Since Women Were "Liberated"

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:55 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:54 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:04 pm

Your biological claim is nonsense.
Nope. It's just obvious and certain.

To have a child, you need one parent of one sex, and one of another. And no other arrangment is even capable. One egg, one sperm. End of story.
Hmmmm, oh yes, ....another.
Sorry, Scott...none of what you said was what I said. I therefore feel no great urgency to respond, nor any ability, for that matter, to give account for the content therein. It is your own.

But if you have a comment about what I actually DID say, which is above, I shall respond.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:30 am Sorry, Scott...none of what you said was what I said. I therefore feel no great urgency to respond, nor any ability, for that matter, to give account for the content therein. It is your own.

But if you have a comment about what I actually DID say, which is above, I shall respond.
I only referenced your quote in discussion with Belinda, not asserting what you said but implied in context. The opinion is mine and the rhetoric was making fun of the assumption that the 'traditional' family is as flawed as those who also come from them who do bad things.

Everyone favors 'family'. How can government 'favor' them when you have no social service to deal with it?
Belinda
Posts: 6407
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:10 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:38 pm Immanuel Can, evolution means change qua change. It does not mean change towards a given end.
You're mistaking evolutionary "advance" for teleological "advance."

Evolution has no "end" in view. But it still supposed to be an advancing process. "Lower" life forms are supposed to give way to "higher" ones. "Less adaptive" forms are eliminated in favour of "more adaptive" ones. Living on is supposed to be an advance over dying out. And life forms are supposed to get more sophisticated as time proceeds.

Take a look at the vaunted (and ridiculous) monkey-to-man chart: do you suppose it's illustrating that Cro-Magnons or Peking Man is "more evolved" than Neanderthal or Modern Man? Of course not. The implication is of increasing improvement.

I suppose the idiot who invented the chart could imagine an "end." I guess it would be, "We all rise from primordial ooze to modern hominids, then to Star Trekkian space-hoppers, and thence to godhood." And maybe that metanarrative is tacitly buried in Evolutionary aspirations. It certainly is, in Star Trek. But you and I can agree that's stupid. No such teleological "end" is likely, even given Evolutionism.

In any case, we can forget completely about the biology and the associated argument: for in this case "evolving" is only being used by you as an analogy anyway. For I presume that when you say that technology or culture "evolves," you are not saying, "It changes, but only neutrally," far less "It changes for the worse." That doesn't even make sense for your argument.
If there is a Given End of history we don't and can't know about it.
Well, we could if God told us what it was. But again, this has nothing to do with your "evolution of culture" argument.
But 'lower' ,and 'higher' ,and 'advancing' , and 'more sophisticated' are value laden terms. The proper term that does not imply value is 'more complex'.
When I say cultures evolve I mean cultures change.

Cultures change a people faster than does biological change. (The OT shows the changing culture of a tribe) . Cultures , dynamic as they are, define humanity and particular cultures define human peoples. Other animals have heritable cultures but as far as we know other animals have no means of recording their cultures through generations.

Nobody knows whether God is a cultural artefact or an ontic reality.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:05 am ...the 'traditional' family is as flawed...
The word "traditional" was never used. We were speaking of the "nuclear family," meaning two parents of opposite sex, plus kids.

And the very simple point is that that is the only structure that produces children. Biologically, like all mammals, human beings are male-female. mono-sexual, multi-sperm, or asexual arrangements produce no offspring.

That point isn't even possible to debate. It's obvious.
Everyone favors 'family'. How can government 'favor' them

Who needs the government to "favour" anything? The government does very few things adequately, and almost nothing well. In most matters, the less of them we have, the better.

There were families long before there was any government, let alone any "social services." And if the latter collapse, there will still be families.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm But 'lower' ,and 'higher' ,and 'advancing' , and 'more sophisticated' are value laden terms. The proper term that does not imply value is 'more complex'.
Then don't use the term "evolve" in reference to cultures. It's a false analogy, then. They don't get any better: they just get messier.
When I say cultures evolve I mean cultures change.

That's the biggest "so what?" kind of comment you could possibly make.
Cultures , dynamic as they are, define humanity

No they don't.

Human beings decide what their cultures will look like: and as you yourself point out, cultures morph and change many times without any change from human beings qua human beings. It's our humanity that's stable, and our cultures that are variable. Thus, cultures do not "define" us.
Nobody knows whether God is a cultural artefact or an ontic reality.
You have no idea whether or not that's so. You don't know what "everybody" knows.

You are in a position to assert only that you, personally, and perhaps the few people you know, do not know God...but that's not news, is it?
Belinda
Posts: 6407
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:39 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm But 'lower' ,and 'higher' ,and 'advancing' , and 'more sophisticated' are value laden terms. The proper term that does not imply value is 'more complex'.
Then don't use the term "evolve" in reference to cultures. It's a false analogy, then. They don't get any better: they just get messier.
When I say cultures evolve I mean cultures change.

That's the biggest "so what?" kind of comment you could possibly make.
Cultures , dynamic as they are, define humanity

No they don't.

Human beings decide what their cultures will look like: and as you yourself point out, cultures morph and change many times without any change from human beings qua human beings. It's our humanity that's stable, and our cultures that are variable. Thus, cultures do not "define" us.
Nobody knows whether God is a cultural artefact or an ontic reality.
You have no idea whether or not that's so. You don't know what "everybody" knows.

You are in a position to assert only that you, personally, and perhaps the few people you know, do not know God...but that's not news, is it?
I use the word 'evolve' to apply to cultural change of a species when I am comparing cultural change with biological change of species. Some canines have evolved culturally insofar as they are adjuncts of humans, to the point where canines can now navigate busy streets for blind humans.

If not culture, what other candidates are there for defining humanity? A poor, bare, forked animal?

Nobody, including religious men, knows whether God is cultural artefact or ontic reality. The most than can be affirmed about His ontic reality emerges from people like one poster here who has experienced occasional and fleeting glimpses of goodness.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:37 pm Some canines have evolved culturally insofar as they are adjuncts of humans, to the point where canines can now navigate busy streets for blind humans.
Do you regard the acquisition of this more sophisticated skill as an "advance" on being a wild dog, or a "devolution" to a lower state?
If not culture, what other candidates are there for defining humanity?
Well, biology, for starters. Our chromosomes identify us as human, regardless of transient things like culture. Whether there are other criteria, we may well ask: consciousness would be another: mankind has unique kinds of that, it seems.

Certainly, as you yourself have noted, "culture" isn't stable across time, or even stable among human populations in the same time: so it's not a basis at all.
Nobody, including religious men, knows whether God is cultural artefact or ontic reality.
So you claim to know what everyone else can or cannot know, do you? I have to ask you for your credentials on that one: how do you know what everybody else knows?

But beyond that, we might well ask what all this has to do with the topic.
Belinda
Posts: 6407
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

Some canines have evolved culturally insofar as they are adjuncts of humans, to the point where canines can now navigate busy streets for blind humans.
(Belinda)
IC:
Do you regard the acquisition of this more sophisticated skill as an "advance" on being a wild dog, or a "devolution" to a lower state?
I don't know. Domesticated canines simply are domesticated canines. I am not Dr Doolittle.

Belinda wrote:
If not culture, what other candidates are there for defining humanity?
IC:
Well, biology, for starters. Our chromosomes identify us as human, regardless of transient things like culture. Whether there are other criteria, we may well ask: consciousness would be another: mankind has unique kinds of that, it seems.
Artificial selection is often deliberate as for instance breeding cows that produce creamier milk. Humans are less often artificially selected for breeding purposes, and artificial selection by humans on humans is normally accidental.

I am not sure that human consciousness is better than that of a rainforest, or a sewer rat.

IC wrote:
Certainly, as you yourself have noted, "culture" isn't stable across time, or even stable among human populations in the same time: so it's not a basis at all.
Cultures are not stable: culture is stable.

Species are not stable: biology is stable.

Belinda wrote:
Nobody, including religious men, knows whether God is cultural artefact or ontic reality.
IC replied:
So you claim to know what everyone else can or cannot know, do you? I have to ask you for your credentials on that one: how do you know what everybody else knows?
There are mystics who for all I know , have experienced a deity.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:11 pm Cultures are not stable: culture is stable.
No, that's not right.

The fact of having some kind of culture is a constant: what culture it is, that changes all the time.
Species are not stable: biology is stable.
Species are stable.

But if they weren't, the the latter would be untrue. Biology would be variable.
Belinda wrote:
Nobody, including religious men, knows whether God is cultural artefact or ontic reality.
IC replied:
So you claim to know what everyone else can or cannot know, do you? I have to ask you for your credentials on that one: how do you know what everybody else knows?
There are mystics who for all I know , have experienced a deity.
So...you say "nobody knows," but that you think the mystics know? :shock:

That makes no sense. Both cannot be true at the same time. If mystics know, then to say "nobody" is false.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by reasonvemotion »

Feminism has died and in the aftermath has left war on men.

The scales have shifted, not balanced out, but tilted in the opposite direction leaving men with traits that are more often associated with feminine behavior and wondering what the hell their role is in society, while women possess qualities that are perceived to be masculine.

Why should women have it all? These pushy women have destroyed the balance of the universal order.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

reasonvemotion wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:26 am Feminism has died and in the aftermath has left war on men.
And a war against women, as well.

At first, Feminism taught women that the only way to be a fulfilled woman was to "become a man" in behaviour, values, sexuality, work, etc." Nowadays, it turns out the men are "better" at being a modern woman than the women are: the "trans" men are now taking all the plaudits that women used to take, in athletics, politics, etc., replacing them. Meanwhile, a historically unprecedented number of young women are deciding they "are men," and mangling their physiology in order to achieve the unachievable ideal of a masculinity they can only imagine. And many more are so willing to defeminize themselves they've given up on even wanting to be anything at all: they're calling themselves "non-binary."

Something about our present atmosphere is making a lot of women hate their own nature, hate the very idea of being a woman. So yes, there's a war on men: but there's a war on women, too, waged by the same set of social conditions and sponsored by the same set of demented ideologues.
Belinda
Posts: 6407
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

reasonvemotion wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:26 am Feminism has died and in the aftermath has left war on men.

The scales have shifted, not balanced out, but tilted in the opposite direction leaving men with traits that are more often associated with feminine behavior and wondering what the hell their role is in society, while women possess qualities that are perceived to be masculine.

Why should women have it all? These pushy women have destroyed the balance of the universal order.
The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 has long been held as one of England's greatest military achievements. ... In the speech, Elizabeth defends her strength as a female leader, saying "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too".

reasonvemotion
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by reasonvemotion »

Mike Fredenburg, National Review wrote, "The push to put women into combat is driven by an extreme, reality-challenged form of feminism. Unfortunately, its influence in the media, the entertainment industry, our universities, and politics has given it a tremendous base of political power that extends into the heart of the military. Jude Eden notes: “In my experience, feminism and political correctness are so prevalent in the military that men trip over themselves trying to ensure they do not offend. Military leaders cannot afford to even think the truth: Women are not as strong and athletic as strong, athletic men are.” Officers in the military understand that speaking honestly about the problems of women in combat can be a career-ender, while putting gender-diversity goals ahead of everything else can be a career-accelerator".

Feminism has been proven to never be about equality, but the need to criticize male patriarchal values and ideals.
Belinda
Posts: 6407
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Belinda »

reasonvemotion wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:15 am Mike Fredenburg, National Review wrote, "The push to put women into combat is driven by an extreme, reality-challenged form of feminism. Unfortunately, its influence in the media, the entertainment industry, our universities, and politics has given it a tremendous base of political power that extends into the heart of the military. Jude Eden notes: “In my experience, feminism and political correctness are so prevalent in the military that men trip over themselves trying to ensure they do not offend. Military leaders cannot afford to even think the truth: Women are not as strong and athletic as strong, athletic men are.” Officers in the military understand that speaking honestly about the problems of women in combat can be a career-ender, while putting gender-diversity goals ahead of everything else can be a career-accelerator".

Feminism has been proven to never be about equality, but the need to criticize male patriarchal values and ideals.
Think of strong liberated women as honorary men,.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by reasonvemotion »

Belinda wrote:
Think of strong liberated women as honorary men,.
Those days have passed.

Women can be themselves.
Post Reply