towards his goal.

We have a similar situation with the laws on Divorce. Deut. 24:1-4 clearly states that all a man has to do to divorce his wife is give her a "certificate of divorce" But in Matthew 5:31-32 Christ says that this is really adultery and God never intended for people to just casually Divorce each other. So why was the rule given to Moses? Because it that age a man could simply kick a woman out of his house at any time and she was ruined. She could not get remarried, and if she wasn't willing to become a prostitute she couldn't really support herself. The "certificate of divorce" was an improvement, another baby step. And Christ obviously thought the people were ready to go beyond that first step and on to the next.

The biblical history on feminism is one that recognizes the HUMAN problem of discrimination, and of constant small steps in the direction of more equality and respect for women. As soon as the people get civilized enough to have achieved one level, God takes them to the next. With the eventual goal being:

Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Lothar wrote:There was a time when those who called themselves "feminists" actually cared about making the truly feminine more respected and accepted.

Exactly. Equal before the eyes of the law does NOT mean "the same". The modern feminist movement looks down on any women who decides to stay home and take care of the kids. Excuse me? I thought we wanted to EXPAND womens choices, not limit them!

Lothar wrote:It's a shame true feminists share a label with such losers.

I feel that lots of good labels have been stolen. I can no longer call myself a "feminist", "environmentalist" or "animal rights activist" without having people misunderstand me completely.

Don't be too surprised if you see Sweden completely cave in socially in the next 10 years or so. Getting rid of marrage and family will ultimately ruin thier society.
Norway isn't in much better shape. I feel for the people living in those countries. To have a group of radicals rape your country is nuts.

Duper wrote:Don't be too surprised if you see Sweden completely cave in socially in the next 10 years or so. Getting rid of marrage and family will ultimately ruin thier society.

Yeah, unfortunately Canada is going through the same thing, albeit we only legalised gay marriage last year, and the new Conservative government is going to hold a completely free vote on it (i.e. each member of parliament voting for themselves, not necessarily by party lines). This may pass or not, but at least it is democratic this time. Last time the so-called "Liberal" party forced its members to vote for the bill, lest they be demoted/fired, and there were some occasions where people were demoted/fired for their beliefs. Ironic that the "Liberal" party would be so fascist, and the Conservatives so libertarian, ne?

The Law Commission of Canada has advocated the establishment of a flexible, gender-neutral, multi-partner relationship system in addition to marriage. The strategy is to get that new system going, then subtly phase out marriage, boil-the-frog-style. Expect proposals like this from Sweden.

Although I think this is immoral, I don't think it should be illegal. I see the purpose of government to protect its citizens, not to enforce morality.

I believe marriage is a sacred entity, and as such should be left to religion under separation of church and state. If a church won't marry two gay people, so be it. If a different church will, so be it.

The legal contract recognized as a marriage, on the other hand, should be separate from a church marriage. Anybody should be able to enter into whatever legal contract they wish with any number of other people. If two men, or three people or four or whatever of any sex wish to be signatories to some contract which details the same rights and responsibilities as assumed by a standard marriage contract, they should have that right.

The problem I see with marriage in a legal sense is that its not a contract between two people, as it should be, but a contract between those two people and the government. Once you enter into that contract, a lot of different things, both good and bad can happen. Marriage, in the spiritual (and in this example, christian) sense, is a promise between two people to remain faithful to eachother until one of them dies. The government has absolutely no part of it in that sense, and IMO, thats what makes that definition of marriage better, as it actually means something real, as opposed to the legal jargonship of a state-endorced contract marriage.

I think the government should just get out of the marriage business alltogether and just let the two people in love handle things. If two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, let em, but keep the government out of it.

In a perfect world, this would be true. But when you stop and concider what goes on in a divorce, and other things like death and SS benefits etc, it's necessary for some amount of government regulation to be involved.

In Sweden, they have not only gotten rid of the legal ramifications of marrage but also the notion of marrage as in anyone can and should live with anyone they choose and share the same benefits as though a marrage existed.

It would be like a nationally sanctioned \"Free Love\" er.. existance; only like in a community property state...sorta.. Those of us old enough to remember the 70's should know where \"free love\" got us.

Avder wrote:The problem I see with marriage in a legal sense is that its not a contract between two people, as it should be, but a contract between those two people and the government.

I rarely if ever say this, but...

Word, Avder.

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:i'm just trying to quickly get onto the table what i believe to be at the BASIS of prettymuch ALL gender based issues (such as feminism, anti-feminism): Religion.

It's a HUMAN issue, which is why it has been a part of virtually every belief system (religious or not).

The greeks debated if women were even sentient. And don't forget that while they are rarer, there HAVE been societies who's religion was matriarchal. And gender issues didn't disappear in the atheist soviet union.

yes yes, agreed. But I'm trying to talk about modern times (abiet, perhaps Communism IS a form of secular masculinity). Thesedays we live in a patriarchal society which has been so solidly patriarchal for so long that we can scarcely fathom things being any different. This is the point that drives some (most?) core feminists. They beleive that our society should try to reconnect with a form of "Lost Matriarchy", or rather that we should try to disconnect ourselves from learned Patriarchal behaviour systems.

But to define what Patriarchal, Masculine, Matriarchal and Feminine aspects and values are... this is a real free for all. Lots of people seem to have different ideas on what goes in what camp, and there IS a lot of scapegoating going on too.

Kilarin wrote:...*snipped Bible stuff*...

The biblical history on feminism is one that recognizes the HUMAN problem of discrimination, and of constant small steps in the direction of more equality and respect for women. As soon as the people get civilized enough to have achieved one level, God takes them to the next. With the eventual goal being:

Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

yep, take "Jesus Christ" outof the scripture and you've damn near got yourself a good secular argument accessable to everyone, regardless of religion.

Lothar wrote:There was a time when those who called themselves "feminists" actually cared about making the truly feminine more respected and accepted.

Exactly. Equal before the eyes of the law does NOT mean "the same". The modern feminist movement looks down on any women who decides to stay home and take care of the kids. Excuse me? I thought we wanted to EXPAND womens choices, not limit them!

They look down on such women because they wonder if the women truly wants to do that or if they are being indirectly influenced to do this by patriachal society. It's a suspicion of motive. Of course they don't want to LIMIT the choices the woman can have, she should be able to do whatever she wants to do, and be free of social influences pushing her into certain roles that she may NOT truly want. But hey if she DOES want it, she's free to have it! Just as long as she isn't being subtly forced into such a choice by society. The feminists are trying to make sure that every woman feels that her life choices are entirely upto her unique whim - the theory is that patriarchal society has historically denied respect for womens' "whims", encouraging them to instead just get with the patriarchal program - "men's whims are simply more important".

So if women honestly search within themselves, and find that they love the world the way it is... then good on them. They can still be feminists.

My head is kinda reeling at some of the assumptions i've heard here. Do all of you really think that changes to how our society defines things like marriage and gender will be the beginnning of the end for civilisation? If you could back up such assumptions, that'd be swell

roid wrote:Do all of you really think that changes to how our society defines things like marriage and gender will be the beginnning of the end for civilisation? If you could back up such assumptions, that'd be swell

I mentioned the low rate of children per family, avg. 1.1, and obviously this is a deficit, as 2 children per family is necessary to replace them.

Unfortunately, the edit function still doesn't work. Sorry.

(Source()) , As can be seen, the number of children per family(subtract family size by 2 for husband-wife, and by 1 for lone parent) has been in steady decline since the mid 70s, if not earlier, which is about the time that abortion and no-fault divorce were legalized.

Unfortunately, the Statistics Sweden site hasn't any data on fertility rates during the above time period. If somone could plese find one, that would be appreciated

We could really use less people, so good that it's down.

Did someone say Patriarchal?

Avder wrote:The problem I see with marriage in a legal sense is that its not a contract between two people, as it should be, but a contract between those two people and the government. Once you enter into that contract, a lot of different things, both good and bad can happen. Marriage, in the spiritual (and in this example, christian) sense, is a promise between two people to remain faithful to eachother until one of them dies. The government has absolutely no part of it in that sense, and IMO, thats what makes that definition of marriage better, as it actually means something real, as opposed to the legal jargonship of a state-endorced contract marriage.

I think the government should just get out of the marriage business alltogether and just let the two people in love handle things. If two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, let em, but keep the government out of it.

Yeah, maybe. In a perfectly rational world, with perfectly rational people, society could just let go of marriage with minimal implications. I think it might be great. However, people are morons. At least, enough of them are that society has to step in with some kind of framework. The question is about - who's framework. Eventually in a relationship that goes bad, people are going to want this, or be released from that responsibility, or be granted custody of this, or get access to that resource that the other party claims.

One of my issues with the feminazi's is that they just want to push for this or that change without any consideration for its potential societal consequences.

Dissent, by \"feminazis\" do you mean feminists?
please be specific in your insults, it's unclear whether they are general or specific.


Shadowfury333, a constantly growing human population is not a universally shared dream. Especially among the counterculture which emerged in the 70s, of which feminists are but only one part.

if you want to start with the extreme, take a look at the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

It wouldn't surprise me if ALL of the universally well educated nations are facing slowdowns in population growth, i know Australia sure is. The \"babyboomer generation\" has certainly passed.

roid wrote:if you want to start with the extreme, take a look at the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

You know, I am so getting married and having ten kids, just to piss these people off.

Regarding the OP...wow. Remind me never to set foot in Sweden. That is incredibly messed up. And people say the "slippery slope" argument holds no merit...

roid wrote:Dissent, by "feminazis" do you mean feminists?
please be specific in your insults, it's unclear whether they are general or specific.

Feminazis would be a small subset of all feminists, characterized by their ultra radical views and their willingness to see them foisted on the rest of society simply because they say so.

Paul wrote:The legal contract recognized as a marriage, on the other hand, should be separate from a church marriage. Anybody should be able to enter into whatever legal contract they wish with any number of other people.

Amen. The best way to defend marriage is to get the government out of the "marriage" business. Make ALL marriages simple legal contracts about property. Marriage in a Church is subject to the rules of that church.

Kilarin wrote:The modern feminist movement looks down on any women who decides to stay home and take care of the kids.

roid wrote:They look down on such women because they wonder if the women truly wants to do that or if they are being indirectly influenced to do this by patriachal society. It's a suspicion of motive.

roid wrote:The feminists are trying to make sure that every woman feels that her life choices are entirely upto her unique whim

But life choices can NOT be "just whims". If our choices are to be wise, they must be tempered by the practicality of duty.

I know it's a radical point of view, but I think that if a couple has children, a family member should take care of those kids for their early years. I know several women at work who had children, took 2 months off, then put the babies into daycare and went back to work. From 2 months old up, these kids are in daycare 8 or more hours a day. Why bother having the kids if you are going to let someone else (who can't possibly care about them the same way you do) raise them?

Now I have NO problem whatsoever with the Dad staying home and raising the kids while Mom goes out and earns a living. But ONE of them should be there for the childs early formative years. Once you have a kid, one (or both) of the parents may have to give up their "whims" for the good of the child.

Everything is being questioned, including the gender roles we inherited from industrial revolution of: Man goes to factory to work as a cog in the clockwork of soulless society. Children, Dreams, and Self-Actualisation do not fit into the soulless factory/slave society model.

That's why we send kids off to be processed in their own factorys: Schools. Then daddy is free to be a mindless cog in a cubicle without Jr running around full of life's passion, constantly distracting daddy with inquisative questions of life and meaning - things that daddy would rather not think about lest he be compelled to jump outof the skyscraper window in mourning of his own inner child which he keeps Entombed as he tells himself \"this is what i have to do, i am exactly where i should be, such childish fun is not an option for the modern man - we are above that, we are so much.... more?\".

wait.. i fergot my point.
Oh yeah. Feminists are some of the ones pushing for our corporate slave lifestyles to be reinintegrated with our natural urge to care for and live with our children. Who are pushing for on-site daycare in businesses? Feminists.

The questioning of the whole gender divide is not just a women's movement. Women were questioning the validity of them being slaves at home, and likewise men are questioning the validity of them being slaves to provide.

It's a push to change, a push to question the values of our society, the validity of the chains we put around our necks. Should our gender dictate how we live our lives, via social responsability? Should we really ATTACK those who feel a different urge which differs from the normal gender dictated route?

Dissent says

One of my issues with the feminazi's is that they just want to push for this or that change without any consideration for its potential societal consequences.

but i think that you oversimplify (and demonising) the goals of \"the Feminazis\", and really don't understand them at all. Feminists are concerned with changing society, as much as their social-conservative opposites are concerned with preserving the way things are.

They DO care.

roid wrote:Feminists are some of the ones pushing for our corporate slave lifestyles to be reinintegrated with our natural urge to care for and live with our children..... a push to question the values of our society, the validity of the chains we put around our necks..... i think that you oversimplify the goals of "the Feminazis"

Real Feminists do exactly that.

But "feminazis" -- which is what the women in the above article are -- do not.

Real Feminists want to free women to really be women. (This may include freeing them from "values of society" that are improper or incorrect.)

Feminazis want to turn women into domineering men with boobs.

There's a difference. Unfortunately, far too many who use the label "feminist" are really feminazis.

You don't have any trouble seeing how people who act like dumbasses and use the label "Christians" make Christians as a whole look bad. Why do you struggle to see how people who act like dumbasses and use the label "feminist" make feminists as a whole look bad?

...because the article was labeling these extremist feminists as bad for reasons that could be applied to ALL feminists.

i have met some retarded people on the gender divide, so i'm not denying they exist (I recall one particular gay guy who hated all heterosexual people with a passion, he was the very monster he claimed to be fighting against). But i don't believe that they are as prevalent as this article would have us believe.

I've eluded to the social-conservative movement as being a mostly religious movement. This article comes from the social conservative angle. i think the only way someone would agree with the opinions and conclusions of this article is if they are Christian or are heavily influenced by Christianity. Frankly i kinda hoped that someone would bite on that statement and prove me wrong. But i can't see how anyone can believe the comments the article makes about Family and Marriage unless they are Christian.

What i'm saying is the anti-feminist slant in this article comes directly from the directive of the social-conservative agenda, which is something along the lines of \"if everyone is a good Christian: problems solved!\".
An oversimplification i know. Because i wish to bait people into debating the validity of the Social-Conservative ethic. Since THAT is what this article and all those like it are really about at their core. I've been pushing for this \"seperation\" since the start of the thread - i'm curious to see what would be left of the feminist vs anti-feminist debate if you wash away all of the religious influence. Remove the Bible from the debate, and i wanna see what's left over. Not much i'm tipping. So if that's the case, we should be calling this what it is... a RELIGIOUS DEBATE. We all know howto handle those

I anyone going to even TRY to engage the subject of \"Christianity and how it shapes the views of Social-Conservatism\"?
(or shoudl i put that into a new thread?)

roid wrote:...because the article was labeling these extremist feminists as bad for reasons that could be applied to ALL feminists.

Was it? Or was it all about the Swedish feminist movement's Feminazi contingent, and the presence of similar Feminazis in other feminist movements worldwide?

The article did go overboard a bit. That's one reason why I've been talking this whole thread about the difference between real feminists and the nuts described in that article.

i think the only way someone would agree with the opinions and conclusions of this article is if they are Christian or are heavily influenced by Christianity.... i can't see how anyone can believe the comments the article makes about Family and Marriage unless they are Christian.

Shannon Love's statements in this thread are similar. Shannon is an avowed atheist.

i wish to bait people into debating the validity of the Social-Conservative ethic.

Why "bait" people? Why not be direct? If you want to talk about the social-conservative ethic, talk about it. Don't try to trick people into it.

I want to say, though, I think people aren't biting because there's very little validity to your point. This isn't about what my religious book says about women; this isn't about what Christianity has said about the role of women; it's about who men and women really are and whether they should be viewed as "the same".

i'm curious to see what would be left of the feminist vs anti-feminist debate if you wash away all of the religious influence. Remove the Bible from the debate, and i wanna see what's left over....

I think the position I hold would still stand without any Bible on which to base it.

Men and women are different. We don't have the same DNA; this means we are *necessarily* different. Those who try to smash us all into one single blob and who refuse to acknowledge that we are different are misguided. Those who believe the ideal state is one in which there are no differences don't respect either men OR women for what they are.

People who think students all learn the same way make bad teachers. There are real differences between individuals, genders, and cultures that mean teachers need to be able to teach in a variety of ways. There are also real differences between individuals, genders, and cultures that mean people will have different interests. Those who believe the ultimate measure of equality is whether there's a 50-50 gender split in a particular company or field do a disservice to everyone because they fail to respect those differences. All this is to say, the differences are real; they're not the fault of patriarchal society or patriarchal religion. They might be exaggerated or twisted by those things, but there *are* underlying differences.

Now, experience has shown that traditional families tend to be the best environment for kids to grow up in. We can argue for weeks about why having both a male and a female raising you is generally better than the alternatives, and we can theorize and hypothesize until we're blue in the face, but I don't think there's any point. I'll just say this: I don't think religions or societies arrived at one man, one woman because they were patriarchal. They arrived at it because it works better than the alternatives.

-----

Has the "role of women" been defined, in part, by patriarchal tendencies in society? Of course. Has the "role of women" been defined properly? Of course not; society still has some wrong ideas about what women and men should be like. Does that mean we should discard all notions of gender differences? Nope; we should just do a better job of understanding them and *respecting* them.

That's where Feminazis go wrong while Real Feminists stay on the right track.

roid wrote:i think the only way someone would agree with the opinions and conclusions of this article is if they are Christian or are heavily influenced by Christianity. Frankly i kinda hoped that someone would bite on that statement and prove me wrong.

But I thought I HAD addressed that:
A: sexisim is a human issue, not a religious one
and
B: The Bible has consistantly worked to improve the condition of women throughout time.

Why \"bait\" people? Why not be direct? If you want to talk about the social-conservative ethic, talk about it. Don't try to trick people into it.

ok instead of \"bait\" i should have said \"guide\" or \"direct\". and directing attention to such primal influences is a good idea for the debate anyway, no? (trade secret / hindsight: i subconsciously hoped i would be able to bait someone into providing some compelling evidence to prove some of my theorys WRONG). Subtlety can be preferred over Directness.

I want to say, though, I think people aren't biting because there's very little validity to your point. This isn't about what my religious book says about women; this isn't about what Christianity has said about the role of women; it's about who men and women really are and whether they should be viewed as \"the same\".

The article stated that \"As the West’s most secular country, where changes in family structure and gender roles are most “advanced,” Sweden is the center of world feminism.\". Sweden is secular, Sweden has crazy feminists, hint hint America get out your wooden crosses to protect your nation from the feminist onslaught. I dunno, maybe social-conservative articles just reference God in everything they write as common practice, & i'm therefore blowing it all outof proportion *shrug*.

Men and women are different. We don't have the same DNA; this means we are *necessarily* different. Those who try to smash us all into one single blob and who refuse to acknowledge that we are different are misguided.

agreed.

Those who believe the ultimate measure of equality is whether there's a 50-50 gender split in a particular company or field do a disservice to everyone because they fail to respect those differences. All this is to say, the differences are real; they're not the fault of patriarchal society or patriarchal religion. They might be exaggerated or twisted by those things, but there *are* underlying differences.

ok, this part is where i wanna say something. I think what radical feminism is trying for here is, as you say, shoot for a 50/50 gender split in various fields. This is a pretty far fetched idea - but they are probabaly going for it, and i can think of some strong reasons to justify the move:

Trace mankind's history, our current state of being is based around Patriarchy. We have only recently gotten past the mentality that Testiculese humourously pointed out with his magazine scan from \"Housekeeping Monthly - May 1955\"


Now, if our current system of commerce, business and trade, the very ecconomic foundations of modern SOCIETY have not changed much since this time period, we have had no real civilisational paradigm shift since. Then is it no surprise that women are still NOT a 50/50 part of ecconomic modern society? Is it not plausible that perhaps our ecconomic society still is patriarchal? What i'm suggesting is that if women are not a part of something, perhaps that something has still not changed sufficiently for it to appeal to women. As you said, women are different (o rly? ), but just how different may truly frighten a lot of us who are pretty comfy in the current system.
Sure, there are many many possabilitys as to the nature of this gender gap in various fields. Perhaps men and women just DO want to do what they want to do, perhaps little girls really DO naturally gravitate towards stuffed animal toys instead of slingshots. Ok, if so:
If commerse has been based on selling slingshots for thousands of years, and we want to bring women into the picture. What we need to do is get women to redesign our commerse system so that selling fluffy animal toys make up 50% of the workforce requirements.
That was the stupidest metaphor ever. What i'm trying to say is that if we really want to get to a 50/50 gender divide as the feminists may want, we are going to have to SERIOUSLY shake up society and commerse. From what i've been reading (i read some pretty radical stuff)... the ideas from the feminist camp would scare you all to death. But the question you have to ask yourself is: how badly do we want gender equality? Do we want it bad enough to tear down our entire society and rebuild it anew? Or would we rather the things stayed as they were?

The world's biggest industrys are Drugs, Oil, Weapons and Information. Our societys are run by Powertrips wearing ties. I think we can do better!

Frankly, the feminists speak to me because: NO! i am not happy with the way things are. Their (well, the ones i listen to anyway) suggested social experiments make a lot of sense, and i'd like to see them put into action.

I didn't expect to find such a unified conservative front. Perhaps the subject should be approached with even more subtlety again. I've rarely debated feminism before, as a result i feel a bit lost, like i'm swimming in a debate without definitions.

roid wrote:The world's biggest industrys are Drugs, Oil, Weapons and Information. Our societys are run by Powertrips wearing ties. I think we can do better!

Frankly, the feminists speak to me because: NO! i am not happy with the way things are. Their (well, the ones i listen to anyway) suggested social experiments make a lot of sense, and i'd like to see them put into action.

Here's an experiment: (assuming you are, in fact, female) Become one of those powertrips. Get into those industries. Change it from the top down. One thing that has changed in the past 50 years is that women are recognized as citizens and people, thus they can own land and businesses, along with receiving education. The quickest way you are going to change anything is to rise to the top, or buy your way there.