Why are poeple on this site so obessed with feminists?

Post Reply New Topic

Gnostic View of Gender Equality by Meera Lester
The Gnostic writings celebrate women as bearers of truth, wisdom, and light. The Gnostic God is often regarded in the context of a dyad possessing both masculine and feminine attributes. The orthodox Christians speak of God the Father and his Son. For the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is added. Mary, the holy mother of Jesus, is not accorded the same stature as God the Father, though she may be reverently referred to as “Mary, Mother of God,” according to religious scholar Elaine Pagels, an expert on the Gnostics. But Mary is not considered the same as God the Father in feminine form. Yet the Jewish wisdom literature in the Hebrew scriptures (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc.), in which Christianity has roots, personifies Wisdom as a female.

Further.

On Righteousness
The righteousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality.
Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments: Epiphanes - On Righteousness

We are all children of God and Gods in our own right so to think we love some of our children more than others would be wrong.

Regards
DL

I am reporting this for being intelligent and not agreeing with the fools who replied just above you.

Regards
DL

Rrrr, my partner can have those kinds of "bull sessions." He's basically feminist, and he was married for a number of years to a woman who had a somewhat more "dominant" temperament (he's a widower), but he does have those sessions you talk about.

The main thing he talks about is, "The thing about women is that they know they have you by the balls, and they like to take advantage of that fact." In other words, it's really more of an acknowledgement of a major weakness of men: our penises tend to dictate our thought processes to great excess and fault, and it doesn't take much math to realize it is an Achilles-heel. We wake up the next morning, though, and realize we've been had. Those of us who are straight, anyway.

You straight people have interesting lives.

False dichotomy. Your global perspective fails to accommodate differing local perspectives, hence your mistaken conclusion that one must choose one or the other. I think both globally and locally.

Um...I think that some of you are missing some of the ways in which men are treated rather poorly...mostly by other men, sadly. But poorly.

Let's take one particular case of a young man with a depressive disorder who is trying to call out for help.

"Do it! Stop talking about it, and do it!"

"Failing at suicide is like failing at failing."

"Down the highway, not across the street."

"Don't be an emo."

"You're so whiny."

"Somebody call the waaahmbulance! Someone is having a HEART attack!"

Basically, the reason men die more often in suicides is not that they are more likely to attempt suicide. Women are more likely to attempt suicide. The reason that women survive is that society doesn't make them feel ashamed to reach out for help when they've realized what they've done. In spite of all of society's efforts to drive them to feel worthless and to hate themselves, society doesn't extinguish their spirits in the way that it does men who find themselves in a moment of weakness and pain.

And let's not forget the fact that even straight guys are affected by homophobia. Did it ever seem like anything you did or anything you loved was "gay"? Did you have to give up a lot of things you valued and cared about to be accepted by macho-ethics? You've been screwed. You've been more screwed than you'll ever admit to.

You've pissed away value systems that would have made you stronger, more effective people, you fools. You sold your souls for a bankrupted value-system that insists that somehow you are defective, as a person, if you don't engage in behaviors that virtually guarantee that you'll have spinal injuries before you're old enough to drink legally.

You're encouraged to aspire to a body-type that guarantees that you will be more likely to suffer from heart-trouble later in life. Do you realize that the top-heavy ideal for the male form, which implies a lot of strength training, actually puts you MORE at risk of heart trouble and hypertension, not less? And all the guys who refuse to work out their legs because too much development down there might make them seem unattractive by male expectations...that deprives you of the kind of exercise that might otherwise have saved you.

You feel pain in your back, and you don't report it because you are given images, in the media, that show you how shameful it is for men to apply for disability because of back-pain. By the time you seek out diagnosis, you have months to live, and you've thrown your lives away for macho-ethics.

It's not your fault. It is a way in which society has betrayed you. The culture of misogyny may insult and often hurt women, and it does so unforgivably. However, it is actually killing men. That is the tragedy that nobody wants to see, and it is almost taboo to discuss it, even in the minds of many feminists. It is virtually genocide against our gender.

To realize that this is wrong is the place where feminism and humanism intersect. It is the realization that people should not be ashamed for trying to better their lives. People should not be ashamed for being who they are. They should not be ashamed of their thoughts. They should not be ashamed for trying to achieve something they are "not supposed to." They should not be ashamed of being man, woman, gay or straight, but they should be proud to be themselves and to be willing to contribute a part of themselves to helping to enrich our heritage.

To be a humanist is the common goal of motherhood and fatherhood. It is to yearn for our lives and our choices to make this world a better, safer and kinder place for our young. This part of us knows no gender. You don't even need to have children of your own to desire it, for I desire it for my nephew: he is a beautiful child who loves dinosaurs. I wouldn't even need blood kin. I would only need one human being in the world that my life could do something for, beyond my own skin. If all that I ever give birth to is a single encouraging word to a good person, then I am a father. Although I realize that I can be cruel in moments of anger, I hope that I can also do good.

^

That was very nicely put, Persimmonpudding.

Feminism as a word is irrelevant when described as nothing more than a synonym for egalitarianism. Egalitarianism also has the happy distinction of not being a gendered word.

Feminism as a concept has created a haven where men and women with incredibly toxic opinions are allowed to hide behind both censorship and a wall of fanatical supporters who contribute primarily to an echo chamber of self-adulation and little to society. Frankly, my experience of modern feminism in action utterly defies the dictionary definition that feminists wish us to accept. I mostly reject this definition when applied by those whose actions or thinking belies it, much as I reject the "cultural pride movement" label that white supremacists ascribe to themselves.

FAO YippySkippy:

I'm interested in why you believe relationship issues would lead to an anti-feminist ideology. Please explain the causal link.

I've read many posts in many different threads wherein male posters start out complaining about feminism and then, usually when they've become good and riled up, spew a bunch of hatred toward women in general and say how "unfair" it is that they can't get a date and/or get laid.
On WP a hatred of feminists and a lousy love life seem to go hand in hand. There are a handful of men here who are looking for a scapegoat on which to hang all their problems. It's easier on the psyche to believe the evil feminists are turning womankind against swell guys like you, than to acknowledge your own social skill deficiencies.

I won't be surprised if they find an inverse correlation between penis size and misogyny/gynophobia. The smaller the penis, the more hate/fear. A scientific study should be conducted to check the hypothesis.

That and p**** envy.

We crave p**** and also want our own.

Regards
DL

It goes both ways, there are a lot of fedora wearing "supreme gentlemen" who say m'lady that think trumpeting feminism will make them more attractive. The intentions of a white knight are probably even less pure than someone with hate in their heart honestly. You can't really win on this issue.

Generally speaking tho, if the crux of your argument is that the other side has small dicks then you probably have a poor argument. This is true for pretty much everything this is applied to. I've always found this quite weird. What is the implication? To me it sounds like you're saying that since you believe in the right thing, you obviously have a large penis and are a more worthy mate. It's pretty bizarre when you think about it.

Could you point me to some actual posts by men on WP who blame feminism for their inability to date? You've just stated that it's a handful, yet this is a site for people with ASDs. Isn't it likely that there are a lot more than just a handful of men with relationship problems posting here? It seems like either you're trolling or you're an illogical divisionist and part of the problem, but perhaps it's simply that you haven't had the same negative experiences of feminism that others have.

For the record, I'm in a happy, stable and fruitful relationship with a woman. I don't frequent feminist websites, search for feminist videos or actively seek out feminists to talk to (to be fair, I barely seek out anyone to talk to). On the other hand, feminists seem more and more to be blustering their way into those things I am interested in, and demanding changes be made without giving a rational explanation as to why such changes are necessary.

In lieu of a coherent argument I repeatedly see angry tirades against masculinity (which is apparently inherently flawed somehow because reasons), accusations of misogyny (often as a means to derail criticism or, even worse, silence it) followed by opinion pieces and colour commentaries posted as 'news' with the comments section disabled, ostensibly to prevent thousands of misogynists from spewing hateful speech all over the place.

Why this is fundamentally wrong is exactly the same reason that, for example, we shouldn't allow militant Christians to dictate which music should or shouldn't be allowed on the radio. Feminism is no longer concerned with fighting the good fight, rather its current target seems to be invasion of special interests sub-groups and cultures. It began (for me personally) with atheism+ and FTB, and has most recently invaded the sphere of video games with an approach somewhat akin to puritanism.

Likewise, there is an increasing presence on PPR that seems set on steering conversations away from the subject matter, attempting (sometimes successfully) to silence opposing views with shaming tactics rather than logic or reasonably constructed arguments. I've personally been labelled a misogynist on here, simply for refusing to agree with the views of an individual who happens to be a woman - and worse, for suggesting women should be held accountable to the same degree as men, which is something a feminist who genuinely believed in that aforementioned dictionary definition would agree with.

I should probably point out at this stage, purely for the sake of clarity, that there I have encountered feminists who convey themselves in a reasonable manner, who are actually very pleasant to discuss and debate with. There are feminists who understand that their views don't represent those of all women, or even a majority of feminists for that matter. There are feminists who understand that the purpose of feminism was to give all women a voice, not to give a small minority of women the ability to speak, scream and shout on behalf of a majority they do not represent. If such feminists were in the majority, there would be no problem. Rather there seems to be a bleating pack of sheep who believe that MRA is the opposite of feminist, that both labels form part of an intractable binary, despite their peers claims that feminism is about men's rights too.

And then we have people like yourself, who observe a single member of a subgroup behaving in a certain way then leap to the conclusion that such individuals are representative of every other human being who vaguely resembles them in behaviour or visage. Such thinking is a precursor to bigotry and should be avoided.



Despite having seen your interpretation of scientific data in the climate change thread, I'm going to assume this was an attempt at puerile humour rather than a genuine hypothesis.



Which makes this an ironic objection, right? Because the alternative is that you both place an alarming emphasis on penis size when judging the relative values of men.

Any who are mentally challenged enough to judge a persons worth by their appearance or what is between their legs is not worth the air they breath.

Regards
DL

It's a genuine hypothesis, and so is my hypothesis as to why women wear high heels: To get noticed by the taller male, to which they are naturally attracted.

Greater-than-average height, such as that acquired via high heels, would make the wearer more noticeable to everyone, not merely to tall people.

It may be that taller men ceteris paribus prefer taller women, but I seriously doubt that taller men emphasize height as a dominant variable of women's attractiveness to the functional exclusion of all other concerns. As such, your hypothesis would need to explain how the opportunity costs of wearing high heels (which require time to learn how to walk in and, more importantly, reduce the wearer's ability to flee from danger vs. nearly all other footwear options, to the extent that fleeing barefoot is generally safer) are subsumed by the purported benefit of increased probability of reproductive success with a man to whom a woman is "naturally attracted".

Counter-hypothesis: the reduction in surface area of the shod foot in contact with the ground (hence reduced friction between shod foot and ground) combined with the altered center-of-gravity associated with the wearing of high heels effect a change in the wearer's posture and gait such that the wearer "walks like a woman;" i.e. the wearer's gait is considered stereotypically feminine, in light of the wearer's culture's views of femininity.

This seems to fit better with the fact (which you can pick up from listening to women - it's not very difficult, in my experience, to find women who enjoy talking about shoes) that women generally prefer to wear shoes which make them feel good about themselves. In many contexts that translates to feeling more feminine, which comes from being perceived as more feminine, but these contexts are not limited merely to mate-selection.

Irrelevant. Women doesn't think like men.


This is an old hypothesis, fully compatible with my hypothesis. A synthesis is not out of the question.

My hypothesis is that men invented high heels to make women look helpless and silly. If you don't believe these are qualities men find attractive, see virtually all anime ever made.
Most women wear them in the belief that they make one's legs look longer and slimmer.