NationStates Jolt Archive

All right, I know I may not come to terms on everyone with this, but I still wanted to say something. . . I was getting bored.

My whole thought process started when I saw this website (the title gives it all away)

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/

I'm a guy. But I still found this site totally weird. They are basically belittling themselves! At first, I thought of the whole issue of feminism as "a bunch of whiners." But as I come to rexamine the issue, I realize that there is only a handful of really radical people that want to spell it womyn. There's only one or two that's out to kill men, or make them the bad guys in every situation. Just like any group, you have your resonable, and two extremes. I can see now that there are issues out there, under the surface, that might not get addressed, like equal pay, hiring for looks, etc. The only problem is, silly things like different spellings of words can tarnish the concept, and divert people away from realizing the true objective. Equality.

What's your take?

My take? It's such a relief to see a thread with 'feminism' in the title that doesn't go on a huge anti-feminism rant...and the fact that you acknowledged that radicals aren't the sum total of the movement...*bravo*

It's like taking a gander through Phyllis Schlafly's wet dreams. . .

was there something wrong with the site that you linked to that you can explain to me?

Personally, I think, on par with men, women should do whatever they please. :)

It's like taking a gander through Phyllis Schlafly's wet dreams. . .

Eh? I thought he was antifeminist?

was there something wrong with the site that you linked to that you can explain to me?

Well, here is a link on the website that they endorse.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/02/25/pf-1461517.html

Wait! You're being sarcastic. Ahah..ha...

I'm slow.

No, she's really not.

Take a look at the site again...it's not sayin women should be forced to stay home, it's saying they shouldn't be forced out of it if that's where they want to be.

It's not anti-feminist...it's anti-radical-feminist.

As far as feminism goes I had to write something on english... probably an opinion piece and recently a woman had been protesting seperate locker rooms for boys and girls in hockey (so there would be one as opposed to two). Why? She claimed her daughter was being discriminated against becasue of her gender. And started screaming "Feminism". Anyway, I was against her and as for the introduction I wrote about how the feminist movement was started by women who really wanted to make a difference and equality. But now... and then my mom found at and got mad at me for not having respect. That pissed me off a lot that first she went into my room then read any paper she happened to find and then she got mad because of my opinions and bothered me with it. Anway feminism: women should do what they want: stay at home, go to work, wear what they want. There are a few places where we are a little behind but I don't think our gender holds us back anymore. We can do what we want.

But that website was freaky, how did you come across it?

All right, I know I may not come to terms on everyone with this, but I still wanted to say something. . . I was getting bored.

My whole thought process started when I saw this website (the title gives it all away)

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/

I'm a guy. But I still found this site totally weird. They are basically belittling themselves! At first, I thought of the whole issue of feminism as "a bunch of whiners." But as I come to rexamine the issue, I realize that there is only a handful of really radical people that want to spell it womyn. There's only one or two that's out to kill men, or make them the bad guys in every situation. Just like any group, you have your resonable, and two extremes. I can see now that there are issues out there, under the surface, that might not get addressed, like equal pay, hiring for looks, etc. The only problem is, silly things like different spellings of words can tarnish the concept, and divert people away from realizing the true objective. Equality.

What's your take?

Feminism refers to the belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes.

Anybody who tells you all men are beasts is not a feminist. Anybody who tells you men are evil creatures, and that women need to rule the planet, is not a feminist. Anybody who tells you that one gender is better than the other is not a feminist. Feel free to ignore them.

Everyone knows that the answer to the women/wymen question is to refer to all men as 'momen'.

No, she's really not.

Take a look at the site again...it's not sayin women should be forced to stay home, it's saying they shouldn't be forced out of it if that's where they want to be.

It's not anti-feminist...it's anti-radical-feminist.

Not quite...

Here is another article they endorse, taken from this webpage
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/cat_index_14.shtml

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?885

I think that's anti feminist period.

This website (in the "Myths of Feminism Exploded section, at least) seems to reference the Bible far too much as a source of legal argument. I quote:

Myth #1. If it weren�t for the feminist movement, women who stay at home to serve their families (husbands, children, grandchildren and other extended family members) would be uneducated and essentially slaves to their households.
Fact: Biblical Christianity does not deny women the right to be educated at all. The women of the Bible who are held up as models are wise, quick on their feet and able to manage property and business matters with great skill. (See Myth #2 for references and further discussion of the property and business issue.) It isn�t biblical Christianity which assigns women inferior intelligence status or denies them the right to a good education; rather, it is the misdirected and unbiblical thinking of the so-called �Enlightenment� that made women out as pretty dolls or ornaments to be admired -- never trusted with concrete household affairs or the management of lands and property.


Their argument contains a major flaw: neither Europe nor America was governed under Biblical law. Finding examples of empowered women from the Bible has no relevance at all to the situations in the 19th century and onwards in the western world. Even if women were not given inferior status by the Bible, they certainly were by the society at the time. The fact that they use these references throughout much of the argument strikes me as intellectual dishonesty.

Not to mention that later they support the idea of a single vote for a single household rather than for a single adult, and that even though said vote could only be used by the woman in a marriage if her husband was incapacitated they still uphold it as an example of full women's suffrage, the implication being that full suffrage for women was unnecessary.


Meanwhile, I fully agree with what Bottle said. There is a big difference between a feminist and a female supremacist.

It would infuriate me if someone ever implied i could not or ought not get a job in whatever field I should choose.

However, it is equally appalling for being demeaned by a fellow classmate for saying that I hope to be a stay-at-home mom.

It isnt that one or the other is best. It's that I should have the freedom to choose.

erm, this might not have anything to do with the OP, but its my thougts on feminism

Meanwhile, I fully agree with what Bottle said. There is a big difference between a feminist and a female supremacist.

I agree with her as well. Some of the articles they post up there are kind of shifty, maybe trying to disguise submission and inequality as a good thing or something....

It's like taking a gander through Phyllis Schlafly's wet dreams. . .
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...........

Is there a puke smiley?

Not quite...

Here is another article they endorse, taken from this webpage
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/cat_index_14.shtml

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?885

I think that's anti feminist period.
yeah, I still don't see a problem, please explain.

Feminism refers to the belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes.

Anybody who tells you all men are beasts is not a feminist. Anybody who tells you men are evil creatures, and that women need to rule the planet, is not a feminist. Anybody who tells you that one gender is better than the other is not a feminist. Feel free to ignore them.

Then why does the title of the movement specifically single out one sex/gender?

I've met many women who consider themselves feminists. A good portion of them, I whole-heartedly agree with on their views regarding same. Some others don't even really understand what it means or what they think, other than it sounds cool or something. And some others are down right rabid and militant, and see nothing but a conspiracy by all men to enslave women inside their patriarchal society, etc ad nauseum.

Not everyone who claims to be feminist is a nut case (most aren't) but with any movement, the loudest and most shrill are often the ones that are most visible, and by default, have greater than their numerical share on shaping a movement's policy.

When someone I just met refers to themselves as a feminist, I don't immediately write them off as loony, though I might be skeptical of them. Usually, once the conversation moves on a pace, they turn out to be well-adjusted individuals who are able to readily recognise gains, articulate a positive (rather than punitive) position, and recognize that women should have the freedom to choose career, home, or some balance between the two as they see fit and not be punished by any group for their choice.

This website (in the "Myths of Feminism Exploded section, at least) seems to reference the Bible far too much as a source of legal argument. I quote:

They aren't making a legal argument.

From an article about submissive womanhood on the site:
There was no question, I say, as to the ability - her grasp of intellectual matters, her understanding, struck me immediately, and became more and more evident as I got to know them. But what I wish to say is that I do not know that I have ever seen anything more wonderful than the way in which that woman always put her husband into his true Scriptural position. She did it in a very clever and subtle way. She would put arguments into his mouth; but she always did so in such a way as to suggest that they were his, and not hers! There is an amusing aspect to the matter, but I am reporting it as one of the most moving and tremendous things I have ever experienced.
That is just sickening, the idea that a woman must pass off her own intellectual and logical abilities as that of her husband because it is her "duty." They stress equal gender dignity in various places on the site, and yet they state the above passage as being a powerful example of the woman's proper role as a creature without any dignity as acceptable to this idea? As a male without any sort of bias towards feminism and what not, I must say that I am deeply offended by the ideas put forth by that site.

I agree with her as well. Some of the articles they post up there are kind of shifty, maybe trying to disguise submission and inequality as a good thing or something....
Did you actually read them?

Not everything is a grand conspiracy. The second article does not talk about sumbission in the sense of doing whatever the husband says, etc...it's a religious argument. If a woman wants to follow it, so be it.

It becomes a problem if it is forced on someone.

yeah, I still don't see a problem, please explain.

Ok.. I find a problem with the fact women are expected to follow a "strong husband's" lead. I think marriage is more about both sides working together in everything. As opposed to the woman taking care of the children, and serving the house. I also disagree with the Catholic religion's view on women, about how they cannot become preists or really advance anywhere in the church. (I know that wasn't directly stated in the article, but it has some relavance, considering the heavy scripture quoting done in the website).

Obviously, you and I don't see the same. So we might have to just agree to disagree.

I have a problem with that page, for te simple reason that it stands against absolutely everything I achieved for myself and everything I hope to go on achieving.
It represents the exact ideas my mother had when she got married, it promotes the concepts that held her in an abusive marriage for 15 years, it endorses the very things that made my own childhood a living hell.

If people want to live their life that way, fine. But endorsing such a lifestyle just makes me feel sick.

As to the website, they are definitely pushing something.

While I think there are some legitimate criticisms of some feminist organizations and by extent the movement as a whole, this site is selling something other than intellectual and objective debate and criticism. They seem to me like traditionalist and moralist individuals trying to push their particular lifestyle. Feminism just happens to be opposed.

This website isn't so much about rationally criticising something with logical discourse, as it is trying to push a separate agenda. Kinda hard for me to take them seriuosly.

Then why does the title of the movement specifically single out one sex/gender?

Because it began as a movement to deal with the vast inequalities experienced by one gender. In many countries in the world, that vast inequality continues to exist. It isn't humanism...humanism is something different. Nor is feminism now, in the west, just about women...but why change the name?

For other parts of the world, issues that women face are more pressing than those facing men.

There is also a type of feminism that deals with feminism within a colonised context...fourth world feminism, where dealing with structural violence and racism supercede the need to deal with the colonial trasnplant of gender inequality.

Did you actually read them?

Not everything is a grand conspiracy. The second article does not talk about sumbission in the sense of doing whatever the husband says, etc...it's a religious argument. If a woman wants to follow it, so be it.

It becomes a problem if it is forced on someone.
From "Wives Submit to Their Husbands":
If any man, husband or otherwise, would dare to ask us to do something that the word of God wouldn't sanction, then we must refuse to do it.
So, in other words, other than sinful behavior, wives have to do whatever their husband says. That ain't so great, in my opinion...

Ok.. I find a problem with the fact women are expected to follow a "strong husband's" lead. I think marriage is more about both sides working together in everything. As opposed to the woman taking care of the children, and serving the house. I also disagree with the Catholic religion's view on women, about how they cannot become preists or really advance anywhere in the church. (I know that wasn't directly stated in the article, but it has some relavance, considering the heavy scripture quoting done in the website).

Obviously, you and I don't see the same. So we might have to just agree to disagree.
I choose to submit to my husband, so yeah, we might have to agree to disagree if you don't understand why someone would make that choice.

I don't have a problem with me not being able to "advance anywhere in the church" because it's not my goal, nor my place, it's fine with me to worry about my personal relationship with God, and how I can live my life to glorify Him, I am not prideful, I don't need a "position in the church", religion is not a career for me.

From "Wives Submit to Their Husbands":

So, in other words, other than sinful behavior, wives have to do whatever their husband says. That ain't so great, in my opinion...
That depends entirely on what you consider the word of God to be.

Listen, if a woman, deeply faithful, feels that she should, because of her religion, submit to her husband, she should have that choice. Again, if it is forced on her, then this is wrong. But also, do not assume that this submission is going to be inherently abusive. It is going to depend on the relationship, on the faith, and on the individuals involved.

Someone telling me I must do this would cause offense to me. Someone telling me this is what they have chosen would simply cause me to say, 'different strokes....'

I choose to submit to my husband, so yeah, we might have to agree to disagree if you don't understand why someone would make that choice.

I don't have a problem with me not being able to "advance anywhere in the church" because it's not my goal, nor my place, it's fine with me to worry about my personal relationship with God, and how I can live my life to glorify Him, I am not prideful, I don't need a "position in the church", religion is not a career for me.
While I can't say that I would support such a choice to submit to your husband, I would say that it's part of the idea of feminism that, nevertheless, that is your choice to make.

That depends entirely on what you consider the word of God to be.

Listen, if a woman, deeply faithful, feels that she should, because of her religion, submit to her husband, she should have that choice. Again, if it is forced on her, then this is wrong. But also, do not assume that this submission is going to be inherently abusive. It is going to depend on the relationship, on the faith, and on the individuals involved.

Someone telling me I must do this would cause offense to me. Someone telling me this is what they have chosen would simply cause me to say, 'different strokes....'
You're right but it still makes me queasy.

While I can't say that I would support such a choice to submit to your husband, I would say that it's part of the idea of feminism that, nevertheless, that is your choice to make.
why wouldn't you support my choice?

You're right but it still makes me queasy.

Same feeling here.

Did you actually read them?

Not everything is a grand conspiracy. The second article does not talk about sumbission in the sense of doing whatever the husband says, etc...it's a religious argument. If a woman wants to follow it, so be it.

It becomes a problem if it is forced on someone.

I found a quote in my link (yes, I did read, but perhaps not carefully enough.)

But feminism went wrong by trying to make women like men-not just equal to men, but like men, and competitive with men.

Well, here they lie, by saying feminism was meant to compete with men, then they make the equality of men and women sound like an outlandishly strange idea.

*In a whining voice* Debating is too hard.

You're right but it still makes me queasy.
So does tripe soup...I avoid it, but others just LOVE it.

I found a quote in my link (yes, I did read, but perhaps not carefully enough.)

Well, here they lie, by saying feminism was meant to compete with men, then they make the equality of men and women sound like an outlandishly strange idea.

*In a whining voice* Debating is too hard.I think perhaps they are, in their attack on radical feminism (though they dub it simply feminism, erroneously), they have focused in on a few that have speculated on doing away with physical differences, or on becoming completely equal to men in the physical sense. Who knows. Most attacks on feminism work from a false premise.

Then again, it is certainly true that women who have chosen to stay home are at times ridiculed for their choice. That is as wrong as ridiculing a woman for joining the workforce.

While I can't say that I would support such a choice to submit to your husband, I would say that it's part of the idea of feminism that, nevertheless, that is your choice to make.
Very nicely put. Your choice as against it being your place.

But honestly, why all the discussion? The title of the page is "Biblical Womanhood and Christian Living." I would no sooner expect to agree with the positions on such a page than I would with the NRA's on gun control.

So does tripe soup...I avoid it, but others just LOVE it.
Fools one and all.

I choose to submit to my husband, so yeah, we might have to agree to disagree if you don't understand why someone would make that choice.

I don't have a problem with me not being able to "advance anywhere in the church" because it's not my goal, nor my place, it's fine with me to worry about my personal relationship with God, and how I can live my life to glorify Him, I am not prideful, I don't need a "position in the church", religion is not a career for me.

Well, the important part of an arguement is to listen to the other side.

So I must ask, m'lady:
Why did you make the choice to be submissive to your husband?

And with the second part:
What about other women? What is they want to lead a prayer service? Certainly you agree there are women that would want to? Don't you think there is an issue wth the fact they won't get the opportunity?

Well, the important part of an arguement is to listen to the other side.

So I must ask, m'lady:
Why did you make the choice to be submissive to your husband?
I believe it is God's plan for my place in the family. ;)

And with the second part:
What about other women? What is they want to lead a prayer service? Certainly you agree there are women that would want to? Don't you think there is an issue wth the fact they won't get the opportunity?
I lead prayer service, I teach Bible study, I teach Sunday School. These things are not denied to me, I can minister to the people in my church. I am not able to be the pastor, the main leading force in the church, it's not my place.

(btw I am not Catholic, just in case we got confused earlier)

Then again, it is certainly true that women who have chosen to stay home are at times ridiculed for their choice. That is as wrong as ridiculing a woman for joining the workforce.

I can agree with that.

I am completely in support of any movement that seeks to level the playing field between different groups. However, it is when groups take it to far and advocate transfering power to the other side that I take umbridge.

I object to the feminist belief that women are more suited to rule. While it is true that men are generally more disposed to violence than women, it is also true that women are generally more disposed towards authoritarianism than men. An all-female Amazonia would not be a Utopia, it would be an Orwellian land where autocratic rule goes directly unopposed. Just as an all-male society would be lawless and brutal.

Men and Women are equally stupid and nasty. We make up two sides of a coin that is able to buy a society of violent oppression or passive liberty, depending on how Society organises itself.

(btw I am not Catholic, just in case we got confused earlier)

Whoops. My bad, I was referring to Catholics.

My take is that equality is fine, but feminine superiority, which the radical feminists (emphasis on radicals, darn good point there) seem to want, is a problem. Also a problem is women (particularly girls) who are tomboys, and want to be respected as men, but who still insist that the door be held open for them. Case and point is the "I can hit you, you can't hit me" attitude that some women have. If you're a tomboy, then by God, you're a guy as far as I'm concerned. If you're a girley girl, then by God, you're a girl as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't even care if you switch between them when it suits you: you just can't be both.

I object to the feminist belief that women are more suited to rule.
I'll just stop you there. That isn't feminism. Sorry.

Gender equity, not superiority.

I'm going to agree there, equality is not superiority. Female shovanism is no worse than male

My take is that equality is fine, but feminine superiority, which the radical feminists (emphasis on radicals, darn good point there) seem to want, is a problem. Also a problem is women (particularly girls) who are tomboys, and want to be respected as men, but who still insist that the door be held open for them. Case and point is the "I can hit you, you can't hit me" attitude that some women have. If you're a tomboy, then by God, you're a guy as far as I'm concerned. If you're a girley girl, then by God, you're a girl as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't even care if you switch between them when it suits you: you just can't be both.
so a woman can not have "out of the average" interests and still want to be treated politely and respectfully?

The whole idea that women out there expect equality, but also expect preferential treatment is ALSO really misleading.

Opening a door, or holding it open is polite, regardless of the gender of the person passing through it.

Society determines 'who pays' for a meal or a date. In the West, it's often a shared responsibility.

A lot of men, usually young men, complain that women want to be treated equally, but better too...but 'better' once defined usually only refers to basic polite behaviour.

I agree that no one should be hitting anyone without that person's consent. Women hitting men isn't feminism. It's just rude.

I'll just stop you there. That isn't feminism. Sorry.

Gender equity, not superiority.

Okay, you caught me, I skipped those eight keystrokes needed to stick 'radical' into that sentence. That's what I meant, believe me.

Okay, you caught me, I skipped those eight keystrokes needed to stick 'radical' into that sentence. That's what I meant, believe me.
I believe you, but don't leave it out please.

I don't think there are many people that support a very radical feminist agenda.

why wouldn't you support my choice?
Because just as you believe that it is the role of women to be submissive, I believe that it is imperative that women find independence and leadership in themselves.

Because just as you believe that it is the role of women to be submissive, I believe that it is imperative that women find independence and leadership in themselves.
I guess it would depend on what you mean by independence, and leadership.

All right, I know I may not come to terms on everyone with this, but I still wanted to say something. . . I was getting bored.

My whole thought process started when I saw this website (the title gives it all away)

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/

What's your take?

Most women don't support NOW; that doesn't mean they are "bashing themselves." Many women support the traditional notions of femininity. These notions are not represented by NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood or other "feminist" organizations, many of which are not about women's rights, but are simply New Left/radical organizations.

On a larger scale, what is wonderful about raising equality to a first principle? There are some areas where equality is a virtue, but it is not a universal good. We are equal before God, as God doesn't distinguish between His children. We should expect equal treatment under law; persons in similar situations ought to be treated in similar manner before the law.

To go from here and elevate equality to a first principle is serious error. After all, the Revolution was about liberty, not equality.

A Model of Christian Charity, which was written by the first Governor of Massachusetts, starts out with an explanation of the virtue of inequality:

GOD ALMIGHTY in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in submission.

1st Reason. First to hold conformity with the rest of His world, being delighted to show forth the glory of his wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures, and the glory of His power in ordering all these differences for the preservation and good of the whole, and the glory of His greatness....

2nd Reason. Secondly, that He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of his Spirit: first upon the wicked in moderating and restraining them....

3rd Reason. Thirdly, that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection. From hence it appears plainly that no man is made more honorable than another or more wealthy etc., out of any particular and singular respect to himself, but for the glory of his Creator and the common good of the creature, man....

We are equal before God, as God doesn't distinguish between His children. We should expect equal treatment under law; persons in similar situations ought to be treated in similar manner before the law.



I thought you were against religion. Have we switched characters again?

A lot of men, usually young men, complain that women want to be treated equally, but better too...but 'better' once defined usually only refers to basic polite behaviour.

It's also true that most young women are for equality, but when it comes to matters of dating, etc they'll say "I'm old fashioned, I think the man should make the first move/ask me out", the real reason being that they're too nervous to do it themselves.

My take is that equality is fine, but feminine superiority, which the radical feminists (emphasis on radicals, darn good point there) seem to want, is a problem. Also a problem is women (particularly girls) who are tomboys, and want to be respected as men, but who still insist that the door be held open for them. Case and point is the "I can hit you, you can't hit me" attitude that some women have. If you're a tomboy, then by God, you're a guy as far as I'm concerned. If you're a girley girl, then by God, you're a girl as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't even care if you switch between them when it suits you: you just can't be both.

I would say that you are missing the point: they aren't operating out of a premise that feminists = female superiority. They're operating off the premise that an entire seperate sphere of female existence wouldn't be unequal. In other words, it isn't so much as "Just Say No" to the radical feminism so much as it's "Just Say No" to the Feminine Mystique and the basic operating principle for the last 50 years of American legistlative and legal jurisprudence: seperate is inherently unequal. As such, it isn't a matter of redefining feminism so much as pointing out how much these nutbags are off their rocker. The world is a better place for recognizing that women are people too and should have the option of staying home or not; these people don't see that.

It's also true that most young women are for equality, but when it comes to matters of dating, etc they'll say "I'm old fashioned, I think the man should make the first move/ask me out", the real reason being that they're too nervous to do it themselves.

To be fair, it does take some courage to do that. And it's not really furthered by the fact that if a girl does that, it easily gets misinterpreted. Happened to me a number of times... :rolleyes: