The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I understand your stance from a biblical perspective,and your wider contextualization of 'Church' and I also have a lot of time for your posts because you appear to live with integrity. However, in reality, men control the vatican, men control the purse-strings and more importantly men preach from the pulpit. Your vapourization of women here doesn't really mean a lot when put in that context-it seems like empty platitudes or how you 'wish' it were. I appreciate that you do not represent the Church in an official capacity and therefore I am not demanding you defend it but perhaps you can see my point of view?

You mentioned in another post that you believe Catholics can be feminists. That's not a view I share. Catholics hold the Virgin Mary in such high esteem and yet do not hold the rest of her sex in the same esteem. It's empty words and visions of how men would like us to be. Docile/compliant/obedient and yet, this is not obedience to God, it's obedience to men. The Catholic Church like many Christian denominations is institutionally sexist because it was created by and for men.

Thank you for your kind words.

To clear any misconceptions, know this: the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. His twelve apostles were men. Every clergy member can be traced back to the original twelve apostles through apostolic succession. That's why the clergy is male.

Not by the biological definition of parenthood. Only by a title passed from father to son (apostolic succession). Which is pretty dubious anyway: men are only allowed to be clergy if they can trace their male line some 2000 years back?

As an explanation of why only men can be clergy this reflects very badly on the church. It's "because we have a rule that isn't actually applied but makes women ineligible just because they are women".

"Because we say so" would be equally valid and less hypocritical.

[Forsher]

Thatcher's definitely a feminist icon.

Let me explain. The first thing you have to understand is that the problem with feminism is feminists. Watch as I will cherry pick the quotes people remember from a much needed critique of a terrible policy created by the most farcical process you can imagine to prove that seemingly provocative charge "the problem with feminism is feminists":

[...] Women have complex daily lives, more so than men. This is a well-researched fact, the world over.

[...]

[...] Men have a tendency to design the tallest, fastest, most expensive and most phallic infrastructure. [...]

[...]

Convenient access to key destinations on the line is particularly beneficial for women [...]

Needless to say, people have completely ignored that this is a bog standard analysis. (See here and here.) Which wouldn't be a problem if what they were saying wasn't important:

]Indeed. And Clark gets forced to resign while Twyford carries on as if everything is fine in Transport.

Clark being the former health minister who was ousted despite being effective for committing pretty much the same thing as a transport minister using a mobile on a flight where they were specifically told not to do so that has also single handedly tanked literally EVERY major policy Labour took to the previous election. Oh, did I mention that Twyford is the same guy who went "oh, your name sounds Chinese, you must be foreign" before he was in government...

To be clear, what I am saying is that by choosing those three phrases to articulate what is a pretty universally accepted argument (i.e. that as groups, men and women use cities differently but it is the male norms that drive decision making in urbanism & transport), feminists are using feminism to keep the worst dude in NZ politics (and we've got so many to choose from) in power. And they're trying to disagree with him!

But that's the thing... if you've been paying attention to what I'm saying you've already caught on: Jacinda Ardern has been propping up an incompetent racist male fuckwit FOR YEARS when the associate minister, albeit from another party, is a widely respected, subject-matter expert... and a woman. Honestly, if it weren't for first the mass shooting and then coronavirus, the current government would probably have to go down as the worst in recent memory merely on the contributions of Twyford alone (and he's not been a lone in terms of scandals and fuckups, although I do think he's an outlier when it comes to being generally shit).

So, what's this got to do with Thatcher? Well, it's simple really... lots of people call Jacinda Ardern a feminist icon even though she's the only one propping up Twyford (in fact, he's been promoted UP the hierarchy... the reasoning given here is true but irrelevant in the context of my argument that Twyford shouldn't have any ministerial/cabinet positions). Of course, you could say "well, it's not really a feminist's job to keep the bad men down even if there are probably better women as alternatives" (Genter has her own scandal but who actually thinks that? The principle of meritocracy should've ditched Twyford. That he's still around, that's created situations like this repeatedly and that anyone else hasn't taken over is very much a reflection on Ardern and a strong mark against her. Party leaders in NZ are incredibly powerful... much more so than in other Westminster governments and infinitely more so than any senior member of a US political party. We can only speculate as to why Twyford's done so well under first Little and now Ardern (I suspect the answer is that they think very much like him). As I mentioned, Twyford's not alone in his incompetence and scandal so perhaps the common argument that there's no-one better in the Labour caucus is true (and what a truly disturbing argument that is).

The reality of party politics and being a politician is that you'll always be able to find some reason to rip a politician apart and explain why theirs was a non-feminist career. It doesn't even matter if they, like Ardern, identify as a feminist. The only plausible standard of "feminist icon" in politics whether or not an individual embodies what feminism is about. And extremely successful women like Thatcher or working mothers like Ardern do.

It's easy to be a feminist icon if all you need to do is promote feminism. If you've actually got to wield political power? Well, now... maybe feminist rhetoric isn't even a tool available to you... or, at least, you've got to be careful about how you deploy it. And that's not even your biggest problem. You will simply be unable to avoid doing something that someone, somewhere, articulates as politically non-feminist. Even if you have, in theory, all the power in the world.

[Sundiata]

Thank you for your kind words.

To clear any misconceptions, know this: the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. His twelve apostles were men. Every clergy member can be traced back to the original twelve apostles through apostolic succession. That's why the clergy is male.

Not by the biological definition of parenthood. Only by a title passed from father to son (apostolic succession). Which is pretty dubious anyway: men are only allowed to be clergy if they can trace their male line some 2000 years back?

As an explanation of why only men can be clergy this reflects very badly on the church. It's "because we have a rule that isn't actually applied but makes women ineligible just because they are women".

"Because we say so" would be equally valid and less hypocritical.

I'm sorry? You seem not to understand the definition of "apostolic succession" in the context of Catholic doctrine.

The apostles were male, so any male who becomes a Bishop, for example, is succeeding the original 12 apostles.

Is that simple? The titles of clergy are not passed on through biological heredity, let alone in a slightly similar manner. Frankly, the doctrine is applied by the church.

Another example, a person doesn't "inherit" the papacy because of who their father is. Family line, biology has nothing to do with this.

[Gendercritical Femland]

I don't think you understand. I give zero fucks about men. Cry about it

So you’re not for gender equality, then? Like, you can’t be for equality between the sexes, if you only care about one of the sexes.

"Gender equality". Gender doesn't make sense to me because I believe it to be a social construct. Equality between the sexes? Sure, but that doesn't, and has never existed has it?
While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence. None of these vague, gender-neutral terms address the system that offers up women as things to be used and abused by men. Indeed, these terms have been used to usurp the women’s liberation movement, in large part because of their lack of clarity and political investment in ending patriarchy, specifically.
I believe that men oversimplify the phrase 'equality" and use it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour. Mens constant demands to be included in feminism waters feminism down and the word "equality" has turned into a weasel word weirded by people who don't understand it.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

So you’re not for gender equality, then? Like, you can’t be for equality between the sexes, if you only care about one of the sexes.

"Gender equality". Gender doesn't make sense to me because I believe it to be a social construct. Equality between the sexes? Sure, but that doesn't, and has never existed has it?
While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence. None of these vague, gender-neutral terms address the system that offers up women as things to be used and abused by men. Indeed, these terms have been used to usurp the women’s liberation movement, in large part because of their lack of clarity and political investment in ending patriarchy, specifically.
I believe that men oversimplify the phrase 'equality" and use it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour. Mens constant demands to be included in feminism waters feminism down and the word "equality" has turned into a weasel word weirded by people who don't understand it.

Sounds like a lot of esoteric nonsense and you justifying your hate of an entire group of people.

[Gendercritical Femland]

A woman who does not centre women's concerns is not a feminist

I thought feminism was about gender equality?

Radical feminism has SEXUAL (biological sex) equality as one of it's central tenets (I don't recognize gender as it's a social subjective concept). It's not as simple as just saying "equality". A black lad from an inner city estate and, a middle class white lad both have the same opportunity to apply for university. They are both judged equally on the same critieria and both of their school grades are fairly marked. One still remains at a disadvantage. Even if you remove the race factor one is still at a disadvantage.

I don't want to lecture you or talk down at you by explaining why. I'm going to assume you can see why "equality" is a difficult concept.

[Gendercritical Femland]

"Gender equality". Gender doesn't make sense to me because I believe it to be a social construct. Equality between the sexes? Sure, but that doesn't, and has never existed has it?
While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence. None of these vague, gender-neutral terms address the system that offers up women as things to be used and abused by men. Indeed, these terms have been used to usurp the women’s liberation movement, in large part because of their lack of clarity and political investment in ending patriarchy, specifically.
I believe that men oversimplify the phrase 'equality" and use it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour. Mens constant demands to be included in feminism waters feminism down and the word "equality" has turned into a weasel word weirded by people who don't understand it.

Sounds like a lot of esoteric nonsense and you justifying your hate of an entire group of people.

"Hate" is a strong word. Hate suggests that I would go out of my way to harm or hinder someone. That's not true.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Sounds like a lot of esoteric nonsense and you justifying your hate of an entire group of people.

"Hate" is a strong word. Hate suggests that I would go out of my way to harm or hinder someone. That's not true.

Feminism has repeatedly caused and continues to deliberately or negligently cause harm to people.

So you probably hide it away in other esoteric shit.

[VVerkia]

Not by the biological definition of parenthood. Only by a title passed from father to son (apostolic succession). Which is pretty dubious anyway: men are only allowed to be clergy if they can trace their male line some 2000 years back?

As an explanation of why only men can be clergy this reflects very badly on the church. It's "because we have a rule that isn't actually applied but makes women ineligible just because they are women".

"Because we say so" would be equally valid and less hypocritical.

I'm sorry? You seem not to understand the definition of "apostolic succession" in the context of Catholic doctrine.

The apostles were male, so any male who becomes a Bishop, for example, is succeeding the original 12 apostles.

Is that simple? The titles of clergy are not passed on through biological heredity, let alone in a slightly similar manner. Frankly, the doctrine is applied by the church.

Another example, a person doesn't "inherit" the papacy because of who their father is. Family line, biology has nothing to do with this.

In that way of thinking - every women, that become "bishop" also succeed to original 12 apostles, because it doesn't matter about family line, biology, sex, gender etc.

Whatever, it's inner catholic (and some others religion) problem. I have my own pov, and i don't see what is the point to differentiate that kind of things based on how someone look, what gender, what race etc. stuff in all kind of religions. Someone can argue, prove, make many reasons to support own point of view, "why" but it still isn't my pov. I don't depend on tradition etc. stuff. I respect others religion (to point, that religion don't violate some things, that are hurt or discriminate (i use simply word's that don't picture my way po feeling about, so applying hard logic to understand doesn't count as "if that situation x, than in other it also it's something - eg. I recognize manipulating, sacrificing body parts etc. as hurtful, so i don't respect that, but i don't recognize simple school teaching as hurtful even when someone can argue that teaching is hurting (in some cases, via teaching someone can be hurt, and that can made teaching hurting - it isn't all that simply tu put all in words))), but i don't mess up with religion inner stuff.

So you’re not for gender equality, then? Like, you can’t be for equality between the sexes, if you only care about one of the sexes.

"Gender equality". Gender doesn't make sense to me because I believe it to be a social construct. Equality between the sexes? Sure, but that doesn't, and has never existed has it?
While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence. None of these vague, gender-neutral terms address the system that offers up women as things to be used and abused by men. Indeed, these terms have been used to usurp the women’s liberation movement, in large part because of their lack of clarity and political investment in ending patriarchy, specifically.
I believe that men oversimplify the phrase 'equality" and use it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour. Mens constant demands to be included in feminism waters feminism down and the word "equality" has turned into a weasel word weirded by people who don't understand it.

I don't know who oversimplify, but i recognize statements like, "men that" and "women that" really as much more generalised and oversimplified. If someone can label me somehow, that that someone can put me in "gender equality" bag, (but also, could make assumption based on gender equality ideology or something, that i could not agree eg. someone can make idea, that all humans need to use the same kind of clothes "like in army", and claim, that it is really gender equality, and if many agree, that gender equality means that kind of thing, then i oppose, so i no longer could be recognized as someone with label "gender equality supporter", because it have nothing with that, what i feel is it equality, what isn't, what doesn't matter, etc - i'm just lonely one even within "group", with my pov, not depending on ideology, on groups "must, because if not, you don't belong" kind of thing).
In simply words, i support views, that lead to equality, stability etc. and not make things radical. Eg. I don't support either patriarchate or matriarchat. If some feminist group want change "power balance" from pat to mat, or if some "men" want status quo, where pat is dominance over women, then i don't agree with both statements, situation etc. I recognize, that some equalities can't be done simply based on gender, sex etc. I don't have wise or intelligent mind to resolve or kind of problems and if someone ask something like "if you really support gender equality, then what you propose, what you want, which law is better in situation like this... "But if you don't know, then you really not support g.e." etc. stuff.

[Gendercritical Femland]

I understand your stance from a biblical perspective,and your wider contextualization of 'Church' and I also have a lot of time for your posts because you appear to live with integrity. However, in reality, men control the vatican, men control the purse-strings and more importantly men preach from the pulpit. Your vapourization of women here doesn't really mean a lot when put in that context-it seems like empty platitudes or how you 'wish' it were. I appreciate that you do not represent the Church in an official capacity and therefore I am not demanding you defend it but perhaps you can see my point of view?

You mentioned in another post that you believe Catholics can be feminists. That's not a view I share. Catholics hold the Virgin Mary in such high esteem and yet do not hold the rest of her sex in the same esteem. It's empty words and visions of how men would like us to be. Docile/compliant/obedient and yet, this is not obedience to God, it's obedience to men. The Catholic Church like many Christian denominations is institutionally sexist because it was created by and for men.

Thank you for your kind words.

To clear any misconceptions, know this: the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. His twelve apostles were men. Every clergy member can be traced back to the original twelve apostles through apostolic succession. That's why the clergy is male. Catholics do hold Mary, Mother of God in high esteem. That reverence extends to all women too. Men serve women, women serve men. Men and women together serve God and equally share in his dignity. And in that way, Catholic feminism is fundamentally Catholic.

As far as not representing the church in an official capacity, I also feel called to correct that. Opus Dei is an official part of the Catholic Church. While a relatively new part of the church, it's as officially Catholic as the papacy itself.

Hello Sundiata, A member of Opus Dei and a Radical Feminist walk into a bar.....there's got to be a punchline here...not sure what it is, but this interaction is surreal (in a good way). This an odd interaction because believe it or not, I am not agnostic/atheist and I do actually have a lot of respect for some Catholics. My grandfather was the diocesan (lay) exorcist so I have first hand belief and experience of the demonic and it strengthened my absolute belief in God. I believe IN the Catholic Church, I learnt radical feminism at age 18 from a Catholic sociologist who may have also been Opus Dei ( I recognize your dignity comments as being of Opus Dei), I just don't agree with the structure of the church and I believe that it is wide open to corruption. It is a very fraught and uncomfortable position to hold radical feminism AND catholicism. I believe the inclusion of more pious women in the power structures of the Church would help to mitigate some (not all) elements of this. As you say, we are naturally protective.

Yes I acknowledge your textual truism regarding the apostles. I put your words against the context of the middle east being a heavily patriarchal society in Jesus' day (as it continues to be today in the M.E). You and I both know that nobody would have paid the slightest attention to a woman spreading the word of God back then. If Paul was Pauline she would not have been able roam freely spreading the message and she would have been subject to rape, abuse violence, abduction. Her status in society would have been zero.

I'm not sure where Jesus stated explicitly that women should not preach but I'm sure your textual knowledge is greater than mine. I think there is something in the Corinthians stating that women should be silent but that's the word of another man not Jesus. Deborah, is called "mother" in Israel "mother" does not refer to a biological maternal role, but to her divinatory leadership. Since the establishment of the early Christian Church, women have held some significant positions of leadership.In the Old Testament, women are recorded as queens and judges. There are examples but we all see through a glass darkly when it comes to ancient history.

Yes I am aware that the Holy Mother is held in high esteem however it feels to a lot of women that she is also used as a tool to distract women from the reality that the Church has an extreme sex bias and women are underrepresented and placed into a submissive position in every aspect of the Church structure. I remember my own mother (dead now) forming a Marion group, it was as much as a split as you can split without actually splitting from the parish. This group ran within the parish and was female only. This happens a lot, women feel voiceless but unable to break away because they want Holy Communion. Your comments about "men serving women " and "equal dignity"- I feel the kind intent behind them but they are just words and they feel like tossed breadcrumbs to me.

I feel sometimes that debates-particularly religious ones, are a point scoring excercise-I don't want you to feel that I am placing myself in that position. My words are not antagonistic and there is warmth behind them,

[Costa Fierro]

While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence.

Hello again, Chess. Long time no see.

You're correct in that those terms are essentially buzzwords, because nothing will stop violence. It's a natural human trait that happens for various reasons and in the context of various circumstances. Violence is not innate to any one sex, and thus cannot be reasonably addressed because it is biological and part of the psyche of our species. We're hard wired to be violent because that is how we survive.

In other words, violence is natural, visceral action that is often used by numerous species of animals, including humans, as a means of not only exerting force over others, but also in defence, and in survival.

None of these vague, gender-neutral terms address the system that offers up women as things to be used and abused by men.

Correct, because this system does not exist. You cannot use words to address something that cannot be addressed in the first place. You can explain things in theory, but in terms of practical application it is as useless as mammary glands on male bovines.

Indeed, these terms have been used to usurp the women’s liberation movement, in large part because of their lack of clarity and political investment in ending patriarchy, specifically.

There is clarity in terms if we go by definitions, the only lack of clarity comes when people use certain words and terms for their own agendas.

Take the term "liberation". It is defined as "the action of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release." It is clear that in the West that some women are imprisoned in a literal sense because they have committed crimes, and are therefore serving a determined sentence as penance for said crimes. Most women are not enslaved either, they are equal under the laws and the constitutions by which many Western states are governed. Those that are, are being held against their will, and are victims of a crime that is the exception, not the norm. Women in the West are not oppressed either, for the same reasons they are not considered slaves

One would therefore have to conclude that the use of gender neutral terms has not usurped the women's liberation movement, but rather that the movement has no longer become relevant to many women, if it was relevant to begin with.

I believe that men oversimplify the phrase 'equality" and use it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour.

Equality is not a term that can be oversimplified. It is what it is: equality. The application of regarding or treating someone the same. As a justification for "oppressive behaviour" it is therefore hard to conclude how regarding or treating people the same, unless the definition has been usurped in favour of a greater dilution that can be applied ad hoc to personal political or social beliefs.

Mens constant demands to be included in feminism waters feminism down and the word "equality" has turned into a weasel word weirded by people who don't understand it.

You are correct, but it's the other way around. The term equality has been watered down and turned into a weasel word by people who don't understand it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour.

[Sundiata]

Thank you for your kind words.

To clear any misconceptions, know this: the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. His twelve apostles were men. Every clergy member can be traced back to the original twelve apostles through apostolic succession. That's why the clergy is male. Catholics do hold Mary, Mother of God in high esteem. That reverence extends to all women too. Men serve women, women serve men. Men and women together serve God and equally share in his dignity. And in that way, Catholic feminism is fundamentally Catholic.

As far as not representing the church in an official capacity, I also feel called to correct that. Opus Dei is an official part of the Catholic Church. While a relatively new part of the church, it's as officially Catholic as the papacy itself.

Hello Sundiata, A member of Opus Dei and a Radical Feminist walk into a bar.....there's got to be a punchline here...not sure what it is, but this interaction is surreal (in a good way). This an odd interaction because believe it or not, I am not agnostic/atheist and I do actually have a lot of respect for some Catholics. My grandfather was the diocesan (lay) exorcist so I have first hand belief and experience of the demonic and it strengthened my absolute belief in God. I believe IN the Catholic Church, I learnt radical feminism at age 18 from a Catholic sociologist who may have also been Opus Dei ( I recognize your dignity comments as being of Opus Dei), I just don't agree with the structure of the church and I believe that it is wide open to corruption. It is a very fraught and uncomfortable position to hold radical feminism AND catholicism. I believe the inclusion of more pious women in the power structures of the Church would help to mitigate some (not all) elements of this. As you say, we are naturally protective.

Yes I acknowledge your textual truism regarding the apostles. I put your words against the context of the middle east being a heavily patriarchal society in Jesus' day (as it continues to be today in the M.E). You and I both know that nobody would have paid the slightest attention to a woman spreading the word of God back then. If Paul was Pauline she would not have been able roam freely spreading the message and she would have been subject to rape, abuse violence, abduction. Her status in society would have been zero.

I'm not sure where Jesus stated explicitly that women should not preach but I'm sure your textual knowledge is greater than mine. I think there is something in the Corinthians stating that women should be silent but that's the word of another man not Jesus. Deborah, is called "mother" in Israel "mother" does not refer to a biological maternal role, but to her divinatory leadership. Since the establishment of the early Christian Church, women have held some significant positions of leadership.In the Old Testament, women are recorded as queens and judges. There are examples but we all see through a glass darkly when it comes to ancient history.

Yes I am aware that the Holy Mother is held in high esteem however it feels to a lot of women that she is also used as a tool to distract women from the reality that the Church has an extreme sex bias and women are underrepresented and placed into a submissive position in every aspect of the Church structure. I remember my own mother (dead now) forming a Marion group, it was as much as a split as you can split without actually splitting from the parish. This group ran within the parish and was female only. This happens a lot, women feel voiceless but unable to break away because they want Holy Communion. Your comments about "men serving women " and "equal dignity"- I feel the kind intent behind them but they are just words and they feel like tossed breadcrumbs to me.

I feel sometimes that debates-particularly religious ones, are a point scoring excercise-I don't want you to feel that I am placing myself in that position. My words are not antagonistic and there is warmth behind them,

I'd like to continue this conversation in private if you don't mind because I don't want to delve too deeply into theology.

Thank you.

[VVerkia]

Hello again, Chess. Long time no see.

You're correct in that those terms are essentially buzzwords, because nothing will stop violence. It's a natural human trait that happens for various reasons and in the context of various circumstances. Violence is not innate to any one sex, and thus cannot be reasonably addressed because it is biological and part of the psyche of our species. We're hard wired to be violent because that is how we survive.

In other words, violence is natural, visceral action that is often used by numerous species of animals, including humans, as a means of not only exerting force over others, but also in defence, and in survival.

Non-existance can stop violance
Is it natural or not it depend of point of view. From pov of "sciance" it is rather evolutionary then naturaly. From religious (abrahamic) pov it's result of something that happend due to manipulations. From other pov it's part of "cycle". Whatever it is, prom my pov statements like "it's natural" isn't justification, or reason that it is good, because something. If something simply can't be viewed, described as either good or bad, in road to absolute perfection, then that doesn't matter. Someone can claim like in many anime/ movies etc. "you use violence/ you kill/ you do malicious things, so you are like me" for me, it's false statements, because what really matter in that kind of things, are intentions and direction. Someone can do harm, but doesn't want to do it anymore, and another one bath in it. Someone doesn't want lie, and other lie non-stop. It isn't matter if someone is pure white and can't eradicate all of that bad stuff. It's about reduction of it of own. Statements that someone is good only when is 100% pure, are statements made to bath someone in despair, erase all hope etc. It's some kind of "bulldozer" things. So i can't agree when some kind of someone, something do it to others.
Not always, not all, want to use force, to defend, to survive. Even when some do things, that extend surviving it still doesn't mean, that surviving is what they want.

There is clarity in terms if we go by definitions, the only lack of clarity comes when people use certain words and terms for their own agendas.

Not always, not only. Someone can simply lack clarity of understanding of words, or understanding what words means to others. Or use words, that are similar in what they mean, but that words isn't clearly what they think, feel, etc.

Take the term "liberation". It is defined as "the action of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release." It is clear that in the West that some women are imprisoned in a literal sense because they have committed crimes, and are therefore serving a determined sentence as penance for said crimes. Most women are not enslaved either, they are equal under the laws and the constitutions by which many Western states are governed. Those that are, are being held against their will, and are victims of a crime that is the exception, not the norm. Women in the West are not oppressed either, for the same reasons they are not considered slaves

If something isn't considered or proven, that isn't mean that isn't true. You know. I all universe are "facts" that are proven, observe etc. and "absolute facts" that aren't prove or cannot be proven. Eg. in theory and with approximation. If someone made perfect crime, then it is crime, despite of lacking evidences. If human walk on earth, then it is even when no laws of gravity etc. are know or proven. If someone is imprisoned and enslaved, but can't prove it to others, then it is still slavery or imprisoning. If someone is gaslighted, then that person is gaslighted, manipulated etc, even when no one care, no one believe, no one help. These aren't perfect examples, but can lead to point, what i understand about "facts"

Equality is not a term that can be oversimplified. It is what it is: equality. The application of regarding or treating someone the same. As a justification for "oppressive behaviour" it is therefore hard to conclude how regarding or treating people the same, unless the definition has been usurped in favour of a greater dilution that can be applied ad hoc to personal political or social beliefs.

As i wrote earlier - if perfect good or other kind of term can't be obtained, then direction is what is matter. Also obtaining "perfection" in some kind of direction also can be harmful and not good - it's place when dystopia is mixed with utopia

[Rojava Free State]

Thank you for your kind words.

To clear any misconceptions, know this: the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. His twelve apostles were men. Every clergy member can be traced back to the original twelve apostles through apostolic succession. That's why the clergy is male.

Not by the biological definition of parenthood. Only by a title passed from father to son (apostolic succession). Which is pretty dubious anyway: men are only allowed to be clergy if they can trace their male line some 2000 years back?

As an explanation of why only men can be clergy this reflects very badly on the church. It's "because we have a rule that isn't actually applied but makes women ineligible just because they are women".

"Because we say so" would be equally valid and less hypocritical.

"Because women are different and don't have a right to do what men do," is a great explanation for all things sexist.

[Rojava Free State]

Sounds like a lot of esoteric nonsense and you justifying your hate of an entire group of people.

"Hate" is a strong word. Hate suggests that I would go out of my way to harm or hinder someone. That's not true.

Idk. Saying you don't give a fuck about men is bordering on hate.

It's like saying black lives don't matter. Then when someone says "you hate black people," you say "no I don't wish ill or go out of my way to harm them."

[VVerkia]

"Hate" is a strong word. Hate suggests that I would go out of my way to harm or hinder someone. That's not true.

Idk. Saying you don't give a fuck about men is bordering on hate.

It's like saying black lives don't matter. Then when someone says "you hate black people," you say "no I don't wish ill or go out of my way to harm them."

I say it's different. When you don't care about ants, it doesn't mean, that you hate ants. Or if someone is serial killer, that don't care about others life, it also mean that it is 1:1 associated with hatred. Also if someone hate someone, or something, that doesn't mean, that someone automatically do some kind of harm, based on hatred. I may not understand this emotion but i don't see why it must be associated everywhere as some kind of basic, reason to attitude you write. Or perhaps is only my state of understanding, feelings, emotions, doings, results etc. as "somethings" that simply could be separate. In rather mathematics, science speaking - you can observe tendency of correlations, but you can't make valid explain, that all are individual situations are correlated in that kind of theory.

Same about "hate speech". Some peoples can say that same words, with different intention, but can be recognized as the same "hateful individuals".
1. People can have intention of explaining someone, or cite, or write story, where some character's are describe as such persons, etc. etc. end this one can all life be against ideas that some hateful words inculcate.
2. Other people could use sugar words, that mask own hateful pov. Be clear to society, but make evil actions, rooted in own hate.
3. Other people could use hatful words, but mask them, to look as peoples from 1. It's some kind of taking advantage.
4. Some can be manipulated to use hate speech, and then someone could use "screen" to destroy that person life, making them look like someone from group 2 or 3.
5. Some can use hatful words doesn't recognizing what they do
6. Other could use hatful or sugar words not because they hate or love, but eg. for experiment, for observations or some kind of evil joy, watching how conflicts, pain, discord etc. rising
Whatever it is, only real god know what is true. Without explaining via "speech words" or "mental words" or "lie detectors" or all jurisdiction/police/detective stuff.

[Ors Might]

So you’re not for gender equality, then? Like, you can’t be for equality between the sexes, if you only care about one of the sexes.

"Gender equality". Gender doesn't make sense to me because I believe it to be a social construct. Equality between the sexes? Sure, but that doesn't, and has never existed has it?
While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence. None of these vague, gender-neutral terms address the system that offers up women as things to be used and abused by men. Indeed, these terms have been used to usurp the women’s liberation movement, in large part because of their lack of clarity and political investment in ending patriarchy, specifically.
I believe that men oversimplify the phrase 'equality" and use it to justify all sorts of oppressive behaviour. Mens constant demands to be included in feminism waters feminism down and the word "equality" has turned into a weasel word weirded by people who don't understand it.

I don’t want to hear this from someone whose conception of sexual equality is about as useful as someone who claims to be for racial equality but excludes latino people from that movement. And yes, that is the equivalent of what you and people like you are doing.

I thought feminism was about gender equality?

Radical feminism has SEXUAL (biological sex) equality as one of it's central tenets (I don't recognize gender as it's a social subjective concept). It's not as simple as just saying "equality". A black lad from an inner city estate and, a middle class white lad both have the same opportunity to apply for university. They are both judged equally on the same critieria and both of their school grades are fairly marked. One still remains at a disadvantage. Even if you remove the race factor one is still at a disadvantage.

I don't want to lecture you or talk down at you by explaining why. I'm going to assume you can see why "equality" is a difficult concept.

Yeah obviously there’s more to equality than simply declaring people are equal. Hence why I despise some feminists overly simplistic conception of gender roles and oppression. It takes a willfully ignorant sort of narrow-minded thinking to look at the socialization of men, particularly middle and lower class men, and think “yes, these folks are being privileged because of their physical sex”.

[TERF]

While all good and progressive concepts, neither “equality,” nor “diversity,” nor “inclusion,” nor “intersectionality” will stop men’s violence.

Hello again, Chess. Long time no see.

It's not me, "Gendercritical Femland" is another user.
However I have just joined their region because it's very interesting.

[Tarsonis]

A powerful woman who was one of the world's best leaders.
Shes the epitome of the feminist dream?

A woman who does not centre women's concerns is not a feminist

Feminists don't center women's concerns, they center the concerns of feminists

[Mzeusia]

A woman who does not centre women's concerns is not a feminist

Feminists don't center women's concerns, they center the concerns of feminists

Reducing hours that women could work, for example, thereby reducing the amount of money a woman could earn.

[Tarsonis]

Thank you for your kind words.

To clear any misconceptions, know this: the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. His twelve apostles were men. Every clergy member can be traced back to the original twelve apostles through apostolic succession. That's why the clergy is male.

Not by the biological definition of parenthood. Only by a title passed from father to son (apostolic succession). Which is pretty dubious anyway: men are only allowed to be clergy if they can trace their male line some 2000 years back?

As an explanation of why only men can be clergy this reflects very badly on the church. It's "because we have a rule that isn't actually applied but makes women ineligible just because they are women".

"Because we say so" would be equally valid and less hypocritical.

Might be wrong thread for this, but apostolic succession isn't the same as patrilineal succession. One doesn't inherent the succession as a matter of birth, it would rather be more similar to a succession of political office, only with more rules.

One does not need to he related to the 12 apostles to be a member of the clergy, and honestly we have no way of knowing if anyone is an actual descendant.

Clergy being male because the apostles were male is a matter of tradition, not lineage. While every Christian is a priest, technically speaking, Christ called men to the vocation of the clergy. There are many hypotheses as to why that is, but ultimately those are just very educated speculation.

The simple reality is that Christ ordained only men as apostles, i.e to the clergy. And despite whatever we might think, or how society changes, the Church has no authority to change this practice, absent God's decree.

[Free Ravensburg]

What is your stance on Karens? This refers to both sexes, so no hate, please

[Adamede]

Sounds like a lot of esoteric nonsense and you justifying your hate of an entire group of people.

"Hate" is a strong word. Hate suggests that I would go out of my way to harm or hinder someone. That's not true.

Hate simply means a passionate dislike, has nothing to do with actively harming someone. I hate spiders for example. However I don't go out of my way to smush every spider I see.

[Tarsonis]

"Hate" is a strong word. Hate suggests that I would go out of my way to harm or hinder someone. That's not true.

Hate simply means a passionate dislike, has nothing to do with actively harming someone. I hate spiders for example. However I don't go out of my way to smush every spider I see.

To play the pedant, while yes that is the dictionary definition, that's actually a pretty vague description. Colloquially we tend to understand the deference between hate and dislike, not just in terms of degrees, but also the presence of malice. To use your spider example, while you don't go out of your way to kill spiders, you likely do kill the ones you do see instead of finding other means of removing them. So while you don't hate them as much as the local exterminator, you do hate them on some level.

I believe GF (ooof, as a radfem did you really think that nation name through there?) has this frame of reference. I believe what they're trying to say is that while they dislike the male sex, even strongly, they don't particularly bear them any ill will.

[Kowani]

What is your stance on Karens? This refers to both sexes, so no hate, please

Karen in the first form, but they evolve into Becky at Level 20.