FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Rampant Feminism to the point of Neo-Nazism (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Rampant Feminism to the point of Neo-Nazism
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
I always wonder how people like the blogger survive the world. Do they hold jobs at bookstores specializing in feminist literature? Do they just swallow all their disgust at the pro-men world every time they step out of the house? Is every other sentence about rape?

Has anyone met someone like this in the real world?

I have a friend who's minoring in Women's Studies (my sister did the same thing, actually.)

I think that if they have sufficient drive, instead of working at feminist book stores they teach Women's Studies at very liberal universities. At least some of them do. And some of them are perpetual Women's Studies students. They go to school for years, part time, and in between work a job that enables them to build up sufficient hate against the Patriarchal Order and Casual Mind-Rapists of the World. [Wink] So saith my friend and my sister (who nonetheless find the subject interesting, although they wouldn't want to major in it. But they like hearing this point of view, and thinking about it. Yes, it does inevitably color their interactions. Interestingly enough, both of them seem drawn to relationships with abusive men. [Dont Know] )

(And as to the article in the OP, I laughed my way through the entire thing. She's so self-deluded it's funny. And obviously she has no critical understanding of the arts. At all.)

[ July 16, 2009, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]

Posts: 21181 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
imogen
Member
Member # 5485

 - posted      Profile for imogen   Email imogen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The author of the article is not even a radical feminist. I'd agree with KQ - she's self-deluded. A feminist does not need to be a man hater, a lesbian (and, in her case, a lesbian who hates other lesbians who dare to have long hair...) or vitriolic. A feminist can be all those things, of course. ( [Wink] ) But they're not necessary elements.

That said, I think there is a lot of validity in critical feminist theory. The difference between sex and gender is one of the more basic concepts, but very important. Gendered understanding of situations can often be quite distinct from the biological sex (for example, looking at male-male (often prison) rape: this is often quite distinctly gendered, with the aggressor taking on the "male" role and forcing the victim into the "female" role - though both are biologically male.)

One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities [Wink] ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.

Posts: 4392 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love using feminist theory to write papers on literature. It's easy...you can find stuff everywhere. I made quite a few A's in college literature classes quoting people I didn't necessarily agree with.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Philosofickle:
What are unhealthy attitudes towards women?

I'm getting married on August 11th and both I and my fiance expect me to go out and be the bread winner. She would work if necessary and I have no objections to that. Our primary guiding line is the LDS Family Proclamation which can be found here:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

This is an unashamedly religious document, and if you are leery of reading the entire thing that's okay. I'd be interested in the perspective over whether or not this is would be perceived as an "anti-feminist" document. On one hand it says preside, on the other it talks about equal partnership.

Perspectives?

What you and your fiance both want to do, if it works for you, is great. But that situation is not the case for everyone, or even for all members of the church. My husband and I have discussed it quite a bit. We want kids, and we want one of us to be able to be at home to provide for their needs when they are young, but which one of us that ends up being is still pretty open. It depends entirely on our situation, our needs, and our resources.

Like I said before, Feminism is all about choice, and giving men and women equal choices in what they do with their lives. My mom had far fewer choices even just a generation ago, so I'd say we made significant progress. For some women, being a SAHP is the most fulfilling thing they can imagine doing. They should (and do) have the choice to pursue that. But today women have other choices, if they wish to pursue them, and that shouldn't be hindered.

Guess what, saying that all women should be lesbian man-haters is just as limiting as saying they should all be 50s style Ssay-at-home mothers and housewives.

As to whether or not the Proclamation is a feminist document -- It actually does an okay job of addressing both men and women equally for the first three quarters of the statement. It wavers a bit in the prescriptions given to fathers and mothers, but the line about individual adaptation still allows for choice in the matter. I'd give it a C+, but it's okay, I find plenty of other justification for my feminism in the church... [Smile]

The professor who introduced me to feminism at BYU is married to another professor, and after having their first child they literally split their schedules exactly in half, so that their teaching and office hours didn't conflict so much that they couldn't BOTH take care of their son for at least half of the day. And it works very well for them. She's apparently gotten nasty feedback from students that she is a horrible mother for not staying home 24/7, but I think she's making a sacrifice in order to be a fantastic teacher for ungrateful students like them.

Posts: 4088 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by imogen:

That said, I think there is a lot of validity in critical feminist theory. The difference between sex and gender is one of the more basic concepts, but very important. Gendered understanding of situations can often be quite distinct from the biological sex (for example, looking at male-male (often prison) rape: this is often quite distinctly gendered, with the aggressor taking on the "male" role and forcing the victim into the "female" role - though both are biologically male.)

I've yet to ever be clued in on why we need "feminist studies" rather than "gender studies," because what you're describing is the study of gender, whereas feminism has taken on the stink of radical reactionary sexism.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
It wavers a bit in the prescriptions given to fathers and mothers, but the line about individual adaptation still allows for choice in the matter.

But does it allow free choice? Or is the word "necessity" a part of the exception clause?

If they had wanted to write that the reponsibilities can be split betwen the spouses in whatever way they see fit, they could have done that. They chose not to.

Believe what you want, but I don't think this text supports free choice in the question.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.
I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction. This is similar to how Mormons use "know" where others tend to use "believe".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm kind of surprised that this it the first time people have come across this meme. It certainly isn't main stream feminism but it's also not just one angry woman blogger either. Radical lesbian feminism was pretty prevalent in women's studies programs back in the 80s. This woman is not a good spokesperson, but her underlying ideas do represent an important faction of the feminist movement. I have personally been called a gender traitor because I married a man. I've been told it doesn't matter what my natural sexual preference is, I should become a lesbian so I can have my sexual and romantic needs met without being raped by men. I haven't heard much from the radical lesbian feminist camp lately so maybe its out of vogue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.

It's a paradox. You cannot do both. There are stranger things. My partner and I do what is best for us, and far be it from me to impose it on anyone else.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
This woman is not a good spokesperson, but her underlying ideas do represent an important faction of the feminist movement.

A faction of the radical feminist movement. Of a specific faction of that faction, even. Being a feminist doesn't automatically lump you in with the man-hating lesbians any more than being a conservative lumps you in with Rush Limbaugh.
Posts: 4088 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, but being Rush Limbaugh DOES lump you in with the conservative movement. Rabbit's point is that this is not some tiny fringe group, they are (or at least were) a fairly sizeable minority within the feminist movement.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This "review" seems to be extremely hostile and almost targeted upon every last point that can be deviated from its intent.

"So in the very second scene of the very first episode, an episode written and directed by the great feminist Joss, a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders, even when they are dumb orders, for the rest of the series."

So Whedon is a rascist because two characters relationship that began while they were in service and reqiured to recognize a chain of command, choose to not alter thier interaction due to the heavy emotional and historical meanings. Maybe this woman is the rascist? so instanty offended by the idea of a white person being called sir by a non white person. FYI to Joss, next time you make a story involving a chain of command, segregate the hell out of it, that way it will be equal.

And to the pro-rape allegations, the times that rape was mentioned, it was in one of these forms: the idiot Jayne who was immediatly theatened by Mal or Zoe (the black woman who apperantly bows down before the white man), the non-crew member bad guy who finds the same response as Jayne, and the reavers. Apperantly Whedon also promotes barbarian on man rape, because Jayne turns into a frightened child every time someone even mentions the word.

"In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”

This is actually one of my absolute favorite early moments, because Mal is surly to everyone. Even with Zoe the cuddliest he gets is a knowing look of agreement. But Kaylee is the exception, if you watch the scene yourself you'll understand the the line is making fun of Jayne's complaining, Kaylee and Mal are smiling at each other because they are laughing at him. Aside from reprimanding her on a dereliction of duty, Mal never raises his vioce to her, let alone use offesive language toward her.

Another point is the episode where a 110 pound woman overpowers and dupes every last member of the crew, including the violent meat man Jayne, and especially Mal. I suppose Wash is sexist too, he is afterall married to a strong amazonian woman who fights while he is weak and sits all safe in his wheel room, so lazy and protected while his wife does the dirty jobs.

Why is it that any mention of rape outside of the Lifetime channel, is immediatly violent and evil. What you keep hidden in the closet is ignored and forgotten, yes Whedon does not shy from the referance of rape because the very knowledge of it should not be feared. Im reminded of a scene very late into the Buffy the Vamire Slayer series, where Spike's forlorn love for the super powered slayer overcomes him and culminates in a traumatic event with Buffy just out of a shower. In a fit of rage, lonliness, and mental instability Spike makes a swift and frenzied attempt to overpower Buffy physically and mentally. It was a representation of rape, Spike was immediatly ashamed and hated himself for it. The interactions between the two was never the same, he could never redeem himself in her eyes, always kept at arms length no matter what he did for her or the world at large.

If we never spoke about rascism, more people would think of it as less of a negative thing, same with rape, elitism, and starvation. But I know one thing for certain, making heavy handed quick and oppisitional attacks upon someone who is not guilty of prejudicial actions simply defuses the valid arguments. Its the boy who cried wolf, accusing a writer of being a sexist-rascist, when he is not, makes your complaints about Rush Limbaugh kinda flacid.

[ July 16, 2009, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]

Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction.
I'd be curious to see the resulting definitions. The two definitions seem to be inherently contradictory to me.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.

I can't remember what thread it was, but I and quite a few other LDS members discussed the nuances of "presiding" while still remaining equal partners. Certain posters indicated that to preside is in essence running the ceremonies, such as asking somebody to offer a prayer, or reading the scriptures to everyone, whereas at least initially I argued that it may include acting as a sort of tie breaker.

I still don't have a firm stance on the issue.

----
I am not sure how simply assigning gender roles is anti-feminist, if gender roles are wrong, they are as much a misandrist institution as they are misogynist.

If I get nothing else out of this thread, having the impetus to find out the opposite of misogyny is valuable enough. [Smile]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BlackBlade: I think feminism is at odds with prescribed gender roles, therefore prescribed gender roles are anti-feminist. That is actually irrelevant to how it affects men; I don't think anti-feminist equates to "pro-male" or masculinist or anything like that. It also doesn't equate to misogynist.

This is my understanding but I have not taken any courses on gender studies or anything like that, so I suppose I could be missing some connotations of the words I'm using.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction.
I'd be curious to see the resulting definitions. The two definitions seem to be inherently contradictory to me.
Well, for one thing "equal" can be seen as a bottom-line "net" measurement - "I get to be in charge while you have the gift of producing life."

This is sentiment that you hear with some frequency - that the priesthood of the men is balanced by the woman's gifts in producing and nurturing children.

It's not doctrine, but it's an example of how one can create a local definition of a word that may vary from popular conceptions of it without being completely foreign in concept. A quarter is equal to seven pennies - if you are comparing the cost of producing the currency rather than the face value.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifibum: but if feminism is at odds with any gender roles than by definition masculinity ought also to be at odds with them. It's only when we assume that not all roles are bad, that we can be selective about which are and are not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Im tempted to make an account on that site, just to ask the woman that wrote that if there is such a thing as a fair and equal man. Or if the mind control of our evil penises of death is too strong and we all secretly hate women and thier impossibly Godlike ability to make life.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP:
quote:
This is sentiment that you hear with some frequency - that the priesthood of the men is balanced by the woman's gifts in producing and nurturing children.
I doubt you agreed with that sentiment, but let me just say it drives me nuts when it's used.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
Im tempted to make an account on that site, just to ask the woman that wrote that if there is such a thing as a fair and equal man. ...

quote:
*I’ve finally finished the damn thing. I won’t be allowing comments from anyone who is not a radical feminist (or pro-radical feminist) or a lesbian feminist/separatist. Yes, I am pro-censorship. Boohoo.*
http://allecto.wordpress.com/category/joss-whedon/
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I doubt you agreed with that sentiment, but let me just say it drives me nuts when it's used.
Given my belief about the existence of the power of the priesthood, that would be a correct assessment. [Smile]
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This woman is like fodder in the argument against radical feminism, I just found one post where she calls Wash a rapist and an abuser. Directly citing her own volatile and oppressive family history, this begins to write her story and explain why she is a radical feminist and is unwilling to consider a man as a man, and not as a gender responsible for her childhood.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I am wondering if it can be explained how this is not contradictory?
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jamio
Member
Member # 12053

 - posted      Profile for Jamio           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
I highly recommend not reading the nuts. Might I suggest...

Body Acceptance

Rape Culture

What Feminism is, and Liking Men

And more Infinitely Better commentaries on Feminism, by someone I follow

I consider myself a feminist, and I think she (the subject of the OP) is crazy. The whole point of Feminism and Women's Lib is giving women a choice, and according to her, there is only one option women should pursue. Which is empowering to women exactly how?? Lame.

I was browsing that last link, and read this, as well as her response.

I can't help thinking she's being a bit harsh, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I can't remember what thread it was, but I and quite a few other LDS members discussed the nuances of "presiding" while still remaining equal partners. Certain posters indicated that to preside is in essence running the ceremonies, such as asking somebody to offer a prayer, or reading the scriptures to everyone, whereas at least initially I argued that it may include acting as a sort of tie breaker.

What reason would you have for thinking that "preside" doesn't mean what the ordinary, English definition of it means?

Definition: To hold a lead position and authority to direct an organization and its members.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because it has been pointed out to him that this would, in fact, be rather unfair; he does not believe in an unfair god; consequently the plain English interpretation cannot be the right one. Which is sensible logic if you start with the axiom of a Christian god, which is why that axiom, if left to operate unchecked on moderately intelligent people, tends to lead to minds whose wiring diagrams look a bit like an Escher drawing. With that said, one can say, for example, "The high priest presided over the ceremony" without necessarily implying any actual decisions being made by him.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
With that said, one can say, for example, "The high priest presided over the ceremony" without necessarily implying any actual decisions being made by him.

We may not be deciding much, but he is directing. I heard once about a Catholic priest who wouldn't tolerate sung music during the presentation of the gifts; because once he was ready to start the mass portion, he would start, even if the choir was in the middle of a verse. And if the priest decides that he's going to end his sermon with a song, and he won't go onto the next part of the service until he gets enough response from the pews...then the people in the pews have to go along.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a really terrible argument. I say "X without Y is possible", and you give some examples of X with Y and apparently think you have refuted the possibility! Use the try again, Luke.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
swbarnes2: ... I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Father, the Son, and the Holy d'Artagnan being "one" god either ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 7924

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised she managed to write so many long posts about work that she hated so much. She must have had to will herself to do it for the greater good.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
That is a really terrible argument. I say "X without Y is possible", and you give some examples of X with Y and apparently think you have refuted the possibility! Use the try again, Luke.

The definition of "preside" means to control or direct. Priests direct worship services. They control what happens when. They want a vigrous audience response before moving on, they stop until they get it. They want a long pause after some prayer, they get it. They want to move on while the chorus is still being sung, that happens too. If the priest accidently skips a part and doesn't notice it, it gets skipped. All of that stuff is dependant on when the priest decides he wants things to happen. That's why the word "preside" is used. It's not an exceptional use at all.

Yes, it's possible to have a religious free-for-all with absolutely no direction at all, but no one would say that the guy in the shiniest robe "presides" over that.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You may want to have another look at your dictionary; what you have quoted is not the only definition, although it is the most commonly used one. It is quite possible to say that the guy with the shiniest robe, who is only there for show, presides; this is not to say that nobody is making the decisions, just that it's not the one formally presiding over the, um, proceedings. For example, if the Pope attends a Mass as an honoured guest, he may be said to preside over them, but it is not likely he is making the administrative decisions on what hymns to sing. Similarly for a constitutional monarch attending a meeting of 'his' parliament.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
link snip

I was browsing that last link, and read this, as well as her response.

I can't help thinking she's being a bit harsh, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I didn't have a lot of context until I read through the Con Anti-Harrassment Project and about the problems women face regularly at cons. In that context, a public badge campaign of "groping is awesome, we should open it up to all!" seems insensitive at best, and completely open to abuse at worst. I thought Laura Mellin's article on the subject was pretty even-minded, trying to explain just why the guy was getting the backlash he was getting.

Your mileage may vary...

Posts: 4088 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Philosofickle
Member
Member # 10993

 - posted      Profile for Philosofickle           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is the warning from your first link a joke?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I am wondering if it can be explained how this is not contradictory?
Clearly they mean separate but equal. As long as the mother never drinks out of the Fathers Only fountain, she's an equal partner.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by imogen:

One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities [Wink] ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.

I have no problem with Women's Studies or Feminist Studies or Gender Studies programs. I was thinking of/talking about a very specific kind of teacher of a very specific kind of course at a very specific kind of university when I poked fun in my previous post. Just FTR. [Wink]
Posts: 21181 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Philosofickle
Member
Member # 10993

 - posted      Profile for Philosofickle           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clearly they mean separate but equal. As long as the mother never drinks out of the Fathers Only fountain, she's an equal partner.
I couldn't disagree more. I as thinking about this quite a bit at work. Wondering if it was possible for a husband to preside and still be equal partners with his wife. I think I've figured out the meaning behind that statement. I think it applies to children in the home. I've known families (and seen the results in the homes) where the husband thinks of himself as the breadwinner, and when he comes home from work it's essentially time off for him to nap, play games, fish, whatever it may be. It is the responsibility of both parents as equal partners to preside over their children and home. I'd say that the document takes that for a given, the way it prescribes women as they primary caregivers, but I don't think that the children are leashed to the mother and the mother is leashed to the Father.

A Father is expected to provide a loving example and be a leader to his children and to preside over his home. Just as a mother is to be a loving example and leader to her children.

So no, MC, I don't think that your interpretation is correct at all. Rather just the opposite, it's an extra reminder to the men to follow through on their responsibilities, not an affirmation of superiority.

Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the mother is only a leader to minors, and the father is the leader of everybody, I don't see how that can possibly be an equal partnership.

Bottom line, the mother doesn't get to preside over the father, ever.

I understand why people support it, and it may be a preferable situation for some people, but I don't think there's any way that it's equal.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Philosofickle:
Is the warning from your first link a joke?

I don't know what this was referring to.
Posts: 4088 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
imogen
Member
Member # 5485

 - posted      Profile for imogen   Email imogen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:
Originally posted by imogen:

One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities [Wink] ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.

I have no problem with Women's Studies or Feminist Studies or Gender Studies programs. I was thinking of/talking about a very specific kind of teacher of a very specific kind of course at a very specific kind of university when I poked fun in my previous post. Just FTR. [Wink]
I actually figured as much, KQ. And I have come across such people (and they irritate the living daylights out of me - and I call myself a feminist! How dare I!).

I just wanted to stress the point that, radical crazies aside, feminism is well worth studying/learning about.

Posts: 4392 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:
Originally posted by Philosofickle:
Is the warning from your first link a joke?

I don't know what this was referring to.
I got a malware warning (from AVG, I think) when I visited that link. I assume Philosofickle (man, that's a long name. Can I call you Phil or something?) got something similar.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know which link we're talking about. I don't think I got a malware warning from any of it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.cahp.girl-wonder.org/

This one.

It's quite possible it was a false positive.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Huh. It gave me an error this time. In any case, weird.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Philosofickle
Member
Member # 10993

 - posted      Profile for Philosofickle           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*Dumps the grapes out of a wooden bowl and chomps on the bowl. "Call me Phil."

I'm not saying that the father always presides over the wife, but that they are equal partners in every respect. And that it is the father's duty as well as the mother's to preside over the children.

Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
???

The text seems pretty clear:
quote:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.
Father's "preside over the family". Mothers are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Mothers are clearly one step lower on the heirarchy here, being members of the family, which fathers preside over, but not explicitly said to preside over anything higher on that hierarchy than the children.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
Posts: 6211 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Moose:
My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.

This makes far more sense to me than trying to pretend that power distribution is actually equal.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability.
Sure. And the "I preside, you have babies" idea is just one of many formulation that satisfies this concept of equality, assuming you see equal dignity/value/etc. on both sides of that equation.

But that's not what Philosofickle seemed to be suggesting.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Moose:
My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.

This makes far more sense to me than trying to pretend that power distribution is actually equal.
It is rather unconvincing to me, because it does take two people to have a child. The pregnancy and giving birth look to me like rather a lot of work, and arguments for the superior spirituality of them look a bit suspect to me. It smacks of the nobility-of-labour theories put forth by aristocrats who didn't, themselves, have to work in the factories 14 hours a day, but needed some reason why other people should. In any case, dignity is, as a general rule, not enforceable without power; which is why we tend to care more about power relationships than equal dignities. To take a rather more extreme examples, suppose the Congress of 1950 had agreed to insert an additional clause into the Constitution specifying that blacks had equal dignity to everyone else, and were worth just as much; and then everything else continued as it was doing. Would this be a victory worth speaking of for the Civil Rights movement?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2