Dangers of Manism

Rachel20 · Apr 30, 2014

There you are again Presidente, going at semantics. *Sigh*. I am getting tired of explaining over and over again.

"To call this 'manism' is to imply that this behavior is typical of men, or that there is something inherent about being a man that causes one to try to rape people. That's one of the problems of modern Feminist thought, which sees men as bad and sees men as the enemy. "

I would throw this argument back at you and say, okay feminism would imply behaviour typical of a feminine person, so all feminine women are bad and all women who believe in it are possible ''*insert some negative attribute*"

You say the feminist term is unforunate, then the manism term is unfortunate as well. PLEASE re-read my OP where I define and describe manism.
It has nothing to do with all men.

And why bring up just feminism as the cause for people being more wicked? It's not limited only to attitudes of women. In fact if we were honest, women definitely have more freedom now than before.

To blame feminism for everything would be an example of confounding, for there may be a third variable related to the two variables set for correlation.
Manism is bad for the very reasons that feminism is bad. When you say manism makes people believe that men are bad, I could say feminism makes people believe women are bad.

Just because a woman believes in equality and hence a feminist (That was the original definition and ideology. Not your Marxist rendition of it) then she is also automatically all that you claim. Your definition of feminism is not what it originally was. Even Wikipedia has a clear cut definition of it.

Why do women identify as being feminist if they're Christian. Maybe they want to be able to relate to other women and show them the hope they found in Christ!

They want to show how believing in Jesus and being equal are compatible! I think it's a positive thing. You're just unable to move past your narrow-minded definition.
I hoped you would have appreciated the point that I was making. I guess you don't get it.

Also, about your response to Angela, she was only elucidating how abortion is not restricted as a feminist issue but to manists as well as clearly both men and women have engaged in encouraging this.
No need to flippantly use her chatname as an example.

Thanks

God bless you.

Rachel20 · Apr 30, 2014

Okay, I am really tired. At the end of the day all I can say is Jesus is the answer!

Not manism, not feminism, not any ''ism''
Only Jesus is the answer to your brokenness, only Jesus loves you more than anyone else could in this world and Jesus died for your sins.

And in Jesus Christ, there is no Jew, no Greek, no male nor female.

God bless you.
I am out for now.
Peace.

AgeofKnowledge · Apr 30, 2014

[video=youtube_share;juR74OYiegY]http://youtu.be/juR74OYiegY[/video]

AgeofKnowledge · Apr 30, 2014

[video=youtube_share;ah2rh-fKifQ]http://youtu.be/ah2rh-fKifQ[/video]

brokenclay · Apr 30, 2014

Well this is an eye opener. I am going to make sure more men see this. Setting the record straight on the men’s rights movement

oldernotwiser · Apr 30, 2014

i'm old enough to remember the beginning of the feminist movement and i would still go to the streets to fight for those rights. the feminist movement began because men were not ashamed say things like "what do all abused women have in common? they just wont listen." sadly, rather than equality, it became a demand that women adopt the very worst characteristics of the men.

presidente · May 3, 2014

Rachel20 said:

You'd care about semantics if it were directed at you. I don't know your real full name, so I'll illustrate this with your handle.

Why don't we invent an 'ism' called 'Rachel20ism'? We could say a Rachel20ist is someone who sexually harasses women on the bus and tries to rape them, and also flatulates really loudly while doing so.

If I created a label like that using your name, you probably wouldn't like it. Of course, I wouldn't try to popularize an idea like that with your name or handle. I'm just making a point. If you define 'manist' as a bunch of bad things, you are implying that those bad things are characteristic of men.

Since you are inventing the label, you can call it anything you want, but you chose to call it manism. I didn't invent the label 'feminism.' If I were to name it something, I'd call radical feminism something else, maybe something with 'rebellion' in the name. The philosophy has, IMO, resulted in women becoming less feminine.

And from what I have read, though the 'Christian Feminists' may oppose abortion, some of them seem to have a problem with God's revealed order for the home. 'Feminist' is like the word 'gay.' The way it has been used and the actions and concepts it has been associated with have really messed up the word.

If I were naming the philosophy, you would have a valid point. I'm not. I use the word to communicate since millions of people know what it mean or at least have some vague idea.

But didn't you invent the manism term? So what is in your heart toward men to want to characterize them in such a way?

But the term you uses for it does point toward men in general. Why didn't you use 'chauvinist'?

It's related to the topic of the thread and the discussion that spawned this thread.

Maybe so, but I don't blame everything bad on feminism.

Rachel20 · May 3, 2014

Presidente.

The only reason ''manism'' offends you is because the word ''man'' exists in the term and I invented it.

The reason "feminism" shouldn't offend any woman by YOUR usage of it is because you didn't invent it.

Fascinating.

Clearly you don't have any concrete or useful posts to showcase to anyone on this thread that you're looking at semantics and other petty things just for the sake of opposition.

Even after I brought up the differences in definition, instead of accepting that , your garrulous posts just seems to prove to me more than anything else that - THAT, my friends, THAT, is the danger of manism.

If you really want to illustrate labels, especially since you seem to take personal offense at the word "manism" which doesn't have anything to do with anyone personally, let me show you an example of your hypocrisy.

This is what you said.

Feminism which:
- Is based on Marxist reasoning
- Is anti-family
- Portrays being a wife and mother as slavery
- Has lesbians as influential thought-leaders
- Stirs up hatred against men
- Blames for all women's woes
- Depicts all men as potential rapists and abusers
- Creates division is society
- Is opposed to the Biblical teaching on oneness between man and woman
- Is opposed to the Biblical teaching that wives should submit to their own husbands
- Is too divorce-friendly.

This is what wikipedia and most feminists identify with -

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of wome
You have been disingenuous in your representation of feminism, dishonest and what's more tried to add in your personal views as a general view.

My definition of manism was basically an umbrella term for all men's rights movements in a parallel fashion which I tried to explain in the OP and subsequent posts. It has nothing to do with any hatred of men.

For you to try to use my chatname as an example, after trying to do the same thing with Angela and even when asked to stop, shows us your pettiness and immaturity.

It doesn't have any rhyme, reason or logic as much as it tries to be offensive. You may hide under the shield of it being an example but truly it shows your heart.

Please grow up and learn to respect women.

AgeofKnowledge · May 3, 2014

Good post president and said with respect. Good job.

presidente said:

You'd care about semantics if it were directed at you. I don't know your real full name, so I'll illustrate this with your handle.

Why don't we invent an 'ism' called 'Rachel20ism'? We could say a Rachel20ist is someone who sexually harasses women on the bus and tries to rape them, and also flatulates really loudly while doing so.

If I created a label like that using your name, you probably wouldn't like it. Of course, I wouldn't try to popularize an idea like that with your name or handle. I'm just making a point. If you define 'manist' as a bunch of bad things, you are implying that those bad things are characteristic of men.

Since you are inventing the label, you can call it anything you want, but you chose to call it manism. I didn't invent the label 'feminism.' If I were to name it something, I'd call radical feminism something else, maybe something with 'rebellion' in the name. The philosophy has, IMO, resulted in women becoming less feminine.

And from what I have read, though the 'Christian Feminists' may oppose abortion, some of them seem to have a problem with God's revealed order for the home. 'Feminist' is like the word 'gay.' The way it has been used and the actions and concepts it has been associated with have really messed up the word.

If I were naming the philosophy, you would have a valid point. I'm not. I use the word to communicate since millions of people know what it mean or at least have some vague idea.

But didn't you invent the manism term? So what is in your heart toward men to want to characterize them in such a way?

But the term you uses for it does point toward men in general. Why didn't you use 'chauvinist'?

It's related to the topic of the thread and the discussion that spawned this thread.

Maybe so, but I don't blame everything bad on feminism.

Pie · May 3, 2014

Is it impossible to have a discussion like this and to remain respectful on both sides? Seems emotions get the better of us when discussing these things. I've been sifting through this thread trying to pull the points out of all the ad hominems and attacks on either gender. It's not been an easy task. I don't like Manism or Feminism.. I would say Humanism but that word has already been claimed by others to mean something very different.

I would suggest reading Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology).
Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology): James R. Beck, Stanley N. Gundry, Linda L. Belleville, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, Thomas R. Schreiner: 9780310254379: Amazon.com: Books

There are 4 contributors to this book. Two on each side of the issue presenting their case. While this particular discussion tends to be more geared towards women's roles in family, rather than ministry, this book is a good example of what it means to have a meaningful, intelligent discussion (while presenting the Biblical teachings) on these matters. =)

presidente · May 3, 2014

Rachel20 said:

I think it is reasonable for someone to be offended by the word 'feminism.' But don't be offended at me for using it because it's already an established word that has entered the language.

The danger of 'manism.' You keep adding to the concept of this thing you've made up. It sure must be dangerous to be a man or to be supportive of men if manism is so dangerous.

I'm a man, so it does have something to do with me personally. Probably half of the posters are men, so it does have something to do with us personally.

And why don't you tone it down a bit. Can't people disagree without throwing personal accusations at each other. Accusing someone of hypocrisy over disagreeing over what--in your words is-- sematics, is crossing a line of good behavior.

Try using Wikipedia as a source for your high school or college papers and see what kind of comments you get. The vast majority of feminist leaders use the term to refer to a philosophy that is in vogue now. The term may have been coined a long time ago, or coopted by a French term used a long time ago, but it became the main name of the movement that held to the Marxist-like philosophy in the 20th century.

As far as the definition goes, I've explained why, IMO, the word has become too corrupted by this other philosophy to be used to refer to something benign and Christian, kind of like the word 'gay, or 'ba'al.'

So you think all men's rights groups are evil and want to 'mansplain' things?'

I said it wouldn't be right to use your name as the name of some kind of negative movement. Why is it offensive to you? It's just 'semantics' after all. But labels like that are derogatory to the person whose name comes before the 'ism'. Listing a bunch of bad things and calling it 'manism' is disparaging toward men.

It doesn't have any rhyme, reason or logic as much as it tries to be offensive. You may hide under the shield of it being an example but truly it shows your heart.

Please grow up and learn to respect women.[/QUOTE]

As far as maturity goes, I don't know how old you are. My guess I that you are very young, probably college aged, maybe fresh out of college. I could be mistaken and you could just come off as someone who thinks like someone who is very young. The reason I get this impression is how quickly to accuse and won't back off a point even when it's shown to be wrong. You come off as very censorious. You've thrown a lot of really personal insults and character accusations against me. Calling someone a hypocrite is no small thing.

When we are talking about respect, I show respect to individual women all the time. I disagreed with your ideas, which you may interpret as 'dispresect.' You might consider how important it is to respect your elders, which is a Biblical concept, if you are as young as you seem to be. Would you accuse older folks to their faces and impugn their character as readily as you do on the Internet? Why don't you back off on the personal accusations, and really consider if someone has a point.

I believe men should have respect for women. Personally, I think the Feminist philosophy (as I understand the term-- which seems to be the basic philosophy undergirding the ideas of the thought-leaders in the movement) works against men having the proper respect for women. You also need to consider whether you have proper respect for men. The personal accusations you level against men who disagree with you on the forum is one thing to consider. Your tone is another issue to consider. And then you should consider whether you are showing proper respect for elders with the way you readily post accusations.

Rachel20 · May 3, 2014

Hypocrisy to me is condemning women's right's movements but supporting men's right's movements.
If you are against feminism, be against manism as well.

For you to disregard wikipedia like that is laughable... It's undeniable how much wikipedia has spurred and pushed knowledge on the forefront. To discredit a source, why don't you have a valid reason for it
Rather I will give you an example of throwing statements without establishing fact.

presidente said:

A comment to something like that which is just generalization without proper fact could be -Nice story, bro!

Age has nothing to do with talking about a subject at hand. If you had issues with respecting me, you could have at least shown that to Angela, a woman who's older than you.
But you tried that same silly cheap theatrics of "proving how offensive manism to you" by likening her name to abortion.

presidente said:

As far as my dealings with you and all the men, I have always been honest and I have to tried to speak the truth, with utmost respect.
The Bible says Respect your Elder, but is your behaviour befitting the elder of a church?
From the comments on Angela and myself, I think not. That has not stopped me from being polite.
Whether you are a President or not, it makes no difference.
However you cannot demand unnecessary honour from people. The Bible says to not to think of yourself more highly than you should.

It also tells us not to let anyone despise you for youth (1 Timothy 4:12)

Rachel20 · May 3, 2014

I am mostly done.

The heart of this thread was to expose hypocrisy and broaden people's thinking. I think it's doing a good job.

To anyone who's reading, I hope you consider carefully all positions thrown, but always our focus should be on Jesus.

My intention is not to go against men or to hurt women.

I have worked and built strong relationships with both men and women and I believe it is in the interests of all Christians to ask themselves and be aware of various dynamics between men and women to work towards a peaceful and strong environment, both as families and otherwise.

After all the body of Christ should not be divided. We should love one another.

At the end, God is our final judge and vindicator.

Thanks for reading.
God bless you.

Rachel20 · May 3, 2014

Hmmm. Ok I am done for now... just wanted a parting shot at manism and other ''isms''

presidente · May 3, 2014

Rachel20 said:

Something to keep in mind is that real hypocrisy is a very bad thing. It's more than logical inconsistency. Hypocrisy is acting. Jesus accused those who pretended to be religious leaders, but were leading people to Hell, of being hypocrites.

Men and women need each other. We don't need division between the genders. That was one of the major problems with the Feminist movement in the 1960's. It was divisive. Books and magazines told women they were being slaves by working as wives and mothers, and talked them into leaving the home where they could serve bosses who weren't a part of their own family, and leave their children in daycare.

Some other thoughts on feminism, being about equality. Equality sounds like a noble concept, but there is a reason it is not mentioned much in the Bible as a virtue we should be pursuing. In some ways, there should be equality. But God didn't create everyone with equal ability. In the kingdom to come, the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. So there is a sense in which the apostles will not be equal with those who judge. Paul considered, early in his 'career' that he was not one whit behind the chiefest apostles. So there could be rank among apostles. Jesus said 'For one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.' But to the Jews He was speaking of, there wasn't absolute egalitarianism even among brethren in the family. If nothing else, based on the law Yahweh gave through Moses, the firstborn got a double portion of inheritance.

Male and female in Christ are both heirs according to the promise. We could say the same about parents and children if they are both in Christ. Yet the wife is to submit to her husband. In terms of relationship in the family, this is a God-ordained 'inequality' in terms of authority and role. Children and parents are not 'equal' in this respect, since the children owe a type of honor to parents that parents do not owe to children.

'Feminism' is used for a philosophy that has been quite divisive. I know that those who go by 'Christian Feminist' don't always to hold to all the tenants of modern radical Feminists. But it seems that many of them, in their search for 'equality' are looking for ways to explain away the Biblical teaching on wives submitting to their husbands.

We should appreciate the way God made men and women. He didn't make them exactly alike. The way He made us does give us some strengths in specializing in certain roles. Men usually make better post hole diggers and are usually better behind a plough. Women are better at giving birth and nursing small children. Men tend to do better at math. Women tend to be more empathetic. He knows how He's made us, and He has ordained certain requirements of husbands and wives in the home.

I agree with that.

presidente · May 3, 2014

Rachel20 said:

I suspect if someone posted a list of negative stereotypes about women, or a list of their own personal pet peeves about women in their own lives and called it 'womanism' you probably wouldn't like that.

For example, if someone invented an 'ism' called 'womanism' characterized by nagging, blabbering on in barely comprehensible emotional language about feelings, and crying when they don't get their way-- you might find fault with that, at least if you hadn't already started this thread.

maxwel · May 4, 2014

Wow, this has gotten to be a long thread.

Are we STILL in here talking about how awful men are?

: )

AgeofKnowledge · May 4, 2014

Theoretically no. If say presidente and Misty were having this discussion, I believe it would remain respectful on both sides.

But we have a problem in that a past offender for launching mean and deliberate personal attacks (even for imaginary "offenses" or "offenses" that she has misconstrued) is the thread originator. Only curtailment by moderator keeps her behavior in check. But this too shall pass someday for that issue aside, I honestly cannot find any material reason in her posts to doubt her conversion to Christianity.

And, the resource you suggest does benefit the discussion.

Pie said:

AgeofKnowledge · May 4, 2014

I don't think that was the intention of the thread. I think it was a specific type of behavior some men engage in that the originator was condemning.

She does call godly men "a shining light," "a blessing," and worthy of "the highest respect."

maxwel said:

Rachel20 · May 4, 2014

You know , it's not everyday you wake up to find the person who probably reviles you most on this forum, to pay you the highest compliment. Even if it's not worded the way you'd want it, I think I'll take it

AgeofKnowledge said:

A point to add , I have to say, actually none of the moderators have prevented me for writing any of my posts.

In fact, I really like and respect the owner of this site, RoboOp because he is so respectful and considerate to the women users of this site.

Not only do we have a Women's Ministry Room on chat, but there's a Ladies Forum here as well.
For Christian women, this is one of then best sites to come together and support each other. The moderators are always keeping the safety and comfort of its female users as their top priorities, as I can see from my interactions with them.

I am friends with many of them and initially I thought, "Oh wow. What are they going to think of me after these posts on forums. All these people who say all these mean stuff about me, and my responses to them are just so embarrassing. Are they going to shun me?"

To my surprise, they haven't changed their behaviour towards me. I was so pleased, relieved and blessed. I really care much for their opinions - not just with regards to posts but in other aspects as well.

So I'd like to thank them, for letting me state my opinions within boundaries of guidelines established.

Dangers of Manism

Senior Member

Senior Member

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

brokenclay

Guest

oldernotwiser

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Senior Member