Feminism?

The bank has since apologised, but the same thing would never happen to a man.

When talking about if widows are being treated unfairly, you look at the group most similar to widows to control for as many potential factors as possible. So if we wonder if widows are being discriminated against we look at how widows are treated compared to married women who still have their husbands. If we think women are discriminated against then we look at them compared to non-women (which until recently at least meant men).


The wage gap (once compared in the same job rather than adding up all women and all men and looking at averages) is mostly a fallacy and what isn't a fallacy is best explained by 1) work hours and experience (since women are much more likely than men to take or have taken several years off to raise children and also more likely to work fewer hours per week to handle child care responsibilities) and 2) Women (across the board) tend to be higher in the trait agreeableness (look up the big 5 personality traits) which means that they tend to be worse at negotiation and asking for raises. BTW the bigger gaps seen when compared across professions are because men tend to go into the professions that pay more and work with things while women tend towards lower paying more interpersonal jobs (should those jobs be lower valued is another (valid) question entirely but there isn't a simple solution for that, how do you dictate to people what they must value and how much?).

The education gaps between men and women have mostly been redressed in western countries at least so if we wait a generation then we should see the effects of that disparity start to disappear (and realistically in the west, it already pretty much has in the younger half of the workforce). Seriously I'm going to be 39 this year and when I was a kid, girls were routinely told they could be anything they wanted (in fact I remember a third grade teacher "correcting" our school play career choices when it seemed like all the girls would rather be cooks than construction workers or police / firefighters (those were the three my class got, I was disappointed we didn't have scientists because science was super interesting so that's what I'd rather have been). And there was no shortage of girls in any of my classes. So in the Western world there is no longer an access education gap between men and women (now some people even talk about the war on boys and how education is geared towards a female temperment and treats boys like defective girls).

As for the bank thing. If the account were only in the husband's name and he was the sole account holder, then the bank probably should have frozen the account on the account holder's death until the formalities of the estate were sorted. If it was a joint account then the wife, widow should already have access to it as an account holder so it wouldn't make much sense to freeze the account (though I could see cause for it in a potentially nasty inheritance battle). That's a legal distinction over who holds the account (granted that's what I understand of US law (which isn't much) and other countries may be different).

Housing which leads to school mix key for me. Rich segregated communities are simply concentrating their advantages. It's the same for the poor. Concentration of the poor into one ares compound
Say that rather than charity it is a human right to have access to the basic needs of food clothing shelter and education

I'll agree that it would be wonderful if every human being on the planet always had sufficient food, clothing, shelter and education. How much of each is enough? Does that vary according to the standard of living (or climate) in the culture around them? And how do we manage that if 1) there is a situation where there just isn't enough stuff to go around to provide that to everyone or 2) everyone gets a bare minimum but then a significant portion of the population is able to acquire additional resources to make their lives a bit more comfortable and better and those who have not been able to acquire those resources want them to be given to them as well?

What I'm trying to say is that as an ideal, it's a wonderful ideal no one disputes that. But practically implementing that against the two sides of human selfishness (the I want more for me than for everyone else side and the I want stuff given to me with no effort or reciprocation on my part side) is pretty difficult and complicated. And while things are far from perfect, modern western society has gotten closer to that ideal than any other society in the history of the world. And yes I'd agree that addressing the disparity in school quality is one of the key things that could be done to help close the gap between the children of the poor and the children of those who are better off. Now we've got from "society is held back and rife with inequality" to "here's an area we can focus on to help make our society more equal".

cinder you dont live in the real world.
you keep harping on about western wolrd as if everyone is western. what is western. we all live in ONE planet. we are all human beings.

Sorry to be harsh but wake up.

and if I recall Jesus was not even western according to many He would be considered Middle Eastern.

what does work seems to be universal allowance for everyone regardless of where they come from. food, shelter and clothing, with that we must be content.

This is what is said in the Bible.

I dont know where you live but some people dont even have that. Or they live in rotting houses,or in fear cant afford to buy enough food, cos rents are sky high, dont have land to grow any food, and must make do with cast of clothes that are too small. and this in so called 'western' society.

You tell me what wage gap is, try and do some maths for someone being paid $18 an hour to someone being paid $25 an hour and they are doing the SAME job.

for those that earn wages, not for those who dont even know what a wage is cos they earn salaries or get an allowance. Dont try a fool someone with fudging numbers. If something doesnt add up to equal something then there is something wrong!

I know you have difficulties with logic and following a conversation, but the discussion about inequality was specifically about Great Britain which is a western country so is my country the US (and if I remember right you live in New Zealand which is also a western country culturally). I qualify a lot of what I say with western world because I am well aware that much of the cultural similarities between the US, Canada, most of western europe etc. don't apply to the rest of the world.

For example when I lived in Vietnam, I learned that my vietnamese friends usually would have to bribe someone to get a decent job, and there are plenty of jobs you can't get if you officialy subscribe to any religion on your national ID card. I've seen children in India who were maimed to be better beggars and used as sympathy props. I've seen disabled children who were pretty much discarded taken in to a Christian care facility that people would attack because they didn't want Christians around. And I've also seen and heard too many poor people in western countries with the attitude that responsibility won't pay off so they don't try to be responsible or productive or contribute anything to the society that they then want to owe them a living. And all I'm advocating is that instead of punishing the people who are responsible and successful, maybe we should find ways to incentivize and enable more people to be responsible and successful and one way to do that is to allow a certain level of disparity between those who try and can and those who don't try. I'm not even opposed to changes to try to make the system more just; I just insist that they be well thought through and giving away money to people who have less isn't actually going to improve the problems in the system.

So like I said, I'd never say the Western system (in any of its various implementations) is perfect; but it does seem to be the closest humanity has come to the ideal of universal prosperity and providing for the basic needs of everyone within the society.

YOU are saying SHE does not live in the real world?!

I'm not even going to use the pot/kettle line, because that would imply cinder IS a little detached from reality, just not as much as Lanolin. This isn't even a mote/beam matter. There ain't no mote. There sure is a beam (made from a whole redwood tree) though...

no its seems you have quite a number of difficulty making assumptions about people, and society, which is not 'western' in any sense because if you keep going west around the world you will end up eventually in Jerusalem anyway.

you have confused the issue talking about 'western' when you should really talk about democracy as the proper term for it. oh but no, democrats are meant to be the baddies according to america, and christians from the US on this site often cant get their facts right about that either. Take the name Republican. Or even despite the fact that China is deemed a republic the same as the US!

as a believer, Jesus gave people not money but grace.
Also he didnt charge people to believe in Him, unlike some churches that still charge per pew. It was acrually a regular practice to rent-a-pew in many churches in the last century. Now its just tithing. If you charge someone rent to keep living in a house they can never own. what is that exactly.

The energy of debate could be spent talking to people in challenging circumstances, regardless of their faith . Hearing them we learn how to help them.

Again: YOU are saying SHE makes assumptions about a large group of people?

But then... I'm just one of those USA people. What do I know?

Feminists claim feminism is about equality between the genders. Actually looking at what they profess in large, it is far from being about anything close to equality. It is more often about giving women unfair opportunity over men because they feel slighted. They also regularly (more often than not) are hateful and spiteful dishonest people.


I believe it is possible for someone who likes the concept of what feminism supposedly is to be a Christian, but every single one I've personally spoken to are hung up on lots of worldly things and more focused on virtue signaling than anything actually virtuous.

The ones who have tried to pretend to not hate men have always ended up exposing themselves before long.

A man who wanted to copy what the feminists are but reverse it would say something like


"Women have it so easy, always have... they are treated with kiddie gloves and given everything they want. They don't even need to work for it. The world is set up in a way to allow women allllll the freedoms while us men are trampled on. Men have always been the sweet innocent victims of these vile womens desires. Women should now bend to our every will and do as we say in the name of equality. Men are super duper cool. We rule."

to understand feminism and why it came about you have to look at some history.
women were not treated as thinking human beings and this was very common in the previous century they were not allowed to vote or have any say in anything. They werent allowed to have jobs or land even if they were starving. They had to rely on other means. (often feminine wiles! eg Ruth had to snatch Boaz if she didnt marry him she would have stayed a gleaner for the rest of her life, plus having to work with all the men who might have preyed on her)

now some women would be 'I dont care, politics is rubbish anyway' but they might have other priveliges (like maybe being married to a powerful, influential man) that other women will never have simply because they are women. and say if you pick a terrible husband and stuck with him or get widowed you could just end up destitute.

any way you look at it, its often a mans world, women just want to be heard. But no. Its just like whatever, shut up. Youre just a woman, what would you know.

Thats the attitude commonly expressed.

kate sheppards petition to get women the vote was signed on a roll of wallpaper thats was hundreds of yards long. Both men and women signed it.

Its interesting reading about mens attitudes toward women back in the 1800s and how they were fearful of women getting into politics. Kate however kept her logical reasoning and showed many of their objections were foolish and hateful toward women, often condescending and patronising.

I think women ought to have the opportunity to vote (whther they do or dont is up to them) and not be barred from it.

Kate Sheppard was a Christian, so, when people assume Christians cannot be feminists that a bit of a misnomer. It was because she was a Christian and so believed in the dignity of women as human beings that she never gave up on her desire to get votes for women and be counted as men (mankind, encompassing both male and female). Despite all the opposition and arguments putting women down as less worthy than a man.

In other words, women count. She had faith.

I think feminism is Satanic. One only needs to look at the half-male, half-female statues the pagans worship, to realise feminism is a pagan idea. Without feminism, homosexuality and transgenderism would have never become mainstream. (And the voting system would never have become so corrupt - no chance of a Biden, an Obama or a Hillary getting in, and no need for a Trump to oust such). And the current push to legalise pedophilia - not a chance without homosexuality or transgenderism, which cames thanks to feminism. Feminism is an anti-God, wicked philosophy through and through.