The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Mettaton-EX]

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, we choose hell (his absence).

the same way you might "choose" not to hand over your money and die, sure

[Albrenia]

God doesn't send anyone to hell.

This is a position I can respect a lot more, but it is rather undermined by all the references of sinners being cast into the fire, and so on.

[Sundiata]

God doesn't send anyone to hell.

This is a position I can respect a lot more, but it is rather undermined by all the references of sinners being cast into the fire, and so on.

Not true, it's gravely serious.

God doesn't cast people into hell but when we don't choose his love we're effectively doing that to ourselves and others to the extent that we lead them astray.

[Sundiata]

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, we choose hell (his absence).

the same way you might "choose" not to hand over your money and die, sure

God offers you heaven, he doesn't impose hell upon you. He doesn't want you to choose hell.

[Albrenia]

I don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been already, so I'll just accept your answer and not argue further. Have a good day.

[Mettaton-EX]

the same way you might "choose" not to hand over your money and die, sure

God offers you heaven, he doesn't impose hell upon you. He doesn't want you to choose hell.

this is a nonsensical distinction. are you saying your omnipotent god has no control over who gets into heaven?

[Sundiata]

God offers you heaven, he doesn't impose hell upon you. He doesn't want you to choose hell.

this is a nonsensical distinction. are you saying your omnipotent god has no control over who gets into heaven?

Of course not, I'm saying that God gave you the ability to freely choose. Why? Because he loves you and freely chooses to love you. It wouldn't be love if he forced heaven or hell upon you.

Anyway, if you want more theological questions there's the Christian discussion thread. We're getting way off track here.

[Sundiata]

I don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been already, so I'll just accept your answer and not argue further. Have a good day.

I don't mind continuing this discussion in the Christian discussion thread.

Have a good day too!

[Ostroeuropa]

God offers you heaven, he doesn't impose hell upon you. He doesn't want you to choose hell.

this is a nonsensical distinction. are you saying your omnipotent god has no control over who gets into heaven?

One time when I was high I had a theology moment.

You get to choose whether you accept gods invitation to heaven, or reject it.
You reject it, you're outside.

It's not bad outside, except for the fact that the people who reject god are there. Probably fine if it was just atheists, until you include the fallen angels and remember the reason they fell is an inability to understand why god loves humans more than them, and a belief humans are despicable degenerate sinners and that makes the angels like, obviously a better choice for gods love. (As in, they're the ones who DONT forgive you for your sins. They hate you for them. They don't understand why god forgives you and aren't prepared to accept that forgiveness as legitimate to the point they rebelled and were put outside heaven.).

"Come off my lawn and inside to my house party."
"No."
"You sure? There's... there's neo-nazis hanging out on my lawn sharpening knives dude. I mean, my lawn isn't normally so bad, but..."
"No."
"Really sure? I'm warning you about the neo-nazis. They're gonna stab you dude. Come inside."
"I'll be alright."
"k. uh. Good luck."

Not really gods fault then.

Now I accept this isn't strictly what Christians argue. I just found it a plausible explanation.

So then the fallen angels torture you because you "deserve" it in their opinion. But god doesn't actually agree with them.

[Purple Rats]

I don't mind continuing this discussion in the Christian discussion thread.

See you there, I think I want to discuss more.

[Proctopeo]

We the men in ex-soviet countries don't really have such a great time either: forced to go to army (lot of guys don't want to), there is still high pressure from society that "man has to be head of a family", this does not only bring women down, but also stess lot of guys out, as they might think less of about themselves if they are not able to be the head-of-a-family.

"Men need to be strong", "don't cry / whine like a girl"... so if a guy has depression, they quite often are ashamed to talk about it, so they suffer alone. Which, in ex soviet countries, as I have seen, also leads to massive alcohol consuming.

These are just some reason, why I think suicide rate in these countries for men could be higher than for women.

that's patriarchy

How?

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?

Yes, I was going to say something along these lines as well, as it does match up with my personal experiences. The people most adamant about "boys don't cry" were women, usually authority figures like teachers. Sometimes boys would perpetuate it as well, but they were also usually bullies, so that's not really the dudeocracy either, and probably related to the same thing that causes the teacher thing.

[Purple Rats]

if woman is explain their son that they are suppose to be strong, head of the family, and not show emotions, then this is woman pushing their sons to become powerful, so they can be in control in later of life. They (women) push their sons into patriarchy, as in "no I am in control, cause I am a parent, but if you grow up then you need to be in control of others" way.

This is not feminism. Not everything a woman does is feminism. Women can be sexist too.

[Forsher]

But Forsher thinks i'm insane for calling feminists "The same substance" as Nazi's in all but name.

No.

I did not call you insane Ostro.

And the comparison is absurd. Which is why you bring it up all the time, but don't respond when people (specifically me) seriously engage with you on it.

However, as a peace offering I bring you this from Reddit. I can't remember what key words you're using at the moment, but it's a classic example of sexist stereotyping being borne by women. I mean, it's pretty much exactly what Purple Rats was on about, just at the dating not "raising sons" stage.

[Riria]

Sometimes boys would perpetuate it as well, but they were also usually bullies, so that's not really the dudeocracy either, and probably related to the same thing that causes the teacher thing.

Nah, they're unrelated. It's an old myth that most bullies are bullies because of projection and trauma, which has been debunked in numerous studies. Most kids bully not because of environmental or cultural factors, but because they have an innately high level of sadism or schadenfreude and the pool of victims they have access to (other kids) is easy pickings. As a fellow center-right leaning libertarian yourself, I'm sure you can understand the incentive.

[New haven america]

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.

*Religious Fact on non-Jewish convention

God's actual name is Yahweh, that's the name your not supposed to say in vein and the reason why he gets called God/Allah in the Abrahamic Religions. The more you know~

[Albrenia]

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

*Religious Fact on non-Jewish convention

God's actual name is Yahweh, that's the name your not supposed to say in vein and the reason why he gets called God/Allah in the Abrahamic Religions. The more you know~

Weird question, but why would referring to the Big Dude Himself be considered 'in vein' in His own Holy Book? Or is it just a general thing to discourage it?

[New haven america]

*Religious Fact on non-Jewish convention

God's actual name is Yahweh, that's the name your not supposed to say in vein and the reason why he gets called God/Allah in the Abrahamic Religions. The more you know~

Weird question, but why would referring to the Big Dude Himself be considered 'in vein' in His own Holy Book? Or is it just a general thing to discourage it?

It's the 3rd Commandment.

God's name is basically so powerful in and of itself that usage of it must be kept to a bear-minimum and only used for righteous/educational purposes, and can't be used for evil or false preaching.

[Nakena]

Powerwords and so. Saying some names can give them additional power. it's sort of a self-reinforcing/auto-suggstive belief thingy.

[Gormwood]

But Forsher thinks i'm insane for calling feminists "The same substance" as Nazi's in all but name.

No.

I did not call you insane Ostro.

And the comparison is absurd. Which is why you bring it up all the time, but don't respond when people (specifically me) seriously engage with you on it.

However, as a peace offering I bring you this from Reddit. I can't remember what key words you're using at the moment, but it's a classic example of sexist stereotyping being borne by women. I mean, it's pretty much exactly what Purple Rats was on about, just at the dating not "raising sons" stage.

He's still wanting feminists tried and hung Nurenburg style? Jesus Christ. If feminists are literal Nazis, you'd think there'd be reports about mencentration camps where males are shipped off in train carts, and Hugo Boss would be popular fashion again.

[Forsher]

No.

I did not call you insane Ostro.

And the comparison is absurd. Which is why you bring it up all the time, but don't respond when people (specifically me) seriously engage with you on it.

However, as a peace offering I bring you this from Reddit. I can't remember what key words you're using at the moment, but it's a classic example of sexist stereotyping being borne by women. I mean, it's pretty much exactly what Purple Rats was on about, just at the dating not "raising sons" stage.

He's still wanting feminists tried and hung Nurenburg style? Jesus Christ. If feminists are loteral Nazis, you'd think there'd be reports about mencentration camps where males are shipped off in train carts, and Hugo Boss would be popular fashion again.

So it would seem.

What's especially weird is that I remember Ostro as both being a hardline intentionalist (directing us to obsess about Mein Kampf) and trying to separate out the whole industrial murder state from Nazism as an ideology. But even if you take time limited and structuralist position, Nazism is a racist ethno-nationalist ideology with very strong conservative moral values, a racial theory of history and social darwinist tendencies married with a particular variant of scientific racism. You can have men be either Jews or non-Germans but they cannot be both. What is the analogue of Germany in feminism? You can take patriarchy theory for the whole inevitable race war thing, but feminism is varied in its morality, not at all social darwinist and basically only TERFs do anything even remotely like the Nuremberg laws (and not really).

It's a comparison that relies on the crudest and therefore straight up false representation of Nazism. It's a really fucking dangerous comparison. Even that one sentence definition of Nazism as an ideology is highly reductionist. But what's worst is that the simplest definition of Nazism that captures any meaningfully true aspect of the NSDAP's ideology is "an extreme ethno-nationalist doctrine"... and, as we've seen, feminism has, very tenuously, only an analogue for the ethno part.

Of course, if you want to say that feminism is essentially a blame ideology then, of course, it's like Nazism but it's also like sports fans blaming a referee for their team's loss... who are, in turn, also like Nazis. But that's absurd. It's like the old Hitler is literally John Key comparison (specifically that order... I think the original comparison was in the context of the Nazi electioneering but it was such a long time ago now I can't properly recall).

[Riria]

It's the 3rd Commandment.

God's name is basically so powerful in and of itself that usage of it must be kept to a bear-minimum and only used for righteous/educational purposes, and can't be used for evil or false preaching.

I don't know what I like less now, what this thread used to be or what it has become.

[Tahar Joblis]

that's patriarchy

How?

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?

Yes, I was going to say something along these lines as well, as it does match up with my personal experiences. The people most adamant about "boys don't cry" were women, usually authority figures like teachers. Sometimes boys would perpetuate it as well, but they were also usually bullies, so that's not really the dudeocracy either, and probably related to the same thing that causes the teacher thing.

Also, if you look at older accounts (or even fairly modern non-Western accounts) - literary and historical - they have lots of examples of men weeping openly without being met with contempt, in the context of more patriarchal societies.

There is not really much reason to conclude that men being afraid to cry is actually the result of patriarchy; at best, there's a lack of evidence (since it's pretty hard to quantify the phenomenon), and at worst, it flies in the face of the juxtaposition of an apparent long-term decline in patriarchy 1850-2020 and an apparent long-term rise in contempt for men weeping 1850-2020.

Systematically speaking, the only reason that someone would independently arrive at the conclusion that the norm of male stoicism is due to patriarchy is that they take as doctrine - implicitly or explicitly - that every gender-related problem is due to patriarchy.

[Saiwania]

The rumors I've come across is that Roosh V isn't Redpill anymore. He's allegedly turned to God in their words and has renounced extramarital sex. This is a man who used to be about nothing but the quest to sleep with as many women as possible and pick up artistry in general. What happened? I didn't see this coming and I'm skeptical. But if true, this is a sea change in their activities and behavior.

https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/cu ... stian-now/

Is this perhaps all a ruse to regain or salvage a bad reputation they built over the years?
Is this merely a pivot to be the same as before, but from a different direction?
Is this a genuine change in interests and lifestyle?

[Fahran]

The rumors I've come across is that Roosh V isn't Redpill anymore. He's allegedly turned to God in their words and has renounced extramarital sex. This is a man who used to be about nothing but the quest to sleep with as many women as possible and pick up artistry in general. What happened? I didn't see this coming and I'm skeptical. But if true, this is a sea change in their activities and behavior.

There's no stability or long-term happiness in persistently acting like a douche and/or predator. You're not going to reap the benefits of genuine love, family life, and community. That's why most people eventually have some desire to settle down with a person of their preferred sex and/or gender who connects with them on a deep mental and spiritual level. And G-d doesn't really approve of promiscuity or premarital sex either so if he experienced a religious awakening those would be some of the first things to go. He's no longer red-pilled. Now he's just based.

[Fahran]

Also, if you look at older accounts (or even fairly modern non-Western accounts) - literary and historical - they have lots of examples of men weeping openly without being met with contempt, in the context of more patriarchal societies.

Interestingly, extremely macho men weeping over other men occurs frequently throughout the Bible, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and in the Iliad. Despite some insinuations that these represented literary depictions of same-sex relationships, the actual evidence for that is somewhat scant. We should probably take literary depictions with a grain of salt since having a character tear his shirt, beat his chest, and go unkempt for weeks at a time in mourning is probably a bit of exaggeration to stress the poginancy of the emotions at play, but these were often idealized cultural heroes as well. I think the moral was that one should exercise a degree of self-discipline with regard to emotions but that there were proper times to go full Achilles as well - just don't desecrate bodies afterwards.

There is not really much reason to conclude that men being afraid to cry is actually the result of patriarchy; at best, there's a lack of evidence (since it's pretty hard to quantify the phenomenon), and at worst, it flies in the face of the juxtaposition of an apparent long-term decline in patriarchy 1850-2020 and an apparent long-term rise in contempt for men weeping 1850-2020.

We begin to see less emotional openness in the correspondences of men towards the beginning of the twentieth century but it somewhat precedes the development of feminism as a full-blown movement. Besides that, even prior to the twentieth century, women still played a significant role in child-rearing and the formation of cultural values. In my opinion, the more probable explanation is that we experience a shift in cultural values and expectations associated with masculinity quite independently of the decline of formalized patriarchal conventions. It might well stem from a reconceptualization of the masculine that occurred between 1910 and 1960.

Systematically speaking, the only reason that someone would independently arrive at the conclusion that the norm of male stoicism is due to patriarchy is that they take as doctrine - implicitly or explicitly - that every gender-related problem is due to patriarchy.

It's a poor conclusion, I agree. Notably, male stoicism does have some presence in the ancient world as well, albeit in a somewhat distinct form from today. In fact, I wouldn't even call emotional repression stoicism.