Women

Taimar

There are no toes to step on here. Glad you share your opinion.

"neurological mechanism at work which acts as a distraction, even in woman who have no offspring"

The distracting mechanism in men is called sexual lust; it's sometimes called also football or baseball lust.


Gilthalion

"[Oprah's] show aired The Kiss with predictable near swooning from the (female) studio audience"RATS

Anduin answered you very well.
So what happened in the show in no way supports what you already said before about the kissing thing.

"I maintain, however, my opposition to the extremists that have hijacked our institutions and media and have shaped public opinion contrary to Reality"

Wow. Hijacked. I guess you would call them Traitors as well, with a capital "T".
Public opinions shaped against Reality is what was done mostly by religions, including christianity: miracles, virgin births, incarnate god...
Public opinions shaped against Reality is what is done mostly by conservatives (not even extremist ones!): woman that have their "places" at home, in the kitchen, raising children and waiting for the husband (refer to Eruve's quotes!).RATS

Your position is an anachronism.
But anachronism is what the conservative right is a lot about anyways (not all though, fortunately...).

"Men and Women are different, some more so than others."

*Sigh* I will just quote myself(!) to answer this one:

"Again, no one among feminists or others would say altogether the contrary to the last statement. It never has been an issue about beeing "the same", but about equality of rights and opportunities; rights and opportunities have been traditionally been in favor of men, and I think you agreed with that."

So this is not about men and women being different, but about equal opportunities in real life.
To this day, there are still sexists that think women should stay at home, and not occupy important positions traditionally taken by men...

"--Too many women are be inclined to silliness of this sort and will not concern themselves with the vital issues from which men cannot shift their gaze.
--Too many men are inclined to obtuseness about the legitimate concerns that are patently obvious to most women."

I would like to know what in your opinion are those "vital issues" men are so concentrated on and about which "too many" women are inclined to silliness to; and what are the "legitimate concerns" women have that too many men are obtused about.

And why in one case it is about "vital issues" of men, whereas in the other it is merely "legitimate concerns" of women...


"With universal sufferage, voting rights granted indiscriminantly to the entire adult population, these at-large tendencies are predictable and are demonstratable across decades of polls and elections."

Well, this obviously goes beyond the issue of Women.

So, here or in another thread, i'd like to know who for you should the right to vote be granted. And to whom it should be removed from.
I think you have already expressed here somewhat that certain women should have their right to vote questioned; but in general, I would like to know your criteria for your democracy.


"Clinton Regime"

" Regime: a system or rule or government". I'll suppose you used that definition of the word.


RATS "If the Republicans fail to bring America back to the center, we will fall off the ravine to the Left"

I guess the Right often think the Center is too lefty, and the Left often think its too righty...


"perhaps [...] some of you guys can help pull us away from the abyss on the Right"

The Abysmal Right isn't heaven either...
Let's find another Road; time maybe to leave the beaten paths that lead to either Abysses...

"We won't make much progress, if through the ineptitude of the Socialists, freedom and prosperity is lost and squandered."

The hearthlesness and ravenousness of ultra-Capitalists doesn't help either.
Neither extremes of those groups have brought any good.
Both are ultimately serving only their defenders.

Freedom as never been served by any of these two capitalized labels.
And prosperity makes only sense if it serves the population, not only a few handfull that can manipulate the degree of freedom of the population.

(the preceding post is probably the first time Shanamir Duntak didn't get to have the 100th post in a thread! he must be seeing red by now!)

In responding to Juntel's post, I will not attempt to deal with every point he argued. It is now almost midnight here, the debate is not that imporatant to me, and we are really starting to split hairs. I'd rather RPG. I get paid to work and this is work indeed, since I have no joy in it.

When I say Center, I don't mean Center today, as opposed to a different Center yesterday. I mean the Golden Rule.

As for what from your posts seems to be an ongoing pointed assault against Christianity, I decline to respond. Since you insist on bringing it up, I will say this much: I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and that he has purchased and secured my eternal life. I believe this because the old, old stories led me to question if there were Truth in them. I looked, and I found God. "Ask and ye shall receive, knock, and the door shall be opened." I can express it no more clearly. It is Supernatural. I will pray that you find out for yourself.

I don't want to see an avalanche of pro/con Christian posts here!

To everything there is a season. If my views are old fashioned in some ways, that does not mean they are wrong. It has always been a contemporary conceit that all that is old is folly and that only change is good. Some things, and some points of view are worth keeping.

I was just considering starting a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD! Great minds run in the same channel! (Or is it, "Fools think alike?")

Voila!

("Now it's after midnight!" cried the little hobbit. He would be sleepy and full of woe when the alarm rang in just a few hours...)

"your posts seems to be an ongoing pointed assault against Christianity"

The "assault" as you call it is directed to organized religions, including christianity, which obviously and without doubt is guilty of many atrocities, physical and mental, towards men and women who dared to think differently from it. That christianity brought also good things is unquestionable also. But as a human creation, it is not perfect, an humans' inner madness will surely taint any human creation.

All (not some) of my friends are of a religion or another, and most are christians. None of them are attacked by my position, and although they don't agree with me, they also do not feel attacked or assaulted.

Not all christians are anachronists.
Not all want to put women "at their place".


"...I decline to respond"

So be it.


"I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and that he has purchased and secured my eternal life"

It's your rigth to believe that.


"It is Supernatural"

...but is it Reality, with a capital "R" like you used in previous posts?
There lies the reason why I brought up the subject of religion again.
You say some people "shaped public opinion contrary to Reality", and yet the ideas that you and those like you (call them Rightists, conservative, or whatnot) are based on a religion shaped by a past that is not up to todays standards and demands. And especially a religion which you yourself have just described as "supernatural"...
But that is YOUR Reality.
Not mine, nor the one shared by a lot of others.


"I will pray that you find out for yourself."

As long as you limit that to praying....

Once there were western societies where Religion and State were melded together, and that was "the Ways of Things" then. Not pretty to see. And people didn't just pray for someone else's conversion.
If this situation comes again, especially in the US (or Canada), then THAT would be the ABYSS that Gil talked about (which of course is no different than the abyss of Stalinism: quite interesting that Left and Right in their extremes join together in the same abyss...)



"If my views are old fashioned in some ways, that does not mean they are wrong."

True.
And if someone's views are un-christian, that doesn't mean they are wrong either... right?
It's not that your views are old-fashioned that is disconcerting: mine are also old-fashioned to the young punks, ravers, and whatnot also.

What is disconcerting is that your views debase women in spite of what we know, even in spite of the tv interview you gave us: that is why I took care of quoting twice the conclusion of Dr.Denckla.

I do agree that all that is old is not bad, and that all that is new is not good.
What is bad, in my opinion, is the so often view of some to want to mostly stick with the old, since the new conflicts with their deepest thoughts and beliefs. And of course, the same is also true to those who shun anything old.

But there is something about the past views that we can say: we can know in retrospect about their consequences, their origins (sometimes), their positive and negative sides. And then from these observations we know how to make something new with something old.

And so many past and old views about women have been debunked, thrown away because of their dubious origins, horrible consequences.
And what is so disconcerting is that some people today still hold tight to these old views and mentality.

And I won't apologize for doing my darndest to fight against those old (...) views.
Not because they are old, but because they stink.

Voila.

(/Edited out the word "prurient", which I misused (by a light year!) )

juntel

For what it's worth, I do not defend the depredations of organized religion.

Chrisitanity is not a religion to me. It is a personal relationship with God. (Who I found DESPITE religion.) It is Reality. You don't share this reality, but you've never seen the far side of the Moon either. (Not quite the same, but close enough for philosophy.)

You will find no more ardent supporter of church-state separation than myself.

You will find no more ardent defender of the rights of women than myself.

If you read more of the information that I presented regarding rigorously defined gender diffences in the brain, than the one comment you chose to excerpt twice, you will see that it bears out my statements.

If you read my statements carefully, you will see that I am not the raving anachronist you've painted me to be.

The Oprah incident was icing on the cake, and no amount of hairsplitting ameliorates the fact that there are lots of silly women. I've been clear enough that there are plenty of moronic men as well.


***
This discussion is generating more heat than light, and I am done.

I see no reason for me to post further to this thread. I have edited this post and apologize for any offense prior to my edit.

OK My opinion may not matter but something as serious as what you people are talkin about is not really in place in a forum... Not that serious issues shouldnt be talked about but relegion is life as serious and as important as you can get and not something to be debated about in a forum like this.

Gil, I wanted you to know that I personally have not been offended by your arguements....baffled yes, offended no. Well maybe a little during the heat of debate, but I realize that you feel just as strong about your beliefs as I do mine, and I can't hold that against you. Each of us have our own opinions about all types of subjects....religion included....so there will always be debate. I think that you and juntel are two of the best debators we have had on this board, and I thank you for your participation. It was discussed awhile back between us moderators whether or not we should allow highly controversial subjects to be debated on this board. It was decided that as long as they didn't turn into flame fests then they could stay. I think that it says a lot about this place that we are able to debate so many different subjects but are still able to "play nice" on the rest of the board. I don't think that anyone's feelings were hurt, (if so, please speak up) and I believe that there were a lot of good things said on both sides.

Roving Turtle, thank you for your opinion, for it does matter, but currently all subjects are open for debate on this board.

"It [personal relationship with God, or God] is Reality. You don't share this reality, but you've never seen the far side of the Moon either"

I've never seen a Hobbit either...


"I do not defend the depredations of organized religion"

Glad to hear that.


"You will find no more ardent supporter of church-state separation than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as it means a secular society, where religion is taught only within the family and community, where it belongs, so that each with their own religions may be on respectful equal footing.


"You will find no more ardent defender of the rights of women than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as those rights you talk about are universal, on equal footing to those that men have, and that affirmative-action-like measures to compensate for years, centuries, millenia of injustices are taken.


"If you read more of the information that I presented regarding rigorously defined gender diffences in the brain, than the one comment you chose to excerpt twice, you will see that it bears out my statements."

The statement I quoted twice is a very important statement that Dr.Denckla made, I'm convinced, to warn some people against their misinterpreting her findings she talked about in the show; ie, she basically was telling them:
"Yes, there are differences in the brain, but that can't in any way be taken as some kind of proof that women can't do this or do that kind of work. Look at me: I was awfull at spatial skills, but nevertheless, with the learning process that we all have, I managed to have a career which requires good spatial skills and I've made it! So don't you people interpret my findings and comments on this show as a proof that women shouldn't have a job requiring spatial skills!!!"
Of course, this is my interpretation, and anyone is free to interpret it in an other way, if they can.

A long time ago, it was about women not being as good as men in math.
Some "proof" were given, statistics on demand.
Well, as I and others contended is that those statistics didn't show necessarily that women were worse at math, because those stats didn't take into account the still existing "aura" around sciences in general which makes them more appealing to men.
Our societies have still some way to go before those artificial sexist barriers in careers choices are removed. But there has been lots of progress, and that progress shouldn't be destroyed by people still clinging to the idea that a woman's place is at home with the kids and the pots and the pans and the scrubbing gloves...


"If you read my statements carefully, you will see that I am not the raving anachronist you've painted me to be."

I have said: "Your position is an anachronism."
I did not say that you were an anachronist, even less a raving one.
I also said: "Not all christians are anachronists." My christian friends aren't, even though their faith take its source in a two thousand y.old myth (imo). As wheter you are or aren't an anachronist, I cannot say; all I can say is that many of your statements were clearly out of touch with present knowledge, notwithstanding your link to the tv show.

================================================== ==============


I'm a little saddened by Gilthalion's decision of not continuing this debate. But that is his choice. He didn't like the way I personnally handled the other hand of the debate I guess. In that case, let me here quote the origin of this debate on the Entmoot board, a post that was made in the Silmarillion forum here:

"And on the off-topic of Popular Feminism, it is, in my humble opinion, an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication and made possible by prosperity.

It is not so long ago in this corner of the world, and is still the case in many places, that the roles of men and women through life are very different as a matter of necessity. Things were not always so easy, and may not always be so, or may become easier still. But we have enough cash flow and opportunity that women need not depend on men, nor men on women. Popular Feminism hung its hat on the legitimate complaints and inequalities suffered by women in a civilization rising through the Industrial Age. But it also hung a cloak that covered an agenda that was anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy. Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well."


These words are what started it all.
These words, then, DID set the TONE of the debate.
These words, Gilthalion, are yours.

.

Stand by it all you want.

What I did was to remember the fact about where the thread's tone originated.

You attacked what you think is bad.
So did I.

And I was no less fair.

When you unjustly defame an ideology, do not be surprised if someone else comes in and shows you the mote in your eye.

And rather than thinking you've been pigeonholed, just try to realize that you dug your own hole.

I awoke this morning feeling ill and have decided to stay home from work today. So I am saved from my haste.


================================================== =========
I hate loose ends and so I find myself posting again, despite myself.

(Or perhaps it is pride and I cannot abide not having the last word. Forgive me.)

Anduin, I appreciate your last post. Happy to try to clear up whatever I'm unclear about or seem to be wrong about. I am used to heated debate, in fact, I'm sick of it at times and have responded to these things more out of years of habit than anything else. I come here to get away from all of that really, and it seems that to enjoy myself here, I must decline from debating substantive issues.

juntel, perhaps you do not even see what you are doing. If you do, then there is so much more reason for me to have nothing more to do with these more serious threads.


***
I, at first, wrote a rather long and heated post and then decided not to send it.

We live in a post-Christian age, the Baby Jesus is thrown out the window with the bathwater and we pride ourselves on how clean the bathtub is as a result. The tub is also rendered empty and meaningless.

I live in one of the last bastions of Christendom, though it is fading here as well. I understand Tolkien's Elves, who declined to involve themselves in the affairs of mortals.

But that is not my Mission and it would be wrong of me to decline engagement here. I apologise for intending to do so.

So, I must leave joy in this behind. Even here, where the great fantasies of that devout Christian, JRR Tolkien, are enjoyed, there is no respite, and Middle-earth slips again from view.

But I wonder how anyone can really enjoy Tolkien's work while despising the worldview that informed it?


================================================== =========

Since it is the fashion here to parse words and phrases let me see if I can't do as the Romans do.


***
--"It [personal relationship with God, or God] is Reality. You don't share this reality, but you've never seen the far side of the Moon either"

I've never seen a Hobbit either...

No one seriously maintains that the ficticious Hobbits are real. God is no more a work of fiction than the Moon. This response is bull.


***
--"You will find no more ardent supporter of church-state separation than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as it means a secular society, where religion is taught only within the family and community, where it belongs, so that each with their own religions may be on respectful equal footing.

Re-bull.
No it doesn't mean that, but your anti-faith bias is showing again. You would put the secular state in control of society. There is no room for the free exercise of faith in the community if the society itself MUST be secular like the government. This is the kind of tyranny your view imposes. The state should have nothing whatsoever to do with society and with religion in particular. That is what separation of church and state means. Anything left of that crosses the line and is simply anti-faith. (Which is still just someone else's faith that it is right to constrain mine.)


***
--"You will find no more ardent defender of the rights of women than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as those rights you talk about are universal, on equal footing to those that men have, and that affirmative-action-like measures to compensate for years, centuries, millenia of injustices are taken.

Re-re-bull.
This is the vindictiveness I was talking about. I am not responsible for millenia of injustice. You cannot ever compensate for that. You go too far. It is one thing to talk about equal, universal rights. It is another to exact compensation for the sins of history.


***
As wheter you are or aren't an anachronist, I cannot say; all I can say is that many of your statements were clearly out of touch with present knowledge, notwithstanding your link to the tv show.

Re-re-re-bull.
It is vanity at best, prejudice most likely, and ignorance at least, to assert that Feminism is based upon present knowledge. The goal of equality for women does not require the achievement of the Feminist agenda and the "compensations" it demands.


***
You say some people "shaped public opinion contrary to Reality", and yet the ideas that you and those like you (call them Rightists, conservative, or whatnot) are based on a religion shaped by a past that is not up to todays standards and demands. And especially a religion which you yourself have just described as "supernatural"...

Re-re-re-re-bull.
Even today's standards and demands are shaped by the past. What part of the Christian faith is it that is not up to these lofty standards? I think you will find our standards even higher (when practiced). Why is a "supernatural" religion "especially" lacking? Do you prefer a "natural" or "preternatural" religion? Or just the atheist's vain faith in man as the measure of all things?

As I said, I have a relationship with God DESPITE religion. What is it other than the past that "today's demands" are based upon do you think? They didn't pop out up out of a quantum flux in a vaccuum.


***
"I will pray that you find out for yourself."

As long as you limit that to praying....

Once there were western societies where Religion and State were melded together, and that was "the Ways of Things" then. Not pretty to see. And people didn't just pray for someone else's conversion.
If this situation comes again, especially in the US (or Canada), then THAT would be the ABYSS that Gil talked about (which of course is no different than the abyss of Stalinism: quite interesting that Left and Right in their extremes join together in the same abyss...)

Agreed.
As long as you don't limit me to just praying... Let's keep it in the middle shall we?

A secular state is necessary, and it was American Christians who invented it. But they did not intend for the power of that state to be abused to create a secular society hostile to free religion. You would constrain the free exercise of my faith to the bounds of the church and the home, making it free no longer. My Mission is the world. And not even the grandest state of global socialism possible can prevent the completion of our Mission. Did you know we have nearly finished?

"Not by might, and not by power..." That is where Christianity failed, allowing the institutional Church (as opposed to the actual Church, which is the body of believers, not a building or institution or ideology) to become adulterated with State involvement.

juntel wisely fears the Abyss on the Right, for history is filled with it's cruelty. Nevertheless, the cruelties committed in the name of Christ through 20 centuries have been far surpassed in this last century by cruelties of the tyrants of the Left.

I believe we have reached a point in the course of human events such that if we slide into the Abyss on the Right or the Left ever again, it will be for the last time. We are perilously close to the brink on the Left even now.


***
Regarding the tone of my original post and it's content:

When you unjustly defame an ideology, do not be surprised if someone else comes in and shows you the mote in your eye.

There was nothing defammatory about my description of Feminism. It was not false, it was not malicious, it was not libelous, it was not slanderous. I resent your insinuation that it was written with motivation to maliciously deceive.

Rather, it is diagnostic of the extreme Left's use of gender inequalities which pulls us toward that Abyss. They have used Feminism, Environmentalism, and Racism in the same ways. They engage now in a great, and perhaps final, assault upon Capitalism, made more subtle and effective by the fiction that Communism has fallen (more of that vaunted "present knowledge"). As Kruschev said, "We will bury you from within." Defending them is helping them. It is not maintaining centrality.

Show me what is unjust in my statement. Show me the mote in my eye. That would be fair enough. Let me show you the beam in yours:

Explicitly or implicitly attempting to discredit my argument through assaulting my faith or my character is not just.

But I should stop whining about it, turn the other cheek, and continue.


================================================== =========
Everyone:
I do apologise for letting my temper get the best of me. Like a wizard, I am quick to anger. Unlike a wizard, I'm not all that subtle. I should not have even considered abandoning the serious topic threads, having once entered into them. If my thought were as subtle as my anger is quick, I might not have posted in the first place.

But I have, and if I must conduct a point by point defense of every comment, then so be it. (Until I see that it is indeed futile.)

But there will be less time for the other things that I would actually love doing. Duty calls.

P.S.
I'd love to sit with juntel and the rest of you in a tavern, over some beers and do this. In person, all of this would be so much nicer and friendlier. I'm sure we would have a great time! But slaving away at this over a cold, impersonal keyboard is not fun at all to me.

Addicting as it is...

"Nevertheless, the cruelties committed in the name of Christ through 20 centuries have been far surpassed in this last century by cruelties of the tyrants of the Left."

I'd like to put some statistics forward.

Fill in the blanks...

______ (6 digits) Armenians were massacred by the _______ Empire in 1896 (it's close enough to the 20th century).
_______ (7 digits - arguably 8) Ukranians were starved to death by ______ in 1932-1933.
______ (6 digits) disabled _______ and _______ (7 digits) ____ were killed by the National _________ leader ______.
______ (6 digits) _______ people were executed by the ________ forces in 1937-1945.
_______ (7 digits) Cambodians were executed by the Khmer Rouge forces under ___ ___ from ____ to ____.
Approximately _______ (6 to 7 digits) ________ were killed in 1994 in ______.

Go for it.

"'I've never seen a Hobbit either...
No one seriously maintains that the ficticious Hobbits are real. God is no more a work of fiction than the Moon. This response is bull."


That God is as real as the moon is your belief, not mine nor many others. The bull is on your shoes.


"'As long as it means a secular society...'
No it doesn't mean that, but your anti-faith bias is showing again. You would put the secular state in control of society... This is the kind of tyranny your view imposes..."

Wrong. A secular society is one in which no religion is in control of any important aspect of social needs, so as to be open to any religion, faith, creed, or absence thereof; ie so as to no-one be in a preferred position due to their faith.
To leave secularity to only the government isn't sufficient: it needs to be in public schools (not private ones), and especially in the laws of the land (or lands).
If what I just described isn't called "secular society", then i'm open to any other name for it.


'As long as those rights you talk about are universal, on equal footing to those that men have, and that affirmative-action-like measures to compensate for years, centuries, millenia of injustices are taken.'
This is the vindictiveness I was talking about. I am not responsible for millenia of injustice. You cannot ever compensate for that. You go too far. It is one thing to talk about equal, universal rights. It is another to exact compensation for the sins of history."


No-one presently is responsible for millenia of injustice, that's a fact.
I've just looked in the dictionary, and see that "compensation" isn't the right word for what I meant to say; sorry about that.
What I wanted to convey with the word "compensation" is maybe "counter-act", or "put some little weigth on the this side of the balance, because the other side has been too much overweigth for too long".
Just as we today, of European descent, are not responsible for african past enslavement, we are not responsible for women's past 'enslavement'. But I do think that what has been done for blacks today, affirmative action, which i wholly support, can (and is) also be done for women. I've learned now that "compensation" is the wrong word to describe that.
(btw, in french, compenser is a verb that means "to balance an effect by another"... this kind of misunderstanding that my native language can create happens quite often!)


"What part of the Christian faith is it that is not up to these lofty standards?"

Treatment of women for one thing. Of course, I do not mean here all of christians: many christians are up to date.
I'm mostly talking about christians who believe in the literal truth of their bible. Such christians have the tendency to take answers to many everyday life problems from that book, although today problems (and/or amplitude of the problems) are different, and/or in different circumstances, and/or have better solutions that have been found since the writing of those scriptures.

"Or just the atheist's vain faith in man as the measure of all things?"

That's the atheists' problem. I'll let them answer you, if they can.


"I have a relationship with God DESPITE religion"

You wouldn't your deity without the religion within which it is defined.
Do you think your scriptures are independent of the religion in which they are found?
Unless of course you yourself have met your "road to Damas", and your king has appeared in person in front of you...


"'As long as you limit that to praying....
Agreed.
As long as you don't limit me to just praying... Let's keep it in the middle shall we?"

Praying for me and talking to me are the only things I can let you try.
It's the same things I let the Jehova's Witnesses, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Hare-Krishnas, the Muslims and all others do.
Beyond that, keep everything else to yourselves!!!


"A secular state is necessary, and it was American Christians who invented it. But they did not intend for the power of that state to be abused to create a secular society hostile to free religion"

I answered a bit about that above.
Again, if you have another expression for what i've described as "secular society", feel free to share it with me.


"Did you know we have nearly finished?"

Now now... are you talking about the task of reaching all corners of the world with the Word?
I guess so much has been done since christianity gladly took the Roman Empire's bloody sword, and bloodied it again all over the world, especially through the colonist empires of France, England, Spain, Portugal and what-not...
Whitout those atrocities (to which, I admit, I owe my presence here in America), would christianity be so widespread? C'mon!
The Mission you're talking about isn't impressive in the least.
It's just another way to change people from having their ancestral beliefs replaced by yours.
And that's nothing less than another form of colonialism.


"the cruelties committed in the name of Christ through 20 centuries have been far surpassed in this last century by cruelties of the tyrants of the Left"

Wrong.
Torture is torture, alienation is alienation, genocide is genocide.
I abhor trying to compare which genocide is bigger. Makes no sense to me.

As for the "Left"... well, there is left, and there is left.
Just as there are christians, and there are christians.
I'll try to not put every christians in the same basket (my friends wouldn't like that!), if you try not to put all the left in one basket either.


"I believe we have reached a point in the course of human events such that if we slide into the Abyss on the Right or the Left ever again, it will be for the last time. We are perilously close to the brink on the Left even now."

I agree with the first sentence.
But not the second, if you're talking about the western societies.
If we were perilously close to the Left's abyss, we wouldn't be permitted to say what we are saying right now, and both you and I would be arrested and interogated.

We are far, far from the left's abyss.

One thing i'd like to comment on the Abysses at the Right and the Left: each side usually drives the other closer to their own abyss. One side just doesn't go by itself; they each have to be stimulated by each other.
One easy (and frail, i admit) example is: the heated cold war of the 50's, with on the extreme left the legacy of Stalin's Red Russia, and on the extreme Right the USA with its McCarthy paranoid era.
Fortunately, McCarthy-ists lost in the end their bully paranoia, but on the other hand Russia only got out of their legacy a decade or so ago.


"There was nothing defammatory about my description of Feminism"

Yes, there is.
Firstly, you talk about "Popular Feminism", capitalized for whatever reason. I would understand if you were talking about the fringe group inside the feminist movement, eg A.Dworkin et al. But you are actuall talking about the current feminist movement that is actually talked about everyday in shows, in the media, in the magazines: the fringe group of extreme feminism isn't much talked about usually.
And you go on saying things like: "it is, in my humble opinion, an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication and made possible by prosperity."

So, "Popolar Feminism" is an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride... Well, if you were part of half the population and didn't have the right to vote, wouldn't you feel a bit insecure in our society?
Do you think that women's right to vote just came like that, because men decided that women were ready to vote now in our society?
And when the right to vote was given to women, do you think that all the injustices that were still commited against women were removed?
Feminism today, feminism in its usual and everyday expression, is nothing more than a continuation of this battle against blattant discrimination; it is not a question of vindication, but a question of rights, a question of not letting themselves be trampled by sexist prejudices that are still rampant in our societies (eg "women have their places).

But here's the funny thing you wrote: "Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well."
What in the name of Ganesha does that mean!!!!!!!???????
Now there is a conspiracy by "Popular Feminist" to dominate Men?!


"Let me show you the beam in [your eye]:
Explicitly or implicitly attempting to discredit my argument through assaulting my faith or my character is not just"

Oh... the "Ad Hominem" thing again...
As for "assaulting" your faith, well, I was merely showing that your religion (yes, religion) doesn't have clean hands; as i said above, if you attempt at defaming an ideology (or set of beliefs, of faith), do expect that yours will be scrutinized too.
As for your character, well... you explicitely said: "And on the off-topic of Popular Feminism, it is, in my humble opinion..."... So, since it was in YOUR opinion, do expect that I or others refer to that opinion and the character that formed it.


"I'd love to sit with juntel and the rest of you in a tavern, over some beers and do this. In person, all of this would be so much nicer and friendlier. I'm sure we would have a great time!"

True.
Which is why I'm on very good terms with my christian friends.

Come on. It'll be fun.

(he did say "20 centuries", not "20th century")

Must finish newsroundup for talkshow. Must do talkshow. Must rehearse HOBBIT. Must read HOBBIT at bookstore. Must entertain friends (one of them an agnostic geneticist, another an agnostic secessionist, both Libertarians like me!). Must eat and sleep, too...

Sorry, no time to adequately answer all!

These answers will have to do. I think they will cover the topics like a fig leaf. Scant, barely, and maybe a little prickly!

================================================== =========

First of all, I keep forgetting the language barrier. juntel it is a credit to your intellect that you do so very well in expressing yourself in these matters. English is my native tongue and I have trouble. I would speak and write French like a retarded child on morphine.

***
Actually, "compensation" was the proper word to use to describe Feminists' goals, though gladly not for you. As I've indicated, Afirmative Action is a quota system by any other name, institutionalized discrimination by classification of indiviuals, often ignoring their personal worth. Harm is done, but less than if Racism or Male Chauvenism remained institutionalized. I accept it only because nothing better has been offered. It is a choice of evils. (Few take my offer...) I'm glad that you see that their radical agenda is as bad as the other extremists, including those on the Right.

And yet, it is right to call it Popular Feminism. The National Organization of Women is comprised of only several hundred members. But their influence is great in media and in educational institutions, where the overwhelming majority of workers are rather far to the Left themselves. They sympathize with these extremists, giving them great influence over the policies and practices of their professions, limiting only their most extreme views. This pulls society ever farther to the Left.

Something like this used to happen in the Deep South, when Racism was institutionalized.

If you are surrounded with it, it is hard to see the forest for the trees, and easy to think that it is normal and natural. But when the trees are seen from afar, the growth can be seen en masse and one can more easily tell if they are planted too thickly, and in a few years will begin to stifle all other growth.

I despise most "-isms."


***
j: That God is as real as the moon is your belief, not mine nor many others.

g: "...the atheist's vain faith in man as the measure of all things?"

j: That's the atheists' problem. I'll let them answer you, if they can.

g: --Come again? Perhaps clarification will resolve this. If you believe in God, then you are not an atheist. If you do not believe, then what measure can you use if not Man? Agnostic or atheist, your philosophy of government excludes God.


***
g: "What part of the Christian faith is it that is not up to these lofty standards?"

j: Treatment of women for one thing. Of course, I do not mean here all of christians: many christians are up to date....today problems (and/or amplitude of the problems) are different, and/or in different circumstances, and/or have better solutions that have been found since the writing of those scriptures.


g: --Again, the modern arrogance of every generation, behaving as if all things really are new. There is nothing new under the sun! Way back in the thread, I believe I cited a 2000 year old verse from Galations that stated the position of Christianity on the subject. If a Christian does not agree with it, I submit to you that he is a Christian in name only and does not deserve to be called such. Rather than say that "many christians are up to date," I feel that society is finally catching up to many Christians.


***
g:"I have a relationship with God DESPITE religion"

j: You wouldn't your deity without the religion within which it is defined.
Do you think your scriptures are independent of the religion in which they are found?
Unless of course you yourself have met your "road to Damas", and your king has appeared in person in front of you...

g: --If the sandal fits, take it off. You're standing on holy ground.

I jest, a little. Religion points the way. It is not the Way. It is an institution we have built around it and along it. Sometimes the Way is hard to find, in the long clutter of constructions. But it is there. And along the Way, if you choose to take it, you will meet my King for yourself. If your meeting is as spectacular and terrifying as Paul's on the road to Damascus, I will rejoice to hear it, and if I find it's true, will follow you to the ends, and the End, of the Earth. My own meeting was much less spectacular. But you need not follow me. I am not Paul of Tarsus. But I am on that Way and I would be glad if you walked it with me.


***
j: ...if you have another expression for what i've described as "secular society", feel free to share it with me.

g: --I have only one caveat with your definition.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibitting the free exercise thereof."

What you propose, has proven prohibitive. We cannot give Government ANY AUTHORITY WHATSOVER in this realm. It will be abused and the cure (government involvement) is worse than the disease (cultural intolerance).

If a Christian is harming someone else, take him to court. But do not tell the poor ignorant fellow that he must send his children to the government school to be indoctrinated with views counter to his own. In the name of tolerance, we have zero tolerance.

(Listen to my Zero Tolerance skit on my BARE BONES WEBSITE!!! If you've ever watched the old "Hogan's Heroes" sitcom, you'll appreciate it. It doesn't have anything to do with Feminism, but it pokes fun at Bureaucrats. They are why you must have Small Government! People cannot handle a Big Government. Look at your medical system...)


***
"Let me show you the beam in [your eye]:
Explicitly or implicitly attempting to discredit my argument through assaulting my faith or my character is not just"

Let me be clearer. You say that I "defame" Feminism, for example. Perhaps this is another language problem and you may need to pull out the dictionary again. I have done nothing of the kind. At worst, I am in error. And that is unproven.


================================================== =========
Do I need to do an entire dissertation on my Popular Feminism comment? No time now, I've taken too much already.

Next post, I'll try to do that, maybe very late tonight or tomorrow afternoon. That will bring the thread back to topic and Anduin need not chastise us and send us to a new RELIGION thread.

NOW I MUST FLY!!!!!

Firstly, I must say here that I find no time pressure.
We have all the time we want to post. If nobody posts after me, I won't just flood the thread with some boring monologue!
Like I said before, if the Abortion thread hibernated many months to be revived, then any thread can do the same.
We all know we each have our "real" life to live outside cyberspace, and that immediate responses are not always possible.


As for my expressing myself in english... it helps that this is not "live", so I have time to think more before writing. As you can see, even this isn't enough to patch some linguistic mistakes.


"I'm glad that you see that their radical agenda is as bad as the other extremists, including those on the Right"

This was about "compensation", or whatever it should be called.
I've said above that I'm wholly for affirmative action, and that a similar solution should be made (if not already made) for women.
This is not "compensation" in the english sense of retribution, but more in the (french) sense of "balance", to balance the ongoing prejudices against blacks and women; this isn't injustice only done in the past, but one that goes on even today. The past has left us with an imbalance in our structures and mentalities, as shown explicitely in this thread by some.
So, affirmative action for blacks, and a similar solution for women, is a choice that is good for the many, for the society, but I do agree that the few that will get discarded by those solutions can have reasons to be angry. But I must emphasize here that this isn't revenge for past injustices, it is a solution for present injustices: these injustices are still among us, in the mentalities, in the system (political and economical).
This isn't just about the past.


"And yet, it is right to call it Popular Feminism. The National Organization of Women is comprised of only several hundred members. But their influence is great in media and in educational institutions, where the overwhelming majority of workers are rather far to the Left themselves. They sympathize with these extremists, giving them great influence over the policies and practices of their professions, limiting only their most extreme views"

N.O.W. isn't much different from other lobby group: NRA, the so-called "Jewish lobby" (which I doubt exist as a group, although there are important associations like B'Nai Brith), the Tobacco cancer-lobby, etc... Each have a duty to defend what they believe in, and to influence the politicians as much as they can to achieve what they think are right goals.
But it would be absurd, I hope you agree, to say that feminism IS N.O.W.; it existed before it, and feminists did create N.O.W., for to create an organisation is a good thing to combat institutionalized injustices (would women have the right to vote today if they had never gotten together, organized themselves, to demand their rights?).
I am glad to learn that media and educational institutions are influenced by (and sympatize with) a feminist organization; but I think they do, not because N.O.W. is powerfull (if they are at all), but rather because they feel and know the cause is right, wheter N.O.W exists or not.


"If you are surrounded with it, it is hard to see the forest for the trees, and easy to think that it is normal and natural. But when the trees are seen from afar, the growth can be seen en masse and one can more easily tell if they are planted too thickly, and in a few years will begin to stifle all other growth."

Hehe... that's exactly what some people say about right-wing conservative religious zealots politicians!
I guess it's a matter of in which side of the line one stands.
As I said in some other post (although incompletely), Right and Left can influence each other in such a way that each go towards their extremes.
I think I can recognize an extremist when I see one; an extremist isn't just someone that says something contrary to your beliefs and values. I did mention in some of my posts the extremist factions inside feminism. The current feminist movement that has influence is far from such extremism; what irks some people is that a lot of people respond favorably to such a movement.


"I despise most '-isms.'"

Hehe... we can't fly away from them. The english and french languages (and probably other languages, I only know those two) can append this suffix to almost everything: Entmootism, anduinism, Gilthanionism, juntelism, Taterism, benism, milderism, benmilderism, parrotism, lurkism...


"If you believe in God, then you are not an atheist. If you do not believe, then what measure can you use if not Man? Agnostic or atheist, your philosophy of government excludes God"

Ask your agnostic friends that you mentioned.
I do not believe in gods, goddesses, and such; what distinguishes me from an atheist is that I can only say this is my belief, not a certainty. I do not take my belief as some kind of religious truth like most atheist do.
Moreover, I do not have to have faith in humankind, if I have no faith in deities.
What I can have though is hope.
It doesn't mean that humankind can save itself ultimately; it does mean however that responsability for a future entirely rests on humans' choices (unless a meteor smashes earth!); it does mean that horrible crimes commited can't be attributed to some evil spirits, and that any society could in its turn come to commit such crimes, especially if it comes to think it is so above the rest and has a moral superiority over others (such was nutzy germany, such were others, such are others, such can become others).

My philosophy of government has to exclude a deity (a god, or a man, or an absolute ideology): I wouldn't want it any other way: it is the only way for people to take their responsabilities in their acts, so that never could one person or one government say: "We have to do it this way, for it is our god's will".
This would be no better than what some german officers-butchers did when saying: "We were just following orders!".


"Way back in the thread, I believe I cited a 2000 year old verse from Galations that stated the position of Christianity on the subject"

Here is the quote again: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." --Galatians 3:28

But here's another intersting one: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." --1 Corinthian 14:34-35
(taken from the Bible Gateway; I chose the KingJames version, but at that place one can choose any other translation... even in french!)

Your quote Gil was saying essentially that women also can be part of the church, can be christians, can be saved; it doesn't talk much about their status in society compared to men. The quote that I gave above does talk about that. Wheter the quote I gave is more the personal opinion of Paul than of his god can of course be debated; also debatable is wheter that quote was only for that time about 20 centuries ago, or should also be maintained today. I hope you do think it is not acceptable today; but I'm sure you do know that there are still many denominations inside protestantism that hold strongly to it (as for catholicism... well, alot could also be said, but that's much off topic!).
Christianity is of many colors and variants, and some christians have evolved out of these older ways that may have been acceptable then, but not anymore.

So, when someone says "I feel that society is finally catching up to many Christians", I can only say that christians had to catch up also; and those christians that society may have to catch up to are christians that had to get out of the older ways of thinking that were too close to a literal understanding of their bible. One could even call them "liberal christians"!!! (I feel some people will disagree totally with me here!!!)


"What you propose, has proven prohibitive. We cannot give Government ANY AUTHORITY WHATSOVER in this realm. It will be abused and the cure (government involvement) is worse than the disease (cultural intolerance)."

I think it is the duty of the government to protect cultural minorities against the bullishness of cultural intolerant organisms that promote purity of religion rather than diversity of faiths.
I guess we won't agree on this question; you fear a too powerfull government, I fear as much the bigotry that exists without intervention (there is already too much bigotry imo even *with* intervention!).
We disagree on which is worse (at least we can agree that each is bad!)


"But do not tell the poor ignorant fellow that he must send his children to the government school to be indoctrinated with views counter to his own"

I only mentioned public schools, and emphasized "not private ones".
If christians want special christian schools, they can form a community with private schools; some Jewish communities already do that, Christian ones also; so do Muslims.
Unfortunately, some religions are in such minority that private school is not doable; so they send their children to public school: there at least their children can have the chance of not being indoctrinated by another religion, fortunately.
That's what's it about.
A universal place; as much as we can make it.


"BARE BONES WEBSITE"

I did go there. Saw your funny comparison of Liberman and Senator Palpatine, and by extension of Al Gore and Darth Maul.
Very funny, really: the physical resemblance is there, for Liberman and Palpatine.
But also, knowing your comments here at Entmoot about Clinton as Traitor etc..., I was wondering how much this was only comedy, and how much it was serious, at least as demonizing the "opposition" goes...
All this to say I didn't go much further into your site...


About my use of the word "defame"

In my printed dictionary (New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary), I read:
defame : to attack the good reputation of (someone)

But when I got just now to the online Webster's Dictionary, I read:
defamation : in law, attacking another's reputation by a false publication (communication to a third party) tending to bring the person into disrepute. The concept is an elusive one and is limited in its varieties only by human inventiveness.

*Sigh* So it appears that it is somewhat a question of language, coupled with a question of which english dictionary one uses...

I used "defame" in the first definition above; I didn't mean in any way that you were lying of willfully saying false things.

==========================================

Have a good Hobbit reading!

==========================================

That will bring the thread back to topic and Anduin need not chastise us and send us to a new RELIGION thread.

Hehe, I have thought about it, but that is a can of worms that I am not prepared to open. As wonderful as I think the debators of this board are, I do think that an all out discussion of religion would be wise. Already one person here has mentioned that they are uncomfortable with the discussion (Roving Turtle I believe). And I am not sure that it would be a discussion of religion as much as it would be a discussion of Christianity. Anyone here is welcome to start the thread themselves, but I do not want the responsibility of doing it myself.

Well, I guess all of that is about settled. We're neither quite so far from the center as perhaps the other thought. In Canada, you are not face the end of your way of life as we are in the Deep South. We remember what was right about the past and see it slipping away.

================================================== ========
It will take me some time to do it right, but I will come back and do a better job on my POPULAR FEMINISM quote.

For what it's worth, my indictment against the Church is far worse...