Our Shared Shelf discussion
Intersectional Feminism
>
What do you think of Emma Watson as a feminist?
date
newest »
newest »
Age does not determine knowledge or value to a particular subject, experience and character do."it's not the years but the mileage"
-Indiana Jones
Ross wrote: "Age does not determine knowledge or value to a particular subject, experience and character do."it's not the years but the mileage"
-Indiana Jones"
Kudos to that. It was my friend who is three younger than I am, when she was 14-15 she taught me so much about gender identity that I haven't heard from anyone else. Like, she set me on the feminist road.
Ross wrote: "Age does not determine knowledge or value to a particular subject, experience and character do."it's not the years but the mileage"
-Indiana Jones"
Well I have to anwer to a quote from a movie with a quote from a movie.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for." - Obi Wan Kenobi
"Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers!" Arnold Schwarzenegger from 'Last Action Hero'!
MeerderWörter wrote: "Kudos to that. It was my friend who is three younger than I am, when she was 14-15 she taught me so much about gender identity that I haven't heard from anyone else. Like, she set me on the feminist road. "Well my good seaofwords. I will not comment at all on that, not because I dont have something to say, or I dont want to argue with you. I would. However because I like your will to make things better. I really like that. So I will not say anything. You go an fight your fight. But then again letting you march like that without even a warning about what lies ahead will be cruel from my side will it not?
"your side" Georgios against we stand for on OSS refreshingly honest of you anti feminists seldom show the courage of there convictions even by mistake.
Georgios wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "Kudos to that. It was my friend who is three younger than I am, when she was 14-15 she taught me so much about gender identity that I haven't heard from anyone else. Like, she..."Believe me, I fight battles you haven't even heard of. And no, I won't tell you about them.
MeerderWörter wrote: "Believe me, I fight battles you haven't even heard of. And no, I won't tell you about them. "Fine by me. However I cannot do anything for your apparent lack of humilty. That's what your parents and your school should have taken care of.
Georgios please refrain form personal insults tolerance for your obvious lack of self awareness will only stretch so far.
Ross wrote: "Georgios please refrain form personal insults tolerance for your obvious lack of self awareness will only stretch so far.":-D You have a sense of humor too I see Ross.
If we can't examine the words/actions of our role models critically, how can we examine our own words and actions critically?
Elizabeth, role models do not chose to be such they are people first so all critic should be tampered with compassion I feel. Same should be applied to critic of oneself also.
Ross wrote: "Elizabeth, role models do not chose to be such they are people first so all critic should be tampered with compassion I feel. Same should be applied to critic of oneself also."Well... Since you said that I am examining my Role Models now (In no particular order):
1) Barrack Obama
2) Konstantinos Karamanlis.
3) Mikis Theodorakis.
4) Manolis Glezos.
5) Socrates
6) Christ (I would like to think that he is a role model for me, the way I see him however not the way that vest majority of people see him)
7) Robert Oppenheimer - For his approach towards technology and techological achievements. However I feel I know very little about him and would like to know more.
8) Martin Luther King, again someone I dont know as much as I would like to.
There is a number of Military personalities that I Also like in no particular order.
Alex. You know... The only person in the entire History of mankind that deserves the tittle "Great".
1) Georgy Zhukov.
2) Heinz Guderian.
3) Dwight Eisenhower.
4) Omar Bradley.
Do you note something Ross? That all of them are either dead or very very old. The only exception is Barrack Obama.
I must say however that I do pay attention to opinions of other people young and old, that I consider that they have something to say. One of them is indeed Mrs Emma Watson. Another would be Natalie Portman although she is more absorbed in her family lately. In general I like to hear the opinions of many other people from the arts, sciences and politics. However I cannot call any of them a "Role model"
But to say that Emma Watson she is a role model at the age of 27... well that's just plain ridicoulous or a marketing trick. And if certain people keep repeating that then they think of us as fools and thats where we will take real offense.
Just like Solon said to Kroisus "Μηδενα προ του τέλους μακάριζε." - Do not call anyone Blessed untill you see their end.
Seriously Ross. I am a bit confused. Why do you deify Mrs Watson in this Manner?
Sorry for the late response Georgios, it was a late day yesterday after work so I was far too tired to jump online for anything. Anyway, to answer your post. “James there are a couple of issues that need tobe adressed here. First of all Mrs Watson is only 27 and that in terms of poltics is rather young. “
She is young but that does not mean she is uninformed. In fact, being 20 years older than her I would say she is probably more involved in general politics than even myself whether by choice or simply by interest.
As far as her choosing Hillary because she is a woman is simply speculation. Doesn’t mean you are wrong but there is no way to really prove that because Emma has never opened up about why she wanted Hillary to win. As I stated with Ashkan Emma has never said anything that would lead me to believe that she chose Hillary based on gender. Do I think women were excited at the possibility of the first female President in history? Absolutely.
But that doesn’t really constitute the only reason for why Emma herself wanted Hillary to win so in the end that is only going to be individual theories or speculation and not fact. We will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue as it cant be proven at this time one way or another.
“If you ask me the criterion in politics should be political accumen, political speech (meaning political logos, political thought) character, ability, honesty and a number of other things. Hillary was in the Gray area for quite some time, not to mention that the many celebrity endorsements actually drove people away. It was a bad campaign for her.”
I don’t disagree with any of this. At the end of the day all those things should come into play but for anyone who has paid attention to American politics the last 50 or so years one could say that every President the US has had has had questionable characters. Personally, I think the US government is very corrupt from the top on down. American citizens have allowed them to go unchecked with a lack of accountability and ultimately that falls on us as citizens.
This past election I tried to persuade people to try and choose a different path, tried to get people to go for another option (I voted for Johnson) and while that option may have had some concerns of their own I felt it would have been a better move than the two main options in Hillary and Trump. But, people either don’t care and/or are too stubborn with their political identities to try anything different and I think that’s unfortunate because ultimately it’s the American people that suffer the consequences.
“"Why did I follow a 27 year old and a redhead girl political criterion, instead of my own? I know politics much more than they do". If you ask me, now that I look back at the election the best choice for America would have been Sanders. Instead because Hillary used influence and her power within the establisment you got Trump. Well congratulations. I am a little pissed at that.”
Well, if you voted for Hillary because of someone else than you didn’t follow your own heart. You didn’t do your own research and sadly that falls on you, not Emma or anyone else you were influenced by. Emma is very inspirational, she is an incredibly bright and wonderful person but even I know that not everything she believes in or does is right for me as a person. While its great to admire EW people have to learn to separate their fandom from admiration of the person. You cant let anyone else choose what is right for you, you have to choose what is in your own best interest as a human being and your own right to a quality life on this planet.
“I though "Yes Mrs Watson might have all the good intentions in the world. But what if she is wrong about feminism?" You can see the danger in the responses above. “
Well, how best to answer this? I don’t think it’s a matter of her being wrong about feminism honestly. Having been a part of OSS and these discussions since its inception ive learned that there are varying degrees of feminism, some more radical than others. Yes, there are some people who will believe anything a celebrity or other activist says. But does it mean they are following blindly or is it that they just believe that what the celebrity and activist says resonates with them personally? I know the kind of people you are talking about when it comes to over the top defensiveness. And those people will try and try to silence others from having a voice but thankfully those people in my opinion are in the minority and not in a position to force that on anyone here.
I don’t think its possible to be wrong about gender equality. There are inequalities all over the world and to pretend that there isn’t any would be disingenuous at best. To what magnitude? Im not sure. Im not sure there is really a definitive way to gauge that but we do know it exists. Yes, there are pockets and versions of feminism that I simply do not endorse and because those pockets exist in feminism is the reason why I wont personally label myself one. But ive also learned that it isn’t necessary for me to do so in order to support gender equality. I don’t have to align myself with something if I feel it counters my view of what gender equality (or in this case feminism) should represent.
As with the speculation with why Emma was hoping for Hillary to win there is just as much speculation in my opinion about where Emma falls on the feminism spectrum. Is she a radical feminist? Is she more progressive? I really don’t know. Most of what I see her deal with within the movement is by interviewing other activists and authors so I simply don’t know outside of what little she puts out there. But I think on its surface I cant say she is wrong about feminism because there are inequalities out there so the basic message of feminism isn’t the problem for me, it’s the members who have their own agendas and extremist views that are the issue for me.
From another post you had,
“But to say that Emma Watson she is a role model at the age of 27... well that's just plain ridicoulous or a marketing trick. “
I don’t think its ridiculous at all. Emma is mature beyond her years and while im positive she is not perfect (no human being is) the things she tries to do to set examples for young women and even men makes her a very positive role model to me. I have criticisms of her at times with her feminist viewpoints and acting work but by and large I admire the shit out of her as a person. Even some of my own childhood heroes don’t even measure up to her in a lot of ways. While I know the lines of a role model vs idolization can often be blurred I do not think it discredits her from being a role model to people at any age. The true trick is just weeding out those who idolize vs those who truly feel she is an inspiration to them.
Sorry for the long post but i knew it was going to be lengthy and i couldnt do it from my phone yesterday. lol
James wrote: "I don’t think its ridiculous at all. Emma is mature beyond her years and while im positive she is not perfect (no human being is) the things she tries to do to set examples for young women and even men makes her a very positive role model to me. I have criticisms of her at times with her feminist viewpoints and acting work but by and large I admire the shit out of her as a person. Even some of my own childhood heroes don’t even measure up to her in a lot of ways. While I know the lines of a role model vs idolization can often be blurred I do not think it discredits her from being a role model to people at any age. The true trick is just weeding out those who idolize vs those who truly feel she is an inspiration to them. "About the Role model thing. I absolutely disagree. Admiring and being fond of someone is very very different than having them as role models.
Role models are Larger than life and usually they are either dead or near the end of their life so others can see it and appreciate it in ots full perspective. The problem is that if Mrs Watson is a role model for younger generations then that's due to celebrity status. She may become one later but she is not one yet. The probelm is, that if we consider her a role mode she is then diverging attention from actual role models such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Marie Curie, Hypatia etc. Now how fair is it to say that Mrs Watson is at the same level as Marie Curie? To do so, will simply be dimunitive for Marie Curie and misleading for new generations.
I am not saying that she is not a smart and inteligent young woman. All I am saying is that calling her a "role model" is not right, its misleading for current generations and more important of all this is problematic due to actual marketing campagns and PR issues.
In addition anyone who percieves themselve as a role model (i dont think that mrs Watson sees herself as such) then that person is a case of messianic syndrome. And I dont have to tell you how problematic that is.
I will answer at some other points in the post later today or tommorow.
As an atheist I don't deify anything. I admire Emma and she won my respect. In time if you are lucky Georgios you will find that is enough.As for being a role model that is something bestowed by others on someone setting an example of admiral behavior, encouraging people to be there best selves.
Simple answer I like the lady so will you one day i think when you mature and start thinking for yourself more.
I am not a nihilist Georgios you need to understand the concepts of the words you use.
Atheism is a stance where you do not believe in gods. people are the ones good or bad making the world.personally I see that as a positive we all of us can shape our world.
that being said being a atheist is an absence of belief not a alternate belief it does not directly lead to anything. inevitably or otherwise.
yes Georgios it does not require a God concept to have a moral and ethical code. people evolved these traits as we did many others.That is how I see it I have no problem with other peoples beliefs as long as the don't harm others.
Now, whether atheism leads to nihilism or not, is maybe better discussed in another topic. And please, keep it civil, everyone.
At any rate. I have deleted all my comments because the conversation has derailed beyond the scope of what we were actually discussing to the metaphysical. That was well beyond the scope of expanding the conversation. If you want Ross we can discuss it on another thread.MeerderWorter everything was civil.
Georgios wrote: "At any rate. I have deleted all my comments because the conversation has derailed beyond the scope of what we were actually discussing to the metaphysical. That was well beyond the scope of expandi..."That's why I said "keep it civil". I didn't say it wasn't civil.
She is an incredibly intelligent, talented woman who has been working hard since childhood. She has taken all the opportunities she has and used them to give voice to issues that need to be heard. Due to her being so well known, I'm sure she bears the brunt of much criticism in the fight for equality. She is a wonderful role model, and a great representative for the word 'feminist'.
Taylor-Marie wrote: "She is an incredibly intelligent, talented woman who has been working hard since childhood. She has taken all the opportunities she has and used them to give voice to issues that need to be heard. ..."Well every feminist is criticized but Emma is 10 times more. Because some people don't see her like a human being but like a thing just because she is very smart and successful women.
Agnes wrote: "Taylor-Marie wrote: "She is an incredibly intelligent, talented woman who has been working hard since childhood. She has taken all the opportunities she has and used them to give voice to issues th..."Which is why we need to fight back even more. A human being is a human being that deserves respect and we shall all meet each other with generosity. Sadly, this cannot be fulfilled for everyone...
I just finished a book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Dr. Bryon Sykes. It explains the genetic of Mitochondrial DNA which is carried throughout all humanity on the maternal side. Women determine the continuance of the species. Some men are threatened by women so some lawmakers create laws to demean women as a way of maintaining superiority due to fear. This makes no sense since women do determine the continuation of the species. What a woman does with her body is her right just as it for men. We should insist that men include their sexual history and any proof of treatment for STDs on job applications or when applying for housing. I found an article from Newsweek that a legislator in Missouri is trying to pass a bill that requires women to tell their employer if they have had an abortion or are on birth control. This is against a woman's rights. He wants this to be part of the back ground check. This is an example of the reason that we must continue to fight for our rights and assert ourselves. I think Emma Watson only wants equality for all women. Here is the link to the article.
http://www.newsweek.com/womens-rights...
"The Seven Daughters of Eve" is the first geneticist book that I ever read.But I must disagree with you on the following:
I think it's horrible to check for the sexual history of a man or proof of treatment when it comes to STDs when it is for job applications or housing. That violates that person's right to patient confidentiality in my opinion. That's a serious issue.
And concerning Emma:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9...
I quite agree with you re: personal information. My point was that the article in Newsweek states that the Missouri legislature has submitted a bill:Missouri’s Senate is considering legislation that would allow employers and landlords to discriminate against women who use birth control or have had abortions. The bill, which has the support of the state’s governor, Eric Greitens, was approved by the Missouri House Tuesday.
http://www.newsweek.com/womens-rights...
This is also against a woman's rights as well as patient confidentiality. So if it's fair for a woman, then it should also be fair for a man to present his information. This is medieval and states that women are second class citizens at the mercy of men
This is the 21st century and shouldn't even have been an issue for a woman.
MaryJane wrote: "This makes no sense since women do determine the continuation of the species."What were you saying? That are no extremists, totalitarian and self righteous ideas among feminists? MaryJane is saying that women on their own are responsible for the continuation of the species. Hello? There is also this guy called Dad! He does play an important role too you know.
And if you say you dont need a dad and you can impregnate yourselves by artioficial impregnation, i will simple say that this is the result of nihilist thought and all that you are is a damn nazi.
Also Mara jane seems to be drawing conclusions from a book that she read, without having the ability to make them in a rationalist manner. Thats why, philosophy and the moral frameworks that derive from that are reserved for people that have the proper education. For everyone else religion is the moral famework that they should rely upon.
I am not saying that the moral framework of religions is correct. What I am saying is that it is better than the no framework of nihilism/Atheism and less than the philosophical framework. I must also note that the big issue with the religious moral frameworks is that they have not kept up with the needs of their societies. They are largely out of date. This needs to be adressed.
Georgios wrote: "MaryJane wrote: "This makes no sense since women do determine the continuation of the species."What were you saying? That are no extremists, totalitarian and self righteous ideas among feminists?..."
There is no need to attack MaryJane like that.
MaryJane wrote: "I quite agree with you re: personal information. My point was that the article in Newsweek states that the Missouri legislature has submitted a bill:Missouri’s Senate is considering legislation t..."
This piece of legislation is just empty intimidation. When asked a question that is wildly inappropriate, the only good response is to lie. Every woman who had an abortion will deny it and there is no way to verify the information because medical records are confidential and protected by law. It is usually best to just treat this type of absurdity as just that.
MeerderWörter wrote: "There is no need to attack MaryJane like that."Why not call something for what it is when you see it?
Holly wrote: "This piece of legislation is just empty intimidation. When asked a question that is wildly inappropriate, the only good response is to lie. Every woman who had an abortion will deny it and there is no way to verify the information because medical records are confidential and protected by law. It is usually best to just treat this type of absurdity as just that."I will agree that this is indeed intimidation. However the real question is WHY is this intimidation occuring? Is it maybe because of the polarisation that surrounds the issue of abortion in US? And why is this polarisation occuring? Is it maybe because of the methods used to demand abortions? Methods that are indeed used by pressure groups? And you want Feminism in schools?
By the way my position is that a woman should have the choice to do an abortion within the first twelve weeks of the pregancy. After that abortions should be illegal unless the life of the woman is at at stake. The cost of an abortion should be covered by the health insurance that she has.
There is one way to avoid abortions: Use a damn condom!
Georgios wrote: "MaryJane wrote: "This makes no sense since women do determine the continuation of the species."What were you saying? That are no extremists, totalitarian and self righteous ideas among feminists?..."
I agree that a ale sperm is needed for fertilization of an egg cell. The point is that women carry the pregnancy. They are the ones who bring the child into the world. We should have equal rights with men as far as continuing the species of man. We are not 2nd class citizens. We aren't to be coerced and possessed by men who find us threatening to their egos. I remember the feminism of the 70's and the ERA. It was defeated because of the political current and fears of men. We did accomplish a lot in the workplace as well as in our interactions on a personal level with men in the years after. Now it seems we are going back in time. If this article which is demeaning and demoralizing to us as women can bring about debate then it is worth the effort. The more we know of issues and bills such as this the better we can fight for our equality. We are equal to men and we must keep reminding them that we won't settle for anything less.
MaryJane wrote: "We are equal to men and we must keep reminding them that we won't settle for anything less. "The fact that women are equal to men goes without saying and its been the case since 1920. But the second part of your sentence does tell me that what you want is polarisation. And thats why you are constructing enemies. And when you create polarisation then much of the outcome will be negative. However you are trying to create even further tension by implementing public outrage.
The article is written by a feminist. And it is inflammatory. With these tactics Its no wonder that large portions of society are fighting you back. Maybe if you were less of a "cry wolf" kind of group, then the public may have seen you in a differentl manner.
Georgios wrote: "MaryJane wrote: "We are equal to men and we must keep reminding them that we won't settle for anything less. "The fact that women are equal to men goes without saying and its been the case since ..."
Georgios, women aren't equal to men in our society.
Thank you, MeerderWorter for the comment. We aren't equal in our society. As far as polarization, that isn't the issue. The issue is that men have the audacity in the 21st century to even consider such a bill and their governor supports it. This article appeared in "Newsweek, which is a national magazine, well known and respected for many years. That was why it is of such concern.I also apologize for not being able to put the correct inflection in you name. I'm writing on my laptop and I can't insert the inflection.
MaryJane wrote: "Thank you, MeerderWorter for the comment. We aren't equal in our society. As far as polarization, that isn't the issue. The issue is that men have the audacity in the 21st century to even consider ..."I never bother with Umlaute that much... Meerder is totally fine:)
MeerderWörter wrote: "The issue is that men have the audacity in the 21st century to even consider such a bill and their governor supports it"No it's not MEN that have the audacity in the 21st century to support such a bill. It's a number of people MEN AND WOMEN that are against abortions. Not only Men. Women too. I am a man and I do not agree with such a law. You tend to oversee that. Because you are sexist and biased against men. And because if you do see that then the "us vs them" mentality goes away, the polarisation ends, solutions are found and you have nothing to complain about. And yes because of that polarisation is exactly the issue.
Its like these cold war fanatics. Thirty years after the end of cold war they still see things as US vs Russia, no matter how much the world has changed since then. And they completely fail to even describe whats going on in the world today because of that.
And yes men and women are equal before the law. As a matter of fact there are women that have more righst than men. For example a woman who is a millionaire is of much higher status than a working man. A woman who is well connected within her society is of much higher status than a male economic immigrant. If you had noticed anything that is being said about the "handmaidens tale" is that it describes a layered society. But what it descirbes has a strong foundation in reality.
In the eyes of the law YES YOU ARE EQUAL. In social terms there are so many inequalities within society itself that completely negates what you are saying.
You are talking about social inequiality. How does this exactly work? Because half the population of a society is men and the other population is women. Is it all men that see you as unequal to them? And is it all women that see you and men as equal? Is it maybe FAR MORE COMPLEX than the black and whote situation that you are describing?
Lets go to the article itself. Inflammatory words and phrases:
-punishing women for their reproductive health choices
-a disgraceful blow to women and families
-Gov. Eric Greitens and his GOP colleagues should be ashamed of their wasteful ‘emergency’ special session
That is inflamatory speech. And to tell you the truth, if that govenor is that stupid as to pass legislation so that he can stop women to take birth control, take the damn law to the US high court and have it recalled. It is that simple I believe.
But the core of the subject remains. The issue is abortion. And in this its not men against women because it takes TWO for a preganancy to happen.
Perhaps the solution is to have abortion legislation raised by majority women teams. Men do not suffer any of the effects as there bodies and health are not at issue. So there input should reflect that.
Georgios wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "The issue is that men have the audacity in the 21st century to even consider such a bill and their governor supports it"No it's not MEN that have the audacity in the 21st ce..."
Georgios, I never said what you quote me with. That was MaryJane.
But let's just break this down a little bit:
I totally agree with you that it is men AND women who support such a bill. I'm also against an "us vs them" polarisation when it comes to women-men, because we really don't need it anymore.
What you are talking about is the financial situation. And yes, money rules our society to a really great extent, so of course a woman who is a millionaire has a higher status than a man who is poor. Do I think this is okay? No, I don't. We shouldn't be judged by how much money we have, that is actually really superficial.
And I haven't finished Handmaid's Tale yet, so I can't say much to that. Except that I hate a society as it is described in "The Handmaid's Tale".
And how come you say women and men are equal? Homosexual people aren't allowed to marry here in Austria, trans people still have to fight for the surgeries that they want and intersex people against the surgeries that they don't want. So please, think about it twice, when you say the sexes are equal in Europe. Because they aren't.
Again, I see way more than just women and men, but then you quoted me wrong anyways, so I just think why do I even write this post at all.
And I'm not against birth control. Birth control is so important.
Georgios wrote: "Hello? There is also this guy called Dad! He does play an important role too you know...."Yep, like the role of "absent parent" and the role of "not paying child support". :D
j/k
Georgios wrote: "The fact that women are equal to men goes without saying and its been the case since 1920."
Actually, more like since creation, men are just terribly behind with aknowledging the facts - and that from a species that primes itself as being the more "logical thinkers"... my, my.
Georgios wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "The issue is that men have the audacity in the 21st century to even consider such a bill and their governor supports it"
No it's not MEN that have the audacity in the 21st ce..."
Unfortunately have to agree there, it's a more likely something that is borne by fanatical "Christians" on their crusade for "purity".
And you can already tell what the state will come up with next:
- Women will not be allowed to hold a drivers licence.
- Women will not be allowed to travel without consent from their husband, a male relative or any male person to be appointed by a judge should neither a husband nor a living male relative be available.
- A married women can not book a room on her own.
- Married women are not allowed to hold a bank account in their own name...
Georgios wrote: "But the core of the subject remains. The issue is abortion. And in this its not men against women because it takes TWO for a preganancy to happen."
Ah yes, but only one party has a right to decide if she wants to take the baby to term or abort the pregancy... although it's true that this is not a discussion lead by men against women, but just so by women against women - it's however completely besides the point that a pregancy takes a man and woman... ?
I believe that Emma just wants woman to be treated equally, but for woman the historical background has shown that women were supposed to clean and cook, but Emma is showing that we need to break free from that, and make it noticeable for men to stop thinking that's the stereotypical woman these days. When I was in High School boys made fun of me for trying out for football, and it really hurt me. They made remarks like," Go do cheerleading, so you can cheer for the actually good people,"
The boys thought that girls were just supposed to do that "Home&Ec.". Many people knew each other for many years (because we lived in a small town), and many people thought me shy and unfeeling, so they just went and made those remarks.
I was also adopted from France, so boys thought I didn't know what they were saying. As I know America wouldn't be America without people like me, and feminists', because of my feminism I find it hard to find a guy that truly accepts me, and will promote my feminism.
Gerd wrote: "Yep, like the role of "absent parent" and the role of "not paying child support"Are all men "absent parents"? Come on. I would say that most men are dedicated parents.
Thank you Gerd, for your logical and correct thinking. It may take a sperm and an egg to produce a child but for many men , that's as far as it goes. Also this just justifies how far law makers will go to demean women. The US senate thinks we are a preexisting condition in their latest fiasco of a healthcare bill. not once does the term, woman come up. The committee that drafted it was made up of all men.
Gerd wrote: "Actually, more like since creation, men are just terribly behind with aknowledging the facts - and that from a species that primes itself as being the more "logical thinkers"... my, my."In the eyes of the law Gerd. Societies revolve around laws. Commonly agreed rules that govern societies
Gerd wrote: "Unfortunately have to agree there, it's a more likely something that is borne by fanatical "Christians" on their crusade for "purity".
And you can already tell what the state will come up with next:
- Women will not be allowed to hold a drivers licence.
- Women will not be allowed to travel without consent from their husband, a male relative or any male person to be appointed by a judge should neither a husband nor a living male relative be available.
- A married women can not book a room on her own.
- Married women are not allowed to hold a bank account in their own name...
"
Right. I do not think that Christ ever said anything about such things. The problem is that religions contains a lot of social conservatives. Somehow they are confusing "the word of God" with their own wishful thinking. Coincidently if you know a few historical facts you will see that there were many women in the "inner circle" of students of Christ, that Christ was actually married to Magdalena, and in general in Early Christianity women play a very important role.
The thing is that I come from a Orthodox Catholic background That in itself does not mean that I am christian. What it means is that I grew up in a society that the moral framework is different than that of Roman Catholics, and I might see things different than Roman Catholics. First of all Catholic in Greek means "Universal". This points out that Roman Catholics and Orthodox share the same tenants of faith. However the societies that these tenants are applied are different. Greek History is filled with strong women. From Hellen of Troy to Hellen the Mother of Constantine they are far more empowered than the women in the West.
This also reflects upon the Godesses that the ancient Greeks had. Athena was the most beloved one. Artemis (Roman: Diana) together with Apollo were the holy twins. Each of the Godesses of the Ancients represented a part of a womans life. Eventually this was passed forward in Christianity. All the Godesses were combined to one: Mary the mother of Christ. While all orthodox everywhere see her with as much reverence as Christ, it does not happen the same with Roman Catholics.
Now what confuses me a lot is this: While motherhood is absolutely what society values most about women, feminsits tend to see this as bondage. Are they perhaps confusing motherhood with what social conservatism demands that motherhood should be? Are they confusing motherhood with the demands of social conservatism for mothers to conform to social norms? My guess is that they do. And thats plain wrong.
Gerd wrote: "Ah yes, but only one party has a right to decide if she wants to take the baby to term or abort the pregancy... although it's true that this is not a discussion lead by men against women, but just so by women against women - it's however completely besides the point that a pregancy takes a man and woman... ? ."
I will give you an answer here. Yes it's her right to ask for an abortion. It has to be done within the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy. If you ask me a fetus is an organism that will eventually become a human being. To kill a fetus we kill a small piece of our tommorow. But a child may have huge consequences on a woman's life. And to allow a pregnancy to come to term may in many cases deprive a woman from her own tommorow. And so taking into account both of these we must set an artifcial line where the mother will be protected but also children. Thats 12 weeks if you ask me.
However... There is a strong ally in allowing abortions. An unwilling one but an ally nevertheless. If a woman gets pregnant and abortion is not allowed, then whoever impregnated her has to support her and the child untill it becomes an adult. No marriage should be required and we can can easily identify fathers these days with a simple DNA test. How fast do you think that men would actually DEMAND that abortions become legal? The social conservatives will have to accept such a measure since they see motherhood as sacred,
But this kind of though is impossible in the hardliner "feminist" line of thinking because they do not like "motherhood" and they do not like to implicate men in any of their affairs.
Gerd wrote: " and that from a species that primes itself as being the more "logical thinkers"... my, my. "
Who on earth told you that we are all logical thinkers? Who told you that society was logical and not adhering to beliefs that make it feel safe? It's not. It's up to those precious few that can see the flaws, and devise resons to counter them, that society can move forward. We are not C3P0's that calculate the probablity of failure Gerd. We are not Data's who have a cold logic. We are HUMANS. And that means that emotion is part of the deal. And that's what's actually overturns the odds in many cases.
But for the odds to be overturned and work in our advantage you have first to think what you are doing, find your mistakes and come with a better and brighter solution. Because the machines that i mentioned before come with logic alone. But they do not come equiped with the creative ability that we have, to create a vision for a better and brighter future. And its due to that, that all these cold logic claculations fail.
Women and men are equal by default you are right about that. But you cannot defeat gender inequality with the falacities, prejudices and reactionary mentality that are prevaling in the feminist movement. No. It will have to change. It will have to rething it's tactics, its flaws and its philosophy.
It has to become from reactive to society to value adding to society. And that simply will not happen with the irrational "anti" reactions and pressure groups. No change that ever came from that. Because when you demand and force society to change then eventually society pushes back. They will fight against any notions that will disrupt their calm, because calm means secure, and that's what people need to flourish and manage their lives and their families.
However society can be PERSUADED to change by showing them benefits and merits. And that does not include pressure groups. What it really requires is CRITICAL THINKING. But I forgot. Feminists threw all western philosophy, that developed critical thinking on a person, out of the window because that philosophy was made by "old men that lived in societies that hated women". Yes. That's "Anti" mentality at its worst. And that's what feminists became most well known for: "Anti mentality". I call those who adhere to this "anti mentality" as "old reactionary hags".
Gloria Steinem did attend classic philosophy lectures. And whether she admits it or not she benefited greatly from them. Thats why she has some really fresh ideas. But hey. She also helped throw the ideas out of the window when she wrote that very thing about the "philosophy of old men that hated women" in "My life on the road". So in my book she became as guilty as everyone else in feminism who endorses the "anti Mentality"
That's my personal point of view at least.
Georgios wrote: "Are all men "absent parents"? Come on. I would say that most men are dedicated parents."Honestly wouldn't know.
Gerd wrote: "Honestly wouldn't know. "Sorry to hear that Gerd. Its not an easy thing. However I will just note that in certain cultures (for example Greek) its not ok to have a girl pregnant and not marry her. That would offend the family honor. Social conservatism rules would demand that her brother, father, cousins would take care of you. Same thing would happen in Italy. And in Turkey. And in other places around the world.
What I want to highlight here is that in a preganancy a man should live up to his deeds. Two are needed to concieve a baby,
I think Emma Watson is a very balanced and harmonious person. It sounds the same for her feminism. This must be not a war between men and women. This must be harmony and mutual understanding. That's why i love her too.
I am looking forward for your reply James.