RWDT XII - 12 Step program to get Right.

[Reikoku]

Me too is spawned then they act surprised when men won't be in a room alone with a woman for mentoring.

Yes, I'm sure that's all men like Harvey Weinstein were doing to women. “Mentoring.”

[The East Marches II]

It's a response to personal moral failings and societal upheavals by and large, yes. Hence why support for feminism has declined as it became more ideological and distant from the concerns of everyday women. At the moment, outside of the DNC, our principal concerns relate to safety. Nobody wants to be raped, beaten, or killed for being a woman. Those are pretty reasonable requests.

Then perhaps a gun is what you are looking for rather than to demand special laws only for ladies.

It depends on what you mean by this. I like that it's more socially acceptable for me to go to university or to work in a field of my choosing. The social upheavals that followed the World Wars and the shift on emphasis from the family to the unencumbered individual made it necessary for women to move into the workplace. Never mind issues like divorce, gendered violence, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it's always women who are the victims of violence aimed at them. What difference does it really make as to the uni stuff? Even being allowed in, being the majority of students and getting special kangaroo courts is still not enough. Women overwhelmingly don't choose certain careers anyway. If you had guts, even in the past you could have made it.

I actually agree with you to an extent on some of these issues. It doesn't make me less of a feminist.

It absolutely does. Such designs on the law are part and parcel of feminism. From all of the so called waves.

At least one writer at Jezebel of all outlets has called this insane. There's hardly a feminist consensus on this issue.

There absolutely is a consensus, so much so it's enshrined in law. Even in the States, men have to pay for illegitimate children.

I'm not in favor of this. I believe people should be represented based on merit. More women would be great, but, if we want to do other things instead, we should be allowed to do other things.

But your fellow feminists think so. It's one of things they lobby hardest for. They got their wish in Europe!

Again, that's not me. You're generalizing.

Then how can you call yourself a feminist? Frankly it seems they too are intent on self-suicide as a movement making common cause with Islamists.

My goal isn't equality. I'm a bit weird on that issue. I just don't like certain types of discrimination based on sex.

Glad to see one of them drops the charade.

TEM, that's an extreme solution to a set of problems that can be solved through other means. Nobody has to wind up disenfranchised. Except the commies.

What other means? You can't have frank political discussions with Feminists lest you be labeled a sexist or they get some crazy to throw accusations at you. Why bother negotiating with an enemy intent on your destruction if you deviate from their line? The only real answer is total political war.

[The East Marches II]

Me too is spawned then they act surprised when men won't be in a room alone with a woman for mentoring.

Yes, I'm sure that's all men like Harvey Weinstein were doing to women. “Mentoring.”

That's right, all men like Weinstein. Not normal guys afraid of getting slapped with an accusation and drummed out.

It's fine, true to form, they've done something very stupid and detrimental to their goal. The women promoted to meet the diversity quota will be more incompetent than they would otherwise if they had been properly trained up.

Not to mention prominent feminists here and in the public realm saying if a few innocents get hurt, it's for the greater good!

[Fahran]

Then perhaps a gun is what you are looking for rather than to demand special laws only for ladies.

The problems I mentioned emerge from caustic social values as much as from deviant behavior, as evidenced by the fact that education on consent had a demonstrable effect on the occurrence of sexual assault in a control group consisting of college-aged fraternity men. I expect further studies will confirm what we already know - that alcohol is often involved in sexual assault and that many people don't understand what qualifies as sexual assault. Of course, just teaching respect and honor would be a more conservative approach.

Yes, it's always women who are the victims of violence aimed at them.

In many cases, we're disproportionate targets. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do more to help male victims.

What difference does it really make as to the uni stuff? Even being allowed in, being the majority of students and getting special kangaroo courts is still not enough.

I was happy just to be let in and given an equal playing field. I don't care if women represent the majority in universities or in particular careers, and I don't want special kangaroo courts for anybody. Some feminists do. I disagree with those feminists. It doesn't make me any less of a feminist or any less of a lady.

Women overwhelmingly don't choose certain careers anyway. If you had guts, even in the past you could have made it.

It would have been harder to make it as a woman than as a man. And, again, I don't want equality of outcome.

It absolutely does. Such designs on the law are part and parcel of feminism. From all of the so called waves.

Feminism is a large movement. I don't have to agree with everybody else who professes feminist sensibilities. That's silly.

There absolutely is a consensus, so much so it's enshrined in law. Even in the States, men have to pay for illegitimate children.

And that should change. That said, I just posted an article from a relatively radical feminist who argued against France's ban on paternity testing.

But your fellow feminists think so. It's one of things they lobby hardest for. They got their wish in Europe!

I don't agree with all feminists, as I've stated. Besides that, those policies don't really work as the Swedish experiment has largely demonstrated.

Then how can you call yourself a feminist? Frankly it seems they too are intent on self-suicide as a movement making common cause with Islamists.

Because I support uplifting and empowering women and eliminating baseless discrimination and gendered violence against us/them. Those are all central tenants of feminism. You're talking about social justice warriors, not feminists. A "feminist" who doesn't seek to address the issue of sexual violence in Islamic culture isn't a real feminist.

Glad to see one of them drops the charade.

It's not female supremacy either, TEM. You should know better by now.

What other means? You can't have frank political discussions with Feminists lest you be labeled a sexist or they get some crazy to throw accusations at you.

Amending discriminatory laws and, to some extent, reimposing the loftiest of traditional values. I haven't called you a sexist or thrown any nasty accusations at you. I've been very civil, I think.

Why bother negotiating with an enemy intent on your destruction if you deviate from their line?

Given that I'd one day like to get married, I can't very well consider men as a sex my hegemonic enemy. I'm actually quite fond of masculinity personally. I won't go into that in greater detail because it's personal and hints at my dating preferences as opposed to the subject of conversation.

The only real answer is total political war.

Calm down, von Clausewitz.

[The Parkus Empire]

I didn't steal the term from Schmitt, I referenced it.

Whether or not feminism is a matter of female supremacy is irrelevant, feminism even as an egalitarian movement is not desirable. It has not benefited anything. I do agree addresssing major failings on the part of men in the appreciation of women was called for, such as strict prosecution of adultery on the part of men. But feminism was not the way to address that. Neither did feminism improve the role of the housewife, it rather made it more negative; being a housewife became politically incorrect.

Trying to converse with a feminist while objecting to being called a sexist is already an ideological concession, since it presumes sexism is bad. In fact, there is nothing unethical about, say, refusing to hire women at your workplace.

[Fahran]

I didn't steal the term from Schmitt, I referenced it.

You take me more seriously than I take myself, Herr Professor.

Whether or not feminism is a matter of female supremacy is irrelevant, feminism even as an egalitarian movement is not desirable. It has not benefited anything.

On the contrary, it has addressed a number of societal dysfunctions. I do concede that others have been created as a result, but I'm not certain we can reimpose traditional gender norms without dire consequences. In any case, the desirability of becoming a meek housewife and abstaining from my intellectual pursuits strikes me as limiting, both for myself and for society. Not to mention disruptive.

I do agree addressing major failings on the part of men in the appreciation of women was called for, such as strict prosecution of adultery on the part of men. But feminism was not the way to address that.

This was one of a wide number of problems. Had men, as heads of the household, and society addressed these misgivings adequately, feminism would not have succeeded exclusively on the basis of appeals to equality or liberty as abstractions. What has happened has happened. We must make sense of it and establish some semblance of order.

Neither did feminism improve the role of the housewife, it rather made it more negative; being a housewife became politically incorrect.

It actually contributed, together with neoliberalism, to making this mode of being next to impossible for many working class women.

Trying to converse with a feminist while objecting to being called a sexist is already an ideological concession, since it presumes sexism is bad. In fact, there is nothing unethical about, say, refusing to hire women at your workplace.

A good portion of sexism is bad. Believing that women are property or inferior for instance is definitely bad.

[The Parkus Empire]

I didn't steal the term from Schmitt, I referenced it.

You take me more seriously than I take myself, Herr Professor.

Whether or not feminism is a matter of female supremacy is irrelevant, feminism even as an egalitarian movement is not desirable. It has not benefited anything.

On the contrary, it has addressed a number of societal dysfunctions. I do concede that others have been created as a result, but I'm not certain we can reimpose traditional gender norms without dire consequences. In any case, the desirability of becoming a meek housewife and abstaining from my intellectual pursuits strikes me as limiting, both for myself and for society. Not to mention disruptive.

I do agree addressing major failings on the part of men in the appreciation of women was called for, such as strict prosecution of adultery on the part of men. But feminism was not the way to address that.

This was one of a wide number of problems. Had men, as heads of the household, and society addressed these misgivings adequately, feminism would not have succeeded exclusively on the basis of appeals to equality or liberty as abstractions. What has happened has happened. We must make sense of it and establish some semblance of order.

Neither did feminism improve the role of the housewife, it rather made it more negative; being a housewife became politically incorrect.

It actually contributed, together with neoliberalism, to making this mode of being next to impossible for many working class women.

Trying to converse with a feminist while objecting to being called a sexist is already an ideological concession, since it presumes sexism is bad. In fact, there is nothing unethical about, say, refusing to hire women at your workplace.

A good portion of sexism is bad. Believing that women are property or inferior for instance is definitely bad.

Marital rape, yes. Otherwise it has not fixed any dysfunction.


You must qualify "inferior". Do mean the chain-of-being?

[The Parkus Empire]

To say women can't be intellectual without feminism is also of course ridiculous. Abigail Adams was extremely intellectual and also had a strong belief in gender roles.

[Fahran]

Marital rape, yes. Otherwise it has not fixed any dysfunction.

Domestic violence is getting more attention as well. We're getting more out of women for society as a whole as well, though in general we've become less concerned as individuals with our communities of late. I'll reiterate that my feminism is a more conservative feminism, not the sort of feminism that TEM is presently railing against.

You must qualify "inferior". Do mean the chain-of-being?

I'm Jewish. I wouldn't really be able to credibly comment on a medieval Christian concept.

To say women can't be intellectual without feminism is also of course ridiculous. Abigail Adams was extremely intellectual and also had a strong belief in gender roles.

This is true, but women would be more restricted in their intellectual pursuits to a significant degree. I do not reject gender roles out of hand, mind you. I merely believe that women should be able to pursue careers and existence in public spheres.

[Proctopeo]

Marital rape, yes. Otherwise it has not fixed any dysfunction.

Domestic violence is getting more attention as well. We're getting more out of women for society as a whole as well, though in general we've become less concerned as individuals with our communities of late. I'll reiterate that my feminism is a more conservative feminism, not the sort of feminism that TEM is presently railing against.

Hey, as long as you recognize that it's a problem perpetrated by both men and women to both men and women, we're good.

[Fahran]

Hey, as long as you recognize that it's a problem perpetrated by both men and women to both men and women, we're good.

I mentioned that previously, with the qualification that women seem to be the principal victims statistically. That's why it's often framed as a women's issue. That doesn't mean abusing men is okay, that we should tolerate the abuse of men, or that we shouldn't actively try to discourage the abuse of men though.

[Diopolis]

To say women can't be intellectual without feminism is also of course ridiculous. Abigail Adams was extremely intellectual and also had a strong belief in gender roles.

Especially because women with a strong belief in gender roles seem to overwhelmingly become teachers(and eventually housewives, of course, but no one gets married at 18 anymore).

[Proctopeo]

Hey, as long as you recognize that it's a problem perpetrated by both men and women to both men and women, we're good.

I mentioned that previously, with the qualification that women seem to be the principal victims statistically. That's why it's often framed as a women's issue. That doesn't mean abusing men is okay, that we should tolerate the abuse of men, or that we shouldn't actively try to discourage the abuse of men though.

I'll have to look into the specifics on that, but it would be hard to get accurate numbers since abused males (regardless if it's a wife or a husband abusing them, mind) tend to either not be taken seriously or arrested.

[Diopolis]

Marital rape, yes. Otherwise it has not fixed any dysfunction.

Domestic violence is getting more attention as well. We're getting more out of women for society as a whole as well, though in general we've become less concerned as individuals with our communities of late. I'll reiterate that my feminism is a more conservative feminism, not the sort of feminism that TEM is presently railing against.

You must qualify "inferior". Do mean the chain-of-being?

I'm Jewish. I wouldn't really be able to credibly comment on a medieval Christian concept.

To say women can't be intellectual without feminism is also of course ridiculous. Abigail Adams was extremely intellectual and also had a strong belief in gender roles.

This is true, but women would be more restricted in their intellectual pursuits to a significant degree. I do not reject gender roles out of hand, mind you. I merely believe that women should be able to pursue careers and existence in public spheres.

*Monocle explodes in shock*
That is rejecting gender roles, you know.

[The Parkus Empire]

Marital rape, yes. Otherwise it has not fixed any dysfunction.

Domestic violence is getting more attention as well. We're getting more out of women for society as a whole as well, though in general we've become less concerned as individuals with our communities of late. I'll reiterate that my feminism is a more conservative feminism, not the sort of feminism that TEM is presently railing against.

You must qualify "inferior". Do mean the chain-of-being?

I'm Jewish. I wouldn't really be able to credibly comment on a medieval Christian concept.

To say women can't be intellectual without feminism is also of course ridiculous. Abigail Adams was extremely intellectual and also had a strong belief in gender roles.

This is true, but women would be more restricted in their intellectual pursuits to a significant degree. I do not reject gender roles out of hand, mind you. I merely believe that women should be able to pursue careers and existence in public spheres.

There is no such thing as conservative feminism.

A medieval Christian concept stemming from Aristotle and important in conservative theory, deep. John Adams subscribed to it

Intellectual pursuits by women is not always helpful, at least judging by feminist academics. Women should have academic options, but not that much control in academics

[Fahran]

There is no such thing as conservative feminism.

You'll find a number of conservative women who disagree with you on that.

Source.

A medieval Christian concept stemming from Aristotle and important in conservative theory, deep. John Adams subscribed to it.

While Aristotle is indeed a gud boi, I do have reservations about embracing everything he said. I'm inclined to point out that mingling of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish traditions was somewhat unique when contrasted to the mingling of Hellenistic philosophy and Christian traditions, despite many similarities. As a matter of course, the present model of the great chain of being was not derived entirely by Plato or Aristotle, but rather by the Neo-Platonists. Where would you say women fit into the hierarchy relative to men and why?

Intellectual pursuits by women is not always helpful, at least judging by feminist academics. Women should have academic options, but not that much control in academics

I'm not really certain women have hegemonic control in the academy. Most of my professors, with a decent number of exceptions, have been male. And, again, not all of us are Marxists or proponents of critical theory.

[The Parkus Empire]

There is no such thing as conservative feminism.

You'll find a number of conservative women who disagree with you on that.

Source.

A medieval Christian concept stemming from Aristotle and important in conservative theory, deep. John Adams subscribed to it.

While Aristotle is indeed a gud boi, I do have reservations about embracing everything he said. I'm inclined to point out that mingling of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish traditions was somewhat unique when contrasted to the mingling of Hellenistic philosophy and Christian traditions, despite many similarities. As a matter of course, the present model of the great chain of being was not derived entirely by Plato or Aristotle, but rather by the Neo-Platonists. Where would you say women fit into the hierarchy relative to men and why?

Intellectual pursuits by women is not always helpful, at least judging by feminist academics. Women should have academic options, but not that much control in academics

I'm not really certain women have hegemonic control in the academy. Most of my professors, with a decent number of exceptions, have been male. And, again, not all of us are Marxists or proponents of critical theory.

The list you linked has such figures as Sarah Palin, I mean, come come. Egalitarianism isn't conservative

Women don't always have hegemonic control, but where they do, in academics, it is not good.

[Luminesa]

Marital rape, yes. Otherwise it has not fixed any dysfunction.

Domestic violence is getting more attention as well. We're getting more out of women for society as a whole as well, though in general we've become less concerned as individuals with our communities of late. I'll reiterate that my feminism is a more conservative feminism, not the sort of feminism that TEM is presently railing against.

You must qualify "inferior". Do mean the chain-of-being?

I'm Jewish. I wouldn't really be able to credibly comment on a medieval Christian concept.

To say women can't be intellectual without feminism is also of course ridiculous. Abigail Adams was extremely intellectual and also had a strong belief in gender roles.

This is true, but women would be more restricted in their intellectual pursuits to a significant degree. I do not reject gender roles out of hand, mind you. I merely believe that women should be able to pursue careers and existence in public spheres.

This is without mentioning Abigail Adams liked to boss her husband around in her letters to him.

[Luminesa]

You'll find a number of conservative women who disagree with you on that.

Source.


While Aristotle is indeed a gud boi, I do have reservations about embracing everything he said. I'm inclined to point out that mingling of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish traditions was somewhat unique when contrasted to the mingling of Hellenistic philosophy and Christian traditions, despite many similarities. As a matter of course, the present model of the great chain of being was not derived entirely by Plato or Aristotle, but rather by the Neo-Platonists. Where would you say women fit into the hierarchy relative to men and why?


I'm not really certain women have hegemonic control in the academy. Most of my professors, with a decent number of exceptions, have been male. And, again, not all of us are Marxists or proponents of critical theory.

The list you linked has such figures as Sarah Palin, I mean, come come. Egalitarianism isn't conservative

Women don't always have hegemonic control, but where they do, in academics, it is not good.

“B-But Sarah Palin is one!”

Even in conservative feminism there are splinters of thought and understandings of what “feminism” means. To me feminism is preserving and respecting the dignity of the woman and the man, and being supportive toward families.

Furthermore, egalitarianism is conservative. Consider the fact that Christ Himself was an egalitarian, which made Him massively controversial during His ministry.

[The Parkus Empire]

The list you linked has such figures as Sarah Palin, I mean, come come. Egalitarianism isn't conservative

Women don't always have hegemonic control, but where they do, in academics, it is not good.

“B-But Sarah Palin is one!”

Even in conservative feminism there are splinters of thought and understandings of what “feminism” means. To me feminism is preserving and respecting the dignity of the woman and the man, and being supportive toward families.

Furthermore, egalitarianism is conservative. Consider the fact that Christ Himself was an egalitarian, which made Him massively controversial during His ministry.

Care to explain why women can't be Pope? Care to explain why you don't democratically elect your bishops?

[Fahran]

The list you linked has such figures as Sarah Palin, I mean, come come. Egalitarianism isn't conservative

A preoccupation with families, motherhood, femininity, and other such concepts, firmly entrenched amid conservative inclinations, strikes me as exceedingly conservative. These women, and I, have no intention of uprooting society on ideological grounds.

Women don't always have hegemonic control, but where they do, in academics, it is not good.

If you're talking about gender studies, you're correct. That's not necessarily an issue of women having power so much as bias and lack of rigor crippling the entire discipline though.

Care to explain why women can't be Pope? Care to explain why you don't democratically elect your bishops?

You might want to ask me the Jewish equivalent of that question. I suspect our answers will be more or less the same though.

This is without mentioning Abigail Adams liked to boss her husband around in her letters to him.

Honestly, Mrs Adams wore the pants in that household. Both of them were pretty amazing people for all their faults.

[Old Tyrannia]

Furthermore, egalitarianism is conservative.

It absolutely is not. The maintenance of social hierarchies, and their necessity to social order and civilisation, are fundamental principles of conservatism.

Consider the fact that Christ Himself was an egalitarian, which made Him massively controversial during His ministry.

Christ preached the equal worth of all people; He did not advocate equal social status for all people.

[Luminesa]

The list you linked has such figures as Sarah Palin, I mean, come come. Egalitarianism isn't conservative

A preoccupation with families, motherhood, femininity, and other such concepts, firmly entrenched amid conservative inclinations, strikes me as exceedingly conservative. These women, and I, have no intention of uprooting society on ideological grounds.

Women don't always have hegemonic control, but where they do, in academics, it is not good.

If you're talking about gender studies, you're correct. That's not necessarily an issue of women having power so much as bias and lack of rigor crippling the entire discipline though.

Care to explain why women can't be Pope? Care to explain why you don't democratically elect your bishops?

You might want to ask me the Jewish equivalent of that question. I suspect our answers will be more or less the same though.

This is without mentioning Abigail Adams liked to boss her husband around in her letters to him.

Honestly, Mrs Adams wore the pants in that household. Both of them were pretty amazing people for all their faults.

Adams had his issues, but generally was a pretty decent person.

Also, for Parkus, it’s rather condescending to continue trying to get her to answer Catholic questions, when she has stated she does not wish to answer questions about the Catholic faith because she does not think she can give a credible answer.

[The Parkus Empire]

The list you linked has such figures as Sarah Palin, I mean, come come. Egalitarianism isn't conservative

A preoccupation with families, motherhood, femininity, and other such concepts, firmly entrenched amid conservative inclinations, strikes me as exceedingly conservative. These women, and I, have no intention of uprooting society on ideological grounds.

Women don't always have hegemonic control, but where they do, in academics, it is not good.

If you're talking about gender studies, you're correct. That's not necessarily an issue of women having power so much as bias and lack of rigor crippling the entire discipline though.

Care to explain why women can't be Pope? Care to explain why you don't democratically elect your bishops?

You might want to ask me the Jewish equivalent of that question. I suspect our answers will be more or less the same though.

This is without mentioning Abigail Adams liked to boss her husband around in her letters to him.

Honestly, Mrs Adams wore the pants in that household. Both of them were pretty amazing people for all their faults.

Not sure where you get the idea feminism is about extolling motherhood and family, which have always been extolled. Even for you it's not about that, it's about establishing women in the professional and political spheres

[Luminesa]

Furthermore, egalitarianism is conservative.

It absolutely is not. The maintenance of social hierarchies, and their necessity to social order and civilisation, are fundamental principles of conservatism.

Consider the fact that Christ Himself was an egalitarian, which made Him massively controversial during His ministry.

Christ preached the equal worth of all people; He did not advocate equal social status for all people.

Egalitarianism in the sense that men and women are treated equally, which at the time they are not. I’m not calling for social hierarchies to be destroyed.

No, and I did not say He did. “Give onto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” says the Lord.