Feminist preoccupation with power

Post Reply New Topic

But feminists deny even that!

Where? Who?

This is incorrect. The Bible is always relevant in everything. You disrespect God if you say or think otherwise.



Again, you bring up this red herring, for some reason or other. Anything can be misinterpreted; that is the fault of the misinterpreters, not a reason to set aside a fully wise document. I interpret the marriage passages correctly, and they are not hard to interpret at all. I treat my wife as a woman, not a man, and in this I recognize the differences between women and men -- no matter how much that recognition of differences angers feminists. I couldn't care less what they think, when nearly their whole movement is anti-Scriptural in several ways, and is known for openly disrespecting the Bible in the general, and in particular everything the Bible has to say about women. So ya, there is no due respect for feminists. My respect belongs to God, whom they choose to openly defy.

Last edited by Ragtime on 10 Apr 2012, 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

No, they deny that ALL men are physically stronger than ALL women. Surely you've seen the exceptions. Shall we put you in hand to hand combat with a female wrestler (not the kind that wrestle in mud or for entertainment)? Or body builder?

My husband has a weak back. I can lift heavier furniture and boxes than he can. I'm no amazon, just able to lift things.

You get in trouble when you extend generalization to unique individuals. THAT is what feminism says.

The assertion that the opinion of some bronze age people is 'relevant to everything' holds no water. As 'disrespect god', it is the same nonsense as 'disrespect cvshvvois'.

Good to know

On the last page you said anyone following the Bible would know to treat people equally, and now you are not saying that at all. My earlier point about you liking to argue and sometimes even arguing against yourself? Made.

I am not going to get into what does and doea not respect the !Bible beyond noting that I disagree with you. My faith is real and right for me, but I cannot know what God's plan for you is or how He wants you to believe. Jesus did not try to build a government, and He quite specifically left that separate; so I don't see how the Bible can be used in an argument about equality in the eyes of the law.

And .... I've goofed off enough. Deadline work awaits. I must go and calculate what various good citizens with complicated lives must pay unto "Cesear."

PS - within my marriage, I would defer to my husband were we to actually still disagree on something affecting us both, after calm discussion. But I can't think of us ever having disagreed on anything important; we very much think alike; I can't imagine me being married to someone who wasn't like me on key things, and beyond that what I want most in this marriage is to see him happy simply because I love him to death. And right now you can bet what would make him happy is knowing I am getting my work done and not trying to change the world via internet boards.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 10 Apr 2012, 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

So far, 100% of your diagnoses of my thoughts have been inaccurate, and the one above keeps that trend alive.



Again, your dealings with other men have nothing to do with me and the way I live my life. I'm not responsible for other men. We men don't have a secret meeting room where we connive and conspire against women.



Anyone who is STILL arguing with me about feminism after 50 pages of feminism threads must simply enjoy arguing, because the more I hear about feminism -- well, actually, there is no change in my views: I'm neither becoming more against it nor more for it, because I look at the whole big world, not just this teeny tiny little thread, to form my opinions. And this thread is less than a drop in the bucket of total knowledge on the faulty premise and failed institution of feminism.

Anyone who continues to argue with me about feminism is just wasting their time.

Last edited by Ragtime on 10 Apr 2012, 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sorry that you're apparently unable to interpret a simple Scripture verse, when it says that wives are to be loved and respected, AND that, as women, they have a specific place and role in the marriage. I'm sorry that you apparently cannot put those two concepts together in your head.

First of all Paul teaches that Christ is to be the head of the man. If you ignore the Christian Right and look at the teachings of Jesus you will find that these teachings are very feminine and teach peace and love rather than war and violence as a way to solve problems. So if anyone says that Jesus was a man then I ask the question if Jesus was so macho why didn't he kick out all of the Romans ?

you're contradicting yourself.

Re: "Feminist preoccupation with power"

Feminists aren't any more "preoccupied" with power than any other group of human beings. Groups with privilege, men for one, simply already have disproportionate power by virtue of their group membership and could be said to be maintaining it from groups with lesser privilege, rather than doing the work it takes to get it. They have x power at Point A (present) and are trying to have x power at Point B (future), whereas underprivileged groups have x-a lot power at Point A and are trying to have x power at Point B. X is basically the amount of power it takes to "have enough power", and you do not have enough power if other people have a lot more power than you. That's unequal. So women as a group (like DWaMom said, individuals vary in their achievements, sway they hold, etc,., but everyone is subject to the societywide phenomenon of sexism and inherited inequality that privileges (in the example at hand) men and disprivileges women) - women as a group are given from the starting gate the task of making up the (a lot) amount of power that separates them from having the X amount that men have.

Example.
There have been no female American presidents or vice-presidents. This is a clear sign of gender power imbalance. Every boy and girl born today is being born into a world where the U.S. has had no female presidents. It can be seen from the resistance Obama was met with/is still being met with just for being the race that he is that simply being a member of a group lacking in historical/enduring privilege is enough to make people not vote for you. That was not a "thing" in previous elections. There was this white man and that white man. No one was saying "I'm not voting for this guy because he's white." They were both white. There was no "choice," by the time it got to the two major candidates (or anywhere close) you knew a white man was going to be president and you voted based on other things, like their policies.

I still to this day hear people making what I assume are supposed to be jokes about women being too irrational and emotional to be in charge of an army. (Or conversely, people saying that the world would be a place of serene peace if women ruled it - "whoops, too bad men are in charge".) Evidence for either weird scenario, there is none. Here's what would happen if a woman was president: we'd be one step closer to equality.

Ragtime seems headed for another spanking.

On the topic of pay differences--I think that many employers may be afraid to hire women, from the point of view that women are craftier and less easy to intimidate. If a subordinate is male, with a traditional stay-at-home wife, and several children, then he is much easier to bully, because a lot of people are dependent upon his salary (and health insurance benefits), and it would be tragic to lose them. Contrast that to a woman, who, if she is married, probably also has a husband who is working, and who, in the first place, has less to lose if she doesn't kow-tow. Moreover, the law will be on her side if any possible discrimination or other dispute occurs. Men have no similar legal protections. If a woman decides to be nasty and end the career of a male subordinate, then she will be regarded in a positive manner as being tough. If a man is nasty to a female subordinate, then the male superior is at far more extreme risk of getting himself into a load of trouble.

not from a moderator because he's not breaking any rules by being contradictory. but from fellow members.... i'd say it's a very likely scenario.

Lucky bugger - lots would pay for that!