Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben, you do realize that a little bit later in Ephesians (Eph 6:5), Paul tells slaves to obey their earthly masters with respect and fear, and sincerity of their hearts, right? Care to defend that literally... Jesus doesn't like slaves who revolt (I get what Paul is trying to say - don't bemoan your fate as slaves because you are working for Jesus, but he commands them to obey their earthly masters as well)?

[Ben Kenobi]

Couple things here.

Paul does say that if they have an opportunity to become free to do so. This is an extension, of his principle that he takes people as they are. Are you a slave, you are a slave as a Christian. Are you married, stay married. Are you unmarried, stay unmarried. He's not condoning the state of slavery, or condoning the ownership of slaves by Christians, I think that much is clear. He also doesn't condone slave rebellion either.

This is part of a process that all converts go through, deciding what to keep and what to throw away. This is Paul saying, ok, yer a slave now, stay that way for now. What he's arguing is that it's good for a Christian to understand that his service to God is not dependent on his status in life. It's not much different than MLK saying that if you are a streetsweeper to be proud of your work.

The slave is not a slave because of his actions, but by accident of birth. Why should he be condemned for his station?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He also doesn't condone slave rebellion either.

Exactly. He thinks they should stay in their Earthly stations. You for that? When we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, we can only be slaves to God, not to another human. That's the argument used by Christian abolitionists whom you cite every once in a while here. Was John Brown non Christian because he acted in opposition to what Paul would condone?

After all, Jesus was the ultimate revolutionary, saying the people should rise up against the Jewish authorities because they are not following God's law, but their own.

He's not condoning the state of slavery

By proclaiming that slaves should obey their Earthly masters, even though his ultimate point was every is equal before God, he implicitly is (or at the very least ignoring the evil).

[Heraclitus]

You need to understand he was commenting on slavery in the Roman Empire which I don't think was that bad. American slavery sucked a bit more because only biracial or Black people could be slaves, thus even if they won their freedom they could not easily assimilate into the upper classes.

[aneeshm]

Ben, you do realize that a little bit later in Ephesians (Eph 6:5), Paul tells slaves to obey their earthly masters with respect and fear, and sincerity of their hearts, right? Care to defend that literally... Jesus doesn't like slaves who revolt (I get what Paul is trying to say - don't bemoan your fate as slaves because you are working for Jesus, but he commands them to obey their earthly masters as well)?

Let me ask you this: what do you think of any relationship where one person cedes a measure of both personal authority and personal responsibility to another? Note that here I'm specifically NOT talking of slavery. And to what extent would you be comfortable with such relationships having legal sanction?

At the moment, we allow them in a number of very varied situations. But there are spheres of life over which we don't allow people to cede control to another. In your view, which spheres of life should these be?

[aneeshm]

As for general comments on the article, I must note that the author's tone is not productive. Other than that, his fundamental premise needs to be polished a bit, to account for variation and the occasional aberration in the pool of human women.

It seems that human societies can fall into a few different equilibria with regard to sexual relations. There may be more, but the two most common are:

The "primitive" pattern, which occurs in areas where sustenance is not very difficult, and the effort required for farming or food-gathering activities can be carried out by women. In such societies, euphemistically referred to as "female farming societies", the majority of the work for gathering food is done by the woman, with the men hanging on parasitically, and gaining social status from competition with other men. It is in such societies that the men tend towards exuberant and expensive displays of status or position with little to no productive value. Promiscuity is high, paternal investment in offspring is low. "Ghetto" black society in the US provides a near picture-perfect example of this.

The "civilised" pattern finds its beginning in resource-constrained environments, in which competition for women takes the form of competition in resource provision. This is because first of all, the labour of the man is required, and women alone no longer suffice. Secondly, this also involves far less promiscuity and far higher paternal investment in offspring. The higher paternal investment comes about because the man is reasonably confident in the paternity of his offspring to provision resources for the same. This can only be the case if general promiscuity is low, which can only happen if both the genders are more restrained in their behaviour, specially women.

The competitive advantage of the second pattern is that it provides an incentive for even those low on the social totem pole to be productive, as that is practically the only way to gain access to women. This is the reason that, historically, the "civilised" pattern managed to subdue or conquer competitors, even though both competing groups may have had equal levels of technology or population to begin with. The initial constraints on natural resources led to a flowering of "human" or "cultural" resources.

Right now, what we're seeing is a shift from the latter pattern to the former. This shift is aided in part that the "civilised" pattern has succeeded to the point where it becomes difficult to imagine life without it; we have convinced ourselves that what was essentially a product of an early resource-scarce environment, coupled with millennia of cultural capital built on that foundation, is something fundamental to human nature. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that our nature is basically "civilised", so the consequences of the "primitive" pattern, even the idea that it is possible to sink back into it, is unthinkable.

I expect this shift to be catastrophic in its consequences, as the cultural effects first seen in the periphery (the black "ghetto", welfare dependants, and so on) make their way to the core. There does not exist a single example of a "civilised" society that could complete this transition and live. History bears no long-term record of any such.

However, the fact that it is long-term unsustainable in any form for a society with our level of complexity does not affect the fact that the individually most rational decision is to go with the flow. This does not necessarily mean "ladder theory" or anything of the sort, it simply means acceptance of the new reality, and finding some way of coping with it. Some do it with "ladder theory" or some variant. I personally find this unproductive, but then again, to each their own.

[Ben Kenobi]

You for that?

What, Christians remaining at their posts when they convert? Yes. Went through this myself.

When we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, we can only be slaves to God, not to another human. That's the argument used by Christian abolitionists whom you cite every once in a while here. Was John Brown non Christian because he acted in opposition to what Paul would condone?\

No, I would argue that Brown was just in what he did. Those who owned him claimed to be Christian. This is a different from the first century where the pagans held sway. I think that Paul would have condemned any Christian who held a slave as denying that fundamental truth.

Look at it this way, Christ says that he is the Good Shepherd, who lays his life for his sheep. If you were a slave and tried to escape, you would be killed. Am I being a Good Shepherd if my words and actions lead to people being killed? No.

After all, Jesus was the ultimate revolutionary, saying the people should rise up against the Jewish authorities because they are not following God's law, but their own.

He did NOT say this. He condemned them, but he never told the people to rise up against their leaders. Quite the contrary, he consistantly followed the rules even though they were unjust.

By proclaiming that slaves should obey their Earthly masters, even though his ultimate point was every is equal before God, he implicitly is (or at the very least ignoring the evil).

He is telling them to obey their masters in earthly things, while insisting that they have a True Master, in Christ.

[RGBVideo]

this thread has been benkenobi'ed

[Imran Siddiqui]

You need to understand he was commenting on slavery in the Roman Empire which I don't think was that bad. American slavery sucked a bit more because only biracial or Black people could be slaves, thus even if they won their freedom they could not easily assimilate into the upper classes.

No, I would argue that Brown was just in what he did. Those who owned him claimed to be Christian. This is a different from the first century where the pagans held sway. I think that Paul would have condemned any Christian who held a slave as denying that fundamental truth.

That's not at all clear from the Word. As he says that Masters should treat their Slaves with respect, it appears that Paul has no problems with Christians owning other Christians.

Look at it this way, Christ says that he is the Good Shepherd, who lays his life for his sheep. If you were a slave and tried to escape, you would be killed. Am I being a Good Shepherd if my words and actions lead to people being killed? No.

But what if you tried to rise up and free all slaves from bondage? That may lead to risking your life, but Christ is not against risking your life for what is right.

He did NOT say this. He condemned them, but he never told the people to rise up against their leaders. Quite the contrary, he consistantly followed the rules even though they were unjust.

You mean like the rules on dietary habits?

He is telling them to obey their masters in earthly things, while insisting that they have a True Master, in Christ.

Indeed, but why obey your masters in earthly things in the case of ownership of other humans? Or for that matter, obey Jewish masters (such as Herod and the Sanhedrin) in terms of what is holy?

[Ben Kenobi]

Where exactly does he say that?

But what if you tried to rise up and free all slaves from bondage? That may lead to risking your life, but Christ is not against risking your life for what is right.

Christ told the disciples that they would suffer and be killed all for him. However, he trained the disciples. Christian converts are another story. They would not be given a position of authority, nor would they be asked to put their life on the line. Good shepherd and all.

Indeed, but why obey your masters in earthly things in the case of ownership of other humans? Or for that matter, obey Jewish masters (such as Herod and the Sanhedrin) in terms of what is holy?

Because, as he said to Pilate, their authority came from God. They would not have power over people if God had not made the arrangments. Christians may be rabble rousers, but the rule of law must always be respected.

He says beware of the yeast of the pharisees, not because their office is invalid, but that the people involved were corrupt.

As for dietary laws, the breaking of them would come later, with Paul. I don't see evidence that Christ broke the dietary laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Christ told the disciples that they would suffer and be killed all for him. However, he trained the disciples. Christian converts are another story. They would not be given a position of authority, nor would they be asked to put their life on the line. Good shepherd and all.

But isn't the charge of a convert to become a disciple? John the Baptist is considered a disciple in the Word, isn't he?

Christians may be rabble rousers, but the rule of law must always be respected.

If the law is all Christians must be put to death (think later Roman empire before Constantine), Christians should willingly go to the stocks?

As for dietary laws, the breaking of them would come later, with Paul. I don't see evidence that Christ broke the dietary laws.

So what did Jesus mean to say when he stated:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matthew 15:11

In response to not washing hands before they ate.

[Ben Kenobi]

But isn't the charge of a convert to become a disciple? John the Baptist is considered a disciple in the Word, isn't he?

Yes, but Paul is talking about converts there.

If the law is all Christians must be put to death (think later Roman empire before Constantine), Christians should willingly go to the stocks?

If you read some of the martyrologies, Christians did just that. There was one where they put all these Christians to freeze out on the ice with a guard there. The guard was toasty warm because he was standing on the inside of the door. He slipped and the door got closed behind him, and rather then trying to rush in, one of the Christians held the door open, and went back on the ice.

The guard decided to stay on the ice too, and perished with the rest.

In response to not washing hands before they ate.

Good, I was hoping you'd quote that. Jesus even though he believed that the whole Kosher business had nothing to do with holiness, still abided by the tenets of the Law, even parts that were unnecessary. It makes sense, because remember, he was sent to the Jews, not the Gentiles. It would have been a stumbling block if he violated all the food porhibitions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but Paul is talking about converts there.

Of course, but if its about becoming a disciple... where is the exortation that this is only in the beginning stages?

If you read some of the martyrologies, Christians did just that. There was one where they put all these Christians to freeze out on the ice with a guard there. The guard was toasty warm because he was standing on the inside of the door. He slipped and the door got closed behind him, and rather then trying to rush in, one of the Christians held the door open, and went back on the ice.

The guard decided to stay on the ice too, and perished with the rest.

Some. Not all.

Good, I was hoping you'd quote that. Jesus even though he believed that the whole Kosher business had nothing to do with holiness, still abided by the tenets of the Law, even parts that were unnecessary. It makes sense, because remember, he was sent to the Jews, not the Gentiles. It would have been a stumbling block if he violated all the food porhibitions.

But he did violate some (uncleanliness of hands before eating, which the Pharisees came to him, resulting in the passage I quoted).

[Heraclitus]

As for general comments on the article, I must note that the author's tone is not productive. Other than that, his fundamental premise needs to be polished a bit, to account for variation and the occasional aberration in the pool of human women.

It seems that human societies can fall into a few different equilibria with regard to sexual relations. There may be more, but the two most common are:

The "primitive" pattern, which occurs in areas where sustenance is not very difficult, and the effort required for farming or food-gathering activities can be carried out by women. In such societies, euphemistically referred to as "female farming societies", the majority of the work for gathering food is done by the woman, with the men hanging on parasitically, and gaining social status from competition with other men. It is in such societies that the men tend towards exuberant and expensive displays of status or position with little to no productive value. Promiscuity is high, paternal investment in offspring is low. "Ghetto" black society in the US provides a near picture-perfect example of this.

The "civilised" pattern finds its beginning in resource-constrained environments, in which competition for women takes the form of competition in resource provision. This is because first of all, the labour of the man is required, and women alone no longer suffice. Secondly, this also involves far less promiscuity and far higher paternal investment in offspring. The higher paternal investment comes about because the man is reasonably confident in the paternity of his offspring to provision resources for the same. This can only be the case if general promiscuity is low, which can only happen if both the genders are more restrained in their behaviour, specially women.

The competitive advantage of the second pattern is that it provides an incentive for even those low on the social totem pole to be productive, as that is practically the only way to gain access to women. This is the reason that, historically, the "civilised" pattern managed to subdue or conquer competitors, even though both competing groups may have had equal levels of technology or population to begin with. The initial constraints on natural resources led to a flowering of "human" or "cultural" resources.

Right now, what we're seeing is a shift from the latter pattern to the former. This shift is aided in part that the "civilised" pattern has succeeded to the point where it becomes difficult to imagine life without it; we have convinced ourselves that what was essentially a product of an early resource-scarce environment, coupled with millennia of cultural capital built on that foundation, is something fundamental to human nature. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that our nature is basically "civilised", so the consequences of the "primitive" pattern, even the idea that it is possible to sink back into it, is unthinkable.

I expect this shift to be catastrophic in its consequences, as the cultural effects first seen in the periphery (the black "ghetto", welfare dependants, and so on) make their way to the core. There does not exist a single example of a "civilised" society that could complete this transition and live. History bears no long-term record of any such.

However, the fact that it is long-term unsustainable in any form for a society with our level of complexity does not affect the fact that the individually most rational decision is to go with the flow. This does not necessarily mean "ladder theory" or anything of the sort, it simply means acceptance of the new reality, and finding some way of coping with it. Some do it with "ladder theory" or some variant. I personally find this unproductive, but then again, to each their own.

You basically summed up my opinons and the fears of many others. The pattern of civlization leading to what could be with an old fashion word described as decadence or perhaps can be said to be a form of matriarchy is well recorded for civilizations from the Babylon (where women went from being the property of the husband to alimonial obligations as well as no fault divorce not long before being displaced by more patriarchal socieities) onwards. Some may claim modern contraception is unprecedented and is a real game changer that will lead to unpredictable results, I dispute this the Romans had effective contraception the plant was called Silphium and was harvested to extinction, perhaps not entirely coincidentaly the Roman population despite enjoying a period of peace and plenty did not grow noticeably in this period.



Current civilization is doomed unless we come up with a artificial uterus. This would provide a way for less succesfull men to once again have a chance at having children of whose paternity they will be more sure than has been possible for any men since the dawn of time. If it was widley adopted women would loose their monopoly on reproduction allowing men to continue sustaining civilization since they will once again have reason to invest into society. What I fear is attempts to ban this technology once it arrives, Feminists aka Wimmens Trade Union has already passed anti-male laws in the US that make bride orders as well as surogate pregnancies more difficult if not impossible for single men. They fear outsorcing to third world women. How will they react to tecnological obsolecence is anyones guess. Whatever the case women will find it harder and harder to raise children as single parrents with daddy goverment once the beta males become too poor to pay the tax burden. I guess it could also be solved by enslaving 95% of men, but the productivity would never match that of a patriarchal state.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, but if its about becoming a disciple... where is the exortation that this is only in the beginning stages?

Look at his audience. They and Paul knows who he is referring to.