Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 01, 2020

Dehumanizing humans

I suspect one reason some people think like this meme depicts above is because they don't have children. See declining birth rates in the US and other western nations. It's as if a baby is something "other" to them. I guess more like knowledge by description than knowledge by acquaintance. Anyway, to these people it may seem like it's an abstract debate, without significant personal stakes. That is, it's a debate between "a person with rights" vs. "a woman's right to bodily autonomy" as if "rights" is the sole or central concern, while our "humanness" is something incidental or secondary. As if "rights" are conferred by one group of human beings to another group of human beings, so it's ultimately human beings who decide which "rights" are more fundamental. They can't seem to appreciate that we're dealing with human beings who, simply by virtue of being human, have inherent or innate rights.

At best, they might see kids around them. However, they may see kids, but do they truly see kids? I know too many people or couples who "can't stand kids". Who don't wish to be around kids let alone have kids. People who are more career-minded than family-minded. (I'm referring to childless couples by choice, not childless couples who longed for children, but sadly never could have children due to infertility or other reasons.)

At the same time, it's easier to kill someone if the killer doesn't consider their victim a human being. Or considers them a lesser kind of human being. Like when Germans began to see the Jews as rats or vermin (cf. Kafka's Metamorphosis, Spiegelman's Maus). Like masters seeing slaves as their inferiors. Or like considering babies (at the embryonic or fetal stage of life) mere "clumps of cells".

People can de-God God by failing to esteem God as he ought to be esteemed, but people can also de-humanize humans by failing to esteem humans as we ought to be esteemed. Human beings aren't God, of course, but we're not a chunk of randomly assembled molecules in an aqueous solution either.

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Non-conformists

Sunday, March 08, 2020

International Women's Day

1. I'd argue Christianity has a higher regard for women than virtually any other religion or worldview. Perhaps a major exception is Judaism, though rabbinic Judaism is quite different than biblical Judaism. And secular humanism is parasitic on Judeo-Christian values about women. Anyway others better than I have written reams about all this so I won't belabor the point.

2. I don't know why we need an International Women's Day to celebrate women in general. I don't celebrate women in general, just like I don't celebrate men in general. There are good and bad among men and women.

3. It seems to me International Women's Day is just another diversity day to push feminism. I mean a mixture of second, third, and/or fourth wave feminism. Just like there are diversity days to push liberal or progressive values and goals about minorities like Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, and so on. Mind you, I support many minority issues, but what I don't support is the liberal or progressive use or manipulation of minorities to push their own agendas.

4. Besides, as far as that goes, why isn't there a UNESCO-recognized International Men's Day? Especially in light of all the issues and problems many men suffer today.

Thursday, November 07, 2019

Masturbation and prostate cancer

Typically progressives don't have a problem with pornography or masturbation. In fact, typically they encourage watching porn and masturbating.

Hence when men struggling with these encourage one another to abstain from watching porn and masturbation (e.g. No Nut November, NoFap), progressives are triggered. Others may be triggered as well, but progressives especially.

One argument progressives bring up is that if men don't watch porn and masturbate, then they'll have an increased risk of prostate cancer:

  1. At the risk of stating the obvious, porn and masturbation are separable. One could masturbate without watching porn.

  2. However, even on progressive terms, it's not really about masturbation but ejaculation. A man can be happily married and engaging in regular sex with his wife. He should be routinely ejaculating in a marriage with regular sex.

  3. By contrast, one big reason men encourage one another to abstain from watching porn and masturbating is because these men realize it's causing them to lose control over their lives. They've become losers. Coomers. So these struggling guys want to turn away from watching porn and masturbating. They want to regain control over their lives. They want to seek a real woman with whom to have a relationship with and hopefully marry. Are progressives against men seeking long-term romantic relationships with women? Are progressives against couples getting married?

  4. As far as the medical science behind the idea that frequent masturbation lowers the risk for prostate cancer, see UpToDate:

    An association between ejaculatory frequency and a lower risk of prostate cancer has been suggested in two case-control studies:

    • In a study which compared men under the age of 70 who had prostate cancer with age-matched controls, men who had five or more ejaculations per week while in their 20s (but not their 30s or 40s) had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio 0.66) than those who had fewer ejaculations [148].

    • A report from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study compared men who developed prostate cancer (n = 3839) with controls of a similar age group who had similar ejaculatory frequency but no prostate cancer [149]. On multivariable analysis, the incidence of prostate cancer was significantly reduced for men having more than 21 ejaculations per month compared with those with 4 to 7 ejaculations per month between ages 20 and 29 years (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92). The HR for those reporting more than 21 versus 4 to 7 ejaculations per month between ages 40 and 49 years was 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.89).

    The validity of this relationship has been called into question because of the lack of association of prostate cancer with ejaculation frequency in older men and the fact that other studies have failed to show a protective effect from being married or having more sexual partners [150]. Moreover, the problem of recall bias also casts doubt on the interpretation of studies that use this methodology.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Dad tries to save son from transgenderism

And to piggyback on Steve's post as well:

1. If all the reports are accurate, then I couldn't agree more. It's maddening, infuriating, lamentable. The kid has no more hope for a happy childhood.

2. Not to mention by all accounts I've read the 7 year old boy doesn't want to be a girl but his mother is forcing her choice onto the boy. Does this set a precedence for parents to transition their children into a different sex against their children's wills? At this point, it looks like progressives are arguing women should be able to abort their child even as newborns no longer in the womb and women should be able to turn their children into whatever sex they wish their children to be despite biological realities. Is there anything women can't do to their children according to progressives?

3. The mother is a pediatrician who should know better. However she's a terrible and evil person. Indeed, it seems to me there are many women like her.

4. Women have had a loud and clear voice for generations, but who will speak on behalf of men? Men seem to be increasingly unfairly discriminated against in our society. Boys and men are increasingly tyrannized by third wave feminists and progressives in general. For example, Christina Hoff Sommers has documented a lot of this.

5. I don't know if there's any more hope for the father to win a court case. I don't know if he can appeal. Or even take it to the Supreme Court.

6. However, if there are no more legal options open to the father, and assuming most people bow to the evil judicial decision, then if it were me I think I'd consider trying to "kidnap" my son (in fact both of my sons since they're twins) and fleeing to another state or even another nation. I realize this is desperate, but I don't know what else the father can do. It seems he's only left with hard choices for his sons: a choice between state-sponsored child abuse under an evil mother in the US vs. a more normal childhood under a good father but living life on the run. But I think this kind of "kidnapping" is arguably justifiable on Christian ethics.

7. Remember this case whenever you hear liberals and progressives say things like "transgenderism doesn't harm anyone", "transgenderism is not a mental illness", "everyone should get a choice", "it's their choice, not yours", "you're bigoted against transgendered peoples", etc. The truth is liberals and progressives are always pushing their abnormal values onto normal people, but acting like they're the victims when normal people dissent.

Sunday, September 01, 2019

The bachelorette

1. I hesitate to even comment on this. For one thing, I find shows like The Bachelorette too worldly. There are far better things to consider in life.

For another, I just don't care for these sorts of shows. I have never watched The Bachelorette or The Bachelor. Nor do I plan to. Not unless the bachelorettes and bachelors featured involve space aliens shooting space lasers at each other in space wars!

And even if these shows were valuable (which I'd say they're not), they're so ephemeral. Who's going to remember any of the contestants a generation from now? Rather the contestants would do well to heed Ecclesiastes' message: hebel. Life is a vapor. A mere breath. A chasing after the wind. Fleeting. Or as James puts it: "What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes" (4:14).

2. That said, the latest season apparently starred a professing Christian bachelorette named Hannah Brown along with another professing Christian bachelor named Luke Parker. I saw a few clips of them. Evidently the most talked (gossiped?) about moment on the show was when Hannah kicked Luke off the show for (according to Hannah) "slut shaming" her for having had premarital sex multiple times, which she all but boasted about. Indeed she gave him the middle finger. And she insisted and continues to insist "Jesus still loves me".

3. I made comments about how either Hannah needs to repent of her sexual sin and live like a Christian or stop professing to be a Christian if she wishes to continue in her sexual sin. Hannah's legions of "sisters" came to her defense against me. All of them were likewise professing Christians. They seemed to take what I said quite personally and criticized me for what I said about Hannah.

4. All of them told me how judgmental I was (or words to that effect). Ironic how these women judge me for being judgmental...but Hannah gets a free pass, their sympathy, forgiveness, love, and acceptance from them. Of course, the Bible doesn't say we should never judge anyone, period. Rather the Bible teaches us we should "judge with right judgment" (Jn 7:24).

This and other things the professing Christian women said to me illustrated how biblically illiterate they are. That seems to be a growing trend. Christians should be a people of the Book.

5. The kind of Christianity espoused by Hannah and her sisters is more akin to moralistic therapeutic deism than biblical Christianity.

6. It's interesting how so many women often idolize other people. Take women at concerts. Jumping up and down, tearing their hair out, in a state of frenzy. I mean, men go to concerts too, but we don't go gaga over rockstars like women do.

As such, I suspect what's partly happening with these professing Christian women defending Hannah is that she's an idol for them. They identify with her. Or at the very least she's a heroine to them. A professing Christian like they are, trying to find true love. And criticism against Hannah is tantamount to criticism against them.

If so, I'd say these women need better heroines. Why settle for someone like The Bachelorette's Hannah rather than (say) the Bible's Hannah? Or the Bible's Sarah, Zipporah, Deborah, Jael, Rahab, Ruth, Esther, Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, the Samaritan woman at the well, Martha and her sister Mary, Lydia, etc. Or women like Anne Bradstreet, Christina Rossetti, Selina Countess of Huntingdon, Ann Judson, Amy Carmichael, Helen Roseveare, Corrie ten Boom, Bethan Lloyd-Jones, Susanna Wesley, Sarah Edwards, etc.

These are the sorts of women of whom the world was not worthy. By contrast, at this point in her life Hannah Brown strikes me as a woman indistinguishable from the world.

Friday, August 30, 2019

Ad uxorem

1. Psychologically speaking, it seems women tend to be more flexible in shaping themselves into what the men whom they love and respect in their lives want. In fact, women are often more than happy to please the men they love and respect.

As an aside, maybe this is part of what it means for the woman to have been a "helper" fit for Adam, to have been taken from his "rib", to have been his "bone" and his "flesh". It's as if wives naturally wish to mold themselves into their husbands' vision in life.

2. However, it wouldn't seem quite right if the husband shapes himself into what his wife wants. In fact, whenever that happens, it seems to me both husband and wife end up miserable.

Most girlfriends or wives don't respect a boyfriend or husband who does whatever she wants him to do, who looks to her for guidance, who looks to her to make the big decisions in life, who looks to her to lead the family.

They may say they do, but they don't. Their attitudes and behavior put the lie to that.

At best, a wife might enjoy wielding that kind of power over her husband, but she won't respect him. She may wear the pants in the family, but she'll begrudge it - and him.

3. Today many women seem inflexible. They don't wish to change or adapt to the men in their lives. They don't wish to follow any man. Rather they expect men to change to accommodate them. They expect men to heed them.

At the same time, these women don't typically respect men who follow their lead all the time. Not when it comes to the men in their own lives.

Of course, they're fine with getting men in general to support what they want. Such as hyperfeminism, the #MeToo movement, abortion. But I'm primarily referring to a wife and her husband.

In any case, these women are caught in a catch-22 of their own making. On the one hand, they refuse to follow their man, but expect him to follow her. On the other hand, they don't respect men who are wrapped around their finger. As such, these women make themselves miserable.

4. Sadly, there seem to be ever more women like this in our society and culture. I suppose that's largely owing to second and third wave feminism.

5. Of course, none of this is to deny men or husbands have problems. That's a separate topic.

At the same time, even this needs to be kept in context. For one thing, there's an ongoing war against men and masculinity in our culture.

6. By contrast, there's Christian marriage. For instance, perhaps we can draw some inspiration from Tertullian, even if it's too idealistic and idealized:

How shall we ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the church arranges, the sacrifice strengthens, upon which the blessing sets a seal, at which angels are present as witnesses, and to which the Father gives his consent? For not even on earth do children marry properly and legally without their fathers' permission.

How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God's church and partake of God's banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other's company; they never bring sorrow to each other's hearts. Unembarrassed they visit the sick and assist the needy. They give alms without anxiety; they attend the sacrifice without difficulty; they perform their daily exercises of piety without hindrance. They need not be furtive about making the sign of the cross, nor timorous in greeting the brethren, nor silent in asking a blessing of God. Psalms and hymns they sing to one another, striving to see which one of them will chant more beautifully the praises of their Lord. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these he gives his peace. Where there are two together, there also he is present; and where he is, there evil is not.

These, then, are the thoughts which the apostle in that brief expression of his has left for our consideration. Recall them to your mind, if ever there should be need to do so. Use them to strengthen yourself against the bad example which certain women give you. In no other way than this are Christians permitted to marry - and, even if they were, it would not be the prudent thing to do.

Monday, August 26, 2019

Veiling women

I'm going to comment on this post:


The danger of my commenting on Bnonn's post is that it's the first installment of a series with however many parts, which may work itself into a book, so Bnonn might steal my blindingly brilliant observations, claiming that he already addressed those concerns in a later installment. I won't get any credit! Humor aside:

Sunday, July 21, 2019

The space race for equality

Thanks to Steve for pointing out this NYT article to me. My thoughts:

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Monday, July 08, 2019

US women's soccer

The US women's team won the Women's World Cup today. Apparently this is the US women's fourth World Cup victory since the dawn of the Women's World Cup. That's the most titles of any nation.

Riding this wave, it appears women are demanding equal pay in soccer because apparently women make significantly less than their male counterparts in soccer.

I admit I haven't followed the equal pay issues in women's soccer in significant depth so I don't know if what I'm about to say is on target. Here are my remarks:

  1. First, congrats to the women's team. Megan Rapinoe is the media darling and MVP, but Rose Lavelle looks like the real breakout star of the team in terms of athleticism.

  2. Do women in soccer deserve to make the same money as men in soccer? I don't know that "deserve" has anything to do with it. I don't know that it's an ethical issue. Rather I presume salary largely reflects viewership, sponsorship, and advertising. If a sport can get tons of viewers, sponsors, and advertisers interested, then the sport will have more money, and I presume players can get paid more. Isn't that normally how it works in sports? Why should it be different for women's soccer?

  3. If we're judging simply by athleticism, I imagine it's not as fun to watch women play soccer as it is to watch men play soccer. To be frank, as good as our women's professional soccer team is, and I don't wish to take anything away from them, nevertheless they look more like amateurs playing soccer in comparison to a low tier male professional soccer team let alone a world class team like Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, England, Portugal, etc. I imagine that's the case for most men's vs. women's sports, not only soccer.

  4. I presume sports like women's tennis and volleyball are popular at least as much (if not more so) for the female athletes' appearances as for their athleticism. That's not to suggest it's fair.

  5. I don't have a problem if women are paid equally or even more than men in the same sport. Perhaps women's soccer can bring in as much if not more viewership, sponsorship, and advertising than men's soccer in the US. Especially in light of this latest World Cup victory. If so, then women could very well be paid on par with or even more than men. I don't have a problem with that.

  6. My problem is if women are paid on par with men by dictum presumably due to political, social, or cultural pressure to pay women more simply because they're women. That seems sexist. And women shouldn't wish to get paid more simply because they're women any more than men should wish to get paid more simply because they're men. How is that empowering?

  7. Take men's soccer in the US vs. England. To my knowledge, the English Premier League (EPL) tends to pay their players more than the Major League Soccer (MLS) pays their players. I presume that's because the EPL has more viewers, sponsors, and advertisers involved than the MLS does. However it'd be laughable if someone argued men's soccer players in the MLS should get paid on par with men's soccer players in the EPL, not because the MLS is bringing in the same viewership and money and so on as the EPL, but simply because they're paid lower and deserve to be paid more, or perhaps because the "potential" for viewers in the MLS is greater than the "potential" in the EPL.

  8. I don't know if it would help or hurt if transgendered "women" make it onto the women's national soccer teams. I guess it'd improve the athleticism, but won't many viewers find that unfair or offputting in some way? At best, wouldn't it be like watching a low-rent men's soccer team? Who would want to watch that?

Tuesday, July 02, 2019

Feminist double standards

i) There's a stereotypical difference between men and women. If a pretty girl grabbed the butt of a young guy, or slapped him on the butt, or kissed him, or put her hands up his shirt, or walked up to him on the beach and ran her hands up and down his chest, a normal guy (especially if he's single) wouldn't be offended by that.  He'd find that flattering and amusing. And those are mild examples. A pretty woman could push the envelop further without repercussion (e.g. grab his crotch or yank his jams down). 

At the moment I'm not discussed what's morally proper. I'm just making the obvious point that what might constitute sexual harassment or assault if a guy does it to a girl isn't sexual harassment or assault if a girl does it to a guy. Men and women are wired differently.

ii) Up to a point I don't mind a double standard. The problem is with an arbitrary double standard where we simultaneously pretend that men and women are interchangeable, should be treated the same in every respect. Intolerance for male spaces (e.g. the Boy Scouts) or male-only occupations (e.g. combat). 

We need to have a consistent policy. Either admit that men and women are different in some fundamental respects, in which case we allow for male-only spaces and male-only occupations, or have a uniform policy in treating male and female alike (not my recommendation).  

Secular progressives try to have it both ways. Another example is affirmative consent policies on college campuses which discriminate against male students, begin with the presumption that the male is always the guilty party in a male/female sexual transaction. 

iii) It's also a fact that some women are attracted to certain kinds of men. Handsome guys can get away with things homely guys wouldn't dare do. Bad boys get away with things that square boys wouldn't dare do. Some women are attracted to rich/powerful men, even though they know the men are promiscuous. 

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Nurse Ratched for president

Ever notice that the women running for president on the Democrat ticket are running to be Mommy-in-Chief. Feminism is Momism:

The movie's simplistic approach to mental illness is not really a fault of the movie, because it has no interest in being about insanity. It is about a free spirit in a closed system. Nurse Ratched, who is so inflexible, so unseeing, so blandly sure she is right, represents Momism at its radical extreme, and McMurphy is the Huck Finn who wants to break loose from her version of civilization...If his performance is justly celebrated, Louise Fletcher's, despite the Oscar, is not enough appreciated. This may be because her Nurse Ratched is so thoroughly contemptible, and because she embodies so completely the qualities we all (men and women) have been taught to fear in a certain kind of female authority figure--a woman who has subsumed sexuality and humanity into duty and righteousness. Dressed in her quasi-military nurse's costume, with its little hat and its Civil War-style cape, she is dominatrix and warden, followed everywhere by the small, unspeaking nurse who is her acolyte.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The grammar of God

Is God a "he"? The phenomenon of divine masculinity runs much deeper in Scripture than pronouns. In Scripture, God assumes stereotypically manly roles. Defensive roles. Punitive roles. God as protector and provider (e.g. father, shepherd, deliverer, warrior king) as well as avenger (judge). These are social roles which in the ancient world are naturally and necessarily associated with overwhelming might. The physical power to subjugate adversaries. In addition, there's the procreative metaphor, which trades on the fact that the woman's role is more "receptive" in relation to the male contribution. 

Of course, mothers have a protective instinct regarding their kids. But women lack the natural equipment of a she-bear. The force to back it up came from male aggression, musculature, and weaponry. 

Moreover, these aren't primarily literary representations of God, although some of them are theological metaphors. Rather, these are ways in which God actually operates in human history.  

So divine masculinity in Scripture isn't primarily grammatical or rhetorical, but grounded in God's economic roles. The grammar and imagery are a reflection of that deeper reality. 

This does raise the issue of the extent to which God's economic roles mirror his essential nature. That's more a question for philosophical theology. 

But if we think the Bible accurately represents divine action in the world, then that's sufficient reason to retain predominantly masculine language, imagery, and metaphor in theological discourse and liturgy as normative usage. 

If you don't think that's the case, that's not a reason to substitute feminine or unisex alternatives. Rather, that's a reason to become an atheist.