10 Apr 2012, 11:51 am
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Yet, women protecting women because they are women is a good thing to her.
you didn't ever demonstrate how this supposedly happens. show me where feminism ONLY supports women.
Feminism is all about supporting women. You're being obtuse by pretending not to know that.
erm, no. we have explained to you again and again that it involves equality for BOTH men and women. i think that perhaps you are not listening.
Oh I'm listening, and what I'm hearing is nothing but how great yet held back women are. If feminism is about everyone, its relevance ceases, as it defers to simply Equal Rights or the Golden Rule.
There is nothing for which people need feminism itself. And if it's not about women, then the name is doing it the great disservice of falsely communicating what it is.
They need to pull a "Global Warming"-to-"Climate Change" broadening of title, if it includes everyone equally.
But again, any civilized human being knows everyone should be treated the same. That's Jesus' doctrine, so the concept has been around for literally two thousand years, so there never was a need within the past two thousands to pretend there's suddenly this bright new idea about everyone treating everyone as they would like to be treated. Feminism simply is not needed in any society that has been heavily exposed to Jesus' teachings, or even any other philosophy promoting equanimity. I mean, you act as if feminists just showed up one day and invented the concept of basic human fairness.
It is really laughable.Oh, that is rich. Given how often certain Christians use the Bible to justify limited roles for women and other prohibitions, or to claim that the man MUST be the head of the home, it is far from obvious to everyone who claims to read the Bible that the Bible teaches fair and equitable treatment. I happen to think it does, but it seems to be pretty easy for all sorts of people to contort it into saying otherwise.
You are forgetting about human nature, which naturally sees everything through distorted glasses. If men feel threatened by women they will not treat them fairly, and they will count on getting away with it. Sure, women are capable of doing the same, but since men tend to hold more of the power in our society, it is still women who are more likely to get the short end of the stick in the bias game. I've been around the block a few times and I've SEEN it.
And ... I get the distinct impression that you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing. To me, it sounds like you arguing against yourself at times. Interesting.
Pretty much wht DW_a_mom said
She makes as little sense here as she usually does. However, she seemed mostly rational in her last two posts in my thread in the Love & Dating sub-forum. Here, though, she's speaking from her emotions, and is therefore all over the map as usual.
For instance, other peoples' misinterpretation of the Bible -- who cares? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not making the misinterpretations she mentions, and I've already said the Bible says to treat women with great love and with respect. It ALSO says the man is to be the head of the home! I didn't say this, GOD DID.
Oh my. I just saw this post and I have to point out that you, Ragtime, are here defaulting to the "women are irrational and emotional" fallacy that I just mentioned in my last post. Here is a link explaining the manipulativeness of using this fallacy. You are attempting to discredit her using cultural stereotypes that prestige men as rational and clear-headed and discredit women as the opposite. Yet how exactly are the things DWAMOM is saying any more emotional or irrational than what you're saying?You're both making points in an argument. I could just as easily say to you, "Ragtime makes as little sense here as he usually does. However, he seemed mostly rational in his last two posts in my thread in blahblahblah forum. Here, though, he's speaking from his emotions, and is therefore all over the map as usual." You would ask me to give evidence for these characterizations, would you not? Except with the characterizations you're making, because they're in the well-worn groove of sexism, you're not only arguing about the actual points she made but asking her to argue that women are NOT emotional and irrational just so she can appear as the equally serious player she is in this discussion.
http://jmuwomensstudentcaucus.wordpress ... 2/11/3502/
10 Apr 2012, 12:10 pm
Ragtime wrote:
This is incorrect. The Bible is always relevant in everything. You disrespect God if you say or think otherwise.
The Bible is irrelevant to most of the human race. One cannot disrespect something that does not exist
Ragtime wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Now I could take that as physically weaker (which is generally true) and nothing more. other than physically strength they are equal
But feminists deny even that!
Where? Who?
Translation: The feminists in Ragtime's head
10 Apr 2012, 12:15 pm
10 Apr 2012, 1:23 pm
10 Apr 2012, 1:37 pm
10 Apr 2012, 2:10 pm
Ragtime wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Now I could take that as physically weaker (which is generally true) and nothing more. other than physically strength they are equal
But feminists deny even that!
Where? Who?
It was an honest question.
10 Apr 2012, 2:17 pm
10 Apr 2012, 3:21 pm
CloudLayer wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Yet, women protecting women because they are women is a good thing to her.
you didn't ever demonstrate how this supposedly happens. show me where feminism ONLY supports women.
Feminism is all about supporting women. You're being obtuse by pretending not to know that.
erm, no. we have explained to you again and again that it involves equality for BOTH men and women. i think that perhaps you are not listening.
Oh I'm listening, and what I'm hearing is nothing but how great yet held back women are. If feminism is about everyone, its relevance ceases, as it defers to simply Equal Rights or the Golden Rule.
There is nothing for which people need feminism itself. And if it's not about women, then the name is doing it the great disservice of falsely communicating what it is.
They need to pull a "Global Warming"-to-"Climate Change" broadening of title, if it includes everyone equally.
But again, any civilized human being knows everyone should be treated the same. That's Jesus' doctrine, so the concept has been around for literally two thousand years, so there never was a need within the past two thousands to pretend there's suddenly this bright new idea about everyone treating everyone as they would like to be treated. Feminism simply is not needed in any society that has been heavily exposed to Jesus' teachings, or even any other philosophy promoting equanimity. I mean, you act as if feminists just showed up one day and invented the concept of basic human fairness.
It is really laughable.Oh, that is rich. Given how often certain Christians use the Bible to justify limited roles for women and other prohibitions, or to claim that the man MUST be the head of the home, it is far from obvious to everyone who claims to read the Bible that the Bible teaches fair and equitable treatment. I happen to think it does, but it seems to be pretty easy for all sorts of people to contort it into saying otherwise.
You are forgetting about human nature, which naturally sees everything through distorted glasses. If men feel threatened by women they will not treat them fairly, and they will count on getting away with it. Sure, women are capable of doing the same, but since men tend to hold more of the power in our society, it is still women who are more likely to get the short end of the stick in the bias game. I've been around the block a few times and I've SEEN it.
And ... I get the distinct impression that you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing. To me, it sounds like you arguing against yourself at times. Interesting.
Pretty much wht DW_a_mom said
She makes as little sense here as she usually does. However, she seemed mostly rational in her last two posts in my thread in the Love & Dating sub-forum. Here, though, she's speaking from her emotions, and is therefore all over the map as usual.
For instance, other peoples' misinterpretation of the Bible -- who cares? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not making the misinterpretations she mentions, and I've already said the Bible says to treat women with great love and with respect. It ALSO says the man is to be the head of the home! I didn't say this, GOD DID.
Oh my. I just saw this post and I have to point out that you, Ragtime, are here defaulting to the "women are irrational and emotional" fallacy that I just mentioned in my last post. Here is a link explaining the manipulativeness of using this fallacy. You are attempting to discredit her using cultural stereotypes that prestige men as rational and clear-headed and discredit women as the opposite. Yet how exactly are the things DWAMOM is saying any more emotional or irrational than what you're saying?You're both making points in an argument. I could just as easily say to you, "Ragtime makes as little sense here as he usually does. However, he seemed mostly rational in his last two posts in my thread in blahblahblah forum. Here, though, he's speaking from his emotions, and is therefore all over the map as usual." You would ask me to give evidence for these characterizations, would you not? Except with the characterizations you're making, because they're in the well-worn groove of sexism, you're not only arguing about the actual points she made but asking her to argue that women are NOT emotional and irrational just so she can appear as the equally serious player she is in this discussion.
http://jmuwomensstudentcaucus.wordpress ... 2/11/3502/
Women produce way more oxytocin than men. Next.
10 Apr 2012, 3:23 pm
10 Apr 2012, 3:27 pm
10 Apr 2012, 3:28 pm
HereComesTheRain wrote:
CloudLayer wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Yet, women protecting women because they are women is a good thing to her.
you didn't ever demonstrate how this supposedly happens. show me where feminism ONLY supports women.
Feminism is all about supporting women. You're being obtuse by pretending not to know that.
erm, no. we have explained to you again and again that it involves equality for BOTH men and women. i think that perhaps you are not listening.
Oh I'm listening, and what I'm hearing is nothing but how great yet held back women are. If feminism is about everyone, its relevance ceases, as it defers to simply Equal Rights or the Golden Rule.
There is nothing for which people need feminism itself. And if it's not about women, then the name is doing it the great disservice of falsely communicating what it is.
They need to pull a "Global Warming"-to-"Climate Change" broadening of title, if it includes everyone equally.
But again, any civilized human being knows everyone should be treated the same. That's Jesus' doctrine, so the concept has been around for literally two thousand years, so there never was a need within the past two thousands to pretend there's suddenly this bright new idea about everyone treating everyone as they would like to be treated. Feminism simply is not needed in any society that has been heavily exposed to Jesus' teachings, or even any other philosophy promoting equanimity. I mean, you act as if feminists just showed up one day and invented the concept of basic human fairness.
It is really laughable.Oh, that is rich. Given how often certain Christians use the Bible to justify limited roles for women and other prohibitions, or to claim that the man MUST be the head of the home, it is far from obvious to everyone who claims to read the Bible that the Bible teaches fair and equitable treatment. I happen to think it does, but it seems to be pretty easy for all sorts of people to contort it into saying otherwise.
You are forgetting about human nature, which naturally sees everything through distorted glasses. If men feel threatened by women they will not treat them fairly, and they will count on getting away with it. Sure, women are capable of doing the same, but since men tend to hold more of the power in our society, it is still women who are more likely to get the short end of the stick in the bias game. I've been around the block a few times and I've SEEN it.
And ... I get the distinct impression that you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing. To me, it sounds like you arguing against yourself at times. Interesting.
Pretty much wht DW_a_mom said
She makes as little sense here as she usually does. However, she seemed mostly rational in her last two posts in my thread in the Love & Dating sub-forum. Here, though, she's speaking from her emotions, and is therefore all over the map as usual.
For instance, other peoples' misinterpretation of the Bible -- who cares? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not making the misinterpretations she mentions, and I've already said the Bible says to treat women with great love and with respect. It ALSO says the man is to be the head of the home! I didn't say this, GOD DID.
Oh my. I just saw this post and I have to point out that you, Ragtime, are here defaulting to the "women are irrational and emotional" fallacy that I just mentioned in my last post. Here is a link explaining the manipulativeness of using this fallacy. You are attempting to discredit her using cultural stereotypes that prestige men as rational and clear-headed and discredit women as the opposite. Yet how exactly are the things DWAMOM is saying any more emotional or irrational than what you're saying?You're both making points in an argument. I could just as easily say to you, "Ragtime makes as little sense here as he usually does. However, he seemed mostly rational in his last two posts in my thread in blahblahblah forum. Here, though, he's speaking from his emotions, and is therefore all over the map as usual." You would ask me to give evidence for these characterizations, would you not? Except with the characterizations you're making, because they're in the well-worn groove of sexism, you're not only arguing about the actual points she made but asking her to argue that women are NOT emotional and irrational just so she can appear as the equally serious player she is in this discussion.
http://jmuwomensstudentcaucus.wordpress ... 2/11/3502/
Women produce way more oxytocin than men. Next.
and... men produce vasopressin. next.
10 Apr 2012, 3:30 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Since feminists are ostensibly in favour of gender equality, are feminists ready to relinquish special privileges afforded to women? Including hiring quotas and anti-discrimination laws that give special protections to women?
actually, i think that we should do the reverse and start hiring quotas for men in industries where they are under-represented, such as nursing, child care, retail, and primary teaching.
10 Apr 2012, 3:37 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Since feminists are ostensibly in favour of gender equality, are feminists ready to relinquish special privileges afforded to women? Including hiring quotas and anti-discrimination laws that give special protections to women?
A lot of women spend a lot more on fashions, cosmetics, shoes, and clothing than a lot of men. Shall we strive to equal-out these differences?
A lot of women spend a lot more on fashions, cosmetics, shoes, and clothing than a lot of men. Shall we strive to equal-out these differences?
AFAIC, yes. I don't speak for feminists as a whole, though.
During the time of Chairman Mao, China did go for androgynous outfits.
Since then, the country has suffered tremendously as the result of enormous bourgeois backsliding.
10 Apr 2012, 3:37 pm
10 Apr 2012, 3:38 pm
10 Apr 2012, 3:40 pm
