Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil

[Kidlicious]

I mistreat women? Citation needed.

I don't follow all of your nonsense. I just remember you braging about how you decieve women.

[MRT144]

Lets say both male and females are given equal amounts of "real" (not I'm not talking about equal opportunities but equal outcome here) political/economic power.

The female still has tits and arse.



Everything men do we do, ultimatley, in order to get laid. The same is not true of women. Is the notion so absurd?

Eastern Europe is really regressive if men are just doing stuff to get laid.

[Kidlicious]

Again, because that is not their role, and scripture is very clear about that. If you've not noticed women have a hard time accepting correction from other women.

Do you know what the role of women is Ben? It's the same role that men have, to follow the Way of the Lord. There aren't two roles.

Amos 5

A Lament and Call to Repentance
1 Hear this word, O house of Israel, this lament I take up concerning you:
2 "Fallen is Virgin Israel,
never to rise again,
deserted in her own land,
with no one to lift her up."

3 This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"The city that marches out a thousand strong for Israel
will have only a hundred left;
the town that marches out a hundred strong
will have only ten left."

4 This is what the LORD says to the house of Israel:
"Seek me and live;

5 do not seek Bethel,
do not go to Gilgal,
do not journey to Beersheba.
For Gilgal will surely go into exile,
and Bethel will be reduced to nothing. [a] "

6 Seek the LORD and live,
or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire;
it will devour,
and Bethel will have no one to quench it.

7 You who turn justice into bitterness
and cast righteousness to the ground

8 (he who made the Pleiades and Orion,
who turns blackness into dawn
and darkens day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the LORD is his name-

9 he flashes destruction on the stronghold
and brings the fortified city to ruin),

10 you hate the one who reproves in court
and despise him who tells the truth.

11 You trample on the poor
and force him to give you grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.

12 For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
You oppress the righteous and take bribes
and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

13 Therefore the prudent man keeps quiet in such times,
for the times are evil.

14 Seek good, not evil,
that you may live.
Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you,
just as you say he is.

15 Hate evil, love good;
maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy
on the remnant of Joseph.

16 Therefore this is what the Lord, the LORD God Almighty, says:
"There will be wailing in all the streets
and cries of anguish in every public square.
The farmers will be summoned to weep
and the mourners to wail.

17 There will be wailing in all the vineyards,
for I will pass through your midst,"
says the LORD.

The Day of the LORD
18 Woe to you who long
for the day of the LORD!
Why do you long for the day of the LORD ?
That day will be darkness, not light.
19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion
only to meet a bear,
as though he entered his house
and rested his hand on the wall
only to have a snake bite him.

20 Will not the day of the LORD be darkness, not light—
pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness?

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, [b]
I will have no regard for them.

23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!

25 "Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?

26 You have lifted up the shrine of your king,
the pedestal of your idols,
the star of your god [c]—
which you made for yourselves.

27 Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,"
says the LORD, whose name is God Almighty.

If you don't obey the second greatest commandment you get exiled.

[Dauphin]

But begin a femal in itself is a reproductive advantage for persons in all categories of physical beauty and most economic classes.




Being a male only shows slight reproductive advantages for those with higher education since it depresses the average number of children you can expect somewhat less than is the case with women.

You are arguing about distributions, which has nowt to do with my point. I am saying that for every woman that has a child, a man has a child too. Ergo, there is no advantage in being a man or a woman once social status, wealth, and all other factors etc are stripped out. Therefore the advantage is not in being a man or woman, but in obtaining the stripped out factors.

Your point is that if you are an unattractive, fat poor man with little personality and a receding hairline you are screwed far more, in terms of having kids, than a bald, ugly, obese and poverty ridden woman with an obnoxious personality. Which I don't contest. i.e. the risks for a man are higher, but they are made up for by a bigger pay off.

[Heraclitus]

And if there's one thing that says "success" in the modern world, it's having a ****-ton of kids. It's very hard to get your own reality show without at least ten.

We're talking about what really matters. A ton of kids that survive and reproduce is a greater impact (good or bad) on civilization than all but the greatest acheivments in science. Perhaps being a military comander in wartime or a politician in a very authoritarian regime also come close (since you can influence who lives and dies, thus impacting the genome).

[Heraclitus]

Eastern Europe is really regressive if men are just doing stuff to get laid.

Why do then politicans in America risk everything for affiars? Why did Tiger Woods cheat, knowing it could cost him millions of $?

[Heraclitus]

You are arguing about distributions, which has nowt to do with my point. I am saying that for every woman that has a child, a man has a child too. Ergo, there is no advantage in being a man or a woman once social status, wealth, and all other factors etc are stripped out. Therefore the advantage is not in being a man or woman, but in obtaining the stripped out factors.

Your point is that if you are an unattractive, fat poor man with little personality and a receding hairline you are screwed far more, in terms of having kids, than a bald, ugly, obese and poverty ridden woman with an obnoxious personality. Which I don't contest. i.e. the risks for a man are higher, but they are made up for by a bigger pay off.

Oh, I see. But I was taking the point of view that you are under a veil of ignorance and you don't know anything about yourself. All you get to choose is your gender.

Longer lifespan, greater likleyhood of reproduction... its clear what any organism that would value Darwinian fitness would choose. And deep down inside all our goals are set with the ultimate purpose of surival and replication. So I guess most rational agents under (I stress this) a veil of ignorance, would choose to be a human female.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance


On another note: So you do agree that the median male has a poorer chance of reproducing than the median female? Its more risky being a male. I hope you agree that it takes a gambler's streak for someone to want to be a male.

[Dauphin]

If it was a Darwinian benefit to be female, there would be a higher proportion of females than males. There isn't. There is no benefit in choosing to be a female compared to a male.

Yes, it is a bigger gamble. But the risk is commensurate with reward.

[Elok]

We're talking about what really matters. A ton of kids that survive and reproduce is a greater impact (good or bad) on civilization than all but the greatest acheivments in science. Perhaps being a military comander in wartime or a politician in a very authoritarian regime also come close (since you can influence who lives and dies, thus impacting the genome).

Yes, but nobody gives a damn about that on a personal level. When I get up in the morning, I don't say to myself, "gee, I hope I can propagate my DNA effectively soon!" Tons of people choose not to have kids at all, for crying out loud. Whereas everyone wants a decent job at fair wages, good education and basic freedoms--the sorts of thing feminism is all about.

How would you have responded to the civil rights movement? "Sure, you can't vote, but you have a lower chance of skin cancer than white people, and your higher risk of heart disease is more easily controlled by diet and exercise."

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you know what the role of women is Ben? It's the same role that men have, to follow the Way of the Lord. There aren't two roles.

Ephesians 5, which you've already denied. 5:22-32

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Just because some women don't like this command, is not reason to reject it.

Paul goes on to lay out the role of a man:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Interesting language he uses here. The Church is tainted with sin, and the husband is to to cleanse the wive and be willing to give up his life for her so as to make her holy. You've been insisting that a man should abandon his wife, this is why Paul says that this is precisely the wrong thing for a man to do. Yes, your wife isn't perfect, yes, she sins, sometimes in terrible ways. But the duty of the husband is to make her blameless. Is it any more radical to ask the wife to submit to her husband, than it is for the husband to be willing to give his life up for his wife? I don't think so. Yes, both are radical demands.

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband

Yes, scripture is very clear. There are two roles, between men and women in marriage. Yes, they are both called to love God, and you are very right to say this. However, in marriage, they have distinct roles. Men and women are not the same, they are different, yet of equal value to one another.

[Kidlicious]

Just read Kid's staments. Seriusly dude you need to put women off the pedestal, your opinions are quite sexist. Women aren't angles or whores, they are people.

Whether or not you are equally moral to another person is up to you. You have not chosen to be equal so you are not.

[Kidlicious]

Ben,

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church"

That means you don't tell them to keep their mouths shut. You don't get that. I don't know why, but that's between you and God now.

[Ben Kenobi]

That means you don't tell them to keep their mouths shut. You don't get that. I don't know why, but that's between you and God now.

Where did I say that? I said nothing of the sort. C'mon, read it for what it actually says, not just what you *think* it says. You have the whole passage made out to be a demon, when it's very fair. Wives submit to their husbands, and husbands must be willing to die for their wives.

[Kidlicious]

Where did I say that? I said nothing of the sort. C'mon, read it for what it actually says, not just what you *think* it says. You have the whole passage made out to be a demon, when it's very fair. Wives submit to their husbands, and husbands must be willing to die for their wives.

Do you believe that women should speak in the church or not? I don't think the passage is demon at all. I think your understanding of it is though.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't believe anyone other than the priest should speak in church.