Why I am not a feminist and don't believe in 'equality'.

Sorry about that

theological wrote: »

Comparing Mary to God within a Christian worldview is obviously wrong because Mary was a human being and God is God. God isn't literally a man but has revealed Himself primarily in male terms and took on male form in Jesus. The first witnesses to the resurrection were women in a culture where the testimony of a woman was half that of a man. Women played a key role in the ministry of Jesus (many of the earliest followers of Jesus were women) and women played a key role in the early church.

A large cross section of Christians (I'm an evangelical Protestant) but not all hold to the idea that men and women are equal in status but have been made to have complementary roles within the church and within the family This position is referred to as complementarianism. The Bible recognises that men and women were created differently. That's what the passage in Genesis means when it says that God made Adam a helper fit for him (Genesis 2:20). The Bible affirms women for who and what they are. It doesn't nullify gender difference but affirms it.

The moves in recent times in secular culture have been to deny that there are any differences between men and women asserting that they can be simply interchangeable culminating in the push for same-sex marriage. The next step seems to state that gender itself is arbitrary and a matter of choice rather than a matter of fact.

Most conservative Christians don't agree on either of these fronts. I appreciate liberals may make different arguments.

I definitely didn't intend to compare Mary to God; my point was to illustrate what was historically presented as goodness in a woman alongside the omnipotent blessed male trinity. Even as children, we knew that Mary wasn't part of the club, was chosen because she was pure, and born without sin, and that Protestants didn't hold her in the same regard as we did (intercession etc).

The Bible (which I admit I haven't read) affirms for women, who and what they are. But surely this reflects what was customary at the time it was written. I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful to your beliefs, as I appreciate how important your faith is to you.

Sorry about that

Sorry about that wrote: »

Christian and especially Catholic doctrine tells us that God the father, son and Holy Spirit (blokes) are the main men, while the main woman, Mary (just the one, mind) is meek, obedient, and of most importance- a virgin. Also worth noting that she, unusually for a person, was born without original sin- which was what qualified her to carry the son of God, who was also God (did I mention that he's a bloke

The Holy spirit was some kind of weird ghostlike thing, not a bloke, I was always told?

Mary without original sin? Never heard that one before, apparently some Pope decreed it in 1854. Now all men have original sin and all women are born pure. Funny how times change

theological

theological wrote: »

Most conservative Christians don't agree on either of these fronts. I appreciate liberals may make different arguments.

Things have come full circle when a practising Christian is way more open to opposing viewpoints than a modern feminist is.

waynerooney

When it's 3:00am and there's a loud noise downstairs, would a feminist prefer the male or the female to go see what caused it?

Sorry about that

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Holy spirit was some kind of weird ghostlike thing, not a bloke, I was always told?

Mary without original sin? Never heard that one before, apparently some Pope decreed it in 1854. Now all men have original sin and all women are born pure. Funny how times change

Never heard the one about all women being born pure.

Sorry about that

waynerooney wrote: »

When it's 3:00am and there's a loud noise downstairs, would a feminist prefer the male or the female to go see what caused it?

In our house we both go, and get on well in real life, as I suspect most do. I suspect men and women like each other a lot more in real life than in anonymous discussion groups.
(But I don't know if I'm a feminist or not- it's not something I think about.)

waynerooney

That's courageous. And when you both agree that the noise is coming from the kitchen, and the kitchen door is closed. Does the male or the female go in first? (It's not time to call the gardai, yet.).

Edit: your point about the vitriol in anonymous disc. groups is extremely valid, but it's a separate discussion in my view.)

Sorry about that

waynerooney wrote: »

That's courageous. And when you both agree that the noise is coming from the kitchen, and the kitchen door is closed. Does the male or the female go in first? (It's not time to call the gardai, yet.).

In our instance, the intruder was in the driveway- so not applicable. When my husband is working away, I just go on my own. We've got kids, and you'd be amazed how protective mothers can be. We're not all dominated by fear, and it's not a male/female issue!
I have to be honest though, I do ask him to deal with spiders.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Things have come full circle when a practising Christian is way more open to opposing viewpoints than a modern feminist is.

This applies to the entire "liberal" v "conservative" divide TBH, I never imagined growing up that it would be self-styled liberals demanding censorship and punishments for wrongspeak at every opportunity, while the right would be the tolerant and culturally libertarian side. Absolutely insane. My ex girlfriend is one of the staunchest pro-life advocates I've ever met and despite my being staunchly pro-choice, we have conversations and political debates all the time. Many of my pro-choice friends and folks I know (including members of her family!) have totally ostracised her for holding and airing the beliefs she holds, but I have never met a pro-lifer of Gen Y or Z who will go so far as to cut people out of his or her life over politics. It's ridiculous.

Hedgelayer

waynerooney wrote: »

When it's 3:00am and there's a loud noise downstairs, would a feminist prefer the male or the female to go see what caused it?

You're a brave man coming in here asking those kind of questions, won't be long before someone calls you a woman hater or says your question has nothing to do with femmimisn....

Like rats they'll scurry away when asked a factual question, or go for the jugular....

Common sense says, let the bloke check out the noise.

A femminist response to your question would be emotionally charged and an insult would be thrown in... they'll never give you a straight answer...

You're looking for a yes or a no ?

Even though they'd love to say men and women are the same so maybe they both should go down...
There fore undermining women again, and saying that they equally should be put in a dangerous position...

theological

Sorry about that wrote: »

I definitely didn't intend to compare Mary to God; my point was to illustrate what was historically presented as goodness in a woman alongside the omnipotent blessed male trinity. Even as children, we knew that Mary wasn't part of the club, was chosen because she was pure, and born without sin, and that Protestants didn't hold her in the same regard as we did (intercession etc).
The Bible (which I admit I haven't read) affirms for women, who and what they are. But surely this reflects what was customary at the time it was written. I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful to your beliefs, as I appreciate how important your faith is to you.

Thanks for your post. It's good to engage.
I'm not easily offended. I prefer having good robust discussion with others particularly with those who disagree with my worldview.

I think the main reason I responded to your post was because of the idea that Christianity doesn't respect women. That's not true in my mind. Does Christianity understand gender in a different way to secular culture? Sure. The Bible understands many things differently to secular culture. I don't think this is a bad thing. You're right to say that Protestants don't pray to Mary or saints because that isn't Biblical. They also don't regard Mary as being sinless or the Queen of Heaven and all this stuff because that isn't Biblical either. She was an important woman that God used for His purposes.

A quick thought on Mary. I don't think we should compare Mary to God in the same way that I wouldn't compare a human man to God. God isn't physically a human man. Much of God's character is primarily expressed in masculine attributes (sometimes even in feminine attributes but not as commonly) for our understanding. The closest we can get to saying God was a physical man is that we can say that God the Son came to our world in Jesus. If you mean that Mary wasn't part of the club because she wasn't God that's true. Abraham also wasn't God, neither was Moses or David. Does that mean God hates men? No. It just means that God is God and we aren't.

You raise a really interesting point about Biblical interpretation. It's the crux point between evangelicals and liberals within Protestantism. The Bible is of course to be read in its historical context but it is God's word to us. Evangelicals would say we need to change our view of the world to conform to God's word. Liberals seem to suggest that we should interpret the Bible in light of culture. The problem with that is that it just leads to a watered down faith because our culture is opposed to the things that the Bible teaches. If God is actually important to us that should change the way we see the world and how we live in the world.

I was like you in terms of reading the Bible. I read it and I was amazed at how good God is and became a Christian. I'd recommend that you read a gospel like John if you'd like to find out more.

Hedgelayer

theological wrote: »

Thanks for your post. It's good to engage.
I'm not easily offended. I prefer having good robust discussion with others particularly with those who disagree with my worldview.

I think the main reason I responded to your post was because of the idea that Christianity doesn't respect women. That's not true in my mind. Does Christianity understand gender in a different way to secular culture? Sure. The Bible understands many things differently to secular culture. I don't think this is a bad thing. You're right to say that Protestants don't pray to Mary or saints because that isn't Biblical. They also don't regard Mary as being sinless or the Queen of Heaven and all this stuff because that isn't Biblical either. She was an important woman that God used for his purposes.

A quick thought on Mary. I don't think we should compare Mary to God in the same way that I wouldn't compare a human man to God. God isn't physically a human man. Much of God's character is primarily expressed in masculine attributes (sometimes even in feminine attributes but not as commonly) for our understanding. The closest we can get to saying God was a physical man is that we can say that God the Son came to our world in Jesus. If you mean that Mary wasn't part of the club because she wasn't God that's true. Abraham also wasn't God, neither was Moses or David. Does that mean God hates men? No. It just means that God is God and we aren't.

You raise a really interesting point about Biblical interpretation. It's the crux point between evangelicals and liberals within Protestantism. The Bible is of course to be read in its historical context but it is God's word to us. Evangelicals would say we need to change our view of the world to conform to God's word. Liberals seem to suggest that we should interpret the Bible in light of culture. The problem with that is that it just leads to a watered down faith because our culture is opposed to the things that the Bible teaches. If God is actually important to us that should change the way we see the world and how we live in the world.

I was like you in terms of reading the Bible. I read it and I was amazed at how good God is and became a Christian. I'd recommend that you read a gospel like John if you'd like to find out more.

I'm not religious or spiritual myself, but I read your post and often heard people described Liberals and femmimisn as a movement like religion.

When we had good old Catholic Ireland and were more right wing we could slag each other off say things which weren't PC and have great banter.
Although great banter and joke's are going underground, people lack a sense of humour nowadays you have to be very careful with word's, although word's and people's thoughts don't really effect me because I have the ability to compartmentalise thing's might make me sound aloof.

But getting back to your post, a friend of mine suggested that femmimisn and liberals are today's marxists and they're he'll bent on dragging us into a very dangerous world where our opinions can have an impact on our future...

Christopher Hitches has some good lecture's on how bad femminism and liberals are and he feared that we will be so stunted we will be shut down....

In effect I think femminists and liberals are not about balance but more like victim's of their own short comings and lacking lustre for living and let live...

SusieBlue

Hedgelayer wrote: »

You're a brave man coming in here asking those kind of questions, won't be long before someone calls you a woman hater or says your question has nothing to do with femmimisn....

Like rats they'll scurry away when asked a factual question, or go for the jugular....

Common sense says, let the bloke check out the noise.

A femminist response to your question would be emotionally charged and an insult would be thrown in... they'll never give you a straight answer...

You're looking for a yes or a no ?

Even though they'd love to say men and women are the same so maybe they both should go down...
There fore undermining women again, and saying that they equally should be put in a dangerous position...

Your posts are so full of hostility and aggression, you seem to think very deeply about what a feminist would do or say in any given situation (all of which have proven to be pretty inaccurate) for someone who seems to really hate feminists.

Hedgelayer

SusieBlue wrote: »

Your posts are so full of hostility and aggression, you seem to think very deeply about what a feminist would do or say in any given situation (all of which have proven to be pretty inaccurate) for someone who seems to really hate feminists.

You're in no position to judge anyone yourself.
Your assumptions are out of order, I hate fishing for pike, but I don't hate pike fishermen or pike.

I haven't been hostile or agressive towards anyone, your interpretation of fact's and opinions expressed are taken up completely wrong.

I don't hate femminists, I don't like the ideology.

I have friends who consider themselves femminists, we can chat about it without them undermining the fact I'd help them out, have them over for dinner, or fix their patio and help out as a friend.

You walked yourself into that one, you actually are the type of person who's unable to stick to the subject matter without getting triggered.

Have a nice day

SusieBlue

Hedgelayer wrote: »

You're in no position to judge anyone yourself.
Your assumptions are out of order, I hate fishing for pike, but I don't hate pike fishermen or pike.

I haven't been hostile or agressive towards anyone, your interpretation of fact's and opinions expressed are taken up completely wrong.

I don't hate femminists, I don't like the ideology.

I have friends who consider themselves femminists, we can chat about it without them undermining the fact I'd help them out, have them over for dinner, or fix their patio and help out as a friend.

You walked yourself into that one, you actually are the type of person who's unable to stick to the subject matter without getting triggered.

Have a nice day

Which of my assumptions are out of order? Can you point them out?
I’m not the one here making blanket statements about how all feminists do this and that, as if there is one collective hive mind among all.
You haven’t said one remotely positive thing, you are just full of unfounded criticisms with nothing to back them up.

And now when I point out the unwarranted hostility, you are accusing me of being triggered. Right then.

Hedgelayer

SusieBlue wrote: »

Which of my assumptions are out of order? Can you point them out?
I’m not the one here making blanket statements about how all feminists do this and that, as if there is one collective hive mind among all.
You haven’t said one remotely positive thing, you are just full of unfounded criticisms with nothing to back them up.

And now when I point out the unwarranted hostility, you are accusing me of being triggered. Right then.

Maybe if you approached me in a cordial fashion instead of using strong word's like hate you'd get a more honest response.

I don't hate femminists I just don't like the ideology, because a lot of femminists seem to move the goal posts to suit their mood on the day.

Can you see anything wrong at all with feminism.

I can see a lot wrong with the red pill movement and the whole MGTOW philosophy too.

I didn't insult you personally or use the word hate anywhere....

So maybe we'll just agree we're indifferent and wish each other well.....

hatrickpatrick

Personally I think my opposition to feminists / SJWs started with the Blurred Lines controversy, go back to whenever that song was popular and that was when the culture wars were beginning to get underway. The song was released in mid-2013 and I always point to 2014 as the beginning of all this sh!t so that lines up fairly well. It was the first instance I had ever encountered of feminists (and people who identify as "liberal") calling for something to be banned, censored or silenced in various venues - and threatening boycotts etc if this demand was not satisfied. I don't know if this is something which had always lurked under the surface of feminism up until this point, but that was the start of my own experience with it. It seems to me that feminist criticism of art and media exploded from there - "if this doesn't suit our ideology, we're not just going to say we don't like it, we're going to say it shouldn't be available to anyone at all".

Maybe others can cite earlier examples of this kind of sh!te, but that was the first time I encountered it, and that, for me, was the beginning of the ultimate splintering between "liberalism" and defending freedom of speech. I was extremely taken aback by this movement on the left, because hitherto I had always aligned with the left as opposing ideological censorship which up until then had come from religious "family values" assholes on the right.

Gimme A Pound

Hedgelayer wrote: »

You're a brave man coming in here asking those kind of questions, won't be long before someone calls you a woman hater or says your question has nothing to do with femmimisn....

No that won't happen actually. More of the "women getting annoyed by all the moaning about women - must be crazy feminists".

Has anyone disagreed that men and women are not the same?

jam_mac_jam

waynerooney wrote: »

That's courageous. And when you both agree that the noise is coming from the kitchen, and the kitchen door is closed. Does the male or the female go in first? (It's not time to call the gardai, yet.).

Edit: your point about the vitriol in anonymous disc. groups is extremely valid, but it's a separate discussion in my view.)

If there is someone in my kitchen. Time to call the guards. But if it's one of us it's him because he's stronger. I am five foot two and not very strong.
Men are stronger then women. Doesn't mean that I don't work or that I should do all the housework.

In a situation where strength is more useful then the man is obviously of more use. Men and women are different that doesn't mean we should not have equal rights

Silentcorner

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

If there is someone in my kitchen. Time to call the guards. But if it's one of us it's him because he's stronger. I am five foot two and not very strong.
Men are stronger then women. Doesn't mean that I don't work or that I should do all the housework.

In a situation where strength is more useful then the man is obviously of more use. Men and women are different that doesn't mean we should not have equal rights

But we have equal rights....unless you can tell me a right women today do not have...I mean...that guard that arrives to your home could well be a 5" 2" female guard...

jam_mac_jam

Silentcorner wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

If there is someone in my kitchen. Time to call the guards. But if it's one of us it's him because he's stronger. I am five foot two and not very strong.
Men are stronger then women. Doesn't mean that I don't work or that I should do all the housework.

In a situation where strength is more useful then the man is obviously of more use. Men and women are different that doesn't mean we should not have equal rights

But we have equal rights....unless you can tell me a right women today do not have...I mean...that guard that arrives to your home could well be a 5" 2" female guard...

Yes we do have equal rights I don't think I said otherwise? My point is that you can recognise a man is stronger and yet acknowledge we should have the same rights and be a feminist.

The garda female or male five or six foot wouldn't be on their own so obviously would be better to deal with a burgler. I am not sure what your point is. I think you are just picking apart a little.

Silentcorner

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes we do have equal rights I don't think I said otherwise? My point is that you can recognise a man is stronger and yet acknowledge we should have the same rights and be a feminist.

The garda female or male five or six foot wouldn't be on their own so obviously would be better to deal with a burgler. I am not sure what your point is. I think you are just picking apart a little.

If we agree the genders have equal rights...then...what is the point of feminism...

And you are right...if the female guard is not on her own...I would imagine that the larger more physical guard would be placed in immediate danger first...should he receive more money/reward for that endeavor...or should both guards receive the same...or should female guards attend potentially dangerous situations...there is a reason I am probing this issue clearly...it is important!

jam_mac_jam

Silentcorner wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes we do have equal rights I don't think I said otherwise? My point is that you can recognise a man is stronger and yet acknowledge we should have the same rights and be a feminist.

The garda female or male five or six foot wouldn't be on their own so obviously would be better to deal with a burgler. I am not sure what your point is. I think you are just picking apart a little.

If we agree the genders have equal rights...then...what is the point of feminism...

And you are right...if the female guard is not on her own...I would imagine that the larger more physical guard would be placed in immediate danger first...should he receive more money/reward for that endeavor...or should both guards receive the same...or should female guards attend potentially dangerous situations...there is a reason I am probing this issue clearly...it is important!

It's a burglary in the example above not a wrestling match so fairly run of the mill for a garda I would have thought.

Silentcorner

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's a burglary in the example above not a wrestling match so fairly run of the mill for a garda I would have thought.

Very slippery...you know well what I am asking...who will have to wrestle the burglar?

jam_mac_jam

Silentcorner wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's a burglary in the example above not a wrestling match so fairly run of the mill for a garda I would have thought.

Very slippery...you know well what I am asking...who will have to wrestle the burglar?

Well the garda if that is their job. Would have thought that would be an expected part of the job. Man or woman.

Silentcorner

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well the garda if that is their job. Would have thought that would be an expected part of the job. Man or woman.

Ya...thought so...a male guard will be the one expected to make physical contact with a burglar...every time, and will receive the same reward as his female counterpart, who would not be expected to put herself in harms way as much...that is equality, now if you were the wife of that cop, how happy would you be?

If we agree that the genders already have equal rights, you can see how messy and impossible it is to reach into every sector of life to achieve a yet to be defined equal society....that is one of the reasons I am not a feminist!

jam_mac_jam

Silentcorner wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well the garda if that is their job. Would have thought that would be an expected part of the job. Man or woman.

Ya...thought so...a male guard will be the one expected to make physical contact with a burglar...every time, and will receive the same reward as his female counterpart, who would not be expected to put herself in harms way as much...that is equality, now if you were the wife of that cop, how happy would you be?

If we agree that the genders already have equal rights, you can see how messy and impossible it is to reach into every sector of life to achieve a yet to be defined equal society....that is one of the reasons I am not a feminist!

That's not what I said but ok feel free to argue on with yourself.

Sorry about that

Sorry about that wrote: »

Never heard the one about all women being born pure.

I mean that's the modern feminist catechism.

jam_mac_jam

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry about that wrote: »

Never heard the one about all women being born pure.

I mean that's the modern feminist catechism.

Jesus christ. Men bad women good. That's it exactly what we all think.

Hedgelayer

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

No that won't happen actually. More of the "women getting annoyed by all the moaning about women - must be crazy feminists".

Has anyone disagreed that men and women are not the same?

Great point there, but if some posters think that the people who don't agree with the femmimisn idealism are putting all the women in the same bracket as femminists, they have a serious problem.

I think 90% of women wouldn't class themselves as femminists,so you're safe enough guy's...

The op put up a post explaining why they're not a femminist and she had all sorts of assumptions about her character.

I in a few of my post's I suggested that the you hate all women card will be put out there because you don't like femmimisn will be pulled out frequently...

A rational person would ask the question "Is it femmimisn you don't like or is it women in particular ?"

A lot of the femminists in this debate cannot respond without any personal digs or accuse you of being angry etc

Very like social justice warriors......