Dangers of Feminism

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're being hyperbolic. She fought for woman's suffrage. Now we force Harvard president's to resign if they state a scientific fact and replace them with a revisionist feminist while negatively impacting actual scientific research by redirecting $50 million away from it to hand over to woman's only studies which will create more destruction in academia and society given the modern feminist construct.

First-wave feminism is not analogous to the modern feminist construct which is soon to reap a massive societal reactionary backlash over the coming decades due to the societal destruction it has created in the lives of a great many people.

For more information, read:

1. Post one: Dangers of Feminism
2. Post two: Dangers of Feminism
3. Post three: Dangers of Feminism

Another dangerous feminist, honoured on a US stamp!

 

[Misty77]

I believe that I have already shown that the modern feminist construct is inherently bad while also showing that the original first-wave objectives of feminism were good.

That was a response specifically for presidente.

You have made your case quite clear. And while we are on opposing sides of the issue, I respect you as a thinking and reasonable person. =)

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Opposing sides? Really?

That was a response specifically for presidente.

You have made your case quite clear. And while we are on opposing sides of the issue, I respect you as a thinking and reasonable person. =)

 

[Misty77]

Opposing sides? Really?

really? we are going to argue over whether or not we are arguing?

lol

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

[video=youtube_share;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

really? we are going to argue over whether or not we are arguing?

lol

 

[presidente]

Just because a radical element has hijacked the movement doesn't mean that feminism is inherently bad. It's like saying all Christians, Republicans, Democrats, etc. are evil. Pretty much all people groups have both good and bad elements. And all movements evolve with time. Don't be so prejudiced.

If she didn't call herself a Feminist or believe in an evil patriarchy, what right have modern Feminists to include her as a Feminist?

I don't know what her beliefs were about such things. But it sounds like a revisionist approach to history to me.

Would it be fair for the LGBT rights movement to call MLK their founder, even if he wouldn't have agreed with their cause?

 

[Rachel20]

And, though you were too ignorant to know this, a necessary component of plagiarism involves an empirical assertion of representation. I have made no such assertion of representation with respect to the post you cited nor do I intend to ever make an assertion of representation unless the work is actually my own at which time I will state so.

What I have done is state that I have a lot of resources here that I am using in this discussion. But you never bothered to scroll back and find where I said that.

OH so now you're planning to teach the rest of us what is plagiarism?

When you blatantly lift people's work off, not even bothering to modify sentences, worse than even a kindergarten student, and then refuse to acknowledge that person's hard work - that is THIEVERY.

Everytime you quote someone else's work or paste their opinions, you have to cite them and give them credit.
That is the moral thing to do.

Claiming to have a high class degree doesn't excuse you from that. (where on earth did you graduate from in the first place?)


You think you are above others? Or do you think the rest of the world is stupid? You call me a troll but really I want to know whether you are a Christian!

Is lying and stealing the fruits of the Spirit?

What you have done is absolutely pathetic and reprehensible. It makes me want to vomit.
Calling others ignorant and morally blighted? Because they point out a serious offense?
That's laughable coming from you.

I have no respect for you.
This is such a shameful matter to even bring up in such a manner... I am disgusted. So much for tall claims of education!

I still remember you boasting about having two master's degrees but running away when posed with a question of statistics. I shouldn't be surprised that you've stooped to such stunts. But I am. I am deeply saddened.

You ought to repent for this.

I have to say, I want to put you on my ignore list, but I'll ignore that so that I can laugh whenever I see your obnoxious posts.

 

[Rachel20]

Rachel20,

AgeofKnowledge is anonymous. How do you know that you aren't 'outing' an author here online?

Even if he was an author, he ought to cite references to works that he's just blatantly copy-pasting.

All I have done is expose a poseur who steals. And I am done.

Thoroughly digusted and humbled. Jesus, I need you.

 

[presidente]

Even if he was an author, he ought to cite references to works that he's just blatantly copy-pasting.

All I have done is expose a poseur who steals. And I am done.

Thoroughly digusted and humbled. Jesus, I need you.

I think one time he posted it, he cited a source. I agree he should have used quotes or made it more clear when he posted. But plagiarism is not a sin. It's a matter of cultural convention.

Jesus didn't cite Pythagorus or whoever Pythagorus got ideas from when He said that God is a Spirit or cast not your pearls before swine. Sometimes the New Testament quotes the Old Testament without pointing out that something is being quoted. I think you are being way too judgmental about this.

Btw, I've got a masters and I'm working on a PhD, and if you ask too many questions about statistics, I might just run away, too. Some masters programs aren't too heavy on statistics. A lot of MBAs would fall into that category. I wouldn't imagine that MDiv programs would have statistics courses either, though I wish some of them knew how to read simple surveys (not thinking of posters here, just a celebrity preacher I can think of.)

If he quotes his own work, he doesn't have to cite it. not that this was the case.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Just put Rachel on ignore. I have and, of course, I've reported her to the mods for personal attacks, false characterizations, and trolling the thread to derail it. You can lead a troll (while trolless in this case) to water but you can't make it drink.

Moving along...

 

[Ugly]

I have to say, I want to put you on my ignore list, but I'll ignore that so that I can laugh whenever I see your obnoxious posts.

Which fruit of the Spirit does this line represent?

 

[Misty77]

Attacking people is NOT okay. Debate is encouraged, and feel free to tear IDEAS to shreds. We don't help our own cause by disrespecting or demonizing others.

 

[Rachel20]

I think one time he posted it, he cited a source. I agree he should have used quotes or made it more clear when he posted. But plagiarism is not a sin. It's a matter of cultural convention.

Jesus didn't cite Pythagorus or whoever Pythagorus got ideas from when He said that God is a Spirit or cast not your pearls before swine. Sometimes the New Testament quotes the Old Testament without pointing out that something is being quoted. I think you are being way too judgmental about this.

Btw, I've got a masters and I'm working on a PhD, and if you ask too many questions about statistics, I might just run away, too. Some masters programs aren't too heavy on statistics. A lot of MBAs would fall into that category. I wouldn't imagine that MDiv programs would have statistics courses either, though I wish some of them knew how to read simple surveys (not thinking of posters here, just a celebrity preacher I can think of.)

If he quotes his own work, he doesn't have to cite it. not that this was the case.

Jesus when he quoted Scripture, said " It is written" to Satan.

In the context of when he taught in the synagogues, or to people, it was clear He quoted Scripture.
When did Jesus ever quote Pythagorus ? That's new to me.

Plagiarism is not a sin? So what about the commandment Thou shalt not steal?

For Mr AoK, to state a thousands of posts back, that he may or may not use sources and then put the onus on the reader to scroll back and figure them out is ridiculous.

Since you claim to have a master's degree, you should know how serious plagiarism is considered in academia. Students get expelled and academician's careers go to ruins.

The question of statistics was only because Mr. AoK himself has said that he has a degree in statistics and that he would answer questions based on that.

http://christianchat.com/christian-...n-shoot-rapist-india-rape-14.html#post1382394


Absolutely disappointed that these things can be so easily brushed under the rug for you, Presidente.

 

[Rachel20]

Which fruit of the Spirit does this line represent?

Joy, my friend.

Matthew 5:11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]“Happy are you when people insult you and persecute you and tell all kinds of evil lies against you because you are my followers. [SUP]12 [/SUP]Be happy and glad, for a great reward is kept for you in heaven. This is how the prophets who lived before you were persecuted.

EDIT - Remembering Elijah.

1 Kings 18:27
At noon Elijah started making fun of them: “Pray louder! He is a god! Maybe he is day-dreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone off on a trip! Or maybe he's sleeping, and you've got to wake him up!”

 

[faroukfarouk]

I explained exactly what he said. She teaches that the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of WISDOM, is a WOMAN.

Did you see wisdom personified in Proverbs 8?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I was reading the New Catholic Encyclopedia and they state the following with respect to feminism:

"A global movement that draws attention to the many ways in which the full human dignity of women is diminished by patriarchy and its pervasive androcentricism, feminism advocates change on behalf of women’s personal and corporate well-being. This general characterization of feminism is overly simplistic unless the history of the development of feminism is taken into account.

This history is usually divided into three stages or "waves" that rose from changing perceptions of the root causes for women’s diminishment and of the best strategies for remedying them. In the nineteenth century, when feminism emerged as a distinct movement, the major goal of feminists was to advocate recognition of women’s intrinsic worth and to improve the position of women in the public sphere."

Most of us grew up under second wave feminism which they describe as follows: "In second wave secular feminism it is possible to discern at least four major types of responses to patriarchy: liberal feminism, cultural feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism."

Liberal feminism claims social inequality is a result of patriarchy which subverts liberal democracy.

Cultural feminism claims women are morally superior to men.

Radical feminism (e.g. seperatist feminism) claims that male domination of women is the root of all societal problems with some calling for women-centered societies in which men are either absent or reduced to inferior status.

Socialist feminism aligns with radical feminism; however, incorporates Marxism.

Third wave feminism is a relatively new strain that manifests in ecletic ways such as ecofeminism though it does assert some solidarity between males and females.

As you can see, there are many definitions and types of feminism with a great deal of controversy about the meanings and implications of the various types even amongst scholars and feminists themselves.

In the 21st century, we are seeing the meteroic rise of masculinism defined as and in the form of advocacy of the rights or needs of men and the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. with respect to men (not the feminist definition which seeks to malign the men's rights movement by couching it in terms of 'an advocate of male superiority or dominance').

This posits that a very real societal and academic gender war between feminists and masculinists is going to occur in the 21st century.

This growing movement is going to focus on anti-male discrimination: one-sided feminist legislation, selective enforcement in favor of females, and a neglected mens' civil rights movement.

Men's Wiki states:

"Masculism envisions a greater role for men than at present in both the family and society. Most masculists note that father custody is assigned less often than mother custody, and argue that this should be made equal or even reversed. The latter cite lower incidence for all child development risk factors in single-father households compared to single-mother households.

They also believe that women initiate most family breakups, that this is exacerbated by women's expectation of full custody, and that the expectation of father custody would therefore reduce the divorce rate. One of their goals is to overturn the "covert matriarchy" and elect masculist politicians, whom they would consider more altruistically motivated. Most masculists support equal opportunity for women, though some envision structural changes in taxation or other areas to compensate for the natural differences and expectations between sexes."

Feminist organizations are attacking the men's rights movement even to the point of using government funds to conduct studies designed to undermine the men's rights movement and seek female supremacy with respect to their own. An well cited example is the "School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse" which is a $75,000 tax-paid report requested by Status of Women Canada, a department of the Canadian federal government described as "a declaration of war against men's rights activists both in Canada and the United States" by men's rights advocates.

It's, of course, noteworthy that NO mirror department in the Candian government for men exists to conduct a competing study.

 

[Rachel20]

Attacking people is NOT okay. Debate is encouraged, and feel free to tear IDEAS to shreds. We don't help our own cause by disrespecting or demonizing others.

Debate? When its done with a honest and humble attitude it might shine the light of God on others.

However, deceitfully using other people's works and trying to give an air of faux intellectualism is nauseating to a few of us.

Even when pointed out, when a person cannot apologize or accept that they've used someone else's intellectual property, it speaks volumes of the debate.

I know you're trying to defend your friend. However, I hope you're discerning enough to realize that demonization can also be applied when people call others trolls.

I have no intention of ''trolling'' or ''derailing'' this thread.
I was just amazed how a blatant plagiarism could take place and be conveniently ignored.

I was nonplussed but now I am done.

Enjoy your debate and your cause.
Peace.

 

[Misty77]

@Age of Knowledge:

Thank you for the breakdown of the different waves of feminism and masculism. If we are to be truly equal, then for every woman's interest group, there should be a man's. Or better yet, we should have a gender-neutral commission made of men and women to ensure that we are working together instead of warring against each other. In government especially, we can never seem to attain balance. The pendulum seems to always over-correct to one extreme or the other. I would love to see a time when gender is (almost!) irrelevant. The uniqueness of the individual is more important than the perceived handicaps of a gender. We should be able to celebrate our differences instead of trying to use them as leverage to shackle the other side.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's exactly what I was going to ask. A plain reading of A Voice from the South: By A Woman from the South, published in 1892 (her only published work though it's in addition to her speeches calling for civil rights and woman's equality) is really about equality in education and economics.

Her published position has very little to do with the methods and objectives of much of modern feminism and it's obvious to me, at least, that she would have been against radical feminism. Additionally, I think she would have corrected many of the modern feminist portrayals of her position and work were she able to read them today.

Angela53510,

Did Anna Julia Cooper refer to herself as a 'Feminist'? Would she have endorsed the philosophy that goes by the name 'Feminism' nowadays?

 

[jennymae]

@Age of Knowledge:

Thank you for the breakdown of the different waves of feminism and masculism. If we are to be truly equal, then for every woman's interest group, there should be a man's. Or better yet, we should have a gender-neutral commission made of men and women to ensure that we are working together instead of warring against each other. In government especially, we can never seem to attain balance. The pendulum seems to always over-correct to one extreme or the other. I would love to see a time when gender is (almost!) irrelevant. The uniqueness of the individual is more important than the perceived handicaps of a gender. We should be able to celebrate our differences instead of trying to use them as leverage to shackle the other side.

Well said - I totally agree