The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Purple Rats]

that's patriarchy

Why do you think that is patriarchy when it arises from womens behavior toward male infants, and is worsened by a lack of male influence? Especially when it's due to feminists that mothers are afforded custody of children, which traditional societies usually afforded to men, and especially as traditional societies would not countenance single motherhood?

What makes you think that the idea of "man-is-head-of-family", and "men needs to be strong" comes from womens behavior towards male infants?
Second question- if parents are really separated then why it would automatically mean that kid has lack of male influence? Maybe these male influences they get are the ones who are forcing this views on the guy, not women?

[Mettaton-EX]

that's patriarchy

Why do you think that is patriarchy when it arises from womens behavior toward male infants, and is worsened by a lack of male influence? Especially when it's due to feminists that mothers are afforded custody of children, which traditional societies usually afforded to men, and especially as traditional societies would not countenance single motherhood?

why do you think that "men strong, women weak" isn't patriarchy?

anyways this argument is deeply moronic. there were plenty of black overseers/slave drivers. plenty of jewish kapos. and so on.

[Neanderthaland]

God isn't writing posts in this forum.

God also isn't God's actual name.

K?

[New haven america]

Why do you think that is patriarchy when it arises from womens behavior toward male infants, and is worsened by a lack of male influence? Especially when it's due to feminists that mothers are afforded custody of children, which traditional societies usually afforded to men, and especially as traditional societies would not countenance single motherhood?

What makes you think that the idea of "man-is-head-of-family", and "men needs to be strong" comes from womens behavior towards male infants?
Second question- if parents are really separated then why it would automatically mean that kid has lack of male influence? Maybe these male influences they get are the ones who are forcing this views on the guy, not women?

I mean, I think Osto's ideas are off the deep end on a normal day, but they have a point. I notice moms tend to be more for keeping gender roles than not. Hell, my own mom claims to be a feminist and yet is still of the opinion that guys need to do all the initiating in relationships, fully pay for dates, etc...

Even when she was in a more egalitarian marriage, she happily took up being a housewife while my dad worked, even though she was more experienced in... basically everything job-wise.

[Riria]

I'd mostly agree with all that, however I'd take issue with your offering of the option that feminism is good at identifying problems and bad at solving them.

I wasn't saying that feminism is good at identifying problems, I was saying that if we restrict ourselves to the line of argument within the framework of that particular question you posed, we can't actually deduce that it's bad at it. (and since I was using modal logic instead of formal logic, which would've been a bit more obvious if I wrote my post in mathematical notation instead of natural language (albeit making my post inherently harder to read), non-bad is not actually the opposite of good)

If we however shift our discussion to a different framework, we have a plethora of other ways to show that feminism is bad at identifying problems. Such as the fact that it's fundamentally based on the idea that begging the question is not a logical fallacy. And since it's showing no clear signs of applying paracausals, their interpretations are plausibly invalidated by the principle of explosion. Which is a point you agree with as I've seen you make it yourself.

[New haven america]

God also isn't God's actual name.

K?

I was pointing out that their censorship was silly.

[Purple Rats]

God isn't writing posts in this forum.

God also isn't God's actual name.

Well yeah, as as many religions there are, as many are there Gods also, right? Just depends who / what someone believes. Or do they believe any god-like person at all.

[Fahran]

K?

I was pointing out that their censorship was silly.

Your non-religious opinion of Jewish convention has been noted and disregarded. Why? Because convention has priority on this matter.

[Sundiata]

If she chooses to reciprocate God's love, her past with pornography does not exclude her from the kingdom of heaven.

The Catholic Church is a friend of women.

So friendly, that it tells women who don't do what it wants that they need to beg forgiveness. Like you just did. Even if they don't think they did anything wrong.

That's not friendly. That's being judgmental with a smile on your face.

It's not judgemental to offer unconditional love and support.

God offers his love to every woman, even if she doesn't understand the weight of her sins. However, God will not make her love him. Whether or not to accept God's love is something every woman who has heard the gospel chooses for herself.

[Neanderthaland]

So friendly, that it tells women who don't do what it wants that they need to beg forgiveness. Like you just did. Even if they don't think they did anything wrong.

That's not friendly. That's being judgmental with a smile on your face.

It's not judgemental to offer unconditional love and support.

That's not what you're doing. You told someone they need to ask forgiveness.

God offers his love to every woman, even if she doesn't understand the weight of her sins. However, God will not make her love him. Whether or not to accept God's love is something every woman who has heard the gospel chooses for herself.

It's very presumptive of you to claim to know that the person in question doesn't love god.

This whole thing is just you condescending to people while claiming to be their friend.

[Sundiata]

Feminism is based.

My feelings are more mixed.

[Purple Rats]

If she chooses to reciprocate God's love, her past with pornography does not exclude her from the kingdom of heaven.

It's not judgemental to offer unconditional love and support.

"if she does xxxx, then happens yyy" does not seem really unconditional to me.

[Sundiata]

It's not judgemental to offer unconditional love and support.

That's not what you're doing. You told someone they need to ask forgiveness.

God offers his love to every woman, even if she doesn't understand the weight of her sins. However, God will not make her love him. Whether or not to accept God's love is something every woman who has heard the gospel chooses for herself.

It's very presumptive of you to claim to know that the person in question doesn't love god.

This whole thing is just you condescending to people while claiming to be their friend.

To seek God's support is to seek his forgiveness. The love of God is more than just sentimental affinity or a feeling, it's also to act in a way pleasing to him, completely exclusive from the porn industry.

God loves all women and doesn't want to see any woman degrade herself, especially through the evil that is pornography.

[Sundiata]

If she chooses to reciprocate God's love, her past with pornography does not exclude her from the kingdom of heaven.

It's not judgemental to offer unconditional love and support.

"if she does xxxx, then happens yyy" does not seem really unconditional to me.

God does not force heaven on anyone, it's an unconditional offer because you choose it yourself through your own actions.

[Purple Rats]

"if she does xxxx, then happens yyy" does not seem really unconditional to me.

God does not force heaven on anyone, it's an unconditional offer because you choose it yourself through your own actions.

But doesn't it mean, that if someone does something, what God does not approve, and they do not get into heaven 'because of their actions' then it is not unconditonal?
I mean you need to act like God wants if you want to get to heaven, that seems like agreement contract, not unconditional love.

[Mettaton-EX]

"if she does xxxx, then happens yyy" does not seem really unconditional to me.

God does not force heaven on anyone, it's an unconditional offer because you choose it yourself through your own actions.

if i tell you "hand over your money or you're dead", is that unconditional support of your right to life?

[Neanderthaland]

That's not what you're doing. You told someone they need to ask forgiveness.


It's very presumptive of you to claim to know that the person in question doesn't love god.

This whole thing is just you condescending to people while claiming to be their friend.

To seek God's support is to seek his forgiveness. The love of God is more than just sentimental affinity or a feeling, it's also to act in a way pleasing to him, completely exclusive from the porn industry.

God loves all women and doesn't want to see any woman degrade herself, especially through the evil that is pornography.

Better to degrade themselves to the evil that is your Church, amiright?

[Sundiata]

God does not force heaven on anyone, it's an unconditional offer because you choose it yourself through your own actions.

But doesn't it mean, that if some does something, what God does not approve, and they do not get into heaven 'because of their actions' then it is not unconditonal?
I mean you need to act like God wants if you want to get to heaven, that seems like agreement contract, not unconditional love.

God loves you unconditionally, however, if you don't choose his love then you're rejecting his love through your actions.

You don't need to act a certain way to receive God's unconditional love but whether or not you make the active choice to reciprocate his love is your own. It's not an easy love to reciprocate because it's unconditional.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why do you think that is patriarchy when it arises from womens behavior toward male infants, and is worsened by a lack of male influence? Especially when it's due to feminists that mothers are afforded custody of children, which traditional societies usually afforded to men, and especially as traditional societies would not countenance single motherhood?

What makes you think that the idea of "man-is-head-of-family", and "men needs to be strong" comes from womens behavior towards male infants?
Second question- if parents are really separated then why it would automatically mean that kid has lack of male influence? Maybe these male influences they get are the ones who are forcing this views on the guy, not women?

->

https://archive.is/9mxeK

Mothers interact more vocally with daughters than with sons.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/boys-do ... -1.4693208

Mothers, but not fathers, encourage boys to suppress emotions.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00670/full

Mothers talk more about emotions with daughters than sons and use more emotional vocabulary words.

https://academic.oup.com/jpepsy/article ... 56/2579803

After a trip to the emergency room, parents are four times more likely to caution a daughter against the same activity again than to caution their son.
The same study shows that parents offer directives (orders) to boys to accomplish tasks, while offering girls detailed explainations of the task.

https://archive.is/fIAjn

Colleged aged women prefer men who talk the least, use the least number of words, and use shorter words.


Dr. Tronick notes that canadian mothers curtail the emotional expression of male infants far more so than female infants, and this is achieved through physical withdrawal from the infant. (They set crying baby boys down more often and more quickly than girls, for instance.). This aligns with the more active form in the Indian "Boys must be beaten" study, which found mothers and female teachers believed they should beat male children when they show emotion, because emotion in boys is a sign they will grow up to be violent men. (I.E, if your boy is sad or angry, you need to punish them. This also applies if the boys are laughing or having fun by roughhousing, as usual punishing boys for not being girls, whom are treated as default.). They steadfastly rejected the idea that men should beat boys, or that girls should be beaten.

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/view ... 0beaten%22

The problem is, and has always been, gynocentrism and womens distrust and hatred of men. Blaming the damage women do to their infants on patriarchy is a way of them avoiding responsibility and confronting the harm they have done and its impacts on society.

Bordering on gender separatist, but I perhaps think primary custody should be afford on the basis of gender, and don't really believe single mothers are fit to raise male children except in exceptional circumstances.

The reason fatherlessness is a problem is that it's akin to removing the only non-destructive influence on the boys psychology from the household in most cases. Moreover, studies have shown that without a father, girls grow up to become less empathetic and more selfish. (Suggesting that selflessness and empathy arise from male influence.).

Feminism is a series of rationalizations, excuses, and frameworks to avoid confronting reality and present women with an alternative to taking responsibility and bettering themselves. They often choose to believe it because the alternative is confronting their privilege, while feminism offers a convenient set of ideas that benefit them, and so they are more receptive to them. (Much like how historically, people who sailed around the world to sell goods were very enthusiastic about the ideology of free trade when it was articulated as an alternative to mercantilism and believed it far more than people in workshops did.) In much the same way as one could cling to, for instance, an anarcho-capitalist worldview in order to justify and ignore the problems caused by anarcho-capitalism by simply referring back to the moral justifications and excuses for the harm it causes ("I don't want poor people to suffer, they just need to work harder" and so on and so on), feminism is a series of rationalizations, excuses, justifications and so on for women to ignore the harm they have done and continue to do, as well as warrant for further harm. The application of the framework resulting in worse outcomes for males and an escalating level of female privilege is the only measure by which it should be judged, not by its own internal justifications and rationalizations.

Male feminists, whole different topic. (See that mensrights thread where we shake our heads sadly at menslib talking about how feminist spaces mess with male feminists psychology but that's their fault for being too misogynist).

[Sundiata]

God does not force heaven on anyone, it's an unconditional offer because you choose it yourself through your own actions.

if i tell you "hand over your money or you're dead", is that unconditional support of your right to life?

The problem with the analogy is that God's love for us is unconditional, the way we reciprocate God's love is conditional because we're not infinitely perfect like God is.

Does that clear up any confusion?

[Mettaton-EX]

if i tell you "hand over your money or you're dead", is that unconditional support of your right to life?

The problem with the analogy is that God's love for us is unconditional, the way we reciprocate God's love is conditional because we're not infinitely perfect like God is.

Does that clear up any confusion?

you're saying god loves everybody but sends most of us to eternal torture anyway

[Rojava Free State]

What makes you think that the idea of "man-is-head-of-family", and "men needs to be strong" comes from womens behavior towards male infants?
Second question- if parents are really separated then why it would automatically mean that kid has lack of male influence? Maybe these male influences they get are the ones who are forcing this views on the guy, not women?

I mean, I think Osto's ideas are off the deep end on a normal day, but they have a point. I notice moms tend to be more for keeping gender roles than not. Hell, my own mom claims to be a feminist and yet is still of the opinion that guys need to do all the initiating in relationships, fully pay for dates, etc...

Even when she was in a more egalitarian marriage, she happily took up being a housewife while my dad worked, even though she was more experienced in... basically everything job-wise.

My mom is the same. She's a feminist but thinks men should still show chivalry (half the women I've been with deserve to be spit on, and sure as hell dont deserve to have a door held for them so idk what she's on). She's a "liberal" but thinks black women are ugly, Mexican Spanish is ugly, Japanese people are full of shit, eastern europeans are barbaric savages, Albanians are criminals, Indians are rapists, Chaldean are criminals and loudmouths, Jews are broke as hell and arrogant, French people are mean and obnoxious, Irish people have no history of civilization, and northern europeans are too pale. She's religious but thinks religion is crooked and wicked. My mom is a walking paradox.

Oh and despite thinking Irish people have no history, she's a Republican like I am (not an American Trump supporting republican, I mean an irish republican as in ireland should be united), so she supports the Irish cause and then turns around and insults the irish as drunkards and savages so go figure. People are hypocrites man.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why do you think that is patriarchy when it arises from womens behavior toward male infants, and is worsened by a lack of male influence? Especially when it's due to feminists that mothers are afforded custody of children, which traditional societies usually afforded to men, and especially as traditional societies would not countenance single motherhood?

why do you think that "men strong, women weak" isn't patriarchy?

anyways this argument is deeply moronic. there were plenty of black overseers/slave drivers. plenty of jewish kapos. and so on.

Does society value strength in the way feminists insist it does? Does it reward it? I would say it clearly doesn't. Given that it disadvantages males, and women chiefly impose it, how is it patriarchal?

[Rojava Free State]

The problem with the analogy is that God's love for us is unconditional, the way we reciprocate God's love is conditional because we're not infinitely perfect like God is.

Does that clear up any confusion?

you're saying god loves everybody but sends most of us to eternal torture anyway

The current state of the world suggests that God hates us all.

[Sundiata]

The problem with the analogy is that God's love for us is unconditional, the way we reciprocate God's love is conditional because we're not infinitely perfect like God is.

Does that clear up any confusion?

you're saying god loves everybody but sends most of us to eternal torture anyway

No, God loves everyone and offers heaven to those who choose it, however many of us choose hell instead.

God doesn't send anyone to hell.