Covering up women [Archive I] - Page 4

August 28, 2003, 09:06 AM

Kalkin: You're making even less sense than you were before. You've apparently given up arguing the specific issue of women's rights with me, instead attacking the "feminist-Marxist" agenda. This is ridiculous.
dk: I�m not sure what you mean, both feminism and Marxism prescribe very broad policies across the human, socioeconomic and cultural spectrum. These are issues that concern all social movements and people.

Kalkin: Yes, some feminists are Marxists. Yes, they share some ideas - both are considered leftist ideologies. However, that doesn't make them equivalent. Do you defend the actions of the 9/11 hijackers? Their ideological roots were a lot closer to yours than Stalin's were to mine. The fact that I agree with Marxists in some areas, such as the general desirability of equality, doesn't make me a Marxist - I don't advocate economic equality. You, after all, probably agree with them in some areas - you don't advocate human extinction, do you? A true Marxist would consider the term "liberal" an insult. By claiming that liberalism and Marxism are mutually supporting ideologies, you only show your ignorance of both.
dk: Again, you�re reading more into my statements than I said. While feminists and Marxists appeal to the international community to enforce norms across all boundaries, so do bankers, free-traders and industrialists.

Kalkin: And, you've still failed to show any difference between men and women.
dk: I can�t believe you want to regress into a discussion about physiology, hormones, chromosomes, reproduction, health issues, menopause,,, etc. Women have XX chromosome and men have XY. The most significant difference between men and women shows up in the personage of motherhood and fatherhood. Also men are physically better suited to hard physical labor, violence (physically and psychologically) than women. This is reflected in all criminal statistics and job occupations e.g. women are rarely rapists, child molesters and men commit the vast majority of violent crimes & men dominate construction, military, and physically demanding jobs I mention these because they are the least contentious and easiest to document. Feminists over the last 100 years have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort downplaying and denying these differences. I hesitate to digress into this discussion. If you seriously want to contest it�that male and female sexes are a cultural and/or arbitrary designations� then please start another thread.

Kalkin: DK: You actually respond to my important arguments. Thank you. You say:
dk: I always try to respond to important arguments, when I know what arguments you feel are important. We are probably going to have differences on what constitutes an adequate response, and I ask for your patience.

dk: Feminists appeal to the international community to enforce norms across all religious, cultural and national boundaries. Therefore at the very least the burden falls upon feminists to quantify the necessary reforms in terms of social, political, economic and human
I�ll delineate the points and counter points in a bullet form.
Kalkin:Ok, I'll be happy to do so:

Cost:
Kalkin: Whatever political or economic pressure it takes to get societies to reform. That would vary depending on local conditions. While this might mean we should temporarily give up on enforcing women's rights in some areas (for example, if it would require war), it doesn't affect whether women's rights are good in general.
dk: So in your opinion a bloody civil war that led to the deaths of 10 million people in Central Africa would be cost effective. I think that makes you a fanatic.
Peril:
Kalkin: Any bad things that could happen if we succeed in granting women rights. However, there's no risk of bad things happening as the result of granting women rights if there's no significant inherent difference between men and women. This is what I was saying earlier; if men and women are for relevant purposes identical, then there can be no bad effects from treating them identically. Even if you were right that households require one head, until you can prove a difference between men and women, there will be no reason the decision on who is the head of the household shouldn't be left to individual circumstances. You must prove that difference, or saying men must be in charge makes no more sense than saying right-handed people must be in charge.
dk: I find your statement na�ve and unsubstantial given the historical record. For example, feminist UN NGOs used international funds and access to buy and implant tons of defective unsterilized Dalkon Shields into third world women after the FDA banned them as unsafe. In the US the infections (PID) caused by the sterilized Dalkon Shield put several thousand US women in the hospital leaving them traumatized and many with fertility problems, and killed a few dozen women. In Africa where there are no hospitals or treatment available there�s simply no possible way to tally the carnage. I don�t want to be needlessly antigonistic but Feminists have an awful record on human rights, and have used poor women all over the planet as lab rats. I just can�t believe you�d give these people priori political carte blanche to destroy the lives of millions of women. Surely there is some political balance that needs to be struck, else your have just become a FemiNAZI. You must realize that feminism is a social experiment in progress therefore the outcome is by no means certain. In fact the leadership and the troops over the last 20 years have become fragmented, divided and even fierce political foes.
Benefit:
Kalkin: Ending discrimination against half of the human race is sufficient, and there's more. Letting women be full members in society not only helps them, but also strengthens the economy, reinforces democracy, and reduces population growth, among other things. Even if you were right that the family would be weakened by making women equal, I think all these things are more important than reducing divorce rates.
dk: I find this kind of hyperbole dehumanizing, not liberating for women. The War to Win the Peace (cold war), The War to End all Wars (WWI), The War to make the world safe for democracy (WW II), The War to end poverty, The War against illiteracy, The War against drugs�. Your rhetoric brings to mind the hoofed sounds of a large herd about to break into a stampede. Try to calm yourself. The War to make the World safe for democracy became the Cold War, and the Cold War became the War on Terrorism, meanwhile poverty, illiteracy, pestilence, famine, genocide and every ancient evil remains humankind�s constant companion. Thankfully people seldom practice ritualistic cannibalism or human sacrifice, unless one considers abortion or eugenics human sacrifice. For the last 30 years there have been no less than 30 wars waged around the globe at any point in time. It is unlikely feminism will save the world, and no evidence to suggest it. There are benefits to feminism, but you�ve gotten so lost in the dogma you plum forgot to mention any.
Feasibility:
Kalkin: Marital partnerships work - many people on this thread have offered empirical examples. Husbands and wives can compromise and defer to each other in certain areas just as happens with any equal partnership between two people of the same sex. Even if they sometimes result in argument or divorce, they're clearly possible, so we must evaluate their benefits. As for whether it's possible to reform patriarchal societies, see Cost.
dk: Well I guess its feasible that�If pigs had wings they could fly. If feminism works I am at a loss to explain the amount of deviancy in our society, in fact the female prison population has increased by about 1,000 fold since the 1960s. Its just too depressing to list the statistics on poverty, illiteracy, juvenile violence, domestic violence, gangs, drugs, suicide, rape, abortion, and unwanted children We are now in the 4th decade of the Feminist Movement in the US. It appears to me that for every social ill feminists address, they make 10 more.
dk: The enforcement of feminists norms has destabilized entire regions leading to a collapse of the social, political and economic infrastructure and law & order. In fact that�s exactly what occurred across Sub Saharan Africa as the international community (World Bank, G8, WHO and UN) intervened to normalize birth control, abortion and sterilization quotas in the 1980-90s. You need to address these issues Kalkin. Surely you wouldn't wish upon the people of North Africa the horrors that have been visited upon Sub Saharan Africa.
Kalkin: Really, all the problems in sub-Saharan Africa come from women's rights? I don't believe that, and I don't think anyone else does either except for you. How is AIDS the result of equal marriages? It's spread in areas where safe sex, another area often associated with women's rights, isn't practiced. How are dictatorships the result of equal marriages? I think they're generally seen as the legacy of centuries of colonial oppression. Even if the World Bank and IMF are responsible for many countries' depressions, as I've heard people argue, that doesn't show international intervention to support women's rights is bad. The World Bank is attacked for ignoring human rights issues far more often than it is attacked for worrying too much about them.

Any of the awful impacts you will claim are results of women's rights promotion will have more probable alternate explanations. In fact, as I said above, until you can show some kind of intellectual or moral difference between men and women, none of those impacts could possibly be the result of granting women rights, any more than they could be the result of redheads having rights. (And the stuff I've seen you mention so far, like abortion and childbirth, is all physical and irrelevant. If women are mental equals of men, they should have equal power in marriages, because decision-making power is an intellectual thing. Some sort of compromise can always be found to get around physical differences.)

No reason for the smile, I just wanted to use one, and I haven't had occasion to yet on this thread.
dk: No, Sub Saharan Africa suffers from a long and troubled history that has left the culture, nations and civilization in ruins. I�m simply pointing out that the affect of Feminist policy has been impotent over the last 40 years and tragically many now regard feminists as part of the problem.

August 28, 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
dk: The UN Security Council is lead by a Chairman.

The Chairman is administrative and has no authority over Security Council decisions. Is this the kind of headship your family has?

dk: President Bush leads the Executive Branch, The House or Representatives by the Speaker Hastert, the Senate led by the Majority Leader Bill First and Rehnquist serves as the Chief Justice.
(snip)
Ad hominem. Find a better tactic. I can't possibly list all human institutions, I asked you to name 1 or 2 human institutions without a designated head, headship. For some irrational reason you listed several institutions that have a designated head. I don't mean to say you're irrational, only its irrational to suggest President of the US isn't the head of the Executive Branch... so forth and so on. I can only hope this doesn't reflect the conflict resolution skills you employ with your wife.

August 28, 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
We see what we want to see, dk. For us it's been 16 years. I guess the degeneration process is a little slow. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy you have a happy home, healthy kids and a great wife. That said, what you've said about your relationship doesn't hold water in the context of this discussion. We are butting heads, and your responses have not been reasonable or sound. We come to an impasse that amounts to a battle of wills, absent reason. My point is that most people lack the skills to reasonably resolve conflicts, so contentious issues in an egalitarian marriage tend to leave the husband and/or wife with hard feelings i.e. one winner and one looser.

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Luiseach
False. Our 'examples' do indeed mean something. They contradict the generalisation that egalitarian marriages don't work. If you don't think that our 'examples' contradict the theory, then a good argument is needed if they are to be dismissed as meaningless.

I have falsified the generalisation with one example. There are others who could also disprove the generalisation about egalitarian families being dysfunctional.

Your examples don't prove that egalitarian marriages work, anymore than dk's evidence proves that egalitarian marriages are to blame for all of the divorce.

My grandmother used to tell me stories about the abusive relationship that her sister had with her husband. He would get drunk and chase her around the kitchen table with a butcher knife until she ran out into the cornfields to hide until he sobered up. Nobody should have to live like that. Yes, the divorce rate may have been 5% back in those days, but that doesn't mean that everything was fine. The old patriarchal society was abusive in many ways, not only towards women, but also towards the poor, weak and disadvantaged members of society. The issue, therefore, isn't whether or not egalitarian marriages are to blame for the high rate of divorce. The issue is whether or not egalitarian marriages are a suitable solution to the problems of the old patriarchal society. I say no. I think, if anything, egalitarian marriages have exascerbated the problems of the old patriarchal society.

To make a long story short, the personal experiences that people are expressing here to prove that egalitarian marriages work is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, whether you want to admit it or not. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing. If you, or anybody else here, wants to continue to argue this point, you are going to lose.

Originally posted by Luiseach
Why are you conflating Marxism with Feminism?

I am not conflating Marxism with feminism. I am pointing out that Marxist theory was applied to feminist ideology. Class warfare in Marxism became gender warfare in feminist ideology. Marxists, feminists, and gay libbers all have a common enemy - the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions.

Originally posted by NC
It's all ANECDOTAL evidence. It means nothing.

Originally posted by Luiseach
Yes, it is indeed anecdotal evidence. I readily agree.

But I don't agree with you that it 'means nothing.'

Well, then you need present an argument why your anecdotal evidence is proof that egalitarian mariages work. Good Luck.
Originally posted by Luiseach
It represents a counter-example which undermines the sweeping generalisation that has been made in this thread about egalitarian marriages being 'dysfunctional.'

We, and other couples like us (and there are many), are living proof that egalitarian marriages can and do work well for both the husband and the wife.

See above.

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Kalkin
But, if I'm not a Marxist, it doesn't matter if I share some ideas with them, as long as I don't share their evil ideas like totalitarianism. So we're not in the same camp.

On the contrary, you are very much in the same camp as they are. As much as I detest what Muslims like Usama bin Laden, the Taliban, the Wahhabis, Aytatollahs, etc. do, I have to admit that they belong to the same camp as I do. Of course, politically, they are a huge liability, and I try to distance myself as much as I can from them. It's ironic that liberals distance themselves from Stalin by saying that he is from a different camp, while at the same time they try to portray me as a fundamentalist follower of the Taliban because I am not a Muslim liberal. You ARE from the same camp as Stalin, as much as all Muslims are from the same camp as Usama bin Laden. You may try to distance yourself from Stalin, as much as I do from Usama bin Laden and the Taliban, but that doesn't change reality.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Modern liberalism and Marxism are mutually exclusive too. That both are "Leftist" doesn't mean anything - for example, Nazism and rightist libertarianism are both on the "Right," but see each other as the worst possible system.

At the camp level, moden liberalism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. They all share a common enemy - the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions.

People like Tammy Bruce, who was the former head of the LA chapter of NOW, an avowed lesbian, have suddenly become conservatives and are now speaking out against feminists and gay libbers on the Left. In fact, she wrote a book called the "The New Totalitarians." Moreover, much of her book was devoted to defending Dr. Laura against the gay libbers. The question becomes, "Is she really a conservative." I say no, not as long as she continues to support the gay lifestyle. She is still a liberal as far as I am concerned.

Another example would be the Jewish liberals who became neo-conservatives during the Reagon administration. As a matter of fact, Zionism is no longer an ideology associated with the Left anymore. It's now an ideology of the Right that is even supported by Christian fundamentalists, go figure. David Horowitz, who I have quoted on many occasions in this thread, was an avowed Jewish Communist on the Left in America. He is now on the Right and a staunch supporter of Zionism. It's all politics and the games people play. If there is any confusion here with the labels I use, it's not because of me, but rather because of the political games that people play. There are many liberals masquerading themselves as conservatives.

Originally posted by Kalkin
I've never heard any feminist advocate gender warfare.
Of course, they are not going to advocate gender warfare publicly. However, privately, it is a war.

Originally posted by NC
Liberals may profess tolerance of the patriarchal religions, whose freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, but beneath the surface, they are seething with hatred and enmity. By working to achieve complete destruction of the patriarchal society, they render the patriarchal religions impotent.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Tolerance doesn't mean liking or support.

Not liking or not supporting is completely different from hating. Many people don't like Islam, and that's fine with me. I can live with that. That's not the problem, though. The problem is the hatred.

Liberals portary themselves as tolerant in front of the cameras, but behind closed doors they are filled with rage, hatred, anger, and contempt for the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions. It's all two-faced hypocritical BULLSHIT. They are as intolerant as anybody I have ever seen from any other camp.

Luiseach

August 28, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Your examples don't prove that egalitarian marriages work, anymore than dk's evidence proves that egalitarian marriages are to blame for all of the divorce.

How can the fact of egalitarian marriages working not prove that egalitarian marriages can work?

Yes, the divorce rate may have been 5% back in those days, but that doesn't mean that everything was fine.

Agreed.

The old patriarchal society was abusive in many ways, not only towards women, but also towards the poor, weak and disadvantaged members of society.

Again, agreed.

The issue is whether or not egalitarian marriages are a suitable solution to the problems of the old patriarchal society. I say no. I think, if anything, egalitarian marriages have exascerbated the problems of the old patriarchal society.

Hmmm. Okay, so if egalitarian marriages are not a good solution to the problems caused by patriarchy, then how do you justify replacing one form of inequality with yet another?

How are inegalitarian marriages (i.e. ones in which the there is an imbalance in power between husband and wife) a better replacement than egalitarian marriages?

Aren't you just replacing one form of patriarchal inequality between husbands and wives with another?

To make a long story short, the personal experiences that people are expressing here to prove that egalitarian marriages work is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, whether you want to admit it or not.

I said in my post that I readily agree that it is anecdotal evidence.

Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

NonContradiction, for something to mean nothing to you doesn't necessarily suggest that it means nothing at all.

If you, or anybody else here, wants to continue to argue this point, you are going to lose.

Lose what?

I am not conflating Marxism with feminism. I am pointing out that Marxist theory was applied to feminist ideology. Class warfare in Marxism became gender warfare in feminist ideology. Marxists, feminists, and gay libbers all have a common enemy - the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions.

Actually, some forms of feminism have adopted greater or lesser degrees of Marxist theory. This in no way suggests that all forms of feminism are therefore in complete accordance with Marxism.

'Marxist-Feminism' is a sub-set of 'Feminism' (which is an umbrella term for many interpretations).

I, for instance, am a feminist, but not a marxist...not by any stretch of the imagination. I believe in the equality of all human beings, male or female. This also leads me to the conviction that regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, financial status, culture, or religion, all human beings should have equal status as human beings.

What I don't believe in is that one group of human beings (i.e. men), because of their gender, should have authority over another group of human beings (i.e. women), because of their gender.

And if a man becomes a husband, and a woman a wife, this does not and should not mean that he (because he's male) all of a sudden has some form of authority over her (because she's female).

Well, then you need present an argument why your anecdotal evidence is proof that egalitarian mariages work. Good Luck.

I presented my anecdotal evidence as proof that egalitarian marriages can work, that they can be 'functional' (i.e. the opposite of 'dysfunctional'). I presented my personal experience of an egalitarian marriage that is not dysfunctional in order to undermine the sweeping generalisation made by dk that egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional.

Anecdotal evidence can therefore be useful in undermining a universal generalisation like the one made by dk about egalitarian marriages being dysfunctional. Sweeping generalisations, we can note, are fallacies.

If someone argues that there are no polka-dot cats, all it takes to undermine this fallacy of a sweeping generalisation is to provide a single counter-example which demonstrates the contrary. I present a polka-dot cat, and the generalisation 'There are no polka-dot cats' is shown up for the fallacy it is.

For the purposes of undermining a sweeping generalisation, then, my personal experience (i.e. of my egalitarian marriage not being dysfunctional) is enough, on its own, to undermine dk's sweeping generalisation fallacy that egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional.

It's valid to use anecdotal evidence to make a point, my point being that dk's sweeping generalisation is fallacious.

Whaddaya think?

August 28, 2003, 02:18 PM

NC: Your examples don't prove that egalitarian marriages work, anymore than dk's evidence proves that egalitarian marriages are to blame for all of the divorce.

I wanted to clarify what constitutes objective evidence. First, proof is never an issue because nobody can prove the sun will rise tomorrow, though we can safely assume the sun will rise tomorrow. Second family is a form of relationship not a phenomena, marriage/divorce/births/deaths/adoption are phenomena that create or severe family bonds. The very best evidence asserts a causal relationship based on data/observations that describe a phenomena in conjuncture with a meta-analysis. A meta-analyiss explains the rules that govern the underlying variables. For a phenomena (like a divorce) there exist many independent variables, and each independent variable represents a causal vector. A causal vector has both magnatude and direction, and in a family causal vectors strengthen or weaken the kinship bonds that hold the family together. I postulated that Feminism and Welfare leveled the Nuclear family creating a dysfunctional family (two headed monster) that caused a higher rate of divorce. In a Nuclear family the kinship bonds govern the relationships within the family, in the same sense that nuclear bonds govern the relationship between elements of an atom. Divorce objectively severs kinship bonds, hence objectively alter or break a family apart. Rivalries over headship rights between a husband and wife certainly leads to ill will, hurt feelings and animosity that contribute to divorce, hence disputes over headship is a fundamental cause of divorce. Headship is a type of kinship bond, and in the greater society extends to the formal bonds that hold together all human institutions. Kinship bonds are informal (familiar). Formal bonds imply a contract enforcable under the rule of law, like between an employee and employer.

While it is not proof, its safe to assume the kinship bonds between a husband and wife have been weakened by causal vectors subscribed to Feminism and the Welfare State. The divorce rate has leveled off over the last decade indicating stabilization, which of course has nothing to do with functional/dysfunctional families. In effect this might be called "dumbing down deviancy".

Any questions?

Any particular divorce, marriage or a family provides antidotal evidence, which has limited value because in and of itself lacks direction and magnitude essential to confirm or deny a meta-analysis.

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Luiseach
I presented my anecdotal evidence as proof that egalitarian marriages can work, that they can be 'functional' (i.e. the opposite of 'dysfunctional'). I presented my personal experience of an egalitarian marriage that is not dysfunctional in order to undermine the sweeping generalisation made by dk that egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional.

Anecdotal evidence can therefore be useful in undermining a universal generalisation like the one made by dk about egalitarian marriages being dysfunctional. Sweeping generalisations, we can note, are fallacies.

If someone argues that there are no polka-dot cats, all it takes to undermine this fallacy of a sweeping generalisation is to provide a single counter-example which demonstrates the contrary. I present a polka-dot cat, and the generalisation 'There are no polka-dot cats' is shown up for the fallacy it is.

For the purposes of undermining a sweeping generalisation, then, my personal experience (i.e. of my egalitarian marriage not being dysfunctional) is enough, on its own, to undermine dk's sweeping generalisation fallacy that egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional.

It's valid to use anecdotal evidence to make a point, my point being that dk's sweeping generalisation is fallacious.

Whaddaya think?

Nice try, but no cigar. Here is the mistake that you are making: If dk wants to prove that egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional, then he has to present a reasoned argument. He has done that, and has presented much evidence that the divorce rate skyrocketed in the 60's compared to the 50's. Someone else has countered that it's quite possible that the reason why the divorce rate skyrocketed in the 60's was because of the hidden problems of abuse within the old patriarchal society. That seems to me to be a very good counter-argument.

Therefore, it seems better to me to acknowledge the problems in the old patriarchal society and then ask the question whether or not egalitarian marriages are a suitable solution to the problems of the old patriarchal society. Therefore, the question isn't whether or not egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional or not, but rather are they a suitable replacement for the old patriarchal family? Anecdotal evidence can NOT prove that egalitarian marriages are suitable replacements. No matter how much personal testimony the liberals give here, it doesn't mean a thing because it's not objective at all. What do you expect the liberals here to say about their egalitarian marriages? Do you expect them to say that they are terrible?

Let's say, for example, that your father smoked cigarettes all of his life and didn't get cancer. Could you use him as anecdotal evidence that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Simply because your father didn't get cancer doesn't mean that cigarettes are not a carcinogen. Similarly, you can't use anecdotal evidence to prove that egalitarian marriages work. You have to do better than that.

As a matter of fact, I think that one could make an argument that egalitarian marriages are not a suitable replacement. 40 years is long enough for us to see an improvement in the family structure the liberals inherited from the old patriarchal society. If anything, it sure seems that the American family is as bad off today as it ever was, probably even worse. What have the liberals done for the black community to strengthen the family structure after 40 years? If you think that egalitarian marriages have improved the family structure, then bring me some objective evidence other than personal testimony singing the praises of egalitarian marriages. The End.

Fluffy

August 28, 2003, 03:05 PM

What is it with you people??!!!! Assuming you have daughters, don�t you want them to have equal rights!!??? �God� forbid they get into a bad, abusive marriage, wouldn�t you want them to have a right to leave the bastard without his permission ?? Does it seem just that your son-in-law has the right to share your daughter with up to three other women!!!?? Doesn�t that seem wrong to you??? I work in Washington D.C., men and women (in all manners of dress) walk together down the street, ride the Metro, eat lunch with no problems. How is it possible that men and women in the US are able to coexist, work together, enjoy the beach, jog down the road, ride public transportation all without incident.

August 28, 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
snip)

If dk wants to prove that egalitarian marriages are dysfunctional, then he has to present a reasoned argument. He has done that, and has presented much evidence that the divorce rate skyrocketed in the 60's compared to the 50's. Someone else has countered that it's quite possible that the reason why the divorce rate skyrocketed in the 60's is because of the hidden problems of abuse within the old patriarchal society. That seems to me to be a very good counter-argument.

(snip)

As a matter of fact, I think that one could make an argument that egalitarian marriages are not a suitable replacement. 40 years is long enough for us to see an improvement in the family structure the liberals inherited from the old patriarchal society. If anything, it sure seems that the American family is as bad off today as it ever was, probably even worse. What have the liberals done for the black community to strengthen the family structure after 40 years? If you think that egalitarian mariages have improved the family structure, then bring me some objective evidence other than personal testimony singing the praises of egalitarian marriages. The End.

I concur with your analysis. There may be other factors that explain the rise in divorce from 1960 to 1990, but its clear that the egalitarian family was not a cure because a divorce rate of 50% is unacceptable and very close to peak highs.

August 28, 2003, 03:28 PM

Fluffy: What is it with you people??!!!! Assuming you have daughters, don�t you want them to have equal rights!!??? �God� forbid they get into a bad, abusive marriage, wouldn�t you want them to have a right to leave the bastard without his permission ?? Does it seem just that your son-in-law has the right to share your daughter with up to three other women!!!?? Doesn�t that seem wrong to you??? I work in Washington D.C., men and women (in all manners of dress) walk together down the street, ride the Metro, eat lunch with no problems. How is it possible that men and women in the US are able to coexist, work together, enjoy the beach, jog down the road, ride public transportation all without incident.
That�s an excellent question. What in the world could make an educated Muslim feel so threatened they would hide their women behind veils. Its almost like they think some malevolent apparatus were going to swoop down from the sky and steal their children away. Hey, who do you think symbolizes this malevolent apparatus that threatens their progeny!!!

Nowhere357

August 28, 2003, 04:00 PM

NonContradiction:

If the man is always making the decision, then why does his wife ever NEED to grow and learn from her failures? I understand the male children need to learn to make decisions, but why do the females need to learn anything else then how to follow commands? Cooking and child-rearing skills aside, of course.

Anyway, you actually have not answered the question. The husband and wife disagree on the what her actions should be on a major issue. The wife declines to obey the husband.

Now what?

Nowhere357

August 28, 2003, 04:02 PM

dk: I'm interested in your response also:

The husband and wife disagree on the what her actions should be on a major issue. The wife declines to obey the husband.

Now what?

August 28, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
dk: I'm interested in your response also:

The husband and wife disagree on the what her actions should be on a major issue. The wife declines to obey the husband.

Now what?

The optimal word being "should", meaning, a husband and wife should not disagree over a major issue. When people get married they should have already discussed the "major issues" and be in agreement. Before a woman marries a Muslim (or any man) she should know what's expected of her, and what she can expect. Marriage is a "death do us part" commitment, and infidelity of any kind has the potential to spiral out of control leading to all kinds of tragic unintended consequences.

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by dk
I concur with your analysis. There may be other factors that explain the rise in divorce from 1960 to 1990, but its clear that the egalitarian family was not a cure because a divorce rate of 50% is unacceptable and very close to peak highs.

I agree. Sooner or later, the liberals need to step up to the plate and admit some responsibility for the current family crisis this country is facing. They can no longer continue to blame everything that goes wrong on their predecessors. The socio-economic costs of having dysfunctional families in the society, if something isn't done about it soon, will be overwhelming. Families need to be strengthened and enriched by the society so that members of the family feel stability and support. Unfortunately, the liberal agenda for the last 40 years has been one of weakening families, while at the same time creating more and more dependence upon the state.

Nowhere357

August 28, 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by dk
Before a woman marries a Muslim (or any man) she should know what's expected of her, and what she can expect.
Good point, and vice-versa: the man should know what's expected of him. But a new, unexpected major issue could arise, and so the question remains unanswered.

If they disagree on a major point, and the wife refuses to obey her husband, then what happens next?

Dr Rick

August 28, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Fluffy
What is it with you people??!!!! Assuming you have daughters, don�t you want them to have equal rights!!???

No, Islam teaches us that they are clearly inferior to men and do not deserve equality.

The Great Prophet Muhammad showed us the way to treat women: Between the ages of 49 and 63 married at least 11 times, including his favourite wife, Ayesha Bibi, who was 6 to 9 years old and still playing with dolls when they tied the knot.

From the Qur'an:

II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will.

IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.

IV/15: If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them. [lewd men need merely "repent"]

XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies.

From various ahadith:

If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)

It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man except her husband when she is made up or well-dressed. (TR. P 430)

A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey which may last three days or longer, unless she is accompanied by her husband, son, father (TR P 431)

A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her husband's father, brother and other male relations. (TR. P 432)

She is forbidden to spend any money without the permission of her husband, and it includes giving food to the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)

A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL) or observe fasting (other than RAMADAN) without the permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)

If prostration were a legitimate act other than to God, woman should have prostrated to her husband. (TR. P 428)

If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse the woman must come immediately even if she is baking bread at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)

The marriage of a woman to her man is not substantive. It is precarious. For example if the father of the husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do so. (TR. P 440)

A woman who seeks KHULA i.e. divorce from her man, without a just cause, shall not enter paradise. (TR. P 440) [a husband can divorce his wife at will.]

Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)

If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband, she becomes the target of the curses of angels. Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's bed. (Bokhari P 93)

Women who are ungrateful to their men are the denizens of hell; it is an act of ingratitude for a woman to say: "I have never seen any good from you." (Bokhari P 96)

A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of her own body. Even her milk belongs to her husband. (Bokhari P 27) She is not allowed to practise birth control either.

Quotes from Sahih Muslim Hadith:

Chapter 540.The prophet said that he saw a woman coming and going in the shape of a devil and she fascinated him. So he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning leather and had sexual intercourse with her. That drove out what he felt in his heart.

Chapter 558. The prophet said: "When a man calls his wife to bed and she does not come, the husband spends the night being angry with her, and the angels curse her until morning. The one who is in heaven is displeased with her until the husband is pleased with her.

Chpater 576. The prophet said :"Woman has been created from a rib, and will in no way be straightened for you." [women are irredeemably 'crooked']

More 'goodies":

Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said "I have some slave girls who are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl(withdrawal) with them?" Hajjaj said "They are your fields of cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them do so, if not keep them dry."

Gazzali summed up the 18 pains that had been visited on Muslim women as a punishment for Eve's transgression in paradise. Islam goes to the extent of saying that even pregnancy and childbirth are punishments from God.

The 18 punishments are:

Menstruation
Childbirth
Separation from father and mother and marriage to a stranger
Pregnancy
Not having control over her own person
A lesser share in inheritance.
Her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce.
It being lawful for man to have 4 wives but for a woman to have only 1 husband.
The fact that she must stay secluded in the house
The fact that she must keep her head covered inside the house.
The fact that a woman's testimony is less than that of a man's.
The fact that she must not go out of the house unless accompanied by a near relative.
The fact that men take part in Friday and feast day funerals while women do not.
Disqualification for rulership and judgeship.
The fact that merit has 100 components, only one of which is attributable to women while 99 are attributed to men.
The fact that if women are profligate they will be given only half as much torment as the rest of the community at the ressurection day.
The fact that if their husbands die they must observe a waiting period of 4 months and 10 days before they remarry.
The fact that if their husbands divorce them , they must observe a waiting period of 3 months or 3 menstrual periods before remarrying.

How is it possible that men and women in the US are able to coexist, work together, enjoy the beach, jog down the road, ride public transportation all without incident.

Probably because they are all "Marxist, feminist, lying, slandering, hypocritical, liberal, deaf, dumb, far-Leftist, blind, bigoted, Wahhabi, conservative, Nazi, Talibani, far-Rightists" (tm) obsessed with the liberal agenda of hatred for Islam or something...

Fluffy

August 28, 2003, 05:27 PM

Thank you Dr. Rick, excellent post. One would have to be insane to call the above just. I�m still, however, trying desperately to understand NC and DK�s position. In all fairness, can someone list the good things in Islam for women.

Kalkin

August 28, 2003, 05:37 PM

I'll get to dk's post when I have a little more time. NC:

On the contrary, you are very much in the same camp as they are. As much as I detest what Muslims like Usama bin Laden, the Taliban, the Wahhabis, Aytatollahs, etc. do, I have to admit that they belong to the same camp as I do.

Ok, so I belong to the same camp, but only to the extent you belong to the same camp as the Taliban. So it doesn't matter for the correctness of my position...

At the camp level, moden liberalism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. They all share a common enemy - the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions.

Sharing enemies doesn't mean they aren't mutually exclusive. Me and you share enemies - Nazis, for example, but our ideologies seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive.

[NC talks about examples of leftists and rightists]

None of this matters. I've already admitted I've got some things in common with Marxists, but that doesn't mean that I'm a Marxist or that my position leads to Marxism.

[snip irrelevancies about the idea of social warfare]

Not liking or not supporting is completely different from hating. Many people don't like Islam, and that's fine with me. I can live with that. That's not the problem, though. The problem is the hatred.

Liberals portary themselves as tolerant in front of the cameras, but behind closed doors they are filled with rage, hatred, anger, and contempt for the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions. It's all two-faced hypocritical BULLSHIT. They are as intolerant as anybody I have ever seen from any other camp.

Tolerance doesn't exclude hatred, at least not by my definition. (Some liberals probably have different definitions which they don't follow and are hypocrites... so? There are hypocrites everywhere on the political spectrum). It only excludes actual persecution - not verbal attacks. (Yes, I do extend this for example to neo-Nazis and their anti-semitism - as long as they don't actually use violence, they should be able to say what they want, although it won't make me like them).

August 28, 2003, 05:54 PM

Hey Rick,
I�m just curious what Madrasah you attended, and how Shiite and Sunna Muslim�s differ. I also thought I'd offer another glimpse at Islam.
The actual status of women in the Koran bears no resemblance to the Western stereotype, which is woven of local customs that Muslims have assimilated to along the way. Muhammad's wife was educated, intelligent, and a highly successful business woman. Actually this issue can be resolved quite simply. I suspect that we all know Muslim women who hold important positions in American society--my roster includes a physician, a teacher, a television director, and a shopkeeper--and who feel no conflict whatsoever between their religion and their positions in Western society.

One of my favorite sayings of the Prophet that has received little notice has at least an indirect bearing here. On one occasion a companion of the Prophet heard a bystander ask him, "Who is most entitled to my good conduct?" The Prophet replied, "Your mother." "Then whom?" the man asked. Again the Prophet answered, "Your mother." The question was repeated a third time and received the same answer. It was only when the questioner asked his question a fourth time that the Prophet replied, "Your father." -- Islam's Real Attitude Toward Violence, Women, and Fundamentalism By Huston Smith

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 06:01 PM

As usual Dr. Rick, some of what you say is true and some of what you say is false. I would correct you, but I have done that before to no avail.

Kalkin

August 28, 2003, 06:31 PM

Kalkin: You're making even less sense than you were before. You've apparently given up arguing the specific issue of women's rights with me, instead attacking the "feminist-Marxist" agenda. This is ridiculous.
dk: I�m not sure what you mean, both feminism and Marxism prescribe very broad policies across the human, socioeconomic and cultural spectrum. These are issues that concern all social movements and people.

Sory, dk, I was responding to NC, I guess I didn't make that clear. All I was saying, basically, was the fact that Marxism is bad doesn't mean I'm wrong, so this has nothing to do with our argument.

[snip] more misunderstanding of this kind

dk: I can�t believe you want to regress into a discussion about physiology, hormones, chromosomes, reproduction, health issues, menopause,,, etc. Women have XX chromosome and men have XY. The most significant difference between men and women shows up in the personage of motherhood and fatherhood. Also men are physically better suited to hard physical labor, violence (physically and psychologically) than women. This is reflected in all criminal statistics and job occupations e.g. women are rarely rapists, child molesters and men commit the vast majority of violent crimes & men dominate construction, military, and physically demanding jobs I mention these because they are the least contentious and easiest to document. Feminists over the last 100 years have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort downplaying and denying these differences. I hesitate to digress into this discussion. If you seriously want to contest it�that male and female sexes are a cultural and/or arbitrary designations� then please start another thread.

I consider this the key issue for gender equality - if there's no significant difference, than people shouldn't be treated differently. If you don't think this should be discussed on this thread, though, I will start a new one sometime soon. For now, I'll just note that in my opinion the physical differences don't matter, "motherhood" vs. "fatherhood" is bullshit, it's only a cultural role, and rape is of course commited by males because you need a penis to rape someone - nothing you've cited above shows a difference that matters to equal families.

dk: I always try to respond to important arguments, when I know what arguments you feel are important. We are probably going to have differences on what constitutes an adequate response, and I ask for your patience.

Sure, lets try to be polite.

[snip] format introduction

Cost:
Kalkin: Whatever political or economic pressure it takes to get societies to reform. That would vary depending on local conditions. While this might mean we should temporarily give up on enforcing women's rights in some areas (for example, if it would require war), it doesn't affect whether women's rights are good in general.
dk: So in your opinion a bloody civil war that led to the deaths of 10 million people in Central Africa would be cost effective. I think that makes you a fanatic.

Of course it wouldn't, didn't you read my post? I say specifically that sometimes we should give up advocating women's rights if implementation would require war, but that that doesn't affect the general desirability of women's rights.

Peril:
Kalkin: Any bad things that could happen if we succeed in granting women rights. However, there's no risk of bad things happening as the result of granting women rights if there's no significant inherent difference between men and women. This is what I was saying earlier; if men and women are for relevant purposes identical, then there can be no bad effects from treating them identically. Even if you were right that households require one head, until you can prove a difference between men and women, there will be no reason the decision on who is the head of the household shouldn't be left to individual circumstances. You must prove that difference, or saying men must be in charge makes no more sense than saying right-handed people must be in charge.
dk: I find your statement na�ve and unsubstantial given the historical record. For example, feminist UN NGOs used international funds and access to buy and implant tons of defective unsterilized Dalkon Shields into third world women after the FDA banned them as unsafe. In the US the infections (PID) caused by the sterilized Dalkon Shield put several thousand US women in the hospital leaving them traumatized and many with fertility problems, and killed a few dozen women. In Africa where there are no hospitals or treatment available there�s simply no possible way to tally the carnage. I don�t want to be needlessly antigonistic but Feminists have an awful record on human rights, and have used poor women all over the planet as lab rats. I just can�t believe you�d give these people priori political carte blanche to destroy the lives of millions of women.

I'm not advocating letting anyone calling themself a feminist do whatever they want. Obviously, what these people did was horrible, assuming you have the facts correct. But, their actions were individual idiocies - there's nothing in the notion of women's rights that implies women should be lab rats, rather the opposite.

Surely there is some political balance that needs to be struck, else your have just become a FemiNAZI.

I'm not sure what you mean here... I've never stated that women's rights are the only thing that should be considered when making foreign policy or whatever.

You must realize that feminism is a social experiment in progress therefore the outcome is by no means certain.

Sure, but the outcome seems likely to be far superior to previous systems, given that they oppress women and feminism simply seeks to end that.

In fact the leadership and the troops over the last 20 years have become fragmented, divided and even fierce political foes.

Yes, there are divisions within feminism. So? There are divisions within any ideology.

Benefit:
Kalkin: Ending discrimination against half of the human race is sufficient, and there's more. Letting women be full members in society not only helps them, but also strengthens the economy, reinforces democracy, and reduces population growth, among other things. Even if you were right that the family would be weakened by making women equal, I think all these things are more important than reducing divorce rates.
dk: I find this kind of hyperbole dehumanizing, not liberating for women.

Sorry, I only resort to it when people start arguing that helping women isn't enough on its own - perhaps it's the warping effect of formal policy debate on my argumentation.

The War to Win the Peace (cold war), The War to End all Wars (WWI), The War to make the world safe for democracy (WW II), The War to end poverty, The War against illiteracy, The War against drugs�. Your rhetoric brings to mind the hoofed sounds of a large herd about to break into a stampede. Try to calm yourself. The War to make the World safe for democracy became the Cold War, and the Cold War became the War on Terrorism, meanwhile poverty, illiteracy, pestilence, famine, genocide and every ancient evil remains humankind�s constant companion. Thankfully people seldom practice ritualistic cannibalism or human sacrifice, unless one considers abortion or eugenics human sacrifice. For the last 30 years there have been no less than 30 wars waged around the globe at any point in time. It is unlikely feminism will save the world, and no evidence to suggest it. There are benefits to feminism, but you�ve gotten so lost in the dogma you plum forgot to mention any.

Ok, I'll admit feminism won't save the world alone - there are many other problems. However, it plainly does help women - that's its direct effect - and although that's enough, I believe that it would also have outside effects that would help society generally. Doubling the workforce is going to increase economic productivity, correct? And educated, independent women tend to have fewer children, that's a statistical fact.

Feasibility:
Kalkin: Marital partnerships work - many people on this thread have offered empirical examples. Husbands and wives can compromise and defer to each other in certain areas just as happens with any equal partnership between two people of the same sex. Even if they sometimes result in argument or divorce, they're clearly possible, so we must evaluate their benefits. As for whether it's possible to reform patriarchal societies, see Cost.
dk: Well I guess its feasible that�If pigs had wings they could fly. If feminism works I am at a loss to explain the amount of deviancy in our society, in fact the female prison population has increased by about 1,000 fold since the 1960s. Its just too depressing to list the statistics on poverty, illiteracy, juvenile violence, domestic violence, gangs, drugs, suicide, rape, abortion, and unwanted children We are now in the 4th decade of the Feminist Movement in the US. It appears to me that for every social ill feminists address, they make 10 more.

First, as I understand it, this should go under peril - feasibility is simply that it's possible to have an equal family. But whatever. I think other people have already dealt with your tendency to blame everything that's gone wrong in the US in the last half-century on feminism. Show me specifically how one of those problems you mention is caused by feminism, and I'll say more about it.

dk: No, Sub Saharan Africa suffers from a long and troubled history that has left the culture, nations and civilization in ruins. I�m simply pointing out that the affect of Feminist policy has been impotent over the last 40 years

I don't think anyone has ever expected feminism to fix all the problems in Africa, so I don't see how this is relevant.

and tragically many now regard feminists as part of the problem.

Yes, it is tragic that feminists are regarded as part of the problem, and the idea of feminism might be rejected for no reason. Give me some evidence that feminism really is part of the problem.;)

The Other Michael

August 28, 2003, 07:04 PM

I suspect that we all know Muslim women who hold important positions in American society--my roster includes a physician, a teacher, a television director, and a shopkeeper--and who feel no conflict whatsoever between their religion and their positions in Western society.

Sounds like they must be liberal revisionist Western-leaning revolutionary cafeteria-style Muslims. They obviously couldn't be True Muslims (TM). :)

"Submit, woman!" cried the Muslim Man. (with apologies to Harlan Ellison)

cheers,
Michael

Luiseach

August 28, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
...Islam teaches us that they are clearly inferior to men and do not deserve equality.

Basically, then, it doesn't even matter how water-tight arguments are to the contrary...the authority of the Quran will supercede any logic, any evidence that contradicts its claims.

I mean, if the Quran says I am inferior because I am a woman, and deserving of this inferiority, then no argument, however well-reasoned and supported with evidence, could prove otherwise.

IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other...

Thank goodness I'm an atheist.

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Luiseach
Basically, then, it doesn't even matter how water-tight arguments are to the contrary...the authority of the Quran will supercede any logic, any evidence that contradicts its claims.

I am still waiting for your watertight argument that egalitarian marriages work. Where is the evidence?

Luiseach

August 28, 2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am still waiting for your watertight argument that egalitarian marriages work. Where is the evidence?

I'm working on it, NonContradiction (I'm also making my husband's dinner...go figure, eh, the supreme irony of a feminist girl who actually cooks, and enjoys cooking, for her man?! ;) ).

By the way, I've yet to come across any controlled laboratory tests correlating egalitarianism in marriage with anti-dysfunctionalism. Indeed, what are the criteria for determining whether a marriage - egalitarian or inegalitarian - is 'working'?

'Working', for me anyway, means that the relationship between the man and woman is happy, peaceful, trusting, faithful (that's incredibly important), affectionate, respectful, enjoyable, lasting, mutually agreeable and beneficial.

Is this also your idea of a marriage that 'works'? Just for clarification...to make sure we're on the same page, as it were.

I'll keep up the google searches for marital studies in the meantime, to see if any decent analyses of this kind of thing have actually been done.

NonContradiction

August 28, 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by NC
I am still waiting for your watertight argument that egalitarian marriages work. Where is the evidence?
Originally posted by Luiseach
I'm working on it, NonContradiction...
Good Luck...

Luiseach

August 28, 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

Good Luck... [/B]

Shall I take that as a sincere expression of good-will? :D

Gotta go for now, however, because I think the rice is ready and my man is pretending to be fainting from hunger.

I'll look forward to reading whatever bits of the discussion I miss.

Cheers,

Luiseach

Soundsurfr

August 28, 2003, 10:17 PM

dk: I asked you to name 1 or 2 human institutions without a designated head, headship.

No. You asked me to define "shared headship", which I did. Then you asked me to provide some examples of shared headship, which I did, and all of them fit the definition I provided.

dk: I don't mean to say you're irrational, only its irrational to suggest President of the US isn't the head of the Executive Branch

I didn't suggest that. In fact I didn't suggest anything. I stated very clearly that the President of the US shares power and "headship" of the federal government with two other perhaps equally powerful entities. Is this not the case?

Question - is it your position that there are no human institutions where leadership responsibility is shared among more than one individual?

Never mind. This is a lot of intellectual dancing and we're not getting any closer to a real discussion on the original point.

Soundsurfr

August 28, 2003, 10:24 PM

dk: My point is that most people lack the skills to reasonably resolve conflicts, so contentious issues in an egalitarian marriage tend to leave the husband and/or wife with hard feelings i.e. one winner and one looser.

That's fair, as long as we recognize that this is your opinion which your *evidence* does not address, and many other people, myself being one of them, have a different opinion.

Recognize also that I have no problem with you having a patriarchal head-of-household approach to running your family. If it works for everyone in your family, great. So long as you recognize our right to establish our own family relationships as we see fit for ourselves.

Arctish

August 29, 2003, 03:34 AM

NC
I am still waiting for your evidence that egalitarian marriages work. Where is the evidence?

I think this might provide some of the evidence you and dk would like to see. I will provide links as I find more evidence.

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/onlyDifferent.html

Arctish

August 29, 2003, 03:39 AM

Oops, sorry, I misquoted you NC . You said " I am still waiting for your watertight argument that egalitarian marriages work. Where is the evidence?"

August 29, 2003, 05:25 AM

dk: I can�t believe you want to regress into a discussion about physiology, hormones, chromosomes, reproduction, health issues, menopause,,, etc. Women have XX chromosome and men have XY. The most significant difference between men and women shows up in the personage of motherhood and fatherhood. Also men are physically better suited to hard physical labor, violence (physically and psychologically) than women. This is reflected in all criminal statistics and job occupations e.g. women are rarely rapists, child molesters and men commit the vast majority of violent crimes & men dominate construction, military, and physically demanding jobs I mention these because they are the least contentious and easiest to document. Feminists over the last 100 years have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort downplaying and denying these differences. I hesitate to digress into this discussion. If you seriously want to contest it�that male and female sexes are a cultural and/or arbitrary designations� then please start another thread.
Kalkin: I consider this the key issue for gender equality - if there's no significant difference, than people shouldn't be treated differently. If you don't think this should be discussed on this thread, though, I will start a new one sometime soon. For now, I'll just note that in my opinion the physical differences don't matter, "motherhood" vs. "fatherhood" is bullshit, it's only a cultural role, and rape is of course committed by males because you need a penis to rape someone - nothing you've cited above shows a difference that matters to equal families.
dk: I think it is futile to deny the obvious differences between men and women, and counterproductive to undermine feminist pedagogy with pretext that low balls essential differences. Human beings are male and female, so human rights must reflect both male and female differences and credits otherwise everyone�s innate dignity gets short changed.

[snip] format introduction

Cost:
Kalkin: Whatever political or economic pressure it takes to get societies to reform. That would vary depending on local conditions. While this might mean we should temporarily give up on enforcing women's rights in some areas (for example, if it would require war), it doesn't affect whether women's rights are good in general.
dk: So in your opinion a bloody civil war that led to the deaths of 10 million people in Central Africa would be cost effective. I think that makes you a fanatic.
Kalkin: Of course it wouldn't, didn't you read my post? I say specifically that sometimes we should give up advocating women's rights if implementation would require war, but that that doesn't affect the general desirability of women's rights.

dk: First, this may be a misunderstanding preempted by the Marxist-Feminist confusion above (I snipped it), but I consider wars to be political events because they [re]form the laws that govern men and women. I did read your post and responded to one aspect of it, �Whatever political or economic pressure it takes�. When I wrote my response I didn�t understand why you thought I confused Marxist-Feminism with Marxism and Feminism. I have big time problems with the union -Marxist-Feminism-, and in the same vein have a big time problems with the union -NAZI-Feminism-. I don�t necessarily have a problem with Feminism. In an earlier post you said, �Equality might fail if it set the husband against wife and children against parents�. I agree but would replace �might fail� with �can not succeed� because I see a necessary balance or a tension that must be embraced for a Feminist perspective to succeed.
Peril:
Kalkin: Any bad things that could happen if we succeed in granting women rights. However, there's no risk of bad things happening as the result of granting women rights if there's no significant inherent difference between men and women. This is what I was saying earlier; if men and women are for relevant purposes identical, then there can be no bad effects from treating them identically. Even if you were right that households require one head, until you can prove a difference between men and women, there will be no reason the decision on who is the head of the household shouldn't be left to individual circumstances. You must prove that difference, or saying men must be in charge makes no more sense than saying right-handed people must be in charge.
dk: I find your statement na�ve and unsubstantial given the historical record. For example, feminist UN NGOs used international funds and access to buy and implant tons of defective unsterilized Dalkon Shields into third world women after the FDA banned them as unsafe. In the US the infections (PID) caused by the sterilized Dalkon Shield put several thousand US women in the hospital leaving them traumatized and many with fertility problems, and killed a few dozen women. In Africa where there are no hospitals or treatment available there�s simply no possible way to tally the carnage. I don�t want to be needlessly antigonistic but Feminists have an awful record on human rights, and have used poor women all over the planet as lab rats. I just can�t believe you�d give these people priori political carte blanche to destroy the lives of millions of women.
Kalkin: I'm not advocating letting anyone calling themself a feminist do whatever they want. Obviously, what these people did was horrible, assuming you have the facts correct. But, their actions were individual idiocies - there's nothing in the notion of women's rights that implies women should be lab rats, rather the opposite.
dk: Definitions become exceedingly important here because of the many different brands of Feminism. From an ethical perspective �treating women as lab-rats� equates to �the means justify the ends�. I would distinguish chauvinism from a patriarchy, chauvinism fundamentally mistakes women as male defined objects and therefore violates women. In my opinion Freud was fundamentally an egomaniacal chauvinist, so naturally I have a problem with any ideology based upon a Freudian model.

dk: Surely there is some political balance that needs to be struck, else your have just become a FemiNAZI.
Kalkin: I'm not sure what you mean here... I've never stated that women's rights are the only thing that should be considered when making foreign policy or whatever.
dk: I see that now. Can you explain how male and female parts are essentially reflected in the concept of human rights? For example Freud taught women were developmentally castrated men. Nietzsche misogynist perspective dehumanized the concept of feminism. Marx and Engels� historical materialism failed to account for the economy of labor entirely, much less the division of labor between men and women. I�m having a hard time fitting your statements into a coherent theme, so I�m bound to do you some injustices.

dk: You must realize that feminism is a social experiment in progress therefore the outcome is by no means certain.
Kalkin: Sure, but the outcome seems likely to be far superior to previous systems, given that they oppress women and feminism simply seeks to end that.
dk: Intellectually I can�t follow this kind of statement, in my experience all experiments have outcomes but not all outcomes reflect a desirable result. To suggest feminism is pre-determined deprives women of free will, hence violates their dignity. Rather if feminism is to succeed feminists must learn from their mistakes, and respond appropriately (ethically and morally). I don�t see a coherent, consistent or verifiable model for feminism today, so I don�t see how feminists can possibly learn from their mistakes, much less succeed. The statement �women are oppressed� doesn�t specify direction or magnitude in any sense. In fact the statement defines women as oppressed, therefore determines women to be oppressed and men to be oppressors. Such a statement sets men against women, and by extension women against children. It seems to me that women have innate qualities that men lack, and visa versa. To base feminism on �oppression� presumes two wrongs make a right. To impose some defacto penalty upon men under the guise of a remedy for sex discrimination meets one injustice with another, and thereby violates the innate qualities that complement men and women i.e. make a more perfect union between men and women impossible.

dk: In fact the leadership and the troops over the last 20 years have become fragmented, divided and even fierce political foes.
Kalkin: Yes, there are divisions within feminism. So? There are divisions within any ideology.
dk: So� for feminism to succeed the movement requires direction.
Benefit:
Kalkin: Ending discrimination against half of the human race is sufficient, and there's more. Letting women be full members in society not only helps them, but also strengthens the economy, reinforces democracy, and reduces population growth, among other things. Even if you were right that the family would be weakened by making women equal, I think all these things are more important than reducing divorce rates.
dk: I find this kind of hyperbole dehumanizing, not liberating for women.
Kalkin: Sorry, I only resort to it when people start arguing that helping women isn't enough on its own - perhaps it's the warping effect of formal policy debate on my argumentation.
dk: I know we don�t agree on a lot of stuff, but I find your honesty refreshing, persuasive and optimistic.

dk: The War to Win the Peace (cold war), The War to End all Wars (WWI), The War to make the world safe for democracy (WW II), The War to end poverty, The War against illiteracy, The War against drugs�. Your rhetoric brings to mind the hoofed sounds of a large herd about to break into a stampede. Try to calm yourself. The War to make the World safe for democracy became the Cold War, and the Cold War became the War on Terrorism, meanwhile poverty, illiteracy, pestilence, famine, genocide and every ancient evil remains humankind�s constant companion. Thankfully people seldom practice ritualistic cannibalism or human sacrifice, unless one considers abortion or eugenics human sacrifice. For the last 30 years there have been no less than 30 wars waged around the globe at any point in time. It is unlikely feminism will save the world, and no evidence to suggest it. There are benefits to feminism, but you�ve gotten so lost in the dogma you plum forgot to mention any.
Kalkin: Ok, I'll admit feminism won't save the world alone - there are many other problems. However, it plainly does help women - that's its direct effect - and although that's enough, I believe that it would also have outside effects that would help society generally. Doubling the workforce is going to increase economic productivity, correct? And educated, independent women tend to have fewer children, that's a statistical fact.
dk: I agree on the benefits, but am a little hazy on what you mean by education, independent women. I have a real problem with Malthusian economics. Despite what doomsayers predict good people make it possible to solve problems, so we need more good people. A culture/society/civilization can not progress except by solving the problems time presents. As a member of the human race I quite frankly don�t see how its possible for a person, family, community, nation or world to have �to many� good men and women.
Feasibility:
Kalkin: Marital partnerships work - many people on this thread have offered empirical examples. Husbands and wives can compromise and defer to each other in certain areas just as happens with any equal partnership between two people of the same sex. Even if they sometimes result in argument or divorce, they're clearly possible, so we must evaluate their benefits. As for whether it's possible to reform patriarchal societies, see Cost.
dk: Well I guess its feasible that�If pigs had wings they could fly. If feminism works I am at a loss to explain the amount of deviancy in our society, in fact the female prison population has increased by about 1,000 fold since the 1960s. Its just too depressing to list the statistics on poverty, illiteracy, juvenile violence, domestic violence, gangs, drugs, suicide, rape, abortion, and unwanted children We are now in the 4th decade of the Feminist Movement in the US. It appears to me that for every social ill feminists address, they make 10 more.
Kalkin: First, as I understand it, this should go under peril - feasibility is simply that it's possible to have an equal family. But whatever. I think other people have already dealt with your tendency to blame everything that's gone wrong in the US in the last half-century on feminism. Show me specifically how one of those problems you mention is caused by feminism, and I'll say more about it.
dk: I don�t blame anyone, I simply note what shapes an epic socioeconomic and geopolitical crisis. When the baby boomers retire to a life of relaxation, comfort and security half the US population will be on the public doll, and the demographics are worse in Europe. In 1945 Western Civilization made up 30% of the world�s population, and today its <14%. The middle class has been squeezed from the middle like a tube of toothpaste turning the gap between rich and poor into a chasm. We as a civilization have problems, and we can pull together and solve the problems, or they will ruin all of us.

dk: No, Sub Saharan Africa suffers from a long and troubled history that has left the culture, nations and civilization in ruins. I�m simply pointing out that the affect of Feminist policy has been impotent over the last 40 years.
Kalkin: I don't think anyone has ever expected feminism to fix all the problems in Africa, so I don't see how this is relevant.
dk: Families, communities, providences, nations, empires and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems that time presents with life affirming solutions, and are ruined when they encounter an insolvable problem. Civilization is great, but requires a lot of overhead (bureaucracy and infrastructure). An insolvable problem requires a nation to dedicated increasingly sparse resources, and sooner or later the reserve runs dry. A single insolvable problem can/does/will reduce an entire nation or civilization to ruins. Don�t take my word for it, history is littered with scores of dead civilizations that were culturally and technologically superior. The way I look at it, feminism succeeds as a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively with life affirming solutions.

dk: and tragically many now regard feminists as part of the problem.
Kalkin: Yes, it is tragic that feminists are regarded as part of the problem, and the idea of feminism might be rejected for no reason. Give me some evidence that feminism really is part of the problem.
dk: Feminists have a history of treating poor people as lab rats to advance their personal agenda. Sanger was a eugenicist and Planned Parenthood(PP) was popularized as a cosmetic facelift for the black eyes and broken nose the eugenicists movement got from NAZI Germany. Sanger took estrogen to Puerto Rico in the 1950s where they used poor women as lab rats. In the US PP pushed hormone therapies upon women as a cure-all for female problems that ranged from PMS to menopause. The UN NGOs and other international organizations backed by eugenicists disguised as feminists advocated and participated in dozens of experiments that used quota systems to sterilize social undesirables in India, Africa, Asia and South America. This was justified as part of the Cold War but International Planned Parenthood and other Feminists NGO did the dirty work. The ill will these people generated in the 3rd world can�t be swept aside unacknowledged. These and other inequities perpetrated during the Cold War have left the 3rd World impoverished, justifiably paranoid and dependent. It should be no mystery why Sub Saharan Africa is so suspicious of Western International orgs that tie aide with population reduction demands. It�s a problem, and rightfully or wrongfully feminism has been tagged one of the bad guys. Muslim nations have no problem making the connection.

August 29, 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
dk: My point is that most people lack the skills to reasonably resolve conflicts, so contentious issues in an egalitarian marriage tend to leave the husband and/or wife with hard feelings i.e. one winner and one looser.

That's fair, as long as we recognize that this is your opinion which your *evidence* does not address, and many other people, myself being one of them, have a different opinion.

Recognize also that I have no problem with you having a patriarchal head-of-household approach to running your family. If it works for everyone in your family, great. So long as you recognize our right to establish our own family relationships as we see fit for ourselves.

Actually you've got that backwards. Your situation is antidotal and certainly valid as antidotal, whereas the evidence and rational I presented was of a general and fundamental nature. Don't get me wrong you're free to reject the evidence I presented as unpersuasive and trivial, but a reasonable response requires superior evidence and explanation, and none has been presented.

August 29, 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
(snip)

I didn't suggest that. In fact I didn't suggest anything. I stated very clearly that the President of the US shares power and "headship" of the federal government with two other perhaps equally powerful entities. Is this not the case?

Question - is it your position that there are no human institutions where leadership responsibility is shared among more than one individual?

Never mind. This is a lot of intellectual dancing and we're not getting any closer to a real discussion on the original point. [/B] I view headship as necessary, but don't see a necessary conflict between headship and shared responsiblity. Ultimatley the success/ruin of any institution rests on the directed efforts of the entire body. This is true of the family, executive branch, Senate... UN etc... all human institutions.

August 29, 2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Good point, and vice-versa: the man should know what's expected of him. But a new, unexpected major issue could arise, and so the question remains unanswered.

If they disagree on a major point, and the wife refuses to obey her husband, then what happens next? I agree major stuff does happen that's totally unpredictable. Still, if a couple can't agree on the predictable stuff, then they are adrift in a storm without a helmsman, compass or rudder. A married couples has got to learn to steer a straight course.

The Other Michael

August 29, 2003, 10:00 AM

, if a couple can't agree on the predictable stuff

Make up your mind. You can't go stating (or at least leaving the strong impression) that the husband HAS to be in charge and the wife HAS to take his direction and then flip-flop over to "if a couple can't agree".

What's agreement got to do with an authoritarian heirarchy? The great lord commands, the serfs obey. That seems to me to pretty well sum up what I've been having to read for Lo! these many pages.

BTW, it looks like things are getting a bit tangential to the OP.

cheers,
Michael

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 10:08 AM

Ultimatley the success/ruin of any institution rests on the directed efforts of the entire body. This is true of the family, executive branch, Senate... UN etc... all human institutions.

Yes! We agree on that one for sure. :)

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 10:30 AM

dk: (snip) Your situation is antidotal and certainly valid as antidotal, whereas the evidence and rational I presented was of a general and fundamental nature.

I'm not criticizing, but to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the word is *anecdotal*. I agree with the above statement.

dk: Don't get me wrong you're free to reject the evidence I presented as unpersuasive and trivial, but a reasonable response requires superior evidence and explanation, and none has been presented.

No, a reasonable response doesn't require superior evidence (yet) because, as I stated originally, you have not established a causal link between divorce rates and patriarchal headship, therefore the relevance of your divorce rate statistics to that argument is not yet established.

If you have, and I'm somehow missing that point, I apologize - point me to the right post. I kind of rudely jumped into this debate mid-stream and I did a lot of skimming on the pre-material. Your patience is appreciated.

I think we would all agree that a high incidence of divorce indicates family dysfunctionality of some kind. This does not preclude the possibility that societies in which the divorce rates are substantially lower manifest equivalent, albeit different forms of family dysfunction. Perhaps we need to agree first on what the desired outcome(s) of family *functionality* should be and try to measure those across various societies?

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 10:51 AM

Sound: LOL. You believe this drivel? Can you say "paranoia"?

NC: I would be more than willing not to believe it if you were to refute some of the things that he said. Simply mocking and ridiculing what somebody says doesn't disprove anything.

You are right. My mocking and ridiculing of the article you posted doesn't disprove anything. But neither you nor the article have provided a case that is worthy of any effort to disprove it. The article sounds like the paranoid rantings of a kook, and none of the accusations it makes is supported with anything other than emotial appeals to some ultra-conservative ideology. It's as worthy of ridicule as the Flat Earth society, as far as I'm concerned.

Post some objective evidence that an organized conspiracy of megalomaniac New-Age baby-boomers is in control of all US institutions and is actively attempting to transform the country into a totatlitarian state via a marxist/feminist agenda. Then we can talk seriously.

NonContradiction

August 29, 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by NC
At the camp level, moden liberalism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. They all share a common enemy - the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions.
Originally posted by Kalkin
Sharing enemies doesn't mean they aren't mutually exclusive. Me and you share enemies - Nazis, for example, but our ideologies seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive.

True. But here is the difference. I cannot think of any ideology on the Left that hasn't been influenced by Marxist theory, can you? I posted an article on "cultural Marxism", The Frankfurt School, and its influence upon American society. So far, nobody has even attempted to refute any of the claims, including you. Someone has mocked and ridiculed it as mere paranoia, but mocking doesn't constitute refutation.

It's quite understandable why liberals want to distance themselves from Marxists, but that is very difficult to do when we look at how Marxist theory has informed feminist ideology. Feminist ideology isn't about "EQUALITY" as they say it is. It's about gender warfare. It's designed to maculinize women and feminize men. According to feminist ideology, gender roles are a social construct rather than rooted in biological differences.

Gay liberation is merely the final nail in the coffin to bury the patriarchal family. The strategy has been very clear: First, attack the man as head of household, which is what feminism does, and second, attack the essence of what it is to be a man, which is what male homosexuality does. Liberals are sick people, very sick people.

Originally posted by Kalkin
None of this matters. I've already admitted I've got some things in common with Marxists, but that doesn't mean that I'm a Marxist or that my position leads to Marxism.

Again, as I have already told you before, NO one is saying that you are a Marxist. What I am saying is that your ideology, the feminist ideology, has been informed by Marxist theory.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Not liking or not supporting is completely different from hating. Many people don't like Islam, and that's fine with me. I can live with that. That's not the problem, though. The problem is the hatred.

Liberals portary themselves as tolerant in front of the cameras, but behind closed doors they are filled with rage, hatred, anger, and contempt for the patriarchal society and the patriarchal religions. It's all two-faced hypocritical BULLSHIT. They are as intolerant as anybody I have ever seen from any other camp.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Tolerance doesn't exclude hatred, at least not by my definition. (Some liberals probably have different definitions which they don't follow and are hypocrites... so? There are hypocrites everywhere on the political spectrum). It only excludes actual persecution - not verbal attacks. (Yes, I do extend this for example to neo-Nazis and their anti-semitism - as long as they don't actually use violence, they should be able to say what they want, although it won't make me like them).

Political correctness isn't about toleration. It's about intolerance. Verbal abuse is used as a weapon against anyone who dares to challenge the feminst/homosexual agenda. The only reason why feminists and gays advocate tolerance of hate speech is so that they can engage in it themselves. As I said, liberals are sick people.

Dr Rick

August 29, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by dk
Don't get me wrong you're free to reject the evidence I presented as unpersuasive and trivial...

It's not just unpersuasive; it is completely devoid of any evidence suggesting linkage and/or causality.

NonContradiction

August 29, 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
Sound: LOL. You believe this drivel? Can you say "paranoia"?

NC: I would be more than willing not to believe it if you were to refute some of the things that he said. Simply mocking and ridiculing what somebody says doesn't disprove anything.

Sound:You are right. My mocking and ridiculing of the article you posted doesn't disprove anything. But neither you nor the article have provided a case that is worthy of any effort to disprove it. The article sounds like the paranoid rantings of a kook, and none of the accusations it makes is supported with anything other than emotial appeals to some ultra-conservative ideology. It's as worthy of ridicule as the Flat Earth society, as far as I'm concerned.

Post some objective evidence that an organized conspiracy of megalomaniac New-Age baby-boomers is in control of all US institutions and is actively attempting to transform the country into a totatlitarian state via a marxist/feminist agenda. Then we can talk seriously.

Again, you haven't refuted anything. You are just dismissing it as being unobjective. You may right, but I am not just going to dismiss it as unobjective because you say so.

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 12:05 PM

You may right, but I am not just going to dismiss it as unobjective because you say so.

Of course not - I wouldn't expect you to. And I wouldn't expect any Flat Earther to drop their irrational beliefs because I said so either.

NonContradiction

August 29, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
It's not just unpersuasive; it is completely devoid of any evidence suggesting linkage and/or causality.

Sooner or later, the liberals must assume responsibility for so many families being dysfunctional in America. They can't continue to blame the old patriarchal society of the 50's for all of the problems. Forty years have already gone by, and I don't see things getting better, but rather worse. So how many years is it going to take before the liberals admit that their social experiments of the 60's were a total failure?

August 29, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
It's not just unpersuasive; it is completely devoid of any evidence suggesting linkage and/or causality. I love you Dr Rick

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 12:14 PM

NC: I posted an article on "cultural Marxism", The Frankfurt School, and its influence upon American society. So far, nobody has even attempted to refute any of the claims, including you. Someone has mocked and ridiculed it as mere paranoia, but mocking doesn't constitute refutation.

If someone posts an article claiming, say, that radical Fascist Homosexual Social-Darwinist Pedofiles are infiltrating our school system and deliberately causing the moral corruption of our children, to how many people do you expect will put time and effort into *refutation*? The point is, any article making outlandish claims, as your referenced article does, needs to back them up with some evidence. Otherwise, it's just not worth the attention.

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 12:42 PM

NC: Sooner or later, the liberals must assume responsibility for so many families being dysfunctional in America.

I think sooner or later the anti-liberals must assume responsibility for so many families being dsyfunctional in America.

See? I can play this stupid blame-game too.

NC: They can't continue to blame the old patriarchal society of the 50's for all of the problems.

Of course they can (whoever *they* are?). As long as assigning blame to some broadly defined historical societal faction is considered to be a productive and useful activity, people like yourself will do it.

NC: Forty years have already gone by, and I don't see things getting better, but rather worse.

Fair enough. So instead of assigning blame and looking for some conspiratorial movement to rail against, how about offering some positive suggestions for improving things?

NC: So how many years is it going to take before the liberals admit that their social experiments of the 60's were a total failure?

Fascinating. Are you seriously waiting for some amorphous group of people whom you generalize as culpable and label as *liberals* to collectively stand up and formally take responsibility for the effects of some 1960's *social experiments* on which you blame all of the woes of the American family?

Some friendly advice - don't hold your breath.

August 29, 2003, 01:06 PM

dk: Don't get me wrong you're free to reject the evidence I presented as unpersuasive and trivial, but a reasonable response requires superior evidence and explanation, and none has been presented.
Soundsurfr: No, a reasonable response doesn't require superior evidence (yet) because, as I stated originally, you have not established a causal link between divorce rates and patriarchal headship, therefore the relevance of your divorce rate statistics to that argument is not yet established.
If you have, and I'm somehow missing that point, I apologize - point me to the right post. I kind of rudely jumped into this debate mid-stream and I did a lot of skimming on the pre-material. Your patience is appreciated.
dk: The nuclear family is held together by bonds that describe (govern) the elemental relationships. Religious, social, governmental, economic, political and/or interpersonal forces that weaken the bonds, weaken the family. All human institutions have headship bonds, and the nuclear family has been weakened by egalitarian marriages (Feminist Movement) and the Welfare State (see Moynihan Report). An egalitarian marriage has no headship meaning everyone speaks for themselves. From 1960 into the 1990s we see an increase of divorce and single mothers head of household. These are broken and amputated families. Unlike the nuclear family divorced and amputated families lack autonomy and integrity (everyone speaks and fends for themselves), and have been augmented by several huge government bureaucracies I euphemistically call a safety net. Public schools, pre-school, social services, foster care, juvenile courts, family courts, hospitals,,, etc try to hold the broken pieces together.

Soundsurfr:
I think we would all agree that a high incidence of divorce indicates family dysfunctionality of some kind. This does not preclude the possibility that societies in which the divorce rates are substantially lower manifest equivalent, albeit different forms of family dysfunction. Perhaps we need to agree first on what the desired outcome(s) of family *functionality* should be and try to measure those across various societies?
dk: The Nuclear Family (traditonally) functions to conceive, deliver and raise children into healthy productive adults. In broken and amputated families government picks up the pieces and tries to raise children parentis loco as best they can. With so many bureaucracies its difficult to say who raises children, and I would argue nobody really knows. When a kid goes psycho killing themselves or others, and many do, its a blame game. A quick cursory review of Columbine and other tragedies makes the point in spades. The name of the game is shared success, but cover your ass when a kid goes bad. I think dysfunction is an ill defined subjective ego driven politically correct term, and I try to avoid using it.

Dr Rick

August 29, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Sooner or later, the liberals must assume responsibility for so many families being dysfunctional in America. They can't continue to blame the old patriarchal society of the 50's for all of the problems. Forty years have already gone by, and I don't see things getting better, but rather worse.

They're worse only if you're in favor of continued oppression; for most of us living in the US, life is much better now than it was in the past. People are freer now than ever before to pursue their lives as they see fit, when just 50 years ago being Black, Jewish, or female was a major impediment to a free and good life. Today in the US we can't be compelled to pledge ourselves to something we don't believe, we can't be denied access to a school because of our skin color, and we can't be denied employment just because of our religious beliefs or sex. There are still pockets of repression that exist in our society, but the answer to those troubles is not a return to the old ways. To eliminate oppression requires freedom and liberalism, not more oppression and Islam.

It seems that not everyone sees freedom for all as an improvement. Those who think a man is superior to and should still have the right to beat or rape his wife with impunity may see things in the US now as "rather worse" when they pine for the bygone days when freedom and equality was just a dream for many.

So how many years is it going to take before the liberals admit that their social experiments of the 60's were a total failure?

The only total failure here has been the ongoing attempts to rationalize oppressing women and non-Muslims because somebody long ago said it's okay to disparage and abuse women as well as murder any person that doesn't believe in a particular religion.

NonContradiction

August 29, 2003, 03:27 PM

NC: Sooner or later, the liberals must assume responsibility for so many families being dysfunctional in America.

You:I think sooner or later the anti-liberals must assume responsibility for so many families being dsyfunctional in America.

See? I can play this stupid blame-game too.

It's not a stupid little game. And if it is a game, it's high stakes poker where the loser is a big loser. I have already acknowledged that the old patriarchal society had serious problems. No one here, as far as I know, is advocating returning to the racism, sexism, and nationalism of the old patriarchal society.

The question on the table is whether or not the social experiments of the 60's have been a suitable replacement for the old patriarchal society. A matriarchal society, which is what feminist ideology advocates, isn't a suitable replacement, IMO. Of course, you and others here may deny that feminist ideology calls for a matriarchal society, but it's inconceivable to me to have a society which is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal unless one wants to deny biological gender differences.

NC: Forty years have already gone by, and I don't see things getting better, but rather worse.

Soundsurfr: Fair enough. So instead of assigning blame and looking for some conspiratorial movement to rail against, how about offering some positive suggestions for improving things?

Blame needs to assigned where it's deserved. Until you acknowledge blame, we cannot move forward. It doesn't appear as though you are at that point.

MollyMac

August 29, 2003, 04:55 PM

posted by dk

Its simply not reasonable to force Good Muslims to become like liberals given the dysfunctional state of liberal homes.

Since the nuclear family has been flattened (peer to peer) by the Great Society it has become dysfunctional.

There's a lot of evidence that the family unit in Europe and N. America has become dysfunction, a two headed monster.

Feminism and Welfare leveled the Nuclear family creating a dysfunctional family (two headed monster) that caused a higher rate of divorce.

A two headed family isn�t a partnership but dysfunctional.

How can society remedy inequity without rendering the family unit dysfunctional ?

Obviously rendering the family unit dysfunctional as a remedy for sexual inequity serves the interests of no one.

Broken and amputated families are evidence of family dysfunction.

A football team, basketball team, committee,,, etc� all human institutions require headship, else they are dysfunctional .

This is absurd because without headship the family unit becomes dysfunctional .

A dysfunctional family serves no one's interests, least of all children and women who are clearly the most vulnerable members of a family.

While a married couple can be part of a dysfunctional family, it remains clear that divorce breaks a family apart, hence the members suffer an objective harm.

It is equally clear that many dysfunctional families reconcile their differences to become whole and functional.

... the egalitarian family is dysfunctional .

While a married couple can be part of a dysfunctional family, it remains clear that divorce breaks a family apart, hence the members suffer an objective harm.

It is equally clear that many dysfunctional families reconcile their differences to become whole and functional.

I think dysfunction is an ill defined subjective ego driven politically correct term, and I try to avoid using it.

:confused:

Dr Rick

August 29, 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by dk
The nuclear family is held together by bonds that describe (govern) the elemental relationships...

This looks suspiciously like incoherent drivel. What bonds? What elemental relationships? How are these different from other bonds that "describe (govern)" non-elemental relationships? What's the difference between "elemental" and other relationships?

What does the familiar, repetitive, and nonsensical rant about the "nuclear family" have to do with this thread?. Does the polygamy of Islam support the bonds of the nuclear family?

Unlike the nuclear family divorced and amputated families lack autonomy and integrity (everyone speaks and fends for themselves)

Insulting and unsubstantiated drivel; how does a single parent and his/her family have less integrity than any other? How is it that they "fend" and "speak for themselves" any more than any other family, and how is that somehow less autonomous?

A quick cursory review of Columbine and other tragedies makes the point in spades.

Another example of fallaciously juxtaposing two phenomena and deducing causality

The horrific actions of Klebold and Harris in the overwhelmingly Christian community of Littleton does nothing to support your free-associations about the nuclear family and its beneficients; most children from divorced homes don't massacre people, and both Stalin and Hitler grew-up in nuclear families.

9/11 wasn't perpetrated by children of broken homes, either.

Timberline

August 29, 2003, 05:20 PM

DK- The healthiest marriages I know of are between two people who are, first and foremost, friends. Friendship is a result of mutual respect, trust, and affection. Friends can work out differences of opinion just fine.

Do you need a �headship� and formal hierarchy to interact with your friends? The very idea is incomprehensible to me.

For one couple I know, the woman is in charge of family finances, because she�s better at it. For another couple, the man is. For another, they divvy up bill-payment and investments. (The woman handles, for example, buying clothes and investing in mutual funds; the man takes care of fixing the car and paying college bills.) When it comes to matters like what to do on a Saturday night, or what movie to see, or where to eat, they all take turns, work out compromises, come to agreements. As all friends do. To claim that in every family, in every situation, for every decision, the man should command and the woman should obey is absurd.

What does any of this have to do with Islam�s impractical, activity-limiting dress code?

Timberline

August 29, 2003, 05:42 PM

Divorce, out-of-control children, dysfunctional families�how does an uncomfortable, activity-limiting dress code for women help any of these problems?

How does reducing the value of women�s legal status and court testimony to half that of men�s help any of these problems?

How does my sister, by not covering her hair and wearing short-sleeve shirts on hot days, exacerbate any these problems?

NC, you�ve filled pages denouncing everything from Marxism to the French Revolution to George Bush. But you�ve yet to address these questions (which were, I believe, the whole point of the OP). Perhaps you�d care to now. If not, than perhaps another Muslim such as River will.

The Other Michael

August 29, 2003, 06:01 PM

Since things seem to have drifted over the last 30 or so pages, here's a repost of Brahma's Atheist's OP, just to refresh everyone's memory on what this discussion is supposed to be addressing:

Someone asked me why this muslim woman was wearing a scarf. I said if I was being cynical I would say it was to stop her being raped but it's actually for modesty( I'm sure someone will correct me).

So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.

Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women? It stops men from having the shame of being a rapist and it stops there being the shame of a rape victim in a mans family.If a religion says that people should dress modestly then why is it that only the women seem to do it? Do women not also get inflamed by men?

In Islam the clothes that the women have to wear seem to be like torture devices. Black cloth in hot climes. Heavy looking coats regardless of the conditions. Are they being punished for their existence? For the power they hold over men. In other societies do the women just wear plain ordinary dresses?

In one way though it might be good thing as my friend said because there is no need to do make up and all that grooming, just throw on a burka and that's it. Just dowse yourself in deoderant because it must get horribly hot.

As I said to my freind," If your god won't protect you from being raped then a scarf certainly won't"

Is rape more prevelant in sociteties such as in the West where women don't have to cover up?What about 'primitive' societies where people just go about in the altogether? Are they immoral?

This may be a bit incoherent but I just hate misogyny and institutional misogyny. It gets me so mad

I've adjusted the formatting a bit to make it a little easier to read.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Dr Rick

August 29, 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I cannot think of any ideology on the Left that hasn't been influenced by Marxist theory, can you?

The foundations of liberalism preceeded the birth of Karl Marx by a couple of centuries; he probably had negligible influence on the likes of Smith and Locke who were writing well before he was even conceived.

I posted an article on "cultural Marxism", The Frankfurt School, and its influence upon American society. So far, nobody has even attempted to refute any of the claims, including you. Someone has mocked and ridiculed it as mere paranoia, but mocking doesn't constitute refutation.

You posted an article on "cultural Marxism", The Frankfurt School, and its influence upon American society. So far, nobody has even attempted to support any of the claims, including you. Someone keeps referring to its paranoid and unsubstantiated rantings, but repetiton doesn't constitute support.

It's quite understandable why liberals want to distance themselves from Marxists...

It probably has a lot to do with the fact that Marxism is not liberalism. What's not understandable is why you explicitly put yourself in the same "camp' as Osama bin Laden.

Liberals are sick people, very sick people.

Osama bin Laden and those in his "camp" are the sick ones.

Again, as I have already told you before, NO one is saying that you are a Marxist. What I am saying is that your ideology, the feminist ideology, has been informed by Marxist theory.

"Again, as I have already told you before, NO one is saying that you are a misogynistic terrorist bent upon killing all those with whom you disagree. What I am saying is that your ideology, the fundamentalist ideology, has been informed by their religion"

Political correctness isn't about toleration. It's about intolerance. Verbal abuse is used as a weapon against anyone who dares to challenge the feminst/homosexual agenda. The only reason why feminists and gays advocate tolerance of hate speech is so that they can engage in it themselves. As I said, liberals are sick people.

"Religious fundamentalism isn't about toleration. It's about intolerance. Physical abuse is used as a weapon against anyone who dares to challenge the religious/fundamentalist agenda. The only reason why anyone would advocate tolerance of hate, misogyny, violence, and oppression is so that they can engage in it themselves. As I said, relgious fundamentalists are sick people."

No one here, as far as I know, is advocating returning to the racism, sexism, and nationalism of the old patriarchal society.

So you're just proposing a new patriarchal society based upon what you claim are the immutable 1400 year-old precepts of Islam...how exactly would such a society be different from the racism, sexism, and nationalism of the old patriarchal society founded upon those very same precepts?

The question on the table is whether or not the social experiments of the 60's have been a suitable replacement for the old patriarchal society.

Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are really swell evidence for the suitability of the type of "social experiment" you are advocating.

Blame needs to assigned where it's deserved. Until you acknowledge blame, we cannot move forward. It doesn't appear as though you are at that point.

Not true; many of us are fully prepared to assign much of the blame for the intolerance and hatred in the world to the religious fundamentalism you promulgate

NonContradiction

August 29, 2003, 07:04 PM

Someone asked me why this muslim woman was wearing a scarf. I said if I was being cynical I would say it was to stop her being raped but it's actually for modesty( I'm sure someone will correct me).

So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.

Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?

It's to protect both men and women. Modesty is something which is VALUED in a Muslim society, unlike pagan, matriarchal societies, like the US, where Madonna openly french kisses Britany on nationwide TV. Modesty is a virtue and should be guarded. According to the counter-culture of the 60's, now dominant culture of the 21st century, modesty has no value, whatsoever. The American society has become an ignorant, pagan, matriarchal society thanks to the liberals.

In Islam the clothes that the women have to wear seem to be like torture devices. Black cloth in hot climes. Heavy looking coats regardless of the conditions. Are they being punished for their existence? For the power they hold over men.

What power over men are you talking about? It's an Abrahmic, patriarchal religion, not an ignorant, matriarchal, pagan religion. What are you talking about?

This may be a bit incoherent but I just hate misogyny and institutional misogyny. It gets me so mad.

Yes, it is incoherent. None of the liberals here have successfully argued that Islam is a misogynistic, sexist relgion. They have spouted half-truths about Islam to disparage it in order to divert attention away from the failures of their own social experiments in the 60's.

Of course, the liberals are going to attack Islam because they see it as a threat to their existence. Islam is a viable alternative to the old racist, sexist, nationalistic, patriarchal society that existed in the 50's. Liberals use these scare tactics in order dissuade people away from Islam, and so, as a result, they portray Islam in the same way they portray the old racist, sexist patriarchal society of the 50's.

Soundsurfr

August 29, 2003, 10:45 PM

NC: Blame needs to be assigned where it's deserved.

Why? How does assigning blame improve anything in any situation? That's how big companies self-destruct. When business begins to drop off, managers look around and try to figure out who they can blame instead of putting energy into addressing the actual problems. It works the same in social situations. Instead of working to improve things, everyone works to assign blame and exact punishment while the problems continue to pile up around them. Are you looking to punish someone, NC? Is that your agenda?

NC: Until you acknowledge blame, we cannot move forward.

Until I acknowledge blame?? ME? You can't move forward without me? How pathetic.

NC: It doesn't appear as though you are at that point.

No, I am not at that point. Perhaps if you hurl more unsubstantiated accusations at me I'll come around. But probably not. That puts you in quite a quagmire, it seems. I mean, you can't put forth a reasonable suggestion to improve things until I acknowledge my personal guilt in your imaginary conspiracy.

Fascinating.

August 29, 2003, 10:56 PM

Timberline: DK- The healthiest marriages I know of are between two people who are, first and foremost, friends. Friendship is a result of mutual respect, trust, and affection. Friends can work out differences of opinion just fine.
Do you need a �headship� and formal hierarchy to interact with your friends? The very idea is incomprehensible to me.
dk: All human institutions have a head. Public schools have made this into a contentious issue, and 99% of school campuses support artificial egalitarian environments ruled by a strict and rigid educracy. A case of pure and simply social engineering. Friends are a peers to peer relationship, both parties being free to withdraw at any time without consequence. Friendship is a type of bond, not an institution. Institutions are the brick and mortar of a society.

Timberline: For one couple I know, the woman is in charge of family finances, because she�s better at it. For another couple, the man is. For another, they divvy up bill-payment and investments. (The woman handles, for example, buying clothes and investing in mutual funds; the man takes care of fixing the car and paying college bills.) When it comes to matters like what to do on a Saturday night, or what movie to see, or where to eat, they all take turns, work out compromises, come to agreements. As all friends do. To claim that in every family, in every situation, for every decision, the man should command and the woman should obey is absurd.
dk: You sound like a robot, programmed to regurgitate prattle. Headship does not imply totalitarianism or command style communism, all human institutions have a head.

Timberline: What does any of this have to do with Islam�s impractical, activity-limiting dress code?
dk: Many liberals take great offense when forced to confront their character. NATO nations make expansive use of dress codes and are therefore hypocritical for criticizing Arab attire. Dress codes are a store front display for a more expansive agenda aimed to control how people act. Headship and dress codes have nothing to do with another, and this discussion is really about �whose in control of whom�. Arab nations are seen by the liberal "omnipotent apparatus" to be out of control after 9/11, therefore must change how they dress. Arab nations rebel by adopting strict dress codes and it drives liberals up the wall, because they are control freaks.

August 29, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by The Other Michael
Make up your mind. You can't go stating (or at least leaving the strong impression) that the husband HAS to be in charge and the wife HAS to take his direction and then flip-flop over to "if a couple can't agree".

What's agreement got to do with an authoritarian heirarchy? The great lord commands, the serfs obey. That seems to me to pretty well sum up what I've been having to read for Lo! these many pages.

BTW, it looks like things are getting a bit tangential to the OP.

cheers,
Michael What's a school principle got to do with an egalitarian school campus?

Headship and inequity are not equivelent, all human institutions have headship, but not all human institutions are authoritarian., therefore headship does not equate to authoritarian.

Luiseach

August 29, 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Modesty is something which is VALUED in a Muslim society...Modesty is a virtue and should be guarded...

Modesty.

What does modesty mean in Islam?

August 29, 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by MollyMac
:confused: I'm going to try to do better MollyMac. I said I tried to avoid using the word dysfunctional, so I accept the criticsm. Dysfunctional is normative, meaning impaired or abnormal. We live in a normative society, so there's no escaping the use of normative terms.

Luiseach

August 29, 2003, 11:40 PM

Can we figure out why, exactly, 'modesty' is or should be valuable in women?

I've been digging out my dictionaries and reference books, because 'modesty' - as it relates to how women dress - is a decidedly old-fashioned notion, better suited to our understanding of antiquated Victorian values and anxieties.

Hence the neck-to-floor-length dresses, covering women's hair in churches....all this fabric was thought to safeguard the 'modesty' of Victorian women.

Anyway, here's one definition of 'modest'...it's from an Oxford...

modest adj.. 1. having or expressing a humble or moderate estimate of one's own merits or achievements. 2. diffident, bashful, retiring. 3. decorous in manner and conduct. 4. moderate or restrained in amount, extent, severity, etc.; not excessive or exaggerated. 5. (of a thing) unpretentious in appearance etc.

-----. The Oxford Reference Dictionary (s.v. 'modest')

I mean, what are women supposed to be 'modest' about, exactly?

Kalkin

August 30, 2003, 12:11 AM

dk: I think it is futile to deny the obvious differences between men and women, and counterproductive to undermine feminist pedagogy with pretext that low balls essential differences. Human beings are male and female, so human rights must reflect both male and female differences and credits otherwise everyone�s innate dignity gets short changed.

I don't agree that there are any significant inherent differences between men and women, but you said you didn't want to discuss this on this thread, so lets save it for another one. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have time any time soon to start one, but eventually...

For now I'll just note that even if were are some differences, that doesn't necessarily justify different rights. Individual variation is so large that it's unjust to make universal rules based on statistical averages.

dk: First, this may be a misunderstanding preempted by the Marxist-Feminist confusion above (I snipped it), but I consider wars to be political events because they [re]form the laws that govern men and women. I did read your post and responded to one aspect of it, �Whatever political or economic pressure it takes�. When I wrote my response I didn�t understand why you thought I confused Marxist-Feminism with Marxism and Feminism. I have big time problems with the union -Marxist-Feminism-, and in the same vein have a big time problems with the union -NAZI-Feminism-. I don�t necessarily have a problem with Feminism.

I agree that wars are political, but then I also agree that they shouldn't be started only to protect women's rights, so this is irrelevant. Also, I don't think you're accusing me of supporting Marxism or Nazism, only feminism, so that's all irrelevant too.

In an earlier post you said, �Equality might fail if it set the husband against wife and children against parents�. I agree but would replace �might fail� with �can not succeed� because I see a necessary balance or a tension that must be embraced for a Feminist perspective to succeed.

I don't know what you're talking about with this "necessary balance" required for feminist success. If you're arguing that the potential for conflict makes equal marriages impossible, I disagree. Compromise or seperation is always possible, and superior to coercion. If you're arguing that equality will lead to conflict, I disagree. A pairing in which people accept each other's independence will always cause less conflict than a pairing in which one person always tries to dominate the other.

dk: Definitions become exceedingly important here because of the many different brands of Feminism. From an ethical perspective �treating women as lab-rats� equates to �the means justify the ends�. I would distinguish chauvinism from a patriarchy, chauvinism fundamentally mistakes women as male defined objects and therefore violates women. In my opinion Freud was fundamentally an egomaniacal chauvinist, so naturally I have a problem with any ideology based upon a Freudian model.

I don't know what Freud, means justifying ends, or the definition of chauvinism has to do with anything. If you're still trying to argue that feminists generally treat women as lab rats, you aren't supporting your position.

dk: I see that now. Can you explain how male and female parts are essentially reflected in the concept of human rights?

No, I can't, because I don't know what "male and female parts" are or how they could be "essentially reflected" in human rights. If you're asking how differences between men and women are reflected in the concept of human rights, the answer is that they aren't - human rights apply equally to everyone, that's the point of the adjective "human."

dk: For example Freud taught women were developmentally castrated men. Nietzsche misogynist perspective dehumanized the concept of feminism. Marx and Engels� historical materialism failed to account for the economy of labor entirely, much less the division of labor between men and women.

I don't understand what this paragraph has to do with anything. I don't particularly like any of those people, although they had a few interesting insights.

I�m having a hard time fitting your statements into a coherent theme, so I�m bound to do you some injustices.

My general thesis is that women should be treated identically to men in all things other than childbirth, for a variety of reasons, principally that it's extremely unjust to treat people differently based on false generalizations. If it helps you somehow, my broader political position is generally to the left of any Democratic presidential candidate, but to the right of the Greens. What exactly are you unclear on?

Kalkin: Sure, but the outcome seems likely to be far superior to previous systems, given that they oppress women and feminism simply seeks to end that.
dk: Intellectually I can�t follow this kind of statement, in my experience all experiments have outcomes but not all outcomes reflect a desirable result.

It's pretty simple - feminism may be an experiment, but if so, it's one in which of the multiple possible outcomes, a positive one is the most probable - as basically everything I've posted argues.

dk: To suggest feminism is pre-determined deprives women of free will, hence violates their dignity.

How am I suggesting that feminism is "pre-determined?" Simply suggesting that it's moral viewpoint is inherently correct is no more destructive of anyone's free will than saying it's moral viewpoint is fundamentally flawed. I'm not forcing equal rights on women at gunpoint or anything...

dk: Rather if feminism is to succeed feminists must learn from their mistakes, and respond appropriately (ethically and morally). I don�t see a coherent, consistent or verifiable model for feminism today, so I don�t see how feminists can possibly learn from their mistakes, much less succeed.

How is a unified model necessary for learning from mistakes? A variety of feminists are constantly arguing with each other and testing different ideas. Flexibility is best for learning from mistakes. The people who aren't trying to learn from their mistakes are the people like NC, and you if you agree with his ideal society, who say that we should do things just because they're part of 1400 year old traditions and change is risky.

dk: The statement �women are oppressed� doesn�t specify direction or magnitude in any sense. In fact the statement defines women as oppressed, therefore determines women to be oppressed and men to be oppressors. Such a statement sets men against women, and by extension women against children.

I don't argue that all women are oppressed or that all men oppress women. I don't define women as "oppressed people," I use the conventional definition. I just argue that when women are oppressed, that's bad, and what you and NC are defending is an instance of the oppression of women.

It seems to me that women have innate qualities that men lack, and visa versa.

It seems to me otherwise, but it doesn't matter, because in context this is a non sequitor - I don't see how it relates to your theme here.

To base feminism on �oppression� presumes two wrongs make a right. To impose some defacto penalty upon men under the guise of a remedy for sex discrimination meets one injustice with another, and thereby violates the innate qualities that complement men and women i.e. make a more perfect union between men and women impossible.

Here you're just wrong. Eliminating oppression is not a "wrong" equivalent to creating oppression. I don't advocate penalizing men in any way. To say that simply by taking away their ability to dominate their wives is a penalty is ridiculous - that's like saying if I steal your money, and you take it back, we've suffered equally. In any case, granting equality to women makes a far more "perfect union" possible, because it wouldn't be marred by one person trying to control the other.

dk: So� for feminism to succeed the movement requires direction.

Perhaps, but this is irrelevant to whether it would be good if feminism succeeded. I thought you didn't want it so succeed. Why are you giving tactical advice?

dk: I know we don�t agree on a lot of stuff, but I find your honesty refreshing, persuasive and optimistic.

Thank you.

dk: I agree on the benefits, but am a little hazy on what you mean by education, independent women. I have a real problem with Malthusian economics. Despite what doomsayers predict good people make it possible to solve problems, so we need more good people. A culture/society/civilization can not progress except by solving the problems time presents. As a member of the human race I quite frankly don�t see how its possible for a person, family, community, nation or world to have �to many� good men and women.

I'm glad you agree feminism has benefits.

One doesn't have to be a Malthusian to see that at some point, population growth has to stop. I agree, Malthus' view of economics is flawed - the "Iron Law of Wages" is bullshit. However, at current growth rates, there will be one person for every square meter of land area on Earth in roughly 400 years. Obviously, this is impossible, because far before then overcrowding will lead to famines and territorial conflicts that kill billions. The problem is that "good" people and "bad" people both increase in number. So, it's far better to stop population growth now by educating and empowering women so that they don't have children, than to wait for famine, disease and war to do it for us. Here's one area where feminism in the US has been successful - population would be trending slightly downward if it wasn't for immigration.

Kalkin: First, as I understand it, this should go under peril - feasibility is simply that it's possible to have an equal family. But whatever. I think other people have already dealt with your tendency to blame everything that's gone wrong in the US in the last half-century on feminism. Show me specifically how one of those problems you mention is caused by feminism, and I'll say more about it.

dk: I don�t blame anyone, I simply note what shapes an epic socioeconomic and geopolitical crisis. When the baby boomers retire to a life of relaxation, comfort and security half the US population will be on the public doll, and the demographics are worse in Europe. In 1945 Western Civilization made up 30% of the world�s population, and today its <14%. The middle class has been squeezed from the middle like a tube of toothpaste turning the gap between rich and poor into a chasm. We as a civilization have problems, and we can pull together and solve the problems, or they will ruin all of us.

You've again failed to show how any of this has anything to do with feminism. I completely agree that the US has many problems - the rich-poor gap, the high proportion of retired people, and many others from increasing domestic fundamentalism and increasing global hostility to potential deadly technological breakthroughs. However, these are all equally unrelated to feminism.

dk: Families, communities, providences, nations, empires and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems that time presents with life affirming solutions, and are ruined when they encounter an insolvable problem. Civilization is great, but requires a lot of overhead (bureaucracy and infrastructure). An insolvable problem requires a nation to dedicated increasingly sparse resources, and sooner or later the reserve runs dry. A single insolvable problem can/does/will reduce an entire nation or civilization to ruins. Don�t take my word for it, history is littered with scores of dead civilizations that were culturally and technologically superior. The way I look at it, feminism succeeds as a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively with life affirming solutions.

I agree with everything in this paragraph, especially "feminism succeeds." ;) If you meant to say that feminism would only succeed if it was "a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively" etcetera, then my response is that it is. It lets people address the problem of gender inequality. There are many problems it doesn't solve, but that's because they have nothing to do with gender - other movements are needed there.

dk: Feminists have a history of treating poor people as lab rats to advance their personal agenda. Sanger was a eugenicist and Planned Parenthood(PP) was popularized as a cosmetic facelift for the black eyes and broken nose the eugenicists movement got from NAZI Germany. Sanger took estrogen to Puerto Rico in the 1950s where they used poor women as lab rats. In the US PP pushed hormone therapies upon women as a cure-all for female problems that ranged from PMS to menopause. The UN NGOs and other international organizations backed by eugenicists disguised as feminists advocated and participated in dozens of experiments that used quota systems to sterilize social undesirables in India, Africa, Asia and South America. This was justified as part of the Cold War but International Planned Parenthood and other Feminists NGO did the dirty work. The ill will these people generated in the 3rd world can�t be swept aside unacknowledged. These and other inequities perpetrated during the Cold War have left the 3rd World impoverished, justifiably paranoid and dependent. It should be no mystery why Sub Saharan Africa is so suspicious of Western International orgs that tie aide with population reduction demands. It�s a problem, and rightfully or wrongfully feminism has been tagged one of the bad guys. Muslim nations have no problem making the connection.

If you're correct that eugenicists have used the mantle of feminism to justify atrocities, that's awful. It doesn't mean that feminism is bad, though. If people are unjustly suspicious of feminism, that's also bad. However, their suspicions aren't in themselves reason to reject feminism. I'm glad that you say "eugenicists disguised as feminists" because no moral feminist would ever support eugenics.

It does, on the other hand, sound like some of what you describe might be justifiable. After all, providing experimental treatments to poor people isn't as good as providing proven treatments, but it could be better than providing no treatment. It depends on the problem, the treatment, and if informed consent was recieved.

And, you mention hormone therapies, but it wasn't feminists particularly pushing those - it was doctors, who like being able to prescribe something and didn't realize the evidence for them was bad. Estrogen and progesterone treatments were a scientific failure, not a political one - if gender came into it anywhere it was in male bias that meant no thorough government studies were done for years. But anyway, it's not like they were particularly dangerous - the danger was statistical and slight.

August 30, 2003, 12:33 AM

dk: The nuclear family is held together by bonds that describe (govern) the elemental relationships...
Dr Rick: This looks suspiciously like incoherent drivel. What bonds? What elemental relationships? How are these different from other bonds that "describe (govern)" non-elemental relationships? What's the difference between "elemental" and other relationships?
What does the familiar, repetitive, and nonsensical rant about the "nuclear family" have to do with this thread?. Does the polygamy of Islam support the bonds of the nuclear family?
dk: Your confusion follows from a sequence of mental states that move from moral relativism to moral stupidity.

(snip) prattle

dk: A quick cursory review of Columbine and other tragedies makes the point in spades.
Dr Rick: Another example of fallaciously juxtaposing two phenomena and deducing causality
dk: In the 1960s public education was the crown jewel of the Great Society. Today public schools in the US are patrolled by armed guards, drug sniffing dogs, no tolerance policies, and metal detectors. Something happened Rick, care to venture a theory.
(snip)
Columbine demonstrated that nobody was responsible, not the school, social services, police, juvenile justice system or the parents. In the wake of Columbine all these bureaucracies closed up to get their story straight, filter information and generally cover their ass in a blame game.

Nowhere357

August 30, 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by dk
Nowhere
If they disagree on a major point, and the wife refuses to obey her husband, then what happens next?
A married couples has got to learn to steer a straight course.
But that doesn't answer the question.

If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

Nowhere357

August 30, 2003, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

Kalkin

August 30, 2003, 02:04 AM

NC, I'm not going to bother quoting anything from your last post, but:

You say that I'm informed by Marxist theory, then you say you admit I'm not a Marxist. What you ignore, however, is the many times I've explained that if I'm not a Marxist, it doesn't matter if my ideology is somehow related, because I don't advocate any of the bad things they do. This point is pretty simple, but you don't seem to get it.

That's what most of your rant was about - the only other thing, I think, was that since liberals support rights for women and gays, we're "sick."

Well, that's not what your mother said last night. :p

Care to support your conclusions with logic instead of insults, for once?:banghead:

Dr Rick

August 30, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by dk
The nuclear family is held together by bonds that describe (govern) the elemental relationships...

What does your familiar, repetitive, and nonsensical rant about the "nuclear family" have to do with this thread?. Does the polygamy of Islam represent your idea of the nuclear family?

In the 1960s public education was the crown jewel of the Great Society. Today public schools in the US are patrolled by armed guards, drug sniffing dogs, no tolerance policies, and metal detectors. Something happened Rick, care to venture a theory. Columbine demonstrated that nobody was responsible, not the school, social services, police, juvenile justice system or the parents. In the wake of Columbine all these bureaucracies closed up to get their story straight, filter information and generally cover their ass in a blame game.

Why are you babbling about this irrelevant nonsense on this thread? Are you implying that burqas would improve public schools or that we should return to the racially-segregated public school systems of the 1950's?"

If the world was such a great place before the 1960's, why were there two world wars and a great depression?

If liberalism and social programs are to blame for a high crime rate and a high teenage pregnancy rate in the US, why are liberal European countries doing so much better in these areas than we are?

Soundsurfr

August 30, 2003, 03:30 PM

The American society has become an ignorant, pagan, matriarchal society thanks to the liberals.

More obnoxious, unsupported ranting.

Post evidence that American society is more ignorant. More ignorant than when? Using what criteria?

As far as whether it's pagan, I think the Christian majority would disagree with that statement. But as to that statement, last I checked, this country is dedicated to remaining tolerant of whatever religion its people practice or don't practice - whether it be pagan, Christian, Muslim or atheist.

As to whether it's matriarchal - lets see. There are 15 women in the United States Senate and 85 men. There has never been a woman president or vice president. The overwhelming majority of CEO's and business leaders are men. The majority of top clergy members are men. Men, on average, are still paid more than women for similar job tasks. Using WHAT criteria do you consider this a matriarchal society??????

August 30, 2003, 07:01 PM

dk: I think it is futile to deny the obvious differences between men and women, and counterproductive to undermine feminist pedagogy with pretext that low balls essential differences. Human beings are male and female, so human rights must reflect both male and female differences and credits otherwise everyone�s innate dignity gets short changed.
Kalkin: I don't agree that there are any significant inherent differences between men and women, but you said you didn't want to discuss this on this thread, so lets save it for another one. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have time any time soon to start one, but eventually...
dk: Feminists undermine their own legitimacy by denying the obvious. What people believe is really no concern of mine, what people rationalize under the cloak of feminism concerns me a lot.

Kalkin: For now I'll just note that even if there are some differences, that doesn't necessarily justify different rights. Individual variation is so large that it's unjust to make universal rules based on statistical averages.
dk: I don�t understand��If�that not� structures. I think you mean��There are some differences but they don�t affect human rights.� I disagree, human rights entail all human beings therefore innate sexual differences concern human rights. Human Rights must respect the entire life cycle, any other supposition falls short. Human sexuality and procreation are essential aspects of human nature therefore essential to human rights.

Kalkin: I agree that wars are political, but then I also agree that they shouldn't be started only to protect women's rights, so this is irrelevant. Also, I don't think you're accusing me of supporting Marxism or Nazism, only feminism, so that's all irrelevant too.
dk: The bloodiest wars in history have been fought over human rights. You�ve lost me.

dk: In an earlier post you said, �Equality might fail if it set the husband against wife and children against parents�. I agree but would replace �might fail� with �can not succeed� because I see a necessary balance or a tension that must be embraced for a Feminist perspective to succeed.
Kalkin: I don't know what you're talking about with this "necessary balance" required for feminist success. If you're arguing that the potential for conflict makes equal marriages impossible, I disagree. Compromise or seperation is always possible, and superior to coercion. If you're arguing that equality will lead to conflict, I disagree. A pairing in which people accept each other's independence will always cause less conflict than a pairing in which one person always tries to dominate the other.
dk: Compromise is not always possible. A pregnant women either commits abortion, or not. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.

dk: Definitions become exceedingly important here because of the many different brands of Feminism. From an ethical perspective �treating women as lab-rats� equates to �the means justify the ends�. I would distinguish chauvinism from a patriarchy, chauvinism fundamentally mistakes women as male defined objects and therefore violates women. In my opinion Freud was fundamentally an egomaniacal chauvinist, so naturally I have a problem with any ideology based upon a Freudian model.
Kalkin: I don't know what Freud, means justifying ends, or the definition of chauvinism has to do with anything. If you're still trying to argue that feminists generally treat women as lab rats, you aren't supporting your position.
dk: In an egotistical world people serve the law and themselves because nothing else exists. In an egotistical world under the presumption of innocents a person has the liberty to commit any crime they can beat.

dk: I see that now. Can you explain how male and female parts are essentially reflected in the concept of human rights?
Kalkin: No, I can't, because I don't know what "male and female parts" are or how they could be "essentially reflected" in human rights. If you're asking how differences between men and women are reflected in the concept of human rights, the answer is that they aren't - human rights apply equally to everyone, that's the point of the adjective "human."
dk: You don�t want to know because to know would make you uncomfortable.

(snip)

dk: I�m having a hard time fitting your statements into a coherent theme, so I�m bound to do you some injustices.
Kalkin: My general thesis is that women should be treated identically to men in all things other than childbirth, for a variety of reasons, principally that it's extremely unjust to treat people differently based on false generalizations. If it helps you somehow, my broader political position is generally to the left of any Democratic presidential candidate, but to the right of the Greens. What exactly are you unclear on?
dk: So do you think men should be able to play on women�s volleyball, tennis, track, basketball,,,etc� I doubt it.

Kalkin: Sure, but the outcome seems likely to be far superior to previous systems, given that they oppress women and feminism simply seeks to end that.
dk: Intellectually I can�t follow this kind of statement, in my experience all experiments have outcomes but not all outcomes reflect a desirable result.
Kalkin: It's pretty simple - feminism may be an experiment, but if so, it's one in which of the multiple possible outcomes, a positive one is the most probable - as basically everything I've posted argues.
dk: You�re statement is nonsense. The feminists experiment isn�t about outcomes, but egotism, and to an egotistical person a good outcome entails more power and the right to use it indiscriminately.

dk: To suggest feminism is pre-determined deprives women of free will, hence violates their dignity.
Kalkin: How am I suggesting that feminism is "pre-determined?" Simply suggesting that it's moral viewpoint is inherently correct is no more destructive of anyone's free will than saying it's moral viewpoint is fundamentally flawed. I'm not forcing equal rights on women at gunpoint or anything...
dk: Heh? So what gives you the right to judge Muslim dress codes, and order Muslim society?

dk: Rather if feminism is to succeed feminists must learn from their mistakes, and respond appropriately (ethically and morally). I don�t see a coherent, consistent or verifiable model for feminism today, so I don�t see how feminists can possibly learn from their mistakes, much less succeed.
Kalkin: How is a unified model necessary for learning from mistakes? A variety of feminists are constantly arguing with each other and testing different ideas. Flexibility is best for learning from mistakes. The people who aren't trying to learn from their mistakes are the people like NC, and you if you agree with his ideal society, who say that we should do things just because they're part of 1400 year old traditions and change is risky.
dk: I have no idea what a unified model might be, unless you want men to play on professional women�s sports teams. Maybe NC learned his lesson from the mistakes feminists made. Not everyone needs to step in a pile of dog duty to know it stinks.

dk: The statement �women are oppressed� doesn�t specify direction or magnitude in any sense. In fact the statement defines women as oppressed, therefore determines women to be oppressed and men to be oppressors. Such a statement sets men against women, and by extension women against children.
Kalkin: I don't argue that all women are oppressed or that all men oppress women. I don't define women as "oppressed people," I use the conventional definition. I just argue that when women are oppressed, that's bad, and what you and NC are defending is an instance of the oppression of women.
dk: I�m not defending anything, I�m attacking feminists for being indiscriminate, egocentric and hypocritical.

dk: It seems to me that women have innate qualities that men lack, and visa versa.
Kalkin: It seems to me otherwise, but it doesn't matter, because in context this is a non sequitor - I don't see how it relates to your theme here.
dk: If I were to take you seriously then I'd forced to judge sex, pregnancy, child birth and motherhood as trivial. I can�t do that in good conscience without holding all women in contempt.

dk: To base feminism on �oppression� presumes two wrongs make a right. To impose some defacto penalty upon men under the guise of a remedy for sex discrimination meets one injustice with another, and thereby violates the innate qualities that complement men and women i.e. make a more perfect union between men and women impossible.
Kalkin: Here you're just wrong. Eliminating oppression is not a "wrong" equivalent to creating oppression. I don't advocate penalizing men in any way. To say that simply by taking away their ability to dominate their wives is a penalty is ridiculous - that's like saying if I steal your money, and you take it back, we've suffered equally. In any case, granting equality to women makes a far more "perfect union" possible, because it wouldn't be marred by one person trying to control the other.
dk: You confuse headship with dominance and inequity with inequality. Headship isn�t about dominatrix sex games, and inequities don�t follow from inequalities.

dk: So� for feminism to succeed the movement requires direction.
Kalkin: Perhaps, but this is irrelevant to whether it would be good if feminism succeeded. I thought you didn't want it so succeed. Why are you giving tactical advice?
dk: I am all for feminism, but against sadism and inequity. Obviously feminists that subscribe themselves to willful ignorance and hypocrisy lack judgment, and without judgment freedom, liberty and free will can�t possibly exist.

Kalkin: One doesn't have to be a Malthusian to see that at some point, population growth has to stop. I agree, Malthus' view of economics is flawed - the "Iron Law of Wages" is bullshit. However, at current growth rates, there will be one person for every square meter of land area on Earth in roughly 400 years. Obviously, this is impossible, because far before then overcrowding will lead to famines and territorial conflicts that kill billions. The problem is that "good" people and "bad" people both increase in number. So, it's far better to stop population growth now by educating and empowering women so that they don't have children, than to wait for famine, disease and war to do it for us. Here's one area where feminism in the US has been successful - population would be trending slightly downward if it wasn't for immigration.
dk:: The carrying capacity of the earth is unknown, and the population of planet earth in 20 years is unknowable. The greatest threat to the planet and humanity remains disease, catastrophe and war. In the last 10 years the life expectancy in Africa has dropped 25 years, and still counting down. A few dozen nuclear bombs strategically placed could cull the world�s population by half, and virtually turn Western Europe, India and the US into a vacant wasteland. Destroying the old or the unborn isn�t an acceptable solution because killing human beings doesn�t solve problems it creates animosity and a culture of death. Societies that solve their problems by destroying people become savage and brutal, not free. If this is the world feminists prescribe then we all fail, and doom our progeny to the dark ages.

Kalkin: First, as I understand it, this should go under peril - feasibility is simply that it's possible to have an equal family. But whatever. I think other people have already dealt with your tendency to blame everything that's gone wrong in the US in the last half-century on feminism. Show me specifically how one of those problems you mention is caused by feminism, and I'll say more about it.
dk: I don�t blame anyone, I simply note what shapes an epic socioeconomic and geopolitical crisis. When the baby boomers retire to a life of relaxation, comfort and security half the US population will be on the public doll, and the demographics are worse in Europe. In 1945 Western Civilization made up 30% of the world�s population, and today its <14%. The middle class has been squeezed from the middle like a tube of toothpaste turning the gap between rich and poor into a chasm. We as a civilization have problems, and we can pull together and solve the problems, or they will ruin all of us.
Kalkin: You've again failed to show how any of this has anything to do with feminism. I completely agree that the US has many problems - the rich-poor gap, the high proportion of retired people, and many others from increasing domestic fundamentalism and increasing global hostility to potential deadly technological breakthroughs. However, these are all equally unrelated to feminism.
dk: Radical Feminism has destabilized the nuclear family the basic unit of civilization. . Over the last four decades, the declining proportion of married adults in the United States has contributed to a significant worsening of the economic status of families with children. The rise in single parenthood, together with limited child support payments, has meant that more children must rely primarily on the income of only one of their parents, usually the mother. As a result, despite healthy growth in per capita income, child poverty rates in the U.S. have remained at their 1970s levels. Researchers have demonstrated that reduced marriage propensities have caused substantially higher child poverty rates, even after accounting for the fact that the men unmarried mothers might marry have lower incomes than current married fathers (Lerman, 1996; Sawhill and Thomas, 2001). -- http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/parenthood.htm I recognize Feminists are unlikely to accept any culpability for the destabilization of the nuclear family, still its clear that the Feminists interested in the welfare of mothers and children missed the boat. Feminists have clearly focused their attention on remedies hostile to the nuclear families. I doubt you can find one feminist leader that has made one positive statement in support of the nuclear family.

dk: Families, communities, providences, nations, empires and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems that time presents with life affirming solutions, and are ruined when they encounter an insolvable problem. Civilization is great, but requires a lot of overhead (bureaucracy and infrastructure). An insolvable problem requires a nation to dedicated increasingly sparse resources, and sooner or later the reserve runs dry. A single insolvable problem can/does/will reduce an entire nation or civilization to ruins. Don�t take my word for it, history is littered with scores of dead civilizations that were culturally and technologically superior. The way I look at it, feminism succeeds as a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively with life affirming solutions.
Kalkin: I agree with everything in this paragraph, especially "feminism succeeds." If you meant to say that feminism would only succeed if it was "a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively" etcetera, then my response is that it is. It lets people address the problem of gender inequality. There are many problems it doesn't solve, but that's because they have nothing to do with gender - other movements are needed there.
dk: huh? Gender specifies a grammatical subclass, that in the context of this discussion addresses the behavioral, cultural, and/or psychological traits typically associated with women/men. It seems to me that feminists have a passing interest in gender. To suggest otherwise constitutes a deception.

(snip)

August 30, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
dk:A married couples has got to learn to steer a straight course.
Nowhere357
But that doesn't answer the question.

If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

Yes it does, Feminism and the Welfare State leveled the nuclear family insisting upon a peer to peer relationship between husband and wife, or single mother head of household. A vast safety net was set up to sustain women's individual autonomy as head of household to free them from their patriarchal oppressors (husbands). In a tragic and ironic twist the safety net trapped women generation after generation in a state of dependency. This wasn't liberating as Feminist intended but inane.

August 30, 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
(snip)

why are liberal European countries doing so much better in these areas than we are? [/B]

Where Europe stagnates the US boils. Europe can't raise enough children to field an army, maintain infrastructure, or operate their industrial complex. The US boils with social deviancy and inequities. Why?...answer...They are different countries, on different continents and different cultures that respond to the same root problem differently.

In the US the Great Depression brought about FDR's NEW DEAL. In Germany the Great Depression brought Hitler. Why? answer: same answer.

Nowhere357

August 30, 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by dk
Yes it does, <snip>
I lost you. If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

August 30, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I lost you. If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

That would depend upon what the head of the household had requested of her, wouldn't it. If he told her to buy herself an expensive present, and she refused, no biggy. If he asked her to call a roofer to fix a leak, and she didn't, and it rained causing $20,000 damage he would likely be very upset. On the other hand if the Husband just blew the leak off, and the leaky roof caused $20,000 damage, then I imagine the wife would be very upset with him.

Nowhere357

August 30, 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by dk
That would depend upon what the head of the household had requested of her, wouldn't it. If he told her to buy herself an expensive present, and she refused, no biggy. If he asked her to call a roofer to fix a leak, and she didn't, and it rained causing $20,000 damage he would likely be very upset. On the other hand if the Husband just blew the leak off, and the leaky roof caused $20,000 damage, then I imagine the wife would be very upset with him.
Then what sets head of household apart from shared household?

lpetrich

August 30, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by dk
Columbine demonstrated that nobody was responsible, not the school, social services, police, juvenile justice system or the parents. In the wake of Columbine all these bureaucracies closed up to get their story straight, filter information and generally cover their ass in a blame game.I wonder what the point of this comment was.

lpetrich

August 30, 2003, 09:33 PM

dk:
Yes it does, Feminism and the Welfare State leveled the nuclear family insisting upon a peer to peer relationship between husband and wife, or single mother head of household. A vast safety net was set up to sustain women's individual autonomy as head of household to free them from their patriarchal oppressors (husbands). In a tragic and ironic twist the safety net trapped women generation after generation in a state of dependency. This wasn't liberating as Feminist intended but inane.

Where in the Protocols of the Elders of Feminism did you find this?

Also, how did the "welfare state" *directly* promote egalitarian marriages?

And I wish to note that what dk and NonContradiction want for women might best be called husband-dependency. Yes, dependency, that supposedly intolerably evil thing.

lpetrich

August 30, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by dk
Where Europe stagnates the US boils. (how allegedly dangerously unpopulated Europe is...)

In the US the Great Depression brought about FDR's NEW DEAL. In Germany the Great Depression brought Hitler. Why? answer: same answer. I wonder what dk wishes to prove here -- that FDR's New Deal is the moral equivalent of Nazism?

Soundsurfr

August 30, 2003, 11:07 PM

dk: Where Europe stagnates the US boils. Europe can't raise enough children to field an army

Europe has no armies?

dk: ..., maintain infrastructure,

no infrastructure?

dk:... or operate their industrial complex.

There is no European industrial complex?

When was the last time you went to Europe?

dk: The US boils with social deviancy and inequities.

Unlike the role models of social righteousness and equanimity - Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen.

Oh, how I long to live in one of THOSE societies.

Which societies would you consider to be role models for us all, dk?

Soundsurfr

August 30, 2003, 11:13 PM

NonContradiction

August 31, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by lpetrich
And I wish to note that what dk and NonContradiction want for women might best be called husband-dependency. Yes, dependency, that supposedly intolerably evil thing.

I would rather have women dependent upon their husbands than dependent upon the state. The Great Society of the Lyndon Johnson 60's era created a huge welfare state while at the same time the liberals waged a war against the traditional patriarchal family. What a deadly combination! From one report I read, 70% of the children in the black community were born out of wedlock. The welfare state encouraged black women to have more babies because they would get more money from the government if they did so. Call it an evil thing because that is exactly what it was.

Kalkin

August 31, 2003, 04:21 AM

Kalkin: For now I'll just note that even if there are some differences, that doesn't necessarily justify different rights. Individual variation is so large that it's unjust to make universal rules based on statistical averages.
dk: I don�t understand��If�that not� structures. I think you mean��There are some differences but they don�t affect human rights.�

That structure is there because I don't believe there are important differences, but I believe that if there were, they wouldn't matter - I don't think even you believe that the non-physical differences are huge, and you must admit that many individuals transcend the stereotypes.

dk: I disagree, human rights entail all human beings therefore innate sexual differences concern human rights. Human Rights must respect the entire life cycle, any other supposition falls short. Human sexuality and procreation are essential aspects of human nature therefore essential to human rights.

Yes, human rights should take into account human sexuality. That doesn't mean that people of different gender should have different rights. Rights obviously have to be applied to children and sex in some way. But, whatever the differences between the sexes, although we disagree on the amount, they aren't rigid enough to justify different treatment for men and women.
It's wrong to use a stereotype to restrict people unless it's nearly always true, even if it's true in the majority of cases, and no gender stereotype is even close to always true.

This is somewhat different from what I was saying before, yes, because I agreed to try to avoid the issue of inherent sexual differences.

dk: The bloodiest wars in history have been fought over human rights. You�ve lost me.

Exactly which of the bloodiest wars in history were started based on human rights? World War Two? That's the bloodiest war in history, but that was started by the Germans based on a desire for conquest. The Allies didn't get involved until they were attacked, whatever Hitler was doing to his citizens (or the citizens of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc...) Besides, although it was bloody, it was justified. Or were you thinking of something else?

And anyway, if true how would this mean human rights were bad? That some people have rated them too important makes them useless or evil?

If you're arguing that the potential for conflict makes equal marriages impossible, I disagree. Compromise or seperation is always possible, and superior to coercion. If you're arguing that equality will lead to conflict, I disagree. A pairing in which people accept each other's independence will always cause less conflict than a pairing in which one person always tries to dominate the other.
dk: Compromise is not always possible. A pregnant women either commits abortion, or not. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.

But, that doesn't have to make or break a marriage - it can be included in a system of compromise by being seen as part of one person's special area of authority. Equal marriages can and do work, even in a world where abortion is available. Do you think a husband should be able to force his wife to have a child? If not, this example is irrelevant, because it would in the end be up to the woman in either form of marriage. If so... well, I think that proves any charges of authoritarianism that have been leveled against you.

dk: In an egotistical world people serve the law and themselves because nothing else exists. In an egotistical world under the presumption of innocents a person has the liberty to commit any crime they can beat.

And this is relevant how? I already said I don't particularly like any of the people you mentioned as having this view. If you're suggesting that egoism is part of feminism, you're wrong. I guess the objectivists are feminists, but they aren't very close to mainstream feminism or to me.

Kalkin: No, I can't, because I don't know what "male and female parts" are or how they could be "essentially reflected" in human rights. If you're asking how differences between men and women are reflected in the concept of human rights, the answer is that they aren't - human rights apply equally to everyone, that's the point of the adjective "human."
dk: You don�t want to know because to know would make you uncomfortable.

If by male and female parts you meant non-physical essential differences between men and women, which I assume you do, it's impossible to know what they are because they don't exist.
And even if they did, they shouldn't be reflected in human rights for reasons I explained above.

dk: So do you think men should be able to play on women�s volleyball, tennis, track, basketball,,,etc� I doubt it.

No, I don't, and I don't think women should be allowed to play on men's teams either - seperate but equal works for me here, as long as it's really equal. In the major leagues, maybe the seperation should be eliminated, but I haven't thought about that much as I'm not a sports fan. What does this have to do with anything, anyway?

Kalkin: It's pretty simple - feminism may be an experiment, but if so, it's one in which of the multiple possible outcomes, a positive one is the most probable - as basically everything I've posted argues.
dk: You�re statement is nonsense. The feminists experiment isn�t about outcomes, but egotism, and to an egotistical person a good outcome entails more power and the right to use it indiscriminately.

What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be saying all feminists are motivated purely by a desire for power and ego fulfullment... if so, I ask for a little evidence, please.

Kalkin: How am I suggesting that feminism is "pre-determined?" Simply suggesting that it's moral viewpoint is inherently correct is no more destructive of anyone's free will than saying it's moral viewpoint is fundamentally flawed. I'm not forcing equal rights on women at gunpoint or anything...
dk: Heh? So what gives you the right to judge Muslim dress codes, and order Muslim society?

Anyone, including me, has the right to judge Muslim society, if they want. Neither I nor anyone else has the right to force Muslims to dress how we think they should.

Kalkin: How is a unified model necessary for learning from mistakes? A variety of feminists are constantly arguing with each other and testing different ideas. Flexibility is best for learning from mistakes. The people who aren't trying to learn from their mistakes are the people like NC, and you if you agree with his ideal society, who say that we should do things just because they're part of 1400 year old traditions and change is risky.
dk: I have no idea what a unified model might be, unless you want men to play on professional women�s sports teams.

A unified "model" was what you were criticizing the feminist movement for not having. I was assuming that you were demanding a universal ideology of some kind.

Maybe NC learned his lesson from the mistakes feminists made. Not everyone needs to step in a pile of dog duty to know it stinks.

Maybe I would believe that's where NC learned his lesson if he could prove some feminist mistakes, as opposed to Marxist or Western mistakes, and if he would concede that there were any flaws in traditional Islam.

Kalkin: I don't argue that all women are oppressed or that all men oppress women. I don't define women as "oppressed people," I use the conventional definition. I just argue that when women are oppressed, that's bad, and what you and NC are defending is an instance of the oppression of women.
dk: I�m not defending anything,

That's convenient - I wish I could attack your position without having to defend an alternative. If equal rights for women are so bad, you must have some other system you prefer. Although you haven't specified it, I believe that it oppresses women, given that it demands they be subordinate to men in marriage.

I�m attacking feminists for being indiscriminate, egocentric and hypocritical.

And you're not substantiating your attacks. All you've proven so far is that a few feminists have been indiscriminate, egocentric, and hypocritical, which I already knew. You've failed so far to link your general attacks with feminism in any way.

dk: It seems to me that women have innate qualities that men lack, and visa versa.
Kalkin: It seems to me otherwise, but it doesn't matter, because in context this is a non sequitor - I don't see how it relates to your theme here.
dk: If I were to take you seriously then I'd forced to judge sex, pregnancy, child birth and motherhood as trivial. I can�t do that in good conscience without holding all women in contempt.

I don't say they're trivial. I say that they shouldn't affect women's rights, because they don't affect women's decision-making capacity. I think I've made it clear before that when I deny differences, I'm only denying them in that area.

dk: To base feminism on �oppression� presumes two wrongs make a right. To impose some defacto penalty upon men under the guise of a remedy for sex discrimination meets one injustice with another, and thereby violates the innate qualities that complement men and women i.e. make a more perfect union between men and women impossible.
Kalkin: Here you're just wrong. Eliminating oppression is not a "wrong" equivalent to creating oppression. I don't advocate penalizing men in any way. To say that simply by taking away their ability to dominate their wives is a penalty is ridiculous - that's like saying if I steal your money, and you take it back, we've suffered equally. In any case, granting equality to women makes a far more "perfect union" possible, because it wouldn't be marred by one person trying to control the other.
dk: You confuse headship with dominance and inequity with inequality.

No, I don't, I say the second follow from the first.

You're shifting the argument here - I hope that's because you're giving up on the ridiculous argument that remedying inequalities is a penalty for men.

Headship isn�t about dominatrix sex games, and inequities don�t follow from inequalities.

No, patriarchy is far more serious than sex games. It does inherently involve the idea of male dominance - how exactly is one supposed to have authority over another without the ability to dominate that person? Headship involves control, and giving it to men generally over women generally is unjust discrimination.

Inequities do follow from inequalities. If people have less power, they will be treated worse - that's a fact of life, supported by many examples people have posted on this thread of abuse of women in Muslim societies. And, power inequality can be an inequity in itself because people are restricted from doing what they want.

dk: I am all for feminism, but against sadism and inequity. Obviously feminists that subscribe themselves to willful ignorance and hypocrisy lack judgment, and without judgment freedom, liberty and free will can�t possibly exist.

I'm glad you're for feminism and against sadism and inequity - I completely agree with you there. The problem is that you seem to think all feminists subscribe to willful ignorance, defined as not seeing that they are built to be subordinate in marriage to men, and hypocrisy, which you've supported by a couple examples of wrongdoing in Africa. That's where you're wrong.

dk:: The carrying capacity of the earth is unknown, and the population of planet earth in 20 years is unknowable. The greatest threat to the planet and humanity remains disease, catastrophe and war. In the last 10 years the life expectancy in Africa has dropped 25 years, and still counting down. A few dozen nuclear bombs strategically placed could cull the world�s population by half, and virtually turn Western Europe, India and the US into a vacant wasteland. Destroying the old or the unborn isn�t an acceptable solution because killing human beings doesn�t solve problems it creates animosity and a culture of death. Societies that solve their problems by destroying people become savage and brutal, not free. If this is the world feminists prescribe then we all fail, and doom our progeny to the dark ages.

Yes, war and disease are more immediate dangers than population growth, but population growth is still bad because it increases their likelihood.

Where do you get this stuff about killing people? That's not how feminism slows growth, feminism slows growth by empowering women to not have babies if they don't want to. And, the unborn aren't people, but that's a side issue because if you were right that would only modify feminism.

dk: Radical Feminism has destabilized the nuclear family the basic unit of civilization. . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last four decades, the declining proportion of married adults in the United States has contributed to a significant worsening of the economic status of families with children. The rise in single parenthood, together with limited child support payments, has meant that more children must rely primarily on the income of only one of their parents, usually the mother. As a result, despite healthy growth in per capita income, child poverty rates in the U.S. have remained at their 1970s levels. Researchers have demonstrated that reduced marriage propensities have caused substantially higher child poverty rates, even after accounting for the fact that the men unmarried mothers might marry have lower incomes than current married fathers (Lerman, 1996; Sawhill and Thomas, 2001). -- http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-we.../parenthood.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recognize Feminists are unlikely to accept any culpability for the destabilization of the nuclear family, still its clear that the Feminists interested in the welfare of mothers and children missed the boat. Feminists have clearly focused their attention on remedies hostile to the nuclear families. I doubt you can find one feminist leader that has made one positive statement in support of the nuclear family.

Ooh, feminists disagree with you about the importance of the nuclear family. Must mean they're out to destroy it, right? Uh, no. You have again failed to present evidence that feminism is responsible for people having unstable families. I agree with you and that article that unstable families would be bad for children, but you have yet to show that equal families are unstable. In fact, I don't think you even try to in the post I'm responding to.

Kalkin: I agree with everything in this paragraph, especially "feminism succeeds." If you meant to say that feminism would only succeed if it was "a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively" etcetera, then my response is that it is. It lets people address the problem of gender inequality. There are many problems it doesn't solve, but that's because they have nothing to do with gender - other movements are needed there.
dk: huh? Gender specifies a grammatical subclass, that in the context of this discussion addresses the behavioral, cultural, and/or psychological traits typically associated with women/men. It seems to me that feminists have a passing interest in gender. To suggest otherwise constitutes a deception.

You misunderstood me completely. I was saying that feminists have a strong interest in gender, but little interest (as feminists) in all those other problems you listed, and that their limited focus doesn't make them wrong.

August 31, 2003, 05:08 AM

dk: If he asked her to call a roofer to fix a leak, and she didn't, and it rained causing $20,000 damage he would likely be very upset. On the other hand if the Husband just blew the leak off, and the leaky roof caused $20,000 damage, then I imagine the wife would be very upset with him.
Originally posted by Soundsurfr
I would imagine this to be true in any household. I think the question was trying to differentiate between the patriarchal *headship* and any other arrangement. Is there no differentiation? Headship focuses the interests of the household upon an individual for the sake of the household, not individuals in the household. Headship can be abused, and is abused when the head of the household uses the house to denigrate its members. Everyone benefits from a well run house, but least of all the head.
One of the great misgivings 1960s liberalism promulgated has been a radical egocentric focus upon equality to the exclusion of all else. Today, laws focus exclusive upon the individual at the expense of continuity. The focus undermines service with self interest, freedom with liberty, and honor with equality.

NonContradiction

August 31, 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Kalkin
How am I suggesting that feminism is "pre-determined?" Simply suggesting that it's moral viewpoint is inherently correct...

I would seriously like to hear you argue that your moral viewpoint is "inherently" correct. I have yet to hear anybody successfully argue that we have any "inherent" rights, whatsoever. To claim inalienable rights is just another way of bestowing rights upon yourself so that you can rationalize your actions away.

Originally posted by Kalkin
My general thesis is that women should be treated identically to men in all things other than childbirth, for a variety of reasons, principally that it's extremely unjust to treat people differently based on false generalizations.

Let's say, for example, that you had a staff of ten people working for you. The minute you appoint one of them as head of your staff, then you haven't treated all members of your staff EQUALLY. You have preferred one member of your staff over all of the other members. Is that injustice? Is that inequality?

Let me ask you a question: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the husband doesn't need to be head of household. Whether it's the wife or husband doesn't make a difference, as long as one person is head of household. Now, tell me which scenario is better:

1) An equal partnership where no one person is head.

2) One person is head of household, whether it's the husband or wife doesn't make a difference.

Which one is better?

Nowhere357

August 31, 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by dk
I would rather have women dependent upon their husbands than dependent upon the state.
If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

You've responded but have not yet answered.

Nowhere357

August 31, 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
2) One person is head of household, whether it's the husband or wife doesn't make a difference.
If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

What does the Koran tell you about this situation? What are your personal beliefs about this situation?

August 31, 2003, 07:31 AM

Kalkin: That structure is there because I don't believe there are important differences, but I believe that if there were, they wouldn't matter - I don't think even you believe that the non-physical differences are huge, and you must admit that many individuals transcend the stereotypes.
dk: It appears to me you are determined to deny the differences i.e. determined by Feminism. In my opinion ignoring the differences between men and women perpetrates an injustice upon both.

Kalkin: Yes, human rights should take into account human sexuality. That doesn't mean that people of different gender should have different rights. Rights obviously have to be applied to children and sex in some way. But, whatever the differences between the sexes, although we disagree on the amount, they aren't rigid enough to justify different treatment for men and women.
It's wrong to use a stereotype to restrict people unless it's nearly always true, even if it's true in the majority of cases, and no gender stereotype is even close to always true.
This is somewhat different from what I was saying before, yes, because I agreed to try to avoid the issue of inherent sexual differences.
dk: Ok.

dk: The bloodiest wars in history have been fought over human rights. You�ve lost me.
Kalkin: Exactly which of the bloodiest wars in history were started based on human rights? World War Two? That's the bloodiest war in history, but that was started by the Germans based on a desire for conquest. The Allies didn't get involved until they were attacked, whatever Hitler was doing to his citizens (or the citizens of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc...) Besides, although it was bloody, it was justified. Or were you thinking of something else?
dk: I agree, wars fought over human rights are easier to justify, or just wars. Command Style Communism fought dozens of wars (or revolutions) over property rights, which is a human right. The Civil War was fought for human rights, emancipation. 99% of all wars fought up and down the last millennium can be understood as a fight for Human Rights. But that bespeaks a truism, since human rights were derived from human nature. Long before a systematic approach to human rights was philosophically presented, human rights reflected human nature, therefore moved people act justly and unjustly.

Kalkin: And anyway, if true how would this mean human rights were bad? That some people have rated them too important makes them useless or evil?
dk: Human rights become evil when they force Laws to reflect personal interests above human interests. Laws grounded in personal interests become a weapon wielded by one group against another and as a weapon. When the law becomes a weapon against the law it promulgates lawlessness. This defines inequity and grounds human rights inextricably upon human nature.

Kalkin: If you're arguing that the potential for conflict makes equal marriages impossible, I disagree. Compromise or seperation is always possible, and superior to coercion. If you're arguing that equality will lead to conflict, I disagree. A pairing in which people accept each other's independence will always cause less conflict than a pairing in which one person always tries to dominate the other.
dk: I�m arguing that inequity and equality are two different things that have been confused by an egocentric view of human nature.

dk: Compromise is not always possible. A pregnant women either commits abortion, or not. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.
Kalkin: But, that doesn't have to make or break a marriage - it can be included in a system of compromise by being seen as part of one person's special area of authority. Equal marriages can and do work, even in a world where abortion is available. Do you think a husband should be able to force his wife to have a child? If not, this example is irrelevant, because it would in the end be up to the woman in either form of marriage. If so... well, I think that proves any charges of authoritarianism that have been leveled against you.
dk: A husband should not force himself upon his wife period, but a wife that doesn�t make some effort to satisfy her husband is no wife at all. If a husband can not force sex upon his wife, then he surely can�t force her to have a child. I don�t want this to degenerate into an abortion argument, but child bearing and child rearing are an essential aspects of human nature. For human rights to ignore such a fundamental and essential aspect would be inane, and very egocentric.

dk: In an egotistical world people serve the law and themselves because nothing else exists. In an egotistical world under the presumption of innocents a person has the liberty to commit any crime they can beat.
Kalkin: And this is relevant how? I already said I don't particularly like any of the people you mentioned as having this view. If you're suggesting that egoism is part of feminism, you're wrong. I guess the objectivists are feminists, but they aren't very close to mainstream feminism or to me.
dk: Oh, for example, a man rapes a women, but she doesn�t know it because she�s passed out. Has she been raped? Given the presumption of innocence I could effectively argue no i.e. that a perfect crime is no crime at all.

Kalkin: If by male and female parts you meant non-physical essential differences between men and women, which I assume you do, it's impossible to know what they are because they don't exist.
And even if they did, they shouldn't be reflected in human rights for reasons I explained above.
dk: To detach human nature from human rights perpetrates inequity, whether the inequity is committed by feminists or chauvinists.

dk: So do you think men should be able to play on women�s volleyball, tennis, track, basketball,,,etc� I doubt it.

Kalkin: No, I don't, and I don't think women should be allowed to play on men's teams either - seperate but equal works for me here, as long as it's really equal. In the major leagues, maybe the seperation should be eliminated, but I haven't thought about that much as I'm not a sports fan. What does this have to do with anything, anyway?
dk: Don�t get me wrong, I think its clear men and women both benefit sports. I�m pointing out that you recognize men and women are unequal, and �separate but equal� as a familiar ring, something to do with the infamous Jim Crow.

Kalkin: It's pretty simple - feminism may be an experiment, but if so, it's one in which of the multiple possible outcomes, a positive one is the most probable - as basically everything I've posted argues.
dk: You�re statement is nonsense. The feminists experiment isn�t about outcomes, but egotism, and to an egotistical person a good outcome entails more power and the right to use it indiscriminately.
Kalkin: What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be saying all feminists are motivated purely by a desire for power and ego fulfullment... if so, I ask for a little evidence, please.
dk: If I am an egocentric person, then all my actions serve some purpose, and the right or wrong of my acts are determined by my appetites. This is true of a person, family, culture and government. It�s broad application across all levels of society forms an egotistical world view. I�ll hold off on the source, but this was from a letter written in 1922�
�The inordinate desire for pleasure, concupiscence of the flesh, sows the fatal seeds of division not only among families but likewise among states; the inordinate desire for possessions, concupiscence of the eyes, inevitably turns into class warfare and into social egotism; the inordinate desire to rule or to domineer over others, pride of life, soon becomes mere party or factional rivalries, manifesting itself in constant displays of conflicting ambitions and ending in open rebellion, in the crime of lese majeste, and even in national parricide.�

Kalkin: How am I suggesting that feminism is "pre-determined?" Simply suggesting that it's moral viewpoint is inherently correct is no more destructive of anyone's free will than saying it's moral viewpoint is fundamentally flawed. I'm not forcing equal rights on women at gunpoint or anything...
dk: Heh? So what gives you the right to judge Muslim dress codes, and order Muslim society?
Kalkin: Anyone, including me, has the right to judge Muslim society, if they want. Neither I nor anyone else has the right to force Muslims to dress how we think they should.
dk: I agree the basis right to abolish Muslim dress codes, follows from a right to Judge Muslims. I don�t blame Muslim for contesting your judgement, after all you�re not a Muslim so don�t reap any benefits or harm from the judgement. How do you feel about giving Muslims right to abolish public displays of undergarments?

Kalkin: A unified "model" was what you were criticizing the feminist movement for not having. I was assuming that you were demanding a universal ideology of some kind.
dk: Not exactly, I criticize the feminist movement for promoting a unified model upon an egotistical world view. From an egotistical perspective it is hypocritical for non Muslim nations to abolish Muslim dress codes in Muslim nations. I view Wahabi dress codes as an immune response to the �culture of death� Western Europe and the US project upon Muslims through the dominant media. But I�m not an egotist, but a Christian.

dk: Maybe NC learned his lesson from the mistakes feminists made. Not everyone needs to step in a pile of dog duty to know it stinks.
Kalkin: Maybe I would believe that's where NC learned his lesson if he could prove some feminist mistakes, as opposed to Marxist or Western mistakes, and if he would concede that there were any flaws in traditional Islam.
dk: Perhaps by better understanding one another�s perspective we can all learn some valuable lessons. I think the true value of freedom, liberty and diversity follows from the practice of an �active judgment�, therefore uniquely educate, demand and seed the intellect with discernment. We all tend towards lazy intellects that need to be jolted from time to time, and that includes feminists, wives and husbands.

dk: I�m not defending anything,
Kalkin: That's convenient - I wish I could attack your position without having to defend an alternative. If equal rights for women are so bad, you must have some other system you prefer. Although you haven't specified it, I believe that it oppresses women, given that it demands they be subordinate to men in marriage.
dk: I know, feminism was much more difficult to attack 40 years ago. The underlying tenants were unsound 40 years ago, and unsound today. Time catches up with us all eventually, and kinder to some than others. That may not seem equitable but that�s how justice grinds inequity into dust.

dk: I�m attacking feminists for being indiscriminate, egocentric and hypocritical.
Kalkin: And you're not substantiating your attacks. All you've proven so far is that a few feminists have been indiscriminate, egocentric, and hypocritical, which I already knew. You've failed so far to link your general attacks with feminism in any way.
dk: Feminists become hypocrites by failing to take headship. Why?�Answer� Because with headship comes accountability. I don�t want feminism to fail so my attacks are not against women, and I�ll grant you it�s a fine line.

dk: If I were to take you seriously then I'd forced to judge sex, pregnancy, child birth and motherhood as trivial. I can�t do that in good conscience without holding all women in contempt.
Kalkin: I don't say they're trivial. I say that they shouldn't affect women's rights, because they don't affect women's decision-making capacity. I think I've made it clear before that when I deny differences, I'm only denying them in that area.
dk: So then human rights become trivial. Women can�t have it both ways without becoming hypocrites.

dk: To base feminism on �oppression� presumes two wrongs make a right. To impose some defacto penalty upon men under the guise of a remedy for sex discrimination meets one injustice with another, and thereby violates the innate qualities that complement men and women i.e. make a more perfect union between men and women impossible.
Kalkin: Here you're just wrong. Eliminating oppression is not a "wrong" equivalent to creating oppression. I don't advocate penalizing men in any way. To say that simply by taking away their ability to dominate their wives is a penalty is ridiculous - that's like saying if I steal your money, and you take it back, we've suffered equally. In any case, granting equality to women makes a far more "perfect union" possible, because it wouldn't be marred by one person trying to control the other.
dk: You confuse headship with dominance and inequity with inequality.
Kalkin: No, I don't, I say the second follow from the first.
dk: And that makes you a hypocrite. Feminists want shared success but refuse to acknowledge any possibility of failure, so they hide behind equality i.e. under the pretense of equality feminists subsume power without discretion, and without discretion they perpetrate inequity.

Kalkin: You're shifting the argument here - I hope that's because you're giving up on the ridiculous argument that remedying inequalities is a penalty for men.
dk: I shift perspective, not arguments. I know this frustrates people, but human rights are multidimensional because people are complex creatures. To detach Human Rights from Human Nature at first seems like a good idea, because it facilitates a simply systematic one-dimensional method. Sadly one dimensional approaches once detached become ill suited to the complex nature of people.

dk: Headship isn�t about dominatrix sex games, and inequities don�t follow from inequalities.
Kalkin: No, patriarchy is far more serious than sex games. It does inherently involve the idea of male dominance - how exactly is one supposed to have authority over another without the ability to dominate that person? Headship involves control, and giving it to men generally over women generally is unjust discrimination.
Inequities do follow from inequalities. If people have less power, they will be treated worse - that's a fact of life, supported by many examples people have posted on this thread of abuse of women in Muslim societies. And, power inequality can be an inequity in itself because people are restricted from doing what they want.
dk: Even in a systematic approach inequalities can be meaningful for example. z < x > y. Clearly inequities can be meaningful therefore just, and this does not imply that all inequalities are equitable. For example its meaningful to say people with big hat sizes tend to have more brains, but to say people with big hat sizes tend to be more intelligent is nonsense. Likewise, its errant to say brain size isn�t a component of intelligence. Two statements�
men are psychically stronger than women,
doesn�t imply
men are superior to women
rather
Men and women are different,
therefore
men are more vulnerable than women in some areas
women are more vulnerable than men in some areas
i.e. men complement women
I�m saying men complement women, and visa versa, and therefore equitable, but not equal.

August 31, 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
If the wife/subordinate doesn't obey, then what?

What does the head, the captain, the king, do then?

You've responded but have not yet answered. That would be a mutiny, and in a mutiny somebody is forced to jump ship. It might be the husband, the kids or the wife. technically in marriage its called getting a divorce.

Soundsurfr

August 31, 2003, 08:21 AM

dk: If he asked her to call a roofer to fix a leak, and she didn't, and it rained causing $20,000 damage he would likely be very upset. On the other hand if the Husband just blew the leak off, and the leaky roof caused $20,000 damage, then I imagine the wife would be very upset with him.

Soundsurfr:I would imagine this to be true in any household. I think the question was trying to differentiate between the patriarchal *headship* and any other arrangement. Is there no differentiation?

dk: Headship focuses the interests of the household upon an individual for the sake of the household, not individuals in the household.

Sound: Non-answer. We've been trying to establish how a patriarchal head of household would behave differently than a member of an egalitarian family in a certain situation. So far, from your example, they behave exactly the same way. Are we missing something?

dk: Headship can be abused, and is abused when the head of the household uses the house to denigrate its members.

Sound: OK, so you've identified an inherent problem with patriarchal headship. One that we all knew about already.

dk: Everyone benefits from a well run house, but least of all the head.

Sound: If there was ever a good time to use this icon, here it is: :boohoo:

We all recognize the old martyr angle, dk. It's like when the Isrealites justify considering themselves God's *chosen people* by saying "Hey, it sucks to be chosen." The "un-chosen" don't buy it. Neither do the "un-heads".

(snip)
(prattle)

Soundsurfr

August 31, 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by dk
That would be a mutiny, and in a mutiny somebody is forced to jump ship. It might be the husband, the kids or the wife. technically in marriage its called getting a divorce.

So to recap, thus far you've alluded to the possibility that headship can be abused, resulting in physical or mental harm to the other members of the family, and then you indicate the other alternative that if the wife doesn't obey the patriarch, they get a divorce.

Exactly how does all this result in less family dysfunction than the egalitarian model?

August 31, 2003, 08:50 AM

dk: I am all for feminism, but against sadism and inequity. Obviously feminists that subscribe themselves to willful ignorance and hypocrisy lack judgment, and without judgment freedom, liberty and free will can�t possibly exist.
Kalkin: I'm glad you're for feminism and against sadism and inequity - I completely agree with you there. The problem is that you seem to think all feminists subscribe to willful ignorance, defined as not seeing that they are built to be subordinate in marriage to men, and hypocrisy, which you've supported by a couple examples of wrongdoing in Africa. That's where you're wrong.
dk: Hey, If I were against women then I'd hate myself. I don�t think all women, or even the most radical feminist is necessarily willfully ignorant, but women determined by feminism lack discernment. Free will without discernment becomes pretense.

dk:: The carrying capacity of the earth is unknown, and the population of planet earth in 20 years is unknowable. The greatest threat to the planet and humanity remains disease, catastrophe and war. In the last 10 years the life expectancy in Africa has dropped 25 years, and still counting down. A few dozen nuclear bombs strategically placed could cull the world�s population by half, and virtually turn Western Europe, India and the US into a vacant wasteland. Destroying the old or the unborn isn�t an acceptable solution because killing human beings doesn�t solve problems it creates animosity and a culture of death. Societies that solve their problems by destroying people become savage and brutal, not free. If this is the world feminists prescribe then we all fail, and doom our progeny to the dark ages.
Kalkin: Yes, war and disease are more immediate dangers than population growth, but population growth is still bad because it increases their likelihood.
Where do you get this stuff about killing people? That's not how feminism slows growth, feminism slows growth by empowering women to not have babies if they don't want to. And, the unborn aren't people, but that's a side issue because if you were right that would only modify feminism.
dk: No, feminism determines women by eliminating babies. This was the ambition that turned feminism down the path of perdition, in religious terms. In secular terms, it prescribes death as a cure for the problem of sex. Death is obviously not a solution in a worldly sense, because death yields nothing, whereas life has so much to offer. The communists prescribed death to the bourgeois classes, as a cure for class warfare (poverty, inequity�). The NAZI essentially prescribed death to all Jews and communists. The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, envisioned death as an intimate companion in the struggle for virtue. The Romans saw death as an entertainment, a simple cure for boredom. My point is that death doesn�t solve human problems, it simply make greater and more gruesome inequities possible.

dk: Radical Feminism has destabilized the nuclear family the basic unit of civilization. . . Over the last four decades, the declining proportion of married adults in the United States has contributed to a significant worsening of the economic status of families with children. The rise in single parenthood, together with limited child support payments, has meant that more children must rely primarily on the income of only one of their parents, usually the mother. As a result, despite healthy growth in per capita income, child poverty rates in the U.S. have remained at their 1970s levels. Researchers have demonstrated that reduced marriage propensities have caused substantially higher child poverty rates, even after accounting for the fact that the men unmarried mothers might marry have lower incomes than current married fathers (Lerman, 1996; Sawhill and Thomas, 2001). -- http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-we.../parenthood.htm I recognize Feminists are unlikely to accept any culpability for the destabilization of the nuclear family, still its clear that the Feminists interested in the welfare of mothers and children missed the boat. Feminists have clearly focused their attention on remedies hostile to the nuclear families. I doubt you can find one feminist leader that has made one positive statement in support of the nuclear family.
Kalkin: Ooh, feminists disagree with you about the importance of the nuclear family. Must mean they're out to destroy it, right? Uh, no. You have again failed to present evidence that feminism is responsible for people having unstable families. I agree with you and that article that unstable families would be bad for children, but you have yet to show that equal families are unstable. In fact, I don't think you even try to in the post I'm responding to.
dk: That was a challenge. Let me issue a more delimitative challenge� Find a single policy statement by NOW, NEA, ATF, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, ACLU, or Lambda Legal that directly supports the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization. You won�t find any because they philosophically understand the nuclear family as a corrupt bourgeois capitalist institution.

Kalkin: I agree with everything in this paragraph, especially "feminism succeeds." If you meant to say that feminism would only succeed if it was "a vehicle that allows people to address problems effectively" etcetera, then my response is that it is. It lets people address the problem of gender inequality. There are many problems it doesn't solve, but that's because they have nothing to do with gender - other movements are needed there.
dk: huh? Gender specifies a grammatical subclass, that in the context of this discussion addresses the behavioral, cultural, and/or psychological traits typically associated with women/men. It seems to me that feminists have a passing interest in gender. To suggest otherwise constitutes a deception.
Kalkin: You misunderstood me completely. I was saying that feminists have a strong interest in gender, but little interest (as feminists) in all those other problems you listed, and that their limited focus doesn't make them wrong.
dk: Ok, I think you�re at odds with yourself though.

August 31, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
So to recap, thus far you've alluded to the possibility that headship can be abused, resulting in physical or mental harm to the other members of the family, and then you indicate the other alternative that if the wife doesn't obey the patriarch, they get a divorce.

Exactly how does all this result in less family dysfunction than the egalitarian model?

I haven't argued, that headship must be male, only that all human institutions are suited to headship, and are caste adrift absent headship, including the family. If you will accept the human need for headship, then we can proceed to the next phase, to consider the merits of [fe]male headship.

So far I've only argued that absent headship the household is cast adrift, and husbands and wives drift apart. Or, in this world family bonds absent headship become fatally weak, and sufficiently weakened the bonds that hold the family together break, and this frequently leads to divorce, the alternative being to repair the broken bonds.

August 31, 2003, 09:21 AM

dk:
Headship focuses the interests of the household upon an individual for the sake of the household, not individuals in the household.
Soundsurfr
Non-answer. We've been trying to establish how a patriarchal head of household would behave differently than a member of an egalitarian family in a certain situation. So far, from your example, they behave exactly the same way. Are we missing something?
dk:
No, the responsiblity to fix the roof remains on the headship, he deligated a task to his wife, and she failed to comply. If she simply forgot, he's on the hook. If she deliberately disobeyed, she's on the hook. We have accountablity Houston...Bing!Bing!Bing!

(snip)

dk:
Everyone benefits from a well run house, but least of all the head.
Soundsurfr
If there was ever a good time to use this icon, here it is: :boohoo:
We all recognize the old martyr angle, dk. It's like when the Isrealites justify considering themselves God's *chosen people* by saying "Hey, it sucks to be chosen." The "un-chosen" don't buy it. Neither do the "un-heads".
dk:
Human suffering isn't a problem, needless human suffering is a problem. Accountablity via headship eliminates human suffering. But I understand in an egocentric world human suffering has no purpose, thus egotists bemoan any act of self sacrifice, dehumanize anyone that makes a sacrifice.

Nowhere357

August 31, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by dk
That would be a mutiny, and in a mutiny somebody is forced to jump ship. It might be the husband, the kids or the wife. technically in marriage its called getting a divorce. Thank you. How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed apon, in both systems!

Given this, it is a small step from assuming the man is in charge, to assuming each takes charge according to ability and desire. There is the macho concept of needing to wear the pants, but can you see how some may think that is a limitation and not an advantage? And other than this emotional need, there is only religious dogma and tradition.

From this pov, the concept of "headship" reduces imo to the right to apply force. This I believe is the reason nc won't answer the question. If the kids disobey, we may use appropriate force, correct? Clearly then if the wife disobeys we may use force!

This I think is the source of conflict with the man as head of household idea. It is seen as directly implying the justification of force against the wife! Or husband, atcmb. If we rule out force, we rule in shared leadership - decisions deferred according to ability and proclivity. Agreement.

Notice that a man who needs the pants can find a woman who needs to submit (or vice-versa) and everyone's happy.

August 31, 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by dk
That would be a mutiny, and in a mutiny somebody is forced to jump ship. It might be the husband, the kids or the wife. technically in marriage its called getting a divorce.
Nowhere357: Thank you. How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed apon, in both systems!
dk: I know of no human institution older than a generaton where headship is shared. Since it is impossible for me to name all human institutions, please name a few with shared-headship (besides the egalitarian, and CHAOS the arch-villain of CONTROL of Maxwell Smart)?

Nowhere357: Given this, it is a small step from assuming the man is in charge, to assuming each takes charge according to ability and desire. There is the macho concept of needing to wear the pants, but can you see how some may think that is a limitation and not an advantage? And other than this emotional need, there is only religious dogma and tradition.
dk: I don�t follow, are you saying women need only buy pants in the men�s section of SEARS to claim headship?.

(snip) prattle

Luiseach

August 31, 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Let me ask you a question: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the husband doesn't need to be head of household. Whether it's the wife or husband doesn't make a difference, as long as one person is head of household. Now, tell me which scenario is better:

1) An equal partnership where no one person is head.

2) One person is head of household, whether it's the husband or wife doesn't make a difference.

Which one is better?

Surely the answer to this question should be clear enough by now. :)

If someone believes in an egalitarian partnership, where no one person is head, then he/she believes in an egalitarian partnership, where no one person is head.

By the way, and getting back to the subject-matter of the OP, do you know what 'modesty' means in Islam, and the reasons for which 'modesty' is and should be valued in women?

lpetrich

August 31, 2003, 01:16 PM

NonContradiction:
I would rather have women dependent upon their husbands than dependent upon the state. The Great Society of the Lyndon Johnson 60's era created a huge welfare state while at the same time the liberals waged a war against the traditional patriarchal family. ...

The welfare system had the problem of the "no man in the house" rule, which, like the 100% marginal income tax, was intended to suppress cheating. But this anti-cheating zealotry proved to be a cure worse than the disease.

Nowhere357

August 31, 2003, 04:56 PM

dk
Originally posted by dk
That would be a mutiny, and in a mutiny somebody is forced to jump ship. It might be the husband, the kids or the wife. technically in marriage its called getting a divorce.
Nowhere357: Thank you. How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed apon, in both systems!
dk: I know of no human institution older than a generaton where headship is shared. Since it is impossible for me to name all human institutions, please name a few with shared-headship (besides the egalitarian, and CHAOS the arch-villain of CONTROL of Maxwell Smart)?
This has been asked, and answered by others. I would say modern marriage in the western world, but I guess that's not much older than a generation. You realize argument by tradition is a fallacy?

Anyway, you really didn't answer the question: How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed upon, in both systems!

Nowhere357: Given this, it is a small step from assuming the man is in charge, to assuming each takes charge according to ability and desire. There is the macho concept of needing to wear the pants, but can you see how some may think that is a limitation and not an advantage? And other than this emotional need, there is only religious dogma and tradition.
dk: I don�t follow, are you saying women need only buy pants in the men�s section of SEARS to claim headship?.
You're smarter than that I think. "Wearing pants" is a metaphor for "head of the house".

If force is an option, are you on board in rejecting it? The man of the house has no right to beat his wife, or force her to behave as we would a child. Do you agree?

If force is not an option, then what seperates the male as king of family from shared leadership of the family?

I'll repeat these claims: Other than the emotional need to "wear the pants" there is only religious dogma and tradition to support the idea of a single head of household; and "head of household" implies the right to use force.

August 31, 2003, 05:50 PM

Nowhere357: This has been asked, and answered by others. I would say modern marriage in the western world, but I guess that's not much older than a generation. You realize argument by tradition is a fallacy?
dk: Do you realize �all institutions� aren�t a tradition.

Nowhere357: Anyway, you really didn't answer the question: How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed upon, in both systems!
Given this, it is a small step from assuming the man is in charge, to assuming each takes charge according to ability and desire. There is the macho concept of needing to wear the pants, but can you see how some may think that is a limitation and not an advantage? And other than this emotional need, there is only religious dogma and tradition.
dk: I don�t follow, are you saying women need only buy pants in the men�s section of SEARS to claim headship?.
Nowhere357:You're smarter than that I think. "Wearing pants" is a metaphor for "head of the house".
dk: Interesting. Where I come from shared leadership is called a metaphor for delegation.

Nowhere357: If force is an option, are you on board in rejecting it? The man of the house has no right to beat his wife, or force her to behave as we would a child. Do you agree?
If force is not an option, then what seperates the male as king of family from shared leadership of the family?
I'll repeat these claims: Other than the emotional need to "wear the pants" there is only religious dogma and tradition to support the idea of a single head of household; and "head of household" implies the right to use force.
dk: Force is always an option, but only as a response in proportion to the threat. The statement "only religious dogma" implies people don't have a right to religious freedom.

NonContradiction

August 31, 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by NonCon
Let me ask you a question: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the husband doesn't need to be head of household. Whether it's the wife or husband doesn't make a difference, as long as one person is head of household. Now, tell me which scenario is better:

1) An equal partnership where no one person is head.

2) One person is head of household, whether it's the husband or wife doesn't make a difference.

Which one is better?
Originally posted by Luiseach
Surely the answer to this question should be clear enough by now. :)

If someone believes in an egalitarian partnership, where no one person is head, then he/she believes in an egalitarian partnership, where no one person is head.

What are you talking about? Try answering the question again. Is it 1) or 2)?

Luiseach

August 31, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

What are you talking about? Try answering the question again. Is it 1) or 2)?

I thought I had answered the question.

(1), of course. I'm a person who believes that an egalitarian partnership, where no one person is 'head', is the best option.

So, what does 'modesty' in Islam mean? And why is it considered to be so important for women to have this quality?

Soundsurfr

August 31, 2003, 09:29 PM

Since the advocates of the patriarchal society seem reluctant to spell out for us how the patriarch actually exercises "headship" in the patriarchal model, let's just put it on the table.

A head of household needs some means of exercising authority over their marital partner. So far, we've heard two possibilities for dealing with situations where there is dissent. One - physical punishment. Seems that the patriarchal advocates on this board do not advocate that method (at least not publicly), although I believe Islamic Shariah would allow it in certain cases.

The only non-violent recourse, as dk has affirmed, is to threaten expulsion or divorce. In societies where it is difficult or impossible for women to support a household on their own, this is a very effective method. Usually in those societies, a divorced woman will not only find herself unable to sustain herself or her children financially, she also will suffer socially as an outcast. Basically, she obeys the husband or she's ruined.

However in the US and Europe, where many women achieve independent financial and social status, the patriarch finds that his basis for control has eroded. This scares the daylights out of him because, make no mistake, it's all about control. He'll whine about how selfless it is for the father to maintain responsibility for a family, how the family benefits more than he does, yadda, yadda, but in the end, it's all about control.

So the counter tactic is to claim that our society, which affords rights to women, is immoral or dysfunctional compared to the patriarchal society. Do not mistake the agenda being put forth here. In order for a patriarchal society to work, women's rights MUST be severely curtailed. Jobs, power, social status, financial independence - these are the things that cannot be available to women if the patriarchal family model is to be put into place.

In my society, men and women work together, both in the workplace and at home. Responsibilities are shared, and each picks up the slack when the other needs help. There is no autocracy. There is no dominance. There are many benefits to this arrangement, and certainly some drawbacks. But in my personal experience, it just keeps getting better as we go along. When I lost my job a few years ago, my wife's successful career served as a cushion enabling us to live comfortably while I forged ahead with a new and better career for myself. When she had to travel extensively for a while, I was able to ratchet back my activities and spend more time with the children and the household. When I needed to focus on getting a new business up and running, she backed off on her work hours and picked up the slack.

Most importantly, we are the best of friends. You can't be best friends with someone you have control and dominion over. Not in any human institution.

This egalitarian thing is not supposed to work, according to the control freaks. They'll tell you how it will undoubtedly disintegrate into despair and hard feelings, and then ignore the myriads of cases where it doesn't. They will cite statistics that ostensibly show the woes of American society and then blame those woes on women's rights and the loss of the patriarchal family, without reasonably establishing a correlation. When we who live this model, and have happy, successful families to show for it, claim that it does work, they dismiss our testimony as anecdotal.

dk: I haven't argued, that headship must be male, only that all human institutions are suited to headship, and are caste adrift absent headship, including the family. If you will accept the human need for headship, then we can proceed to the next phase, to consider the merits of [fe]male headship.

Sound: If you would accept the fact that shared headship in an egalitarian household meets human needs, then we can proceed to the next phase, to consider the many benefits of such an arrangement over the archaic, paternalistic model you espouse.

(And we all know that you're going to argue that headship must be male.)

dk: So far I've only argued that absent headship the household is cast adrift, and husbands and wives drift apart.

Sound: You've asserted that, but you haven't successfully established it. You show that divorce rates are high, but as many have pointed out, you haven't in any way correlated that statistic to *absence of male headship*.

dk:Everyone benefits from a well run house, but least of all the head.

Soundsurfr: (snip) We all recognize the old martyr angle, dk. It's like when the Isrealites justify considering themselves God's *chosen people* by saying "Hey, it sucks to be chosen." The "un-chosen" don't buy it. Neither do the "un-heads".
dk: Human suffering isn't a problem, needless human suffering is a problem. Accountablity via headship eliminates human suffering.

Sound: Nice leap. That is your opinion. Accountability via headship in the patriarchal family can ease suffering or it can lead to suffering. Too often it does the latter.

dk: But I understand in an egocentric world human suffering has no purpose, thus egotists bemoan any act of self sacrifice, dehumanize anyone that makes a sacrifice.

Sorry. I'm not buying into your moral superiority rap. No part of this dialogue is more egocentric than the comment you just made. The great sacrifices you're willing to say you'd make and tacitly take credit for as head of the household are impressive indeed and worth roughly the paper they're printed on. In the meantime, you have no idea what sacrifices I've made or what sacrifices I'm prepared to make on behalf of others inside or outside of my family.

Luiseach

September 1, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
This egalitarian thing is not supposed to work, according to the control freaks. They'll tell you how it will undoubtedly disintegrate into despair and hard feelings, and then ignore the myriads of cases where it doesn't. They will cite statistics that ostensibly show the woes of American society and then blame those woes on women's rights and the loss of the patriarchal family, without reasonably establishing a correlation. When we who live this model, and have happy, successful families to show for it, claim that it does work, they dismiss our testimony as anecdotal.

Very well put.

Kalkin

September 1, 2003, 03:12 AM

dk: It appears to me you are determined to deny the differences i.e. determined by Feminism. In my opinion ignoring the differences between men and women perpetrates an injustice upon both.

My opinion is the opposite. And when I justify it, below, you just say "ok."

Kalkin: Yes, human rights should take into account human sexuality. That doesn't mean that people of different gender should have different rights. Rights obviously have to be applied to children and sex in some way. But, whatever the differences between the sexes, although we disagree on the amount, they aren't rigid enough to justify different treatment for men and women.
It's wrong to use a stereotype to restrict people unless it's nearly always true, even if it's true in the majority of cases, and no gender stereotype is even close to always true.
This is somewhat different from what I was saying before, yes, because I agreed to try to avoid the issue of inherent sexual differences.
dk: Ok.

Then, you agree with me that discriminating against women by subordinating them in marriage is bad?

dk: I agree, wars fought over human rights are easier to justify, or just wars. Command Style Communism fought dozens of wars (or revolutions) over property rights, which is a human right. The Civil War was fought for human rights, emancipation. 99% of all wars fought up and down the last millennium can be understood as a fight for Human Rights.

Communist revolutions and the Civil War, which was about states' rights not human rights when it started anyway, are not 99% of all wars. In that time period, the Franco-Prussian war, the Japanese-Russian war, both World Wars, and Korea, to name a few, were fought over land and power.

But that bespeaks a truism, since human rights were derived from human nature. Long before a systematic approach to human rights was philosophically presented, human rights reflected human nature, therefore moved people act justly and unjustly.

So? Human rights are derived from human nature means they're bad or worthless? I'm not trying to make human rights independent of human nature.

Kalkin: And anyway, if true how would this mean human rights were bad? That some people have rated them too important makes them useless or evil?
dk: Human rights become evil when they force Laws to reflect personal interests above human interests. Laws grounded in personal interests become a weapon wielded by one group against another and as a weapon. When the law becomes a weapon against the law it promulgates lawlessness. This defines inequity and grounds human rights inextricably upon human nature.

I'm not sure what the point of this is - it seems to support my argument. Human rights shouldn't be used to reflect personal interests, they should be used to protect all humans. So, human rights shouldn't be used to support the interests of men over women, they should be used to make sure both have equal rights. All this paragraph does is take out your idea of the male right to headship.

Kalkin: If you're arguing that the potential for conflict makes equal marriages impossible, I disagree. Compromise or seperation is always possible, and superior to coercion. If you're arguing that equality will lead to conflict, I disagree. A pairing in which people accept each other's independence will always cause less conflict than a pairing in which one person always tries to dominate the other.
dk: I�m arguing that inequity and equality are two different things that have been confused by an egocentric view of human nature.

Please explain in what way human rights are egocentric.

You don't argue with me here - do you agree that equality doesn't cause conflict and isn't prevented by the potential for conflict?

dk: Compromise is not always possible. A pregnant women either commits abortion, or not. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.
Kalkin: But, that doesn't have to make or break a marriage - it can be included in a system of compromise by being seen as part of one person's special area of authority. Equal marriages can and do work, even in a world where abortion is available. Do you think a husband should be able to force his wife to have a child? If not, this example is irrelevant, because it would in the end be up to the woman in either form of marriage. If so... well, I think that proves any charges of authoritarianism that have been leveled against you.
dk: A husband should not force himself upon his wife period, but a wife that doesn�t make some effort to satisfy her husband is no wife at all.

Now you sound like you're supporting the potential of compromise after all - yes, the husband shouldn't force the wife to do things, and yes, the wife should take into account what her husband wants.

dk: If a husband can not force sex upon his wife, then he surely can�t force her to have a child. I don�t want this to degenerate into an abortion argument, but child bearing and child rearing are an essential aspects of human nature. For human rights to ignore such a fundamental and essential aspect would be inane, and very egocentric.

Yes, but human rights don't ignore child bearing and rearing - children have different rights, parents have rights regarding their children, etcetera. Giving women equality is not in any way equivalent to ignoring reproduction.

dk: In an egotistical world people serve the law and themselves because nothing else exists. In an egotistical world under the presumption of innocents a person has the liberty to commit any crime they can beat.
Kalkin: And this is relevant how? I already said I don't particularly like any of the people you mentioned as having this view. If you're suggesting that egoism is part of feminism, you're wrong. I guess the objectivists are feminists, but they aren't very close to mainstream feminism or to me.
dk: Oh, for example, a man rapes a women, but she doesn�t know it because she�s passed out. Has she been raped? Given the presumption of innocence I could effectively argue no i.e. that a perfect crime is no crime at all.

It's an interesting moral point, but you still haven't related it to our discussion. I already said twice I'm not advocating egoism. And, I like the presumption of innocence, sure, but that's for criminal trials, and has nothing to do with women's rights.

Kalkin: If by male and female parts you meant non-physical essential differences between men and women, which I assume you do, it's impossible to know what they are because they don't exist.
And even if they did, they shouldn't be reflected in human rights for reasons I explained above.
dk: To detach human nature from human rights perpetrates inequity, whether the inequity is committed by feminists or chauvinists.

Ah, now I understand where you're going with this human rights and human nature stuff. The thing is, I'm not detaching human rights from human nature. Each right we give to people comes from a need determined by human nature. But, human rights are determined by our similarities, not our differences. Some things, like skill at leadership and lack of skill at leadership turn up in any group of humans, so equal rights of leadership must be given to all classes, even if there were some slight average difference.

But anyway, whatever ways you think women are different, you can't argue that they are somehow less capable of making good decisions, which is what determines rights regarding headship/lack of headship. If women are different from men in the area of rearing children, they get the same rights in all other areas.

dk: So do you think men should be able to play on women�s volleyball, tennis, track, basketball,,,etc� I doubt it.
Kalkin: No, I don't, and I don't think women should be allowed to play on men's teams either - seperate but equal works for me here, as long as it's really equal. In the major leagues, maybe the seperation should be eliminated, but I haven't thought about that much as I'm not a sports fan. What does this have to do with anything, anyway?
dk: Don�t get me wrong, I think its clear men and women both benefit sports. I�m pointing out that you recognize men and women are unequal, and �separate but equal� as a familiar ring, something to do with the infamous Jim Crow.

Yes, I know the associations of the phrase "seperate but equal," thank you, and used it deliberately to preempt you bringing it up. It wasn't acceptable in race because there was never true equality, and the division was arbitrary and artificial, which are certainly less true of men's versus women's sports. What I said was that I'm willing to accept this for men and women in unimportant areas, like sports, because of real physical differences. I'm not saying women and men aren't equal in anything important to equality in marriage, I'm saying that their physical differences justify their being in seperate sports leagues.

dk: You�re statement is nonsense. The feminists experiment isn�t about outcomes, but egotism, and to an egotistical person a good outcome entails more power and the right to use it indiscriminately.
Kalkin: What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be saying all feminists are motivated purely by a desire for power and ego fulfullment... if so, I ask for a little evidence, please.
dk: If I am an egocentric person, then all my actions serve some purpose, and the right or wrong of my acts are determined by my appetites. This is true of a person, family, culture and government. It�s broad application across all levels of society forms an egotistical world view. I�ll hold off on the source, but this was from a letter written in 1922�
�The inordinate desire for pleasure, concupiscence of the flesh, sows the fatal seeds of division not only among families but likewise among states; the inordinate desire for possessions, concupiscence of the eyes, inevitably turns into class warfare and into social egotism; the inordinate desire to rule or to domineer over others, pride of life, soon becomes mere party or factional rivalries, manifesting itself in constant displays of conflicting ambitions and ending in open rebellion, in the crime of lese majeste, and even in national parricide.�

I asked for evidence that feminists were egoists, not that egoism was bad. Actually I have problems with that letter, which sounds conservative even for the '20s, but I'm not going to waste time with that at the point where you haven't given me any reason to believe feminism requires or causes egoism, outside of hints that maybe you think utilitarianism is egocentric? That would be wrong, as utilitarianism assigns equal value to everyone's pleasure, and it would also be barely relevant, as human rights are based on deontological, not consequentialist, views of morality...

Kalkin: Anyone, including me, has the right to judge Muslim society, if they want. Neither I nor anyone else has the right to force Muslims to dress how we think they should.
dk: I agree the basis right to abolish Muslim dress codes, follows from a right to Judge Muslims.

If you think that the right to abolish something without the consent of its practitioners necessarily follows from the right to judge something bad, you are neither agreeing with me nor correct. I don't think I have the right to force any Muslim to change their dress, only to stop them from forcing other people to meet their dress standards.

dk: I don�t blame Muslim for contesting your judgement, after all you�re not a Muslim so don�t reap any benefits or harm from the judgement.

I don't blame them for disagreeing either, although I think they're wrong.

dk: How do you feel about giving Muslims right to abolish public displays of undergarments?

I don't think Muslims have that right, as I explained - the right to judge is not the right to abolish without consent.

dk: Not exactly, I criticize the feminist movement for promoting a unified model upon an egotistical world view.

Again, please provide evidence to support your assertion that feminists are egotistical.

From an egotistical perspective it is hypocritical for non Muslim nations to abolish Muslim dress codes in Muslim nations.

I don't know about from an egotistical perspective, but from my perspective, you're right, it's hypocritical. That's why I don't want to abolish Muslim dress codes, I only want to prevent Muslims from forcing them on others and hopefully convince Muslims to abandon them.

dk: I view Wahabi dress codes as an immune response to the �culture of death� Western Europe and the US project upon Muslims through the dominant media.

Wow, a "culture of death?" Wtf are you talking about? And, since when was Western media dominant in the Islamic world? I doubt many Muslims watch MTV or CNN... they have their own media.

And you do know, right, that the Wahabi are the fundamentalist branch of Islam that supports terrorism? Here you sound like one of those radical ecologist wackos who say that AIDS is the Earth's immune response to the human parasite...

dk: But I�m not an egotist, but a Christian.

False dichotomy. I'm neither - well, maybe I'm egotistical, but my philosophy isn't.

dk: Perhaps by better understanding one another�s perspective we can all learn some valuable lessons. I think the true value of freedom, liberty and diversity follows from the practice of an �active judgment�, therefore uniquely educate, demand and seed the intellect with discernment. We all tend towards lazy intellects that need to be jolted from time to time, and that includes feminists, wives and husbands.

I agree, that's why I'm engaged in this debate.

dk: I�m not defending anything,
Kalkin: That's convenient - I wish I could attack your position without having to defend an alternative. If equal rights for women are so bad, you must have some other system you prefer. Although you haven't specified it, I believe that it oppresses women, given that it demands they be subordinate to men in marriage.
dk: I know, feminism was much more difficult to attack 40 years ago. The underlying tenants were unsound 40 years ago, and unsound today. Time catches up with us all eventually, and kinder to some than others. That may not seem equitable but that�s how justice grinds inequity into dust.

You've failed to prove that feminism is unsound, but that's the rest of the post. Here, you also fail to present your alternative, so I'm going to have to continue with my belief that, as whatever your alternative is doesn't grant women equality, it oppresses them.

dk: I�m attacking feminists for being indiscriminate, egocentric and hypocritical.
Kalkin: And you're not substantiating your attacks. All you've proven so far is that a few feminists have been indiscriminate, egocentric, and hypocritical, which I already knew. You've failed so far to link your general attacks with feminism in any way.
dk: Feminists become hypocrites by failing to take headship. Why?�Answer� Because with headship comes accountability. I don�t want feminism to fail so my attacks are not against women, and I�ll grant you it�s a fine line.

Um, feminists are against taking leadership positions? No, they're only against the idea that one gender should be granted control over another. No one is rejecting all forms of authority - I already had this discussion with NC. Feminists take political power when they can get it.

dk: If I were to take you seriously then I'd forced to judge sex, pregnancy, child birth and motherhood as trivial. I can�t do that in good conscience without holding all women in contempt.
Kalkin: I don't say they're trivial. I say that they shouldn't affect women's rights, because they don't affect women's decision-making capacity. I think I've made it clear before that when I deny differences, I'm only denying them in that area.
dk: So then human rights become trivial. Women can�t have it both ways without becoming hypocrites.

Actually, I've explained how women can "have it both ways." Child-rearing is not trivial, but it's in a different arena from human rights - or at least from rights to headship. As I explained above, human rights do take reproduction into account, but that doesn't mean they must allow women to be treated differently from men in terms of general decision-making power.

dk: You confuse headship with dominance and inequity with inequality.
Kalkin: No, I don't, I say the second follow from the first.
dk: And that makes you a hypocrite. Feminists want shared success but refuse to acknowledge any possibility of failure, so they hide behind equality i.e. under the pretense of equality feminists subsume power without discretion, and without discretion they perpetrate inequity.

I don't understand you here, sorry. How is saying headship involves dominance and inequality leads to inequity hypocritical? How does that lead to refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of actions while in power? Look, if I'm right that failure, however you define it, is extremely improbable for equality in marriage, for a variety of reasons I've stated elsewhere, then there is no real possibility of failure I need to acknowledge. What's hypocritical about arguing that feminism won't fail?

Kalkin: You're shifting the argument here - I hope that's because you're giving up on the ridiculous argument that remedying inequalities is a penalty for men.
dk: I shift perspective, not arguments. I know this frustrates people, but human rights are multidimensional because people are complex creatures. To detach Human Rights from Human Nature at first seems like a good idea, because it facilitates a simply systematic one-dimensional method. Sadly one dimensional approaches once detached become ill suited to the complex nature of people.

Whatever you're shifting, it does sound like you're no longer saying that remedying inequalities is unfair to men, which is good because that's false.

I'm not detaching human rights from human nature, I explained this above.

dk: Headship isn�t about dominatrix sex games, and inequities don�t follow from inequalities.
Kalkin: No, patriarchy is far more serious than sex games. It does inherently involve the idea of male dominance - how exactly is one supposed to have authority over another without the ability to dominate that person? Headship involves control, and giving it to men generally over women generally is unjust discrimination.
Inequities do follow from inequalities. If people have less power, they will be treated worse - that's a fact of life, supported by many examples people have posted on this thread of abuse of women in Muslim societies. And, power inequality can be an inequity in itself because people are restricted from doing what they want.
dk: Even in a systematic approach inequalities can be meaningful for example. z < x > y. Clearly inequities can be meaningful therefore just, and this does not imply that all inequalities are equitable.

Where do you get this "meaningful therefore just" standard? The statement that "I will kill you tomorow" is certainly meaningful, does that mean it's just?"

You don't refute any of my arguments showing that inequalities in power do indeed generally lead to inequities.

dk: For example its meaningful to say people with big hat sizes tend to have more brains, but to say people with big hat sizes tend to be more intelligent is nonsense. Likewise, its errant to say brain size isn�t a component of intelligence. Two statements�

I don't understand how this relates to anything.

men are psychically stronger than women,
doesn�t imply

men are superior to women
rather

Men and women are different,
therefore

men are more vulnerable than women in some areas
women are more vulnerable than men in some areas
i.e. men complement women

I�m saying men complement women, and visa versa, and therefore equitable, but not equal.

I assume you meant "physically," not "psychically," unless you're a believer in ESP.

While I agree that men and women are not equal in that they're not identical, I think they do deserve equal rights, for a variety of reasons stated elsewhere. Proving men and women not physically identical is insufficient to justify denying either sex rights.

dk: Hey, If I were against women then I'd hate myself. I don�t think all women, or even the most radical feminist is necessarily willfully ignorant, but women determined by feminism lack discernment. Free will without discernment becomes pretense.

But you haven't shown that feminists lack discernment.

Kalkin: Yes, war and disease are more immediate dangers than population growth, but population growth is still bad because it increases their likelihood.
Where do you get this stuff about killing people? That's not how feminism slows growth, feminism slows growth by empowering women to not have babies if they don't want to. And, the unborn aren't people, but that's a side issue because if you were right that would only modify feminism.
dk: No, feminism determines women by eliminating babies. This was the ambition that turned feminism down the path of perdition, in religious terms. In secular terms, it prescribes death as a cure for the problem of sex. Death is obviously not a solution in a worldly sense, because death yields nothing, whereas life has so much to offer. The communists prescribed death to the bourgeois classes, as a cure for class warfare (poverty, inequity�). The NAZI essentially prescribed death to all Jews and communists. The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, envisioned death as an intimate companion in the struggle for virtue. The Romans saw death as an entertainment, a simple cure for boredom. My point is that death doesn�t solve human problems, it simply make greater and more gruesome inequities possible.

You can't strike down "death is good" as a strawman for feminism. Stop wasting space proving stuff like that, and start proving that feminism prescribes death. How does feminism "determine women by eliminating babies?" The only thing I can imagine you're referring to is abortion, but first the unborn aren't people, and second, abortion is only one feminist issue - even if feminists are wrong there, it doesn't mean that they are wrong in supporting equal marriages. No feminist supports death, they support abortion because they don't think that's death, and if they were somehow proven wrong they would change their stance on abortion not on death.

Kalkin: Ooh, feminists disagree with you about the importance of the nuclear family. Must mean they're out to destroy it, right? Uh, no. You have again failed to present evidence that feminism is responsible for people having unstable families. I agree with you and that article that unstable families would be bad for children, but you have yet to show that equal families are unstable. In fact, I don't think you even try to in the post I'm responding to.
dk: That was a challenge. Let me issue a more delimitative challenge� Find a single policy statement by NOW, NEA, ATF, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, ACLU, or Lambda Legal that directly supports the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization. You won�t find any because they philosophically understand the nuclear family as a corrupt bourgeois capitalist institution.

I don't think I'll be able to find a statement saying the nuclear family is "the basic unit of civilization." Although it's concievable I could, I'm not going to waste the time looking, because not viewing the nuclear family as the basis of civilization is not equivalent to viewing it as a corrupt capitalist institution (you seem to be suggesting that the ACLU are communists... lol). Feminists' not seeing the nuclear family as as key as you do doesn't equate to their attacking it. How about you find a statement (from a mainstream group like Planned Parenthood, not some random person from the lunatic fringe) saying that the nuclear family is evil?

Have you given up on arguing that equal families are unstable? If you're going to prove that feminism destroys the family, you'll need to prove that.

Kalkin: You misunderstood me completely. I was saying that feminists have a strong interest in gender, but little interest (as feminists) in all those other problems you listed, and that their limited focus doesn't make them wrong.
dk: Ok, I think you�re at odds with yourself though.

How? My position is that feminism's purpose is to help women, and that's all it needs to do to be counted as good. If it also helps solve some problems not directly related to gender, which I think it does, that's an extra benefit.

Kalkin

September 1, 2003, 03:23 AM

NC: I would seriously like to hear you argue that your moral viewpoint is "inherently" correct. I have yet to hear anybody successfully argue that we have any "inherent" rights, whatsoever. To claim inalienable rights is just another way of bestowing rights upon yourself so that you can rationalize your actions away.

I'm not arguing that we have inherent inalienable rights, I'm arguing that it would be good if we acted as if we did. Good defined however you want to, really - I use a basically utilitarian framework.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalkin
My general thesis is that women should be treated identically to men in all things other than childbirth, for a variety of reasons, principally that it's extremely unjust to treat people differently based on false generalizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC: Let's say, for example, that you had a staff of ten people working for you. The minute you appoint one of them as head of your staff, then you haven't treated all members of your staff EQUALLY. You have preferred one member of your staff over all of the other members. Is that injustice? Is that inequality?

Oh no, not this again. For the zillionth time, I don't say authority is always bad. I say discrimination is bad. If I appointed one of those ten people as head because he was white that would be bad. It would also be bad if I did so because he was male. It would be fine, and probably a good idea, if I did so because he was qualified.

Let me ask you a question: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the husband doesn't need to be head of household. Whether it's the wife or husband doesn't make a difference, as long as one person is head of household. Now, tell me which scenario is better:

1) An equal partnership where no one person is head.

2) One person is head of household, whether it's the husband or wife doesn't make a difference.

Which one is better?

In the case of most pairings the first, but in some the second might be better. Generally, a relationship will work best if people cooperate, with some areas usually assigned to each person, but in some cases one person might simply be bad at making decisions. That could be a man or a woman. As I said, I don't reject authority although I don't think it's necessary in a marriage, I only reject sexual discrimination.

Nowhere357

September 1, 2003, 04:19 AM

dk
dk: Interesting. Where I come from shared leadership is called a metaphor for delegation.
Shared leadership means there is no individual head. Delegation is an act of the head. So your statement says if there is no head then there is a head. Nonsensical.

dk: Force is always an option, but only as a response in proportion to the threat. The statement "only religious dogma" implies people don't have a right to religious freedom.
The statement "only religious dogma" implies only that religious dogma supports patriarchy. Don't pretend like I or anyone else here opposes religious freedom. You sound desparate.

Of course force is an option. In context, it's an immoral option. Do you support the right of the male to beat the female upside the head if she gets uppity? You've had chance after chance to disavow this - yet you haven't. Why?

I've asked several times: How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed upon, in both systems!
Given this, it is a small step from assuming the man is in charge, to assuming each takes charge according to ability and desire. There is the macho concept of needing to wear the pants, but can you see how some may think that is a limitation and not an advantage? And other than this emotional need, there is only religious dogma and tradition.

Emotional need, religious dogma and tradition are the only support you have - and it all is fallacious. The right to use force is implied by claiming head of household - and you don't disavow this. Your position is seen to be unsupportable, chauvinistic and abusive. You repeatedly avoid direct questions through diversion and digression. Everyone sees this - you fool no-one. The weakness and inappropriateness of your position is clear and well established.

Soundsurfr said it well: "A head of household needs some means of exercising authority over their marital partner. So far, we've heard two possibilities for dealing with situations where there is dissent. One - physical punishment. Seems that the patriarchal advocates on this board do not advocate that method (at least not publicly), although I believe Islamic Shariah would allow it in certain cases.

The only non-violent recourse, as dk has affirmed, is to threaten expulsion or divorce. In societies where it is difficult or impossible for women to support a household on their own, this is a very effective method. Usually in those societies, a divorced woman will not only find herself unable to sustain herself or her children financially, she also will suffer socially as an outcast. Basically, she obeys the husband or she's ruined.

However in the US and Europe, where many women achieve independent financial and social status, the patriarch finds that his basis for control has eroded. This scares the daylights out of him because, make no mistake, it's all about control. He'll whine about how selfless it is for the father to maintain responsibility for a family, how the family benefits more than he does, yadda, yadda, but in the end, it's all about control."

Your need to dominate women is emotional, not logical and not supportable. You have lost this argument. Concede and let's move on.

September 1, 2003, 06:34 AM

dk: Interesting. Where I come from shared leadership is called a metaphor for delegation.
Nowhere357: Shared leadership means there is no individual head. Delegation is an act of the head. So your statement says if there is no head then there is a head. Nonsensical.
dk: I�m a little surprised by the stubbornness with which you cling to �shared headship�, it is a contradiction in terms.

dk: Force is always an option, but only as a response in proportion to the threat. The statement "only religious dogma" implies people don't have a right to religious freedom.
Nowhere357: The statement "only religious dogma" implies only that religious dogma supports patriarchy. Don't pretend like I or anyone else here opposes religious freedom. You sound desparate.
dk: Some religious dogmas support patriarchy, others don�t. All the great religions support a tradition of patriarchy.

Nowhere357: Of course force is an option. In context, it's an immoral option. Do you support the right of the male to beat the female upside the head if she gets uppity? You've had chance after chance to disavow this - yet you haven't. Why?
dk: You haven�t had the good sense to accept headship, your questions are disingenuous, and violence is always on the table. I�m happy to hear violence is immoral, because headship properly understood supplants violence with a sense of order.

Nowhere357: I've asked several times: How then does head of household differ from shared leadership? It looks to me like the opinions of both are considered and a conclusion agreed upon, in both systems!
Given this, it is a small step from assuming the man is in charge, to assuming each takes charge according to ability and desire. There is the macho concept of needing to wear the pants, but can you see how some may think that is a limitation and not an advantage? And other than this emotional need, there is only religious dogma and tradition.
dk: Ironically, pants are a western tradition.

Nowhere357: Emotional need, religious dogma and tradition are the only support you have - and it all is fallacious. The right to use force is implied by claiming head of household - and you don't disavow this. Your position is seen to be unsupportable, chauvinistic and abusive. You repeatedly avoid direct questions through diversion and digression. Everyone sees this - you fool no-one. The weakness and inappropriateness of your position is clear and well established.
dk: Your statement reduces to an emotional appeals, for example �everyone sees� is a fallacious appeal to emotion (popularity). I don�t want to argue over absurdities, obviously everyone doesn�t agree, if everyone agreed then this wouldn�t be a contentious issue.

(snip)

Nowhere357: The only non-violent recourse, as dk has affirmed, is to threaten expulsion or divorce. In societies where it is difficult or impossible for women to support a household on their own, this is a very effective method. Usually in those societies, a divorced woman will not only find herself unable to sustain herself or her children financially, she also will suffer socially as an outcast. Basically, she obeys the husband or she's ruined.
However in the US and Europe, where many women achieve independent financial and social status, the patriarch finds that his basis for control has eroded. This scares the daylights out of him because, make no mistake, it's all about control. He'll whine about how selfless it is for the father to maintain responsibility for a family, how the family benefits more than he does, yadda, yadda, but in the end, it's all about control."
dk: What are you talking about? 50% of single mothers head of household in the US live on the poverty line, and 1/3 of babies in the US are born to unmarried mothers. The vast safety net the US employs holds single mother in bondage as part of the working poor (cheap labor force). Earth to Nowhere, the US has a problem that has nothing to do with dress codes. Old Europe has a bigger problem i.e. they can�t raise enough children to field an army, maintain infrastructure and run their industrial complex. Dress codes are a storefront for a more expansive intrusive agenda i.e. propaganda machine. You�re spouting unsupported propaganda, Why?�answer: Because that�s all you know.

Nowhere357: Your need to dominate women is emotional, not logical and not supportable. You have lost this argument. Concede and let's move on.
dk: Nobody can raise children on propaganda, much less government bureaucrats. The nuclear family remains the fundamental unit of civilization because mothers and father raise healthy children at almost no cost to the greater society. Whatever else you believe� support the nuclear family because governments bureaucracy raises dependent emotionally starved individuals. Nuclear families can raise productive problem solving husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers, but not in a culture hostile to their very existence. What the educracy proved over the last 40 years� is that government raised children grow up to become dependent children WAKE UP, SMELL THE ROSES. Many women in the US trade their husband for dependency on a government bureaucrat that put the screws to em, they trade their family for a government stipend. Nations grows and prospers by solving the problems time presents with life affirming solutions. Propaganda promulgates inequity and dependency with a smilee face.

NonContradiction

September 1, 2003, 10:01 AM

Nowhere357: Emotional need, religious dogma and tradition are the only support you have - and it all is fallacious. The right to use force is implied by claiming head of household - and you don't disavow this. Your position is seen to be unsupportable, chauvinistic and abusive. You repeatedly avoid direct questions through diversion and digression. Everyone sees this - you fool no-one. The weakness and inappropriateness of your position is clear and well established.
dk: Your statement reduces to an emotional appeals, for example �everyone sees� is a fallacious appeal to emotion (popularity). I don�t want to argue over absurdities, obviously everyone doesn�t agree, if everyone agreed then this wouldn�t be a contentious issue.

I don't see how you can claim that dk's position is chauvinistic, especially, since he was the first one here to suggest that we should take gender out of the equation. The question really boils down to the following:

1) Do you support an equal 50/50 marriage partnership?

2) Do you support a head of household, be it husband or wife makes no difference?

Gender isn't an issue here. If you support 1), then the question of whether the husband or wife is going to be head of household is moot. Luiseach has already decided upon 1), therefore, 2) becomes irrelevant. Would you, and everybody else here, care to weigh in on the question so that we can move forward here?

NonContradiction

September 1, 2003, 10:40 AM

NonCon: Let me ask you a question: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the husband doesn't need to be head of household. Whether it's the wife or husband doesn't make a difference, as long as one person is head of household. Now, tell me which scenario is better:

1) An equal partnership where no one person is head.

2) One person is head of household, whether it's the husband or wife doesn't make a difference.

Which one is better?

Kalkin: In the case of most pairings the first, but in some the second might be better. Generally, a relationship will work best if people cooperate, with some areas usually assigned to each person, but in some cases one person might simply be bad at making decisions. That could be a man or a woman. As I said, I don't reject authority although I don't think it's necessary in a marriage, I only reject sexual discrimination.

You are avoiding the question, and you keep bringing gender back into the equation. The question simply boils down to whether or not the ship should have a captain. It's a simple yes or no question which has a simple UNCONDITIONAL answer. I can't think of any situations that may arise where one could rationally argue that the ship shouldn't have a captain. Should the ship have a captain? Yes or No? Don't give me any Yes, BUTS...Don't give me any conditional answers.

Luiseach

September 1, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Should the ship have a captain? Yes or No? Don't give me any Yes, BUTS...Don't give me any conditional answers.

Aye-Aye, captain.

NonContradiction

September 1, 2003, 11:00 AM

NonContradiction: I would rather have women dependent upon their husbands than dependent upon the state. The Great Society of the Lyndon Johnson 60's era created a huge welfare state while at the same time the liberals waged a war against the traditional patriarchal family. ...

lpetrich: The welfare system had the problem of the "no man in the house" rule, which, like the 100% marginal income tax, was intended to suppress cheating. But this anti-cheating zealotry proved to be a cure worse than the disease.

As usual, liberal solutions generally prove to be worst than the original problems.

NonContradiction

September 1, 2003, 11:05 AM

NC: Should the ship have a captain? Yes or No? Don't give me any Yes, BUTS...Don't give me any conditional answers.

Luiseach: Aye-Aye, captain.

I can't help but notice that your location in your profile is "limbo". That suits you perfectly.

Dr Rick

September 1, 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Gender isn't an issue here...Should the ship have a captain? Yes or No? Don't give me any Yes, BUTS...Don't give me any conditional answers.

NC has been arguing for a patriarchal societal and marriage model based upon Islamic principles, and now he presents this interogative as some type of analogy. It doesn't work. A ship is not analogous to a marriage, especially an Islamic one. If it was, then it would be reasonable to ask:

"Should the captain (husband) be able to rape his mates (wives) at will? Can a captain have four mates? Can the crew (sons) ever be justified in honor killing the mates? Should the mates' testimonies always be worth less than the weight of a crewmember's? Should the crew be free to travel on its own, but never the mates? Should the captain beat his mates? Should it be prohibited for a mate to ever become a captain?"

The analogy didn't work when the Southern Baptists used it to proclaim the husband the head of the household, and it especially doesn't work now when it's used in an analogy with a polygamous marriage model.

Ships are water-borne travelling vessels populated with people that should be chosen to fill their roles on the basis of merit. Islam and the Southern Baptist Conference apportions household leadership on the basis of sex without regard to merit or qualifications.

The whole issue here revolves around gender. Women cannot be husbands, and therefore can not lead a marriage under Islam; they can never be the "captains."

NonContradiction

September 1, 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NC has been arguing for a patriarchal societal and marriage model based upon Islamic principles, and now he presents this interogative as some type of analogy. It doesn't work. A ship is not analogous to a marriage, especially an Islamic one. If it was, then it would be reasonable to ask:

"Should the captain (husband) be able to rape his mates (wives) at will? Can a captain have four mates? Can the crew (sons) ever be justified in honor killing the mates? Should the mates' testimonies always be worth less than the weight of a crewmember's? Should the crew be free to travel on its own, but never the mates? Should the captain beat his mates? Should it be prohibited for a mate to ever become a captain?"

The analogy didn't work when the Southern Baptists used it to proclaim the husband the head of the household, and it especially doesn't work now when it's used in an analogy with a polygamous marriage model.

Ships are water-borne travelling vessels populated with people that should be chosen to fill their roles on the basis of merit. Islam and the Southern Baptist Conference apportions household leadership on the basis of sex without regard to merit or qualifications.

The whole issue here revolves around gender. Women cannot be husbands, and therefore can not lead a marriage under Islam; they can never be the "captains."

dk has never brought gender into the issue. As far as I know, dk isn't a Muslim either. So why don't you forget about all of the background noise you are creating here and just answer the question for dk since he has never brought gender into the discussion.

Should there be a head of household or not? Yes or No? Don't give him any Yeh, buts...Don't give him any conditional answers..It's a simple question so why don't you and the rest of the liberals here just give a simple answer of yes or no? Until all of you do, all of you look like fools for not being able to answer a simple question with a simple answer.

September 1, 2003, 01:53 PM

Hey Kalkin, don�t feel obliged to address every issue.
dk: It appears to me you are determined to deny the differences i.e. determined by Feminism. In my opinion ignoring the differences between men and women perpetrates an injustice upon both.
Kalkin: My opinion is the opposite. And when I justify it, below, you just say "ok."
(snip)
Then, you agree with me that discriminating against women by subordinating them in marriage is bad?
dk: �Ok�:, doesn�t imply agreement, but that I understand your position. There�s no sense in digging our heals in by restating our opinions over and over again.

dk: I agree, wars fought over human rights are easier to justify, or just wars. Command Style Communism fought dozens of wars (or revolutions) over property rights, which is a human right. The Civil War was fought for human rights, emancipation. 99% of all wars fought up and down the last millennium can be understood as a fight for Human Rights.
Kalkin: Communist revolutions and the Civil War, which was about states' rights not human rights when it started anyway, are not 99% of all wars. In that time period, the Franco-Prussian war, the Japanese-Russian war, both World Wars, and Korea, to name a few, were fought over land and power.
dk: Unbelievable, you�re an idealist that refuses to accept the power of ideas. I won�t argue the point, I don�t think you�re an anti-intellectual.

dk: But that bespeaks a truism, since human rights were derived from human nature. Long before a systematic approach to human rights was philosophically presented, human rights reflected human nature, therefore moved people act justly and unjustly.
Kalkin: So? Human rights are derived from human nature means they're bad or worthless? I'm not trying to make human rights independent of human nature.
dk: Only fictional people live in a fictional feminist world, based upon fictional human rights.

Kalkin: And anyway, if true how would this mean human rights were bad? That some people have rated them too important makes them useless or evil?
dk: Human rights become evil when they force Laws to reflect personal interests above human interests. Laws grounded in personal interests become a weapon wielded by one group against another and as a weapon. When the law becomes a weapon against the law it promulgates lawlessness. This defines inequity and grounds human rights inextricably upon human nature.
Kalkin: I'm not sure what the point of this is - it seems to support my argument. Human rights shouldn't be used to reflect personal interests, they should be used to protect all humans. So, human rights shouldn't be used to support the interests of men over women, they should be used to make sure both have equal rights. All this paragraph does is take out your idea of the male right to headship.
dk: We agree to a point. But not 1 of 285,000,000 US Citizens can possibility know their Human Rights. Not when jurists on the Supreme Court(SC) routinely changes their opinion with a 5-4 majority vote. A bright 3rd grader would see the charade for what it is. Educated Muslims look at the US and say, �You people are wak jobs!!!, and arrogant hypocrites to boot� The US Constitutional Courts have detached Human Rights from any earthy realm and enshrined them in the clouds of a Great Society that doesn�t exist. No doubt about it, the US plays a dangerous game with people all over the world.

lpetrich

September 1, 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
As usual, liberal solutions generally prove to be worst than the original problems. A MUCH more likely culprit for these rules is right-wingers obsessed with cheating. NonContradiction ought not to assume that his ideological soulmates are totally faultless and sinless.

Nowhere357

September 1, 2003, 02:46 PM

dk
You haven�t had the good sense to accept headship,
? Why would you say that? I accept headship.

your questions are disingenuous, and violence is always on the table.
N357 "Do you support the right of the male to beat the female upside the head if she gets uppity?"
dk "violence is always on the table".

Is this really your direct answer to the direct question?

I�m happy to hear violence is immoral,
Violence is not immoral, I never said that.

because headship properly understood supplants violence with a sense of order.
And has the right to administer punishment. Which is why it is not appropriate for a marriage between free people.

N357 Emotional need, religious dogma and tradition are the only support you have
dk I don�t want to argue over absurdities
Meaning you agree that no other support exists.

N 357 Concede and let's move on.
dk Nobody can raise children on propaganda, <snip> Propaganda promulgates inequity and dependency with a smilee face.
Meaning you have lost the argument but cling to your emotional need to dominate women.

Dr Rick

September 1, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Should there be a head of household or not? Yes or No? Don't give him any Yeh, buts...Don't give him any conditional answers..It's a simple question so why don't you and the rest of the liberals here just give a simple answer of yes or no? Until all of you do, all of you look like fools for not being able to answer a simple question with a simple answer.

There is no simple yes or no answer for everyone, because it's not a simple question.

A husband may lead in some areas, a wife others, and the two together in still others. The decision on which investments to make might best be left to one partner, the decision about which grocery store to shop might better be made by the other, and the decision about where to vacation or how to discipline the children might be a mutual one.

What rule (outside of theistic dogma) says one person must always rule over another in all things? I'm not the boss in my marriage, and neither is my wife, but somehow we manage to get stuff done, and neither one of us gets raped or beaten.

Ships don't operate upon mutual consent, but good marriages can and do.
Originally posted by dk
There�s no sense in digging our heals in by restating our opinions over and over again.

Boom! ...oh great...there goes another irony meter....

NonContradiction

September 1, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by lpetrich
A MUCH more likely culprit for these rules is right-wingers obsessed with cheating. NonContradiction ought not to assume that his ideological soulmates are totally faultless and sinless.

I don't deny that my fellow conservatives in America have been the most racist, sexist, nationalistic bigots around. This is what has been killing them in their struggle against the liberals.

Nowhere357

September 1, 2003, 03:11 PM

NonContradiction
1) Do you support an equal 50/50 marriage partnership?
That would be the starting point, in a way. But do they each need to provide 50% of the income, cook 50% of the meals, and so on? Of course not. They can come to any agreement they wish.

2) Do you support a head of household, be it husband or wife makes no difference?
No. Unless that is their freely made agreement. The "head", the person who makes the final decision, varies with need, desire, and ability.

Gender isn't an issue here.
But the head may administer punishment. The female typically cannot force her views on the male with the same ease that males can force their views on the female. So from my view, this is a gender issue as well. To argue for head - which includes the right to enforce - is to argue for male dominance.

I can't help but notice that your location in your profile is "limbo". That suits you perfectly.
You should know that these sorts of comments (attacking user names, etc) are typically made by the the people whose logical arguments have failed.

Kalkin

September 1, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You are avoiding the question, and you keep bringing gender back into the equation. The question simply boils down to whether or not the ship should have a captain. It's a simple yes or no question which has a simple UNCONDITIONAL answer. I can't think of any situations that may arise where one could rationally argue that the ship shouldn't have a captain. Should the ship have a captain? Yes or No? Don't give me any Yes, BUTS...Don't give me any conditional answers.

It's not a yes or no question. If you think that a yes, but answer is impossible, then explain specifically how I am wrong. You're not going to force me into saying yes or no just by asserting that those are the only possible answers.

I'm not avoiding the question, my answer was that while for some individual relationships there might end up being effectively a head, and that would be ok, usually there is no need for one.

And, I can't leave gender out of the equation, because I don't say reject all headship, only determining headship by gender.

Kalkin

September 1, 2003, 05:28 PM

Hey Kalkin, don�t feel obliged to address every issue.

I've been coming to the conclusion that that's a bad idea myself - my posts are too long. From now on, if I leave something out, assume I think it's not important or repetitive.

[snip]restatements of positions
[snip]irrelevant tangent on causes of war

dk: But that bespeaks a truism, since human rights were derived from human nature. Long before a systematic approach to human rights was philosophically presented, human rights reflected human nature, therefore moved people act justly and unjustly.
Kalkin: So? Human rights are derived from human nature means they're bad or worthless? I'm not trying to make human rights independent of human nature.
dk: Only fictional people live in a fictional feminist world, based upon fictional human rights.

Now human rights are fictional? I thought you accused me of ignoring the power of ideas... sure, they're not concrete, but that doesn't mean they're not real or useful.

Kalkin: I'm not sure what the point of this is - it seems to support my argument. Human rights shouldn't be used to reflect personal interests, they should be used to protect all humans. So, human rights shouldn't be used to support the interests of men over women, they should be used to make sure both have equal rights. All this paragraph does is take out your idea of the male right to headship.
dk: We agree to a point. But not 1 of 285,000,000 US Citizens can possibility know their Human Rights. Not when jurists on the Supreme Court(SC) routinely changes their opinion with a 5-4 majority vote. A bright 3rd grader would see the charade for what it is. Educated Muslims look at the US and say, �You people are wak jobs!!!, and arrogant hypocrites to boot� The US Constitutional Courts have detached Human Rights from any earthy realm and enshrined them in the clouds of a Great Society that doesn�t exist. No doubt about it, the US plays a dangerous game with people all over the world.

Human rights are different from and independent of legal rights. The concepts are pretty basic and simple - someone posted the UN universal declaration of human rights earlier, that's a pretty good definition I think. If the US' laws or foreign policy are flawed, and I agree both are, that doesn't mean the concept of human rights is bad.

And, the Supreme Court changes their opinions on controversial issues where the application of rights is hard to tell - they very rarely reverse major traditions. Only loonies like Roy Moore want to do that.

September 1, 2003, 10:17 PM

Kalkin: If you're arguing that the potential for conflict makes equal marriages impossible, I disagree. Compromise or seperation is always possible, and superior to coercion. If you're arguing that equality will lead to conflict, I disagree. A pairing in which people accept each other's independence will always cause less conflict than a pairing in which one person always tries to dominate the other.
dk: I�m arguing that inequity and equality are two different things that have been confused by an egocentric view of human nature.
Kalkin: Please explain in what way human rights are egocentric.
You don't argue with me here - do you agree that equality doesn't cause conflict and isn't prevented by the potential for conflict?
dk: Egocentric is the opposite of common sense. In a world with common sense people share the same gestalt, in an egocentric world everyone�s the center of their own universe.

dk: Compromise is not always possible. A pregnant women either commits abortion, or not. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.
Kalkin: But, that doesn't have to make or break a marriage - it can be included in a system of compromise by being seen as part of one person's special area of authority. Equal marriages can and do work, even in a world where abortion is available. Do you think a husband should be able to force his wife to have a child? If not, this example is irrelevant, because it would in the end be up to the woman in either form of marriage. If so... well, I think that proves any charges of authoritarianism that have been leveled against you.
dk: A husband should not force himself upon his wife period, but a wife that doesn�t make some effort to satisfy her husband is no wife at all.
Kalkin: Now you sound like you're supporting the potential of compromise after all - yes, the husband shouldn't force the wife to do things, and yes, the wife should take into account what her husband wants.
dk: I don�t have a problem with compromise.

dk: If a husband can not force sex upon his wife, then he surely can�t force her to have a child. I don�t want this to degenerate into an abortion argument, but child bearing and child rearing are an essential aspects of human nature. For human rights to ignore such a fundamental and essential aspect would be inane, and very egocentric.
Kalkin: Yes, but human rights don't ignore child bearing and rearing - children have different rights, parents have rights regarding their children, etcetera. Giving women equality is not in any way equivalent to ignoring reproduction.
dk: An egotist would say parents usurp children�s rights to imprint a slave mentality, and many do. You misunderstanding me, I have no problem with equality, my problem is with inequity. You�re the one that claims a patriarchal family is an inequity because men and women are the same, so headship should be shared. It�s a fiction, and when feminists ground human rights in a fiction they become an inequity, not equal.

dk: In an egotistical world people serve the law and themselves because nothing else exists. In an egotistical world under the presumption of innocents a person has the liberty to commit any crime they can beat.
Kalkin: And this is relevant how? I already said I don't particularly like any of the people you mentioned as having this view. If you're suggesting that egoism is part of feminism, you're wrong. I guess the objectivists are feminists, but they aren't very close to mainstream feminism or to me.
dk: Oh, for example, a man rapes a women, but she doesn�t know it because she�s passed out. Has she been raped? Given the presumption of innocence I could effectively argue no i.e. that a perfect crime is no crime at all.
Kalkin: It's an interesting moral point, but you still haven't related it to our discussion. I already said twice I'm not advocating egoism. And, I like the presumption of innocence, sure, but that's for criminal trials, and has nothing to do with women's rights.
dk: The presumption of innocence is a fiction like the feminists egotistical perspective of human rights. In reality when a man commits rape he�s guilty of rape, yet in an egotistical world the presumption of innocents becomes absolution. Instead of protecting the innocent the �presumption of innocents� protects the guilty and puts the victim on trial. This is an inequity. In a reasonable common sense world the �presumption of innocents� gives the accused the benefit of a reasonable doubt, nothing more.

Kalkin: If by male and female parts you meant non-physical essential differences between men and women, which I assume you do, it's impossible to know what they are because they don't exist.
And even if they did, they shouldn't be reflected in human rights for reasons I explained above.
dk: To detach human nature from human rights perpetrates inequity, whether the inequity is committed by feminists or chauvinists.
Kalkin: Ah, now I understand where you're going with this human rights and human nature stuff. The thing is, I'm not detaching human rights from human nature. Each right we give to people comes from a need determined by human nature. But, human rights are determined by our similarities, not our differences. Some things, like skill at leadership and lack of skill at leadership turn up in any group of humans, so equal rights of leadership must be given to all classes, even if there were some slight average difference.
dk: That sounds good, but it�s an egotistical fiction. In fact Nixon got a pardon, Clinton pardoned hundreds of fat cats at the end of his term, for money. People are not equal, so writing and interpreting laws based on a fiction serves no one but the crooks. In a common sense world character does matter, not because of our similarities, but because of our differences. Everyone should be treated equal under the law because people are different, not made equal by the law because they are the same, the former is reality and the latter is a fiction.

Kalkin: But anyway, whatever ways you think women are different, you can't argue that they are somehow less capable of making good decisions, which is what determines rights regarding headship/lack of headship. If women are different from men in the area of rearing children, they get the same rights in all other areas.
dk: Women should be treated equal under the Law, because they are different from men. Chew on that for a while from a common sense perspective with respect to freedom and liberty. How can people in a free country be equal under the law when males and females are different?

dk: So do you think men should be able to play on women�s volleyball, tennis, track, basketball,,,etc� I doubt it.
Kalkin: No, I don't, and I don't think women should be allowed to play on men's teams either - seperate but equal works for me here, as long as it's really equal. In the major leagues, maybe the seperation should be eliminated, but I haven't thought about that much as I'm not a sports fan. What does this have to do with anything, anyway?
dk: Don�t get me wrong, I think its clear men and women both benefit from sports. I�m pointing out that you recognize men and women are unequal, and �separate but equal� as a familiar ring, something to do with the infamous Jim Crow.
Kalkin: Yes, I know the associations of the phrase "seperate but equal," thank you, and used it deliberately to preempt you bringing it up. It wasn't acceptable in race because there was never true equality, and the division was arbitrary and artificial, which are certainly less true of men's versus women's sports. What I said was that I'm willing to accept this for men and women in unimportant areas, like sports, because of real physical differences. I'm not saying women and men aren't equal in anything important to equality in marriage, I'm saying that their physical differences justify their being in separate sports leagues.
dk: Ok, but the differences between men and women are real? answer: Yes, and sports teams barely scratch the surface. Just as it would be wrong to allow boys to play on a girl�s volleyball team, it�s wrong to ignore differences between men and women with respect to human rights. The disparities between the races are misnomers, while the disparities between the sexes are essentially human.

dk: You�re statement is nonsense. The feminists experiment isn�t about outcomes, but egotism, and to an egotistical person a good outcome entails more power and the right to use it indiscriminately.
Kalkin: What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be saying all feminists are motivated purely by a desire for power and ego fulfullment... if so, I ask for a little evidence, please.
dk: If I am an egocentric person, then all my actions serve some purpose, and the right or wrong of my acts are determined by my appetites. This is true of a person, family, culture and government. It�s broad application across all levels of society forms an egotistical world view. I�ll hold off on the source, but this was from a letter written in 1922�
�The inordinate desire for pleasure, concupiscence of the flesh, sows the fatal seeds of division not only among families but likewise among states; the inordinate desire for possessions, concupiscence of the eyes, inevitably turns into class warfare and into social egotism; the inordinate desire to rule or to domineer over others, pride of life, soon becomes mere party or factional rivalries, manifesting itself in constant displays of conflicting ambitions and ending in open rebellion, in the crime of lese majeste, and even in national parricide.�
Kalkin: I asked for evidence that feminists were egoists, not that egoism was bad. Actually I have problems with that letter, which sounds conservative even for the '20s, but I'm not going to waste time with that at the point where you haven't given me any reason to believe feminism requires or causes egoism, outside of hints that maybe you think utilitarianism is egocentric? That would be wrong, as utilitarianism assigns equal value to everyone's pleasure, and it would also be barely relevant, as human rights are based on deontological, not consequentialist, views of morality...
dk: Ok, two acclaimed feminist philosophers, from the Right Ayn Rand�s and the left Simone de Beauvoir, though Beauvoir took a more Hegelian approach by inventing the other-self to amend Freud�s super ego with the primacy of freedom.

Kalkin: Anyone, including me, has the right to judge Muslim society, if they want. Neither I nor anyone else has the right to force Muslims to dress how we think they should.
dk: I agree the basis right to abolish Muslim dress codes, follows from a right to Judge Muslims.
Kalkin: If you think that the right to abolish something without the consent of its practitioners necessarily follows from the right to judge something bad, you are neither agreeing with me nor correct. I don't think I have the right to force any Muslim to change their dress, only to stop them from forcing other people to meet their dress standards.
dk: I�m pointing out the hypocrisy feminists rationalize. Feminists don�t judge squat, they dogmatically brand the patriarchal family an inequity then look for the nearest wrecking ball to tear it down. Radical feminists hide behind co-ship and equality to escape culpability for the deceptions they rationalize.

dk: I don�t blame Muslim for contesting your judgement, after all you�re not a Muslim so don�t reap any benefits or harm from the judgement.
Kalkin: I don't blame them for disagreeing either, although I think they're wrong.
dk: We just came back into alignment. Where feminists demonstrate honesty and culpability I support them. Without intellectual honesty and culpability women have no choice, hence are condemned to live as perpetual victims in a factious world of their own creation. .

dk: How do you feel about giving Muslims right to abolish public displays of undergarments?
Kalkin: I don't think Muslims have that right, as I explained - the right to judge is not the right to abolish without consent.
dk: I don�t know how feminists can escape the pedagogical issues, for example kiddy porn has become a big problem in the US. Feminists say nothing, except lock your kids up and don�t let them outside. My liberty ends where your freedom begins, and everyone has an obligation to keep the public square safe for children. The West protects the access of perverts to the public square, and the perverts exploit children. How do you answer Muslims that don�t want their children exploited by perverts in the public square?

dk: Not exactly, I criticize the feminist movement for promoting a unified model upon an egotistical world view.
Kalkin: Again, please provide evidence to support your assertion that feminists are egotistical.
dk: There�s no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws. Secular courts have no place else to go except to moral laws, and they have been discarded by science as metaphysical nonsense. The courts assess harm on positive evidence, and the only acceptable source of positive evidence follows science. In the science of psychiatry egotism dominates the landscape, so it�s a lock. All the soft (human) sciences accept egotism as their base, from criminology to political science.

dk: From an egotistical perspective it is hypocritical for non Muslim nations to abolish Muslim dress codes in Muslim nations.
Kalkin: I don't know about from an egotistical perspective, but from my perspective, you're right, it's hypocritical. That's why I don't want to abolish Muslim dress codes, I only want to prevent Muslims from forcing them on others and hopefully convince Muslims to abandon them.
dk: Be honest, you don�t care about Moslem women and children, it�s the patriarchic family that offends you, not the Moslem dress codes or starving children. NC is right, radical feminists have folded their hatred of the patriarchic family (based on egotism) into a Marxist utopia. The idea is simple� open sex, family planning, and autonomous unisex individuals will lead to world socialism� �to each according to their needs, from each according their abilities�. Communism promoted an armed conflict that would erupt into a world revolution, and radical feminists support Herbert Marcus�s theory that a sexual revolution will destroy the bourgeois capitalistic institutions with love, because all men really want is sex.

Luiseach

September 2, 2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I can't help but notice that your location in your profile is "limbo". That suits you perfectly.

It certainly does...not a ship in sight.

Soundsurfr

September 2, 2003, 07:52 AM

dk: I don�t know how feminists can escape the pedagogical issues, for example kiddy porn has become a big problem in the US. Feminists say nothing, except lock your kids up and don�t let them outside.

Huh? Feminists are not against kiddie porn?

dk: My liberty ends where your freedom begins, and everyone has an obligation to keep the public square safe for children.

We agree on that, and so does the Consitution of the United States.

dk: The West protects the access of perverts to the public square, and the perverts exploit children.

As a practice? Since when?

dk: How do you answer Muslims that don�t want their children exploited by perverts in the public square?

Straw man argument. The exploitation of children by perverts is illegal, whether in the public square or elsewhere.

(snip)
dk: Not exactly, I criticize the feminist movement for promoting a unified model upon an egotistical world view.
Kalkin: Again, please provide evidence to support your assertion that feminists are egotistical.
dk: There�s no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws.

1. Note that dk provides no evidence as requested by Kalkin, nor does he provide a definition of *egotism*.

But in response to the comment that there's no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws - there's no escaping oppression in a religious society governed by religious laws. If dk calls what we have in the West "egotism", I'll take egotism over oppression any day.

dk: Secular courts have no place else to go except to moral laws, and they have been discarded by science as metaphysical nonsense.

Nonsense blather. What has been discarded by science as metaphysical nonsense is the idea that a court can somehow appeal to God for guidance on legal issues. Secular courts apply the law as framed in the Constitution. The Constitution applies a philosophy based on the rights and freedoms of the individual and a particular aversion to oppression of the people by government authority, especially religious government authority. I can see that a society without an authoritative religious government control over the people doesn't appeal to you, dk, but that's the way this country is set up and the vast majority of us will fight to the death to keep it that way.

dk: The courts assess harm on positive evidence, and the only acceptable source of positive evidence follows science.

Correct. What would be a better source of positive evidence in a court of law in your opinion? Your particular religious views? The religious views of the majority religion?

dk: In the science of psychiatry egotism dominates the landscape, so it�s a lock. All the soft (human) sciences accept egotism as their base, from criminology to political science.

If you mean human sciences require objective evidence as their basis for information, then you're right. In some twisted way, you find that offensive and label it *egotism*.

dk: From an egotistical perspective it is hypocritical for non Muslim nations to abolish Muslim dress codes in Muslim nations.
Kalkin: I don't know about from an egotistical perspective, but from my perspective, you're right, it's hypocritical. That's why I don't want to abolish Muslim dress codes, I only want to prevent Muslims from forcing them on others and hopefully convince Muslims to abandon them.
dk: Be honest, you don�t care about Moslem women and children,

Why would you say that?

dk: it�s the patriarchic family that offends you, not the Moslem dress codes or starving children.

That's not only a disengenuous, presumptious thing to say to Kalkin, it's insulting. You religionists think you have a monopoly on compassion and goodwill. And you call everyone else egotists!

dk: NC is right, radical feminists have folded their hatred of the patriarchic family (based on egotism) into a Marxist utopia.

NC is delusional, and so are you. There aren't any radical feminists or Marxists participating in this conversation.

dk: The idea is simple� open sex, family planning, and autonomous unisex individuals will lead to world socialism�

That idea is preposterous and yet another straw man. It has not been espoused or even suggested by the comments of anyone involved in this discussion. I don't speak for the others, but I'm a capitalist and I don't practice *open sex*. I see great benefits in family planning, but they have nothing to do with world socialism. Why must you put false ideologies in people's mouths? Is that what you have to resort to in order to forward your agenda?

NonContradiction

September 2, 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
There is no simple yes or no answer for everyone, because it's not a simple question.

Nothing is simple with liberals because there is no bottom line with them. It's all relative.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
A husband may lead in some areas, a wife others, and the two together in still others. The decision on which investments to make might best be left to one partner, the decision about which grocery store to shop might better be made by the other, and the decision about where to vacation or how to discipline the children might be a mutual one.

So what? Simply because the head of the household may follow the advice of the other spouse doesn't mean that he/she is no longer the head of household.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
What rule (outside of theistic dogma) says one person must always rule over another in all things? I'm not the boss in my marriage, and neither is my wife, but somehow we manage to get stuff done, and neither one of us gets raped or beaten.

Here we go again with the inflammatory rhetoric. Being head of household doesn't imply being THE BOSS. It doesn't imply that someone is controlling and domineering.

Nowhere357

September 2, 2003, 08:26 AM

NonContradiction
Nothing is simple with liberals because there is no bottom line with them. It's all relative.
This is a lie, borne of deception or ignorance. Or both.

So what? Simply because the head of the household may follow the advice of the other spouse doesn't mean that he/she is no longer the head of household.
What does elevate a person to head of household, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

Here we go again with the inflammatory rhetoric. Being head of household doesn't imply being THE BOSS. It doesn't imply that someone is controlling and domineering.
What does it imply, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

September 2, 2003, 08:53 AM

Kalkin: Wow, a "culture of death?" Wtf are you talking about? And, since when was Western media dominant in the Islamic world? I doubt many Muslims watch MTV or CNN... they have their own media.
And you do know, right, that the Wahabi are the fundamentalist branch of Islam that supports terrorism? Here you sound like one of those radical ecologist wackos who say that AIDS is the Earth's immune response to the human parasite...
dk: I like your analogy to GUI or mother earth, and it stings a bit. But I write environmental wacos off as a mixed blessing gladly tolerated and protected under the principle of religious freedom. While I might disagree with absolute monism (earth worship) environmentalists do bring a unique perspective to the table of public debate. The problem isn�t media but a media driven to excesses beyond constraint and common sense.
I view the broadcast media as a curse and a blessing. A quick scan of the early 20th Century�s confirms my opinion with FDR, Hitler, Churchill and Stalin. The curse taking the form of Hitler and Stalin countered by the blessings FDR and Churchill wrought. Most people would agree the Great Depression and WW II followed from media excesses i.e. propaganda, and the Cold War was a propaganda war nobody could afford to win or loose. In an egotistical world monsters, violent atrocities and sex crazed daemons lurk just below the surface in the subconscious of everyday people, even me. The plethera of thrillers, romance, drama, fiction, fate and fact make for great theatre because nobody knows what evil lurks within. In fact I would argue that egotism is to the US, what death was to the Coliseum, the substance of a great show and a great tragedy.

dk: But I�m not an egotist, but a Christian.
Kalkin: False dichotomy. I'm neither - well, maybe I'm egotistical, but my philosophy isn't.
dk: Ok, but whatever else human beings are, we are complex creatures with many facades and dimensions easily lead astray by novelties, emotions and false promises made with the best of intentions.

(snip)

Kalkin: You've failed to prove that feminism is unsound, but that's the rest of the post. Here, you also fail to present your alternative, so I'm going to have to continue with my belief that, as whatever your alternative is doesn't grant women equality, it oppresses them.
dk: I can�t prove the suns going to rise tomorrow. My point is that radical feminism constructs itself upon an egotistical fiction not an act of willful judgement, therefore makes freedom impossible and descent obsolete. In the real world we can assume (choose) the universe to be rational, ideal, emotive, real, aesthetic, a man made fiction or any combination thereof. But whatever we choose freedom hinges upon a judgement of the active intellect, based upon the fruits of our directed actions. If I commit to murder someone, and succeed, there�s simply no possible way for me to judge the subsequent consequences, therefore any subsequent judgment of my murderous act becomes inane. If I hadn�t murdered my enemy, tomorrow he might have became my friend and saved my life, or perhaps conceived a child that saved my all my progeny. Thus murder deprives me of my freedom, and that�s a gestalt that imposes itself upon all people at all times. You mentioned potential earlier, and in the real world there are an infinite number of potential futures, each hinging upon what people might potentially commit. The only sane response is to commit oneself to the fullest potential life can possibly offer, and recognize we will fall short, and that�s just common sense (as opposed to egotistical).

Kalkin: Um, feminists are against taking leadership positions? No, they're only against the idea that one gender should be granted control over another. No one is rejecting all forms of authority - I already had this discussion with NC. Feminists take political power when they can get it.
dk: Women take leadership, not feminists. Radical Feminism lead by promoting the necessity of abortion as a prerequisite to equality, hence builds itself upon a platform of death. This sounds extreme, but when a women takes the liberty to destroy her own child she deprives the world and herself of a future she can�t possibly judge, unless she�s omnipotent. In doing so she commits her life to a fiction detached from reality, a fiction that manifests real consequences that deprive people of potential and judgement. Had she carried and delivered the child the whole course of her life changes whereas once she destroys the child there�s no possible way to evaluate the consequences. Who knows, maybe the day after the medical abortion she would have miscarried. This is not egalitarian, but that women�s whole life changed when she destroyed her child, and she can�t recover the potential she destroyed, no matter what she thinks, judges or does. Had the kid been allowed to live he/she might have become the joy of her mom�s life, or a home wrecker, who knows. But whatever happens the common sense gestalt never changes, my liberty justifies death, and death therefore becomes a solution to the problem of liberty i.e. my right to liberty supersedes your right to life. So I contend that radical feminism elevates equality above life to solve the problem of liberty with death. First� liberty in my mind liberty isn�t a problem because my liberty ends where your freedom begins. Second, death is never a viable solution to a human problems because individuals, families,,, nations grow and prosper by solving problems with life affirming solutions, and are ruined by the first insolvable problem. Freedom and liberty force a person to practice the art of active judgment, and it is by an act of judgment that problem statements unmask root causes, and to solve any problem effectively one must address the root cause. I mean lets be honest, we Feminists can resolve the world�s overpopulation and poverty problems by sterilizing all poor people, and if not why not?

(snip)

Kalkin: I don't understand you here, sorry. How is saying headship involves dominance and inequality leads to inequity hypocritical? How does that lead to refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of actions while in power? Look, if I'm right that failure, however you define it, is extremely improbable for equality in marriage, for a variety of reasons I've stated elsewhere, then there is no real possibility of failure I need to acknowledge. What's hypocritical about arguing that feminism won't fail?
dk: First of �all human institutions� contain headship, and dissolve absent headship. That makes headship a problem, not an equity or a liability. Second, therefore to deprive the nuclear family of headship dissolves the nuclear family.

Kalkin: Whatever you're shifting, it does sound like you're no longer saying that remedying inequalities is unfair to men, which is good because that's false.
dk: I see inequalities as a problem, but not necessarily a problem of equality.

(snip)

dk: Even in a systematic approach inequalities can be meaningful for example. z < x > y. Clearly inequities can be meaningful therefore just, and this does not imply that all inequalities are equitable.
Kalkin: Where do you get this "meaningful therefore just" standard? The statement that "I will kill you tomorow" is certainly meaningful, does that mean it's just?"
dk: Actually that is the basis of Aquinas�s 1st Principles. The composition of reality differs from the mental composition, by a degree of �whatness�. Yet, we all experience moments of intellectual clarity where abstractions and forms resonate to assert certainty. I�m not sure exactly �whatness� makes 1 + 1 = 2, but I know it with certainty, hence I have no intellectual choice but to accept it. This is interesting, so let me digress into a story. After it became clear the earth was round, and not flat, Kings had no choice but to send out map makers out to resurvey their lands. The King of France commented (I paraphrase) upon the return of his mapmakers examined his Kingdom, �My God these map makers have taken from me more territory than all the armies of all my enemies, and yet they claim to serve my Kingdom!!!� My point is that the King was forced to accept the edicts of the map makers, no matter how bitter the pill, and illustrates the power of truth, the triumph of ideas over materialism. When we detach truth from reality we deprive ourselves of power hence liberty (the discretionary exercise of power). The King had no choice but to swallow the bitter pill, and neither do we. That story illustrates a common sense gestalt that binds feminists, chauvinists, Muslims, Marxists and everyone else to the real world, no matter what fictions float our myopic egotistical perspectives. I wonder though, I�ll bet the King didn�t announce to his noble lords their taxes per acre just doubled. Yet, were we to discover after telling the tale the King was really a Queen, it changes nothing.

(snip)

dk:
men are psychically stronger than women,
doesn�t imply
men are superior to women
rather
Men and women are different,
therefore
men are more vulnerable than women in some areas
women are more vulnerable than men in some areas
i.e. men complement women
I�m saying men complement women, and visa versa, and therefore equitable, but not equal.
Kalkin: I assume you meant "physically," not "psychically," unless you're a believer in ESP.
While I agree that men and women are not equal in that they're not identical, I think they do deserve equal rights, for a variety of reasons stated elsewhere. Proving men and women not physically identical is insufficient to justify denying either sex rights.
dk: The differences between men and women are essentially human, for without the differences people couldn�t possibly exist.

(snip)
Kalkin: You can't strike down "death is good" as a strawman for feminism. Stop wasting space proving stuff like that, and start proving that feminism prescribes death. How does feminism "determine women by eliminating babies?" The only thing I can imagine you're referring to is abortion, but first the unborn aren't people, and second, abortion is only one feminist issue - even if feminists are wrong there, it doesn't mean that they are wrong in supporting equal marriages. No feminist supports death, they support abortion because they don't think that's death, and if they were somehow proven wrong they would change their stance on abortion not on death.
dk: I should have said radical feminists base women�s equality on their ability to control their reproductive cycle, therefore family planning becomes essential to equality, and abortion a backstop for failed birth control.

(snip)

Soundsurfr

September 2, 2003, 09:13 AM

dk: This is interesting, so let me digress into a story. After it became clear the earth was round, and not flat, Kings had no choice but to send out map makers out to resurvey their lands. The King of France commented (I paraphrase) upon the return of his mapmakers examined his Kingdom, �My God these map makers have taken from me more territory than all the armies of all my enemies, and yet they claim to serve my Kingdom!!!� My point is that the King was forced to accept the edicts of the map makers, no matter how bitter the pill, and illustrates the power of truth, the triumph of ideas over materialism.

This IS interesting, because I would have characterized this as the triumph of materialism (which forms the basis for the scientific principles that are now binding over the King) over abitrary ideas.

dk: When we detach truth from reality we deprive ourselves of power hence liberty (the discretionary exercise of power).

I think we would all agree with this statement. However much disagreement could arise in the definition of the word "truth".

September 2, 2003, 10:33 AM

Hey Kalkin, way to cut out the prattle.
dk: Only fictional people live in a fictional feminist world, based upon fictional human rights.
Kalkin: Now human rights are fictional? I thought you accused me of ignoring the power of ideas... sure, they're not concrete, but that doesn't mean they're not real or useful.
dk: Human Rights construed to low ball essential differences between men and women become a fiction because they don�t reflect human nature but a human aspirations. Feminists intellectuals like Beauvoir, Rand, Mead and Sanger spent their entire lives promulgating a conundrum of fictions. They shared one particular fiction, they based their hypothesis on an egotistical view of the individual. Thus egotism has become an inextricably theme across all Feminist political doctrine, from every perspective (right or left). I the I could show why this is necessary, but that would require an essay. Suffice it to say� A material world view (secular) begins inductively i.e. moving from the specific case to the general). When a pattern emerges, based on the evidence, it reveals a testable hypothesis. By testing hypothesis a general case can be confirmed, and the best general case becomes the best positive evidence. Egotism permits psychologists to construct a plausible hypothesis from a case by case clinical study, by treating each subject as an independent event suited to test a hypothesis. This is great news, because we can learn about human nature without cutting people to shreds like lab rats. The problem is that all people share gestalts that change from time to time unpredictably, and when a gestalt changes new independent variables emerge that invalidate all the previous experiments, essentially rendering them obsolete.

This is mind boggling, for example Mead goes to Samoa in the 1920s and proves all kinds revolutionary propositions i.e. its not gender stupid, its culture. This sets off all kinds of wheels spinning across the social sciences linking cultural antrhopology to gender roles and then to human development, to education, philosophy bla, bla bla and suddenly we are creatures in charge of our destiny, because culture determines gender roles. The problem is that Mead never proved anything, she pretended to prove something to create a fiction she believed was true. Mead was but one person, but her work was fundamental and via the Great Society become a fact of Law, under the order of the Supreme Court, and by stare decisis remains with us to this day. Clearly any law based on a fiction promulgates iniquity, and the systematic the law the more profound the inequity. And that Kalkin is what killed the Great Society of the 1960s, it was based on a fiction that people wanted to believe. .
Margaret Mead
1901-1978
American anthropologist

"Life in the twentieth century is like a parachute jump � you have to get it right the first time."
Introduction
In 1928 the publication of Coming of Age in Samoa, a study of adolescent behavior in a Polynesian society, by Margaret Mead changed American anthropology, the scientific study of human beings. The book became a best-seller as its American readers wanted to learn about sexual patterns among Samoan females. It brought its author to the forefront of American anthropology, where she would remain for half a century. ---- http://www.galegroup.com/free_resources/whm/bio/mead_m.htm

Today, 2003, Meads research doesn�t hold much water, but in 1970-80s was the gold standard for the Feminist Movement�

Paralleling scholarly trends in other areas of psychology, the role of culture in adolescent development has been recognized for some time. For example, soon after Hall's proclamation of adolescence as a period of Sturm und Drang (storm and stress), Margaret Mead published Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) in which she used a cultural case study to challenge Hall's notion. Such cross-cultural studies on adolescent development, however, were woefully few in number for most of the last century. Up until the 1950s, less than 5% of research on adolescence included cultural or cross-cultural elements. The proportion increased to 7% between the 1960s and 1980s. The past two decades, however, have witnessed a major surge: Cultural and cross-cultural research accounts for 14% of recent adolescent research ----Hall verses Mead (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/Chen_Farruggia.htm) .
In fact Halls proclamation (published 1916) has had more staying power than Mead, yet until her death nobody in the academic community dared challenged Mead, and she didn�t die until the 1980s. This had a tremendous effect upon a bludgeoning feminist movement that wanted to believe that men and women were equal, or not significantly different. That�s what happens when science and politics collide.

Kalkin: Human rights are different from and independent of legal rights. The concepts are pretty basic and simple - someone posted the UN universal declaration of human rights earlier, that's a pretty good definition I think. If the US' laws or foreign policy are flawed, and I agree both are, that doesn't mean the concept of human rights is bad.
And, the Supreme Court changes their opinions on controversial issues where the application of rights is hard to tell - they very rarely reverse major traditions. Only loonies like Roy Moore want to do that.
dk: The UN lacks the will, authority and power to enforce or define Human Rights. The Supreme Court of the US on the other hand has all the power of the US Government to back it up, and the US is the unchallenged superpower in the world. I�m not saying the UN DOHR lacks influence, but that its influence lacks the authority necessary to define Human Rights. Radical Feminists do love the UN as a fictional platform upon which to spin their fictional Human Rights. Understand I�m not against the UN or Feminism, my concern is for human rights. When HR are based on human nature they serve to protect people in the real world, verses human rights based on human aspirations that denigrate people under the guise of an egotistical Utopia.

Tell me,
How would you feel if the Supreme Court reversed Roe?
compared to
How do you feel about Muslim dress codes?

on a metaphysical scale from 1 to 10
1 Time to pick up our Guns Anne, from time to time liberty needs a little blood to grow
10 That�s ok with me!

September 2, 2003, 10:56 AM

dk:
This is interesting, so let me digress into a story. After it became clear the earth was round, and not flat, Kings had no choice but to send out map makers to resurvey their lands. The King of France commented (I paraphrase) upon the map makers return, �My God these map makers have taken more land from me than all the armies of all my enemies, and yet they claim to serve my Kingdom!!!� My point is that the King was forced to accept the edicts of the map makers, no matter how bitter the pill, and illustrates the power of truth, and the triumph of ideas over materialism. (edited)
Originally posted by Soundsurfr
This IS interesting, because I would have characterized this as the triumph of materialism (which forms the basis for the scientific principles that are now binding over the King) over abitrary ideas.
dk:
Opinion, but nothing changed in the material world, the change was in the King's head, so its an idea.

Also the idea, that materialism trumps ideas is what makes QM an empirical science. So the coin flips yielding heads and tails.

dk:
When we detach truth from reality we deprive ourselves of power hence liberty (the discretionary exercise of power).
Originally posted by Soundsurfr
I think we would all agree with this statement. However much disagreement could arise in the definition of the word "truth".
dk:
Close enough, the whole conversation rests on how truth connects to reality. Still my assertion is that Radical Feminists intentionally low ball differrences between men and women, and thereby detach Human Rights from Truth to create a fiction that serves no one's interests.

NonContradiction

September 2, 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Nothing is simple with liberals because there is no bottom line with them. It's all relative. Originally posted by Nowhere357
This is a lie, borne of deception or ignorance. Or both.

The only lies, deception, and ignorance here are those of the liberals. The liberal agenda of equality has been anything but about equality. In reality, blacks are preferred over whites, women over men, gays and lesbians over heterosexuals. The agenda of equality, which the liberals have adopted, has been nothing but reverse discriminatory. These are the lies of the liberals.

As far as ignorance is concerned, the liberals prey off of uneducated blacks and women etc. It's only because of the ignorance of people that liberals are able to continue to parade their false agenda for the cameras and deceive the ignorant. Once somebody "knows" that the agenda of equality is a farce, liberals lose. Liberals must prey upon the ignorance of the people.

Nowhere357

September 2, 2003, 02:33 PM

<snip rant>

Now answer the questions:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nc So what? Simply because the head of the household may follow the advice of the other spouse doesn't mean that he/she is no longer the head of household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does elevate a person to head of household, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nc Here we go again with the inflammatory rhetoric. Being head of household doesn't imply being THE BOSS. It doesn't imply that someone is controlling and domineering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it imply, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

September 2, 2003, 05:17 PM

dk: I don�t know how feminists can escape the pedagogical issues, for example kiddy porn has become a big problem in the US. Feminists say nothing, except lock your kids up and don�t let them outside.
Soundsurfr: Huh? Feminists are not against kiddie porn?
dk: Is that a statement or a question? huh?

dk: The West protects the access of perverts to the public square, and the perverts exploit children.
Soundsurfr: As a practice? Since when?
dk: Since obscenity laws have been on the books.

dk: How do you answer Muslims that don�t want their children exploited by perverts in the public square?
Soundsurfr: Straw man argument. The exploitation of children by perverts is illegal, whether in the public square or elsewhere.
dk: Illegal? Yes/No... Kiddy porn is digital on the Internet, but virtual kiddy porn is legal and indistinguishable from real kiddy porn. Law enforcement is caught in a vice between �the presumption of innocents� and the perfect crime. The point is Muslim Nations have a legitimate grievance, so no straw-man. Obviously Muslims have concerns about cultural pollution, and so do many people in Western Nations. A Government�s inability to address a legitimate grievance by citizenry poses a very serious problem.

(snip)

Soundsurfr: But in response to the comment that there's no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws - there's no escaping oppression in a religious society governed by religious laws. If dk calls what we have in the West "egotism", I'll take egotism over oppression any day.
dk: I think you have a legitimate point, though overstated. Theocracies and secular governments are both very danderous because the power stems from one source in secularism, and in a Theocracy power is centralized in one seat.

dk: Secular courts have no place else to go except to moral laws, and they have been discarded by science as metaphysical nonsense.
Soundsurfr: Nonsense blather. What has been discarded by science as metaphysical nonsense is the idea that a court can somehow appeal to God for guidance on legal issues. Secular courts apply the law as framed in the Constitution. The Constitution applies a philosophy based on the rights and freedoms of the individual and a particular aversion to oppression of the people by government authority, especially religious government authority. I can see that a society without an authoritative religious government control over the people doesn't appeal to you, dk, but that's the way this country is set up and the vast majority of us will fight to the death to keep it that way.
dk: What kind of 3-D glasses allow the judges to see penumbra privacy rights hidden in the shadows of the Constitutional Text�answer: SC jurists don�t use 3-D glasses, they use the power of judicial review to see their own opinion.

dk: The courts assess harm on positive evidence, and the only acceptable source of positive evidence follows science.
Soundsurfr: Correct. What would be a better source of positive evidence in a court of law in your opinion? Your particular religious views? The religious views of the majority religion?
dk: I have two concerns�
1. positive knowledge is unreliable.
2. other souses of knowledge have proven to be reliable.
It seems our jurist our poor horse traders, besides being arrogant and opinionated.

dk: In the science of psychiatry egotism dominates the landscape, so it�s a lock. All the soft (human) sciences accept egotism as their base, from criminology to political science.
Soundsurfr: If you mean human sciences require objective evidence as their basis for information, then you're right. In some twisted way, you find that offensive and label it *egotism*.
dk: I mean psychiatry has no rational basis apart from of egotism, and no material basis at all.

dk: From an egotistical perspective it is hypocritical for non Muslim nations to abolish Muslim dress codes in Muslim nations.
Kalkin: I don't know about from an egotistical perspective, but from my perspective, you're right, it's hypocritical. That's why I don't want to abolish Muslim dress codes, I only want to prevent Muslims from forcing them on others and hopefully convince Muslims to abandon them.
dk: I agree, persuasion respects everyone�s dignity.

dk: Be honest, you don�t care about Moslem women and children,
Soundsurfr: Why would you say that?
dk: That was an inflammatory question that doesn�t deserve a response. .

dk: it�s the patriarchic family that offends you, not the Moslem dress codes or starving children.
Soundsurfr: That's not only a disingenuous, presumptuous thing to say to Kalkin, it's insulting. You religionists think you have a monopoly on compassion and goodwill. And you call everyone else egotists!
dk: I agree.

dk: NC is right, radical feminists have folded their hatred of the patriarchic family (based on egotism) into a Marxist utopia.
Soundsurfr: NC is delusional, and so are you. There aren't any radical feminists or Marxists participating in this conversation.
dk: I don�t think you or Kalkin are radical or Marxists, but I wanted affirmation.

dk: The idea is simple� open sex, family planning, and autonomous unisex individuals will lead to world socialism�
Soundsurfr: That idea is preposterous and yet another straw man. It has not been espoused or even suggested by the comments of anyone involved in this discussion. I don't speak for the others, but I'm a capitalist and I don't practice *open sex*. I see great benefits in family planning, but they have nothing to do with world socialism. Why must you put false ideologies in people's mouths? Is that what you have to resort to in order to forward your agenda?
dk: The idea may well be preposterous, but there have been several highly acclaimed books written on the subject by Marxists, see Herbert Marcuse.

NonContradiction

September 2, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The only lies, deception, and ignorance here are those of the liberals. The liberal agenda of equality has been anything but about equality. In reality, blacks are preferred over whites, women over men, gays and lesbians over heterosexuals. The agenda of equality, which the liberals have adopted, has been nothing but reverse discriminatory. These are the lies of the liberals.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
<snip rant>

You may dismiss it as merely a rant, but you have failed to address the points I have raised.

Nowhere357

September 2, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You may dismiss it as merely a rant, but you have failed to address the points I have raised.
It was a rant. Meanwhile, I asked questions and asked them first.

But whatever:

The only lies, deception, and ignorance here are those of the liberals.
Sure, this isn't a rant. :rolleyes:

The liberal agenda of equality has been anything but about equality. In reality, blacks are preferred over whites, women over men, gays and lesbians over heterosexuals. The agenda of equality, which the liberals have adopted, has been nothing but reverse discriminatory.
In reality, blacks, women, and gays are still trying to get equal treatment. Part of the process seems to be reverse discrimination types of laws.

These are the lies of the liberals.
Then fight against unjust reverse discrimination laws. :p

Now answer the questions:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nc So what? Simply because the head of the household may follow the advice of the other spouse doesn't mean that he/she is no longer the head of household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does elevate a person to head of household, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nc Here we go again with the inflammatory rhetoric. Being head of household doesn't imply being THE BOSS. It doesn't imply that someone is controlling and domineering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it imply, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

alek0

September 2, 2003, 07:19 PM

What points?

That only lies are lies of liberals? Of couse conservatives never lie :rolleyes: Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, anyone?

Blacks are preferred over whites? How so? Existing gaps in education, income, quality of health care are not in favor of blacks.

Women are preferred over men? How so? Would you care for example to explain discrepancy between number of female graduate students and female academic staff members? How many women are there in Congress and Senate?

Homosexuals are preferred over heterosexuals? How so? In most places, are denied the benefits which heterosexual couples have.

Also, if homosexuals are preferred, why don't you become one? If you believe that sexual prientation is chosen and not genetic, and that homosexuals have it so good, solution is simple.

Now that I have addressed "points" you raised, can you answer some of my questions:

1. How does head of the household ensure that his decisions are obeyed?

2. Should women be beaten (provided they are beaten lightly)?

3. Can a woman refuse to have sex with her husband if she doesn't feel like it?

4. Why should testimony of a woman be worth half that of a man?

5. Can a person stop being a Muslim? What is the presribed punishment for being an apostate?

6. What exactly is a problem if society is more liberal than you are? You can always be more conservative, the society does not limit your right to be as conservative as you wish. The only "problem" is that you cannot impose your conservative beliefs on others. Why should you have the right to impose your more conservative beliefs on others?

7. What is wrong with women choosing how to dress on their own? No, don't bring up Turkey again, nobody supports forbidding them Islamic dress, just letting them choose how they want to dress instead of being forced.

NonContradiction

September 2, 2003, 09:59 PM

Dr. Mary Klages, Associate Professor of English, University of Colorado at Boulder

In order to understand poststructuralist feminist theories' contributions to the ideas we've been building so far this semester, we need to start by talking about the word "feminism." What is it? We listed a variety of associations on the board, most of which had to do with popular cultural representations of feminism, some of which were positive and some of which were negative. Let me give you a more academic, and perhaps more neutral or non-political, approach.

Start with the idea that gender is a cultural universal: all societies mark gender distinctions in some way, though of course all societies make those markings differently. So feminist thought asks whether gender is biological or cultural--is it innate and "natural" or is it socially constructed? Is anatomy destiny, as Freud asserted, so that genetics, biology, morphology, physiology, and brain chemistry determine social roles for men and women, so that what is biologically male is by definition masculine, and what is biologically female is by definition feminine? Is gender then essential, eternal, natural, god-given, unchangeable, and true? OR (and most feminist thought favors this answer) is gender socially constructed, therefore variable, mutable, not necessarily correlated with anatomical or genetic determinants?

I agree with Dr. Mary Klages that gender in feminist theory tends to be socially constructed, and as we all know, what can be constructed can be deconstructed. Men can be feminized and women can be masculinized.

My (Mary Klages) own political note here: look at how the rhetoric of Western U.S. feminism is being used in the current portrayals of our "war" against terrorism and the bombing of Afghanistan. The Taliban are evil in part because of how they "enslave" women, and Western efforts to defeat the Taliban are phrased in terms of "liberating" the Afghani/Muslim women who are "imprisoned" within their overtly and strictly patriarchal culture.

That is an interesting comment by Dr. Mary Lages. Yes, this discussion isn't just about how Muslim women dress. It's about feminist ideology and its impact on the patriarchal societies throughout the whole world. It's not about equality at all. It's about destabilizing the center, which thereby creates play (there is no fixed meaning anymore), leaving society to drift aimlessly. Without a center, gender roles have no FIXED meaning.

Take the binary opposition male/female, or masculine/feminine. The first term of the binary opposition is usually the preferred term, which functions as a center thereby fixing the meaning and marginalizing the "other" term. For example, in a patriarchal society, men would be at the center and women would be marginalized. In a matriarchal society, women would be at the center and men would be marginalized. One could, theoretically, have a society where there are no social constructs, but I don't see how, in reality, that society could ever function.

The same scenario plays out when we talk about heterosexuality/homosexuality. Heterosexuality is usually the preferred term in most social constructs of most socieities. Queer theory challenges this bias with the desired result of destabilizing the center, in this case heterosexuality, thereby introducing play so that homosexuality is no longer marginalized. People then speak about sexuality rather heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. It's all sexuality, and no one form of sexuality is preferred over another.

If liberals want to conduct their social experiments of deconstruction/construction upon society, then count me and my family out. I am not going to allow these sick people to impose their twisted agenda upon Muslim families.
.

Kalkin

September 2, 2003, 11:11 PM

Kalkin: Please explain in what way human rights are egocentric.
You don't argue with me here - do you agree that equality doesn't cause conflict and isn't prevented by the potential for conflict?
dk: Egocentric is the opposite of common sense. In a world with common sense people share the same gestalt, in an egocentric world everyone�s the center of their own universe.

This still doesn't explain how feminism/human rights are egocentric - this is the first time you've mentioned "common sense," you haven't proved human rights violate it.

Kalkin: Now you sound like you're supporting the potential of compromise after all - yes, the husband shouldn't force the wife to do things, and yes, the wife should take into account what her husband wants.
dk: I don�t have a problem with compromise.

But you say households need a head - if compromise can solve most problems, then that's false.

Kalkin: Yes, but human rights don't ignore child bearing and rearing - children have different rights, parents have rights regarding their children, etcetera. Giving women equality is not in any way equivalent to ignoring reproduction.
dk: An egotist would say parents usurp children�s rights to imprint a slave mentality, and many do.

I love the way when I answer one argument, instead of defending it directly, you shift to another. When I answer that, you shift again. You now concede that human rights don't ignore child rearing?

What do the opinions of egotists have to do with anything?

You're misunderstanding me, I have no problem with equality, my problem is with inequity. You�re the one that claims a patriarchal family is an inequity because men and women are the same, so headship should be shared. It�s a fiction, and when feminists ground human rights in a fiction they become an inequity, not equal.

It's not a fiction that patriarchal families are an inequity - men and women are similar enough, and differences are fluid enough and culturally determined enough, that it's unjust discrimination to give members of one group authority over members of another simply because of their membership in that group.

Kalkin: It's an interesting moral point, but you still haven't related it to our discussion. I already said twice I'm not advocating egoism. And, I like the presumption of innocence, sure, but that's for criminal trials, and has nothing to do with women's rights.
dk: The presumption of innocence is a fiction like the feminists egotistical perspective of human rights. [snip reasons why]

I disagree about the presumption of innocence, but that's totally off topic. Instead of giving me red herrings, how about you give me some evidence for your assertion that feminism is egotistical?

Kalkin: Ah, now I understand where you're going with this human rights and human nature stuff. The thing is, I'm not detaching human rights from human nature. Each right we give to people comes from a need determined by human nature. But, human rights are determined by our similarities, not our differences. Some things, like skill at leadership and lack of skill at leadership turn up in any group of humans, so equal rights of leadership must be given to all classes, even if there were some slight average difference.
dk: That sounds good, but it�s an egotistical fiction. In fact Nixon got a pardon, Clinton pardoned hundreds of fat cats at the end of his term, for money. People are not equal, so writing and interpreting laws based on a fiction serves no one but the crooks. In a common sense world character does matter, not because of our similarities, but because of our differences. Everyone should be treated equal under the law because people are different, not made equal by the law because they are the same, the former is reality and the latter is a fiction.

Of course people vary - that's part of my argument. As you say, "everyone should be treated equal under the law because people are different" - that includes men and women. The rights we get under the law come from our similarities, our identical needs, as I explain above, but equal application to all is needed because of variation. Because individuals vary so much, it's unjust to treat them differently on the basis of membership in a group - everyone regardless of gender should get the same basic rights.

dk: Women should be treated equal under the Law, because they are different from men. Chew on that for a while from a common sense perspective with respect to freedom and liberty. How can people in a free country be equal under the law when males and females are different?

See above - even if males and females were different, the individual character differences which you were harping on are my reason why all groups must be treated identically.

dk: Ok, but the differences between men and women are real? answer: Yes, and sports teams barely scratch the surface. Just as it would be wrong to allow boys to play on a girl�s volleyball team, it�s wrong to ignore differences between men and women with respect to human rights. The disparities between the races are misnomers, while the disparities between the sexes are essentially human.

Physical differences are all that matter for sports, and I admit those are real, as I've said before. But, their existence doesn't prove the intellectual difference which would be required to justify abrogating rights. You have to prove that sports teams barely scratch the surface, and that whatever makes a woman different is nearly universal in women, before you can say men must be the heads of households.

Kalkin: I asked for evidence that feminists were egoists, not that egoism was bad [snip extras].
dk: Ok, two acclaimed feminist philosophers, from the Right Ayn Rand�s and the left Simone de Beauvoir, though Beauvoir took a more Hegelian approach by inventing the other-self to amend Freud�s super ego with the primacy of freedom.

Ayn Rand is not a mainstream feminist - she has her own wierd way of getting to feminism accepted by almost no feminist activist. And while Beauvoir does have a lot of influence on modern feminism, she believed in a variant of existentialism, which is not moral egoism - even you admit her philosphy was more complex than that. You need to explain exactly how the ideology of feminism is egocentric - not just list philosophers and assert that they were egoists.

Kalkin: If you think that the right to abolish something without the consent of its practitioners necessarily follows from the right to judge something bad, you are neither agreeing with me nor correct. I don't think I have the right to force any Muslim to change their dress, only to stop them from forcing other people to meet their dress standards.
dk: I�m pointing out the hypocrisy feminists rationalize. Feminists don�t judge squat, they dogmatically brand the patriarchal family an inequity then look for the nearest wrecking ball to tear it down. Radical feminists hide behind co-ship and equality to escape culpability for the deceptions they rationalize.

You shift completely away from your argument again. And, I just showed that I (and most feminists) don't believe in the right to abolish Muslim dress codes, meaning you have zero support for your assertion that feminists are hypocrites.

How exactly do you know that there is no rational judgement behind feminists rejection of patriarchy? Even if they were wrong, that wouldn't mean that they make no attempt to justify themselves objectively. I thought we already agreed to stop attacking our process of getting to our conclusions.

[snip]prattle - I agree if feminism was dishonest it would be bad

dk: How do you feel about giving Muslims right to abolish public displays of undergarments?
Kalkin: I don't think Muslims have that right, as I explained - the right to judge is not the right to abolish without consent.
dk: I don�t know how feminists can escape the pedagogical issues, for example kiddy porn has become a big problem in the US. Feminists say nothing, except lock your kids up and don�t let them outside. My liberty ends where your freedom begins, and everyone has an obligation to keep the public square safe for children. The West protects the access of perverts to the public square, and the perverts exploit children. How do you answer Muslims that don�t want their children exploited by perverts in the public square?

Um, kiddy porn is illegal in the US. The problem is the internet, not politics.

If you're talking about some other feminist-supported "perversions," name them, so I can argue about whether they're perversions worthy of banning and whether feminism supports them.

Kalkin: Again, please provide evidence to support your assertion that feminists are egotistical.
dk: There�s no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws. Secular courts have no place else to go except to moral laws, and they have been discarded by science as metaphysical nonsense. The courts assess harm on positive evidence, and the only acceptable source of positive evidence follows science. In the science of psychiatry egotism dominates the landscape, so it�s a lock. All the soft (human) sciences accept egotism as their base, from criminology to political science.

Ok, now you're trying to prove secularism is egotistical. You haven't showed specifically that feminism is bad. If you want to argue that all secularism is bad and feminism is bad merely because it's secular, start a new thread on church/state seperation.

And, secularism doesn't leave egotism as the only option for morality, there are many other possibilities. The "athiests are immoral" argument is old and has been repeatedly disproven - look at some other threads on this forum, maybe Alonzo Fyfe's.

dk: Be honest, you don�t care about Moslem women and children, it�s the patriarchic family that offends you, not the Moslem dress codes or starving children. NC is right, radical feminists have folded their hatred of the patriarchic family (based on egotism) into a Marxist utopia. The idea is simple� open sex, family planning, and autonomous unisex individuals will lead to world socialism� �to each according to their needs, from each according their abilities�. Communism promoted an armed conflict that would erupt into a world revolution, and radical feminists support Herbert Marcus�s theory that a sexual revolution will destroy the bourgeois capitalistic institutions with love, because all men really want is sex.

Nothing true in this whole rant... the patriarchal family offends me because it harms Muslim women. My hatred isn't based on egotism. I'm not a Marxist or a violent revolutionary. See elsewhere. If you're going to keep bringing these arguments back up, you need to support them - no one has answered my reasons why I'm not a Marxist, and you've never given any reasons why feminism, as an ideology, is inherently egotistical.

[snip]irrelevancies about radical environmentalists

[snip]irrelevancies about the media

dk: But I�m not an egotist, but a Christian.
Kalkin: False dichotomy. I'm neither - well, maybe I'm egotistical, but my philosophy isn't.
dk: Ok, but whatever else human beings are, we are complex creatures with many facades and dimensions easily lead astray by novelties, emotions and false promises made with the best of intentions.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with feminism being egotistical - and since you're basing most of your arguments against feminism off of that theory, you really need to prove it.

[snip]more rather incomprehensible and certainly irrelevant attacks on egotism

Kalkin: Um, feminists are against taking leadership positions? No, they're only against the idea that one gender should be granted control over another. No one is rejecting all forms of authority - I already had this discussion with NC. Feminists take political power when they can get it.
dk: Women take leadership, not feminists. Radical Feminism lead by promoting the necessity of abortion as a prerequisite to equality, hence builds itself upon a platform of death. This sounds extreme, but when a women takes the liberty to destroy her own child she deprives the world and herself of a future she can�t possibly judge, unless she�s omnipotent. In doing so she commits her life to a fiction detached from reality, a fiction that manifests real consequences that deprive people of potential and judgement. Had she carried and delivered the child the whole course of her life changes whereas once she destroys the child there�s no possible way to evaluate the consequences. Who knows, maybe the day after the medical abortion she would have miscarried. This is not egalitarian, but that women�s whole life changed when she destroyed her child, and she can�t recover the potential she destroyed, no matter what she thinks, judges or does. Had the kid been allowed to live he/she might have become the joy of her mom�s life, or a home wrecker, who knows. But whatever happens the common sense gestalt never changes, my liberty justifies death, and death therefore becomes a solution to the problem of liberty i.e. my right to liberty supersedes your right to life. So I contend that radical feminism elevates equality above life to solve the problem of liberty with death. First� liberty in my mind liberty isn�t a problem because my liberty ends where your freedom begins. Second, death is never a viable solution to a human problems because individuals, families,,, nations grow and prosper by solving problems with life affirming solutions, and are ruined by the first insolvable problem. Freedom and liberty force a person to practice the art of active judgment, and it is by an act of judgment that problem statements unmask root causes, and to solve any problem effectively one must address the root cause. I mean lets be honest, we Feminists can resolve the world�s overpopulation and poverty problems by sterilizing all poor people, and if not why not?

Another random shift, this time away from attacking feminists for rejecting authority and to attacking abortion.

As I said the last time you brought up abortion, this is the wrong thread for that debate and even if abortion were wrong, that would only disprove one feminist idea - the feminist stance for abortion is not necessary to our stance against patriarchy.

But, I can't resist pointing out that your arguments against abortion all either assume that fetuses are alive without supporting that assertion, or apply to any decision - if we shouldn't deprive ourselves of any possible future because we're not omnipotent, we'd have to choose all possible futures, which is impossible - there's nothing so different about abortion's affect on a woman's future from the effect of her decision on, say, a husband - until you prove a fetus is alive.

Kalkin: I don't understand you here, sorry. How is saying headship involves dominance and inequality leads to inequity hypocritical? How does that lead to refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of actions while in power? Look, if I'm right that failure, however you define it, is extremely improbable for equality in marriage, for a variety of reasons I've stated elsewhere, then there is no real possibility of failure I need to acknowledge. What's hypocritical about arguing that feminism won't fail?
dk: First of �all human institutions� contain headship, and dissolve absent headship. That makes headship a problem, not an equity or a liability. Second, therefore to deprive the nuclear family of headship dissolves the nuclear family.

Shifting again - from attacking feminists for being hypocritical and refusing to accept the consequences of their actions to defending headship.

I'm not going to try to deal with your ridiculous assertion that all human institutions involve single-person headship - others on this thread already are. Get specific to marriage again and I'll talk.

Kalkin: Whatever you're shifting, it does sound like you're no longer saying that remedying inequalities is unfair to men, which is good because that's false.
dk: I see inequalities as a problem, but not necessarily a problem of equality.

Whatever, I'm going to count this as an abandonment of your former position that depriving men of headship is unfair to them, because you keep failing to defend it.

dk: Even in a systematic approach inequalities can be meaningful for example. z < x > y. Clearly inequities can be meaningful therefore just, and this does not imply that all inequalities are equitable.
Kalkin: Where do you get this "meaningful therefore just" standard? The statement that "I will kill you tomorow" is certainly meaningful, does that mean it's just?"
dk: Actually that is the basis of Aquinas�s 1st Principles. The composition of reality differs from the mental composition, by a degree of �whatness�. Yet, we all experience moments of intellectual clarity where abstractions and forms resonate to assert certainty. I�m not sure exactly �whatness� makes 1 + 1 = 2, but I know it with certainty, hence I have no intellectual choice but to accept it.

[snip]story

Interesting story, although I've heard it before - my history teacher likes that kind of thing. But, the importance of truth doesn't prove that meaningful means just. Perhaps truth is a prerequisite for justice, but that doesn't mean any true statement is just (go back to my "I'm going to kill you tomorow" example), and not all "meaningful" statements are truthful. Yes, the concept of "inequality" is meaningful, but that comes nowhere close to proving that inequality between men and women is just.

Yet, were we to discover after telling the tale the King was really a Queen, it changes nothing.

I don't know what you meant by this, but what I see as its meaning is that someone's sex should be irrelevant to the position they hold.

dk:

1. men are psychically stronger than women,
doesn�t imply
2. men are superior to women
rather
3. Men and women are different,
therefore
4. men are more vulnerable than women in some areas
women are more vulnerable than men in some areas
i.e. men complement women

I�m saying men complement women, and visa versa, and therefore equitable, but not equal.
Kalkin: I assume you meant "physically," not "psychically," unless you're a believer in ESP.
While I agree that men and women are not equal in that they're not identical, I think they do deserve equal rights, for a variety of reasons stated elsewhere. Proving men and women not physically identical is insufficient to justify denying either sex rights.
dk: The differences between men and women are essentially human, for without the differences people couldn�t possibly exist.

If there were differences between men and women, they would be essentially human, but this is irrelevant. That doesn't prove either that there are differences or that if there were, they would justify different treatment. I've explained my position on this elsewhere.

[snip]more abortion stuff

[snip]unsupported prattle about feminism being fiction

[snip]irrelevancies about the science of psychology

This is mind boggling, for example Mead goes to Samoa in the 1920s and proves all kinds revolutionary propositions i.e. its not gender stupid, its culture. This sets off all kinds of wheels spinning across the social sciences linking cultural antrhopology to gender roles and then to human development, to education, philosophy bla, bla bla and suddenly we are creatures in charge of our destiny, because culture determines gender roles. The problem is that Mead never proved anything, she pretended to prove something to create a fiction she believed was true. Mead was but one person, but her work was fundamental and via the Great Society become a fact of Law, under the order of the Supreme Court, and by stare decisis remains with us to this day. Clearly any law based on a fiction promulgates iniquity, and the systematic the law the more profound the inequity. And that Kalkin is what killed the Great Society of the 1960s, it was based on a fiction that people wanted to believe. .
Margaret Mead
1901-1978
American anthropologist

"Life in the twentieth century is like a parachute jump � you have to get it right the first time."
Introduction
In 1928 the publication of Coming of Age in Samoa, a study of adolescent behavior in a Polynesian society, by Margaret Mead changed American anthropology, the scientific study of human beings. The book became a best-seller as its American readers wanted to learn about sexual patterns among Samoan females. It brought its author to the forefront of American anthropology, where she would remain for half a century. ---- http://www.galegroup.com/free_resou.../bio/mead_m.htm

Today, 2003, Meads research doesn�t hold much water, but in 1970-80s was the gold standard for the Feminist Movement�

Paralleling scholarly trends in other areas of psychology, the role of culture in adolescent development has been recognized for some time. For example, soon after Hall's proclamation of adolescence as a period of Sturm und Drang (storm and stress), Margaret Mead published Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) in which she used a cultural case study to challenge Hall's notion. Such cross-cultural studies on adolescent development, however, were woefully few in number for most of the last century. Up until the 1950s, less than 5% of research on adolescence included cultural or cross-cultural elements. The proportion increased to 7% between the 1960s and 1980s. The past two decades, however, have witnessed a major surge: Cultural and cross-cultural research accounts for 14% of recent adolescent research ----Hall verses Mead .
In fact Halls proclamation (published 1916) has had more staying power than Mead, yet until her death nobody in the academic community dared challenged Mead, and she didn�t die until the 1980s. This had a tremendous effect upon a bludgeoning feminist movement that wanted to believe that men and women were equal, or not significantly different. That�s what happens when science and politics collide.

Finally, you provide your evidence that feminists are wrong about the cultural construction of gender. The problem is, it's really bad evidence. While you say lots of things to imply Mead is wrong, the only thing you bring up to support that is an assertion that she is now generally believed wrong about adolescence. I really have no idea if this is true, but even if so, it doesn't prove her wrong about gender. If you want me to believe that she was incompetant or mistated her results, you need to be much more specific in your attacks. All your whining about how she was unquestioned by scientists only makes her more credible - after all, her work was revolutionary and certainly against the general beliefs of her time. If she was really so wrong, how did she convert all those scientists who started out against her, and why is she still accepted by mainstream anthropology after 80 years?

dk: The UN lacks the will, authority and power to enforce or define Human Rights. The Supreme Court of the US on the other hand has all the power of the US Government to back it up, and the US is the unchallenged superpower in the world. I�m not saying the UN DOHR lacks influence, but that its influence lacks the authority necessary to define Human Rights. Radical Feminists do love the UN as a fictional platform upon which to spin their fictional Human Rights. Understand I�m not against the UN or Feminism, my concern is for human rights. When HR are based on human nature they serve to protect people in the real world, verses human rights based on human aspirations that denigrate people under the guise of an egotistical Utopia.

You shift again. I was answering your argument that human rights are fictional because no one knows theirs, and you now attack them because they aren't enforced.

But, SCOTUS' power doesn't make it the determiner of human rights. It only makes it the determiner of legal rights. I already made this distinction, and you ignored it. Human rights are a moral concept and their definition has nothing to do with who enforces what - the basic rights are generally agreed upon and the UN DOHR states them pretty well.

Although the next stuff is irrelevant, I'll answer your questions anyway so you can't accuse me of being evasive:

Tell me,
How would you feel if the Supreme Court reversed Roe?
compared to
How do you feel about Muslim dress codes?

on a metaphysical scale from 1 to 10
1 Time to pick up our Guns Anne, from time to time liberty needs a little blood to grow
10 That�s ok with me!

On Roe, maybe a 3 - I'd be very angry that the Supreme Court was violating women's human right to control their own bodies in order to grant "human" rights to non-sentient, not-yet-human fetuses.

On Muslim dress codes, I'm not sure what you mean - if you're asking how I would feel if someone tried to enforce them on everyone in the US, I'd say 1. If you mean other countries enforcing them on their own people, I'd say 5 - I don't like it, but there's not much I can do. If you mean people voluntarily following them, I'd say 8 - I think they're a bad symbol, but women have the right to wear what they want.

Oh, and NC, I just read your last post - as bad as usual. Yes, feminists want to destabilize oppressive conceptions of gender and LGBT activists want to destabilize oppressive conceptions of sexuality. So? We're not going to believe that's sick just because you say so. And sure, keep your family out of it. Any liberal would say that's ok, as long as your family agrees. But, that doesn't mean you should enforce your beliefs on gays or women who want power... there's no reason why keeping your family out of it isn't enough.

[edited to fix html]

Nowhere357

September 3, 2003, 12:50 AM

If liberals want to conduct their social experiments of deconstruction/construction upon society, then count me and my family out. I am not going to allow these sick people to impose their twisted agenda upon Muslim families.
Meaningless rant. Every objection you have raised has been refuted, and at the core your system is simply abusive towards women. Your failure to address these questions is proof of that:

What does elevate a person to head of household, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement? What does it imply, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?

The head has the right to enforce, but the free man has no right to enforce on the free woman. You have lost here.

On this subject you have nothing left to offer but meaningless ranting.

Nowhere357

September 3, 2003, 12:57 AM

I thought this deserves to be highlighted.
Kalkin: I love the way when I answer one argument, instead of defending it directly, you shift to another. When I answer that, you shift again.
nc's position is invalid and unsound, and his dodging is symptomatic of that. His posts value obfuscation over clarity, and obviously (30+!) value quantity over quality. He lost this argument a long time ago.

September 3, 2003, 04:33 AM

Fluffy

September 3, 2003, 09:32 AM

DK and NC, please answer Nowhere357's questions or admit defeat :
�What does elevate a person to head of household, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement? What does it imply, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?�

Also, DK and NC, if you had the power to create the perfect society, what would it look like?

NonContradiction

September 3, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Meaningless rant. Every objection you have raised has been refuted, and at the core your system is simply abusive towards women.

Well. of course, I would expect you to declare nothing less than a victory here. These issues are not going to be decided in an internet forum. These issues are going to be decided in the real world, among the masses, so if I were you, I would concentrate on what has been good about the track record of the liberals in America. It certainly hasn't been all bad, but there is a lot to criticize there, also.

For one thing, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society turned out to be a Great Disaster. Would any liberals here care to suggest another "war on poverty?" I didn't think so. Because of the failed policies of the Great Society, one would be hard-pressed to find any politician who would classify himself as an "economic liberal." As a matter of fact, the dfference between Democrats and Republicans has become less and less. Bill Clinton signed many welfare reform acts while in office, and Arnold Shwartzenegger(?) supports Gay rights. They have all become, for the most part, social liberals and economic conservatives.

I don't think that the economic can be separated so easily from the social. The social hierarchy of the 50's has all but been completely destroyed. Yes, there are throwbacks to that era - social conservatives like the Christian fundamentalists - but for the most part, they are homeless people. They are social conservatives in a liberal society. The deconstruction of the conservative society of the 50's has had a tremendous impact on the economy. The disintegration of the traditional family has created numerous social problems, which has placed great pressure upon the economy. Our economic bucket has a hole in it, and sooner or later, we will all have to face these social problems.

The liberal strategy here has been to attack the conservatives from among the Christians and Muslims in order to divert attention away from their own failures. The liberals need to face the truth - the social hierarchy, or lack of hierarchy, that they have constructed over the last 40 to 50 years, after having deconstructed the old conservative society, simply isn't working and will never work. It seems as though the social hierarchy of the 50's has been completely inverted by the liberals. Children are telling their parents what to do, wives are telling their husbands what to do, and special interest groups are telling our government what to do. As I have said before, the tail is wagging the dog here, and sooner or later, this society will implode by itself. Russia destroyed itself, and it sure appears as though America is heading down the same path of self-destruction.

The liberals can bash Islam all they want by calling it sexist and oppressive. It wasn't Islam that created the family crisis that America is experiencing right now. Yes, perhaps many of the problems can be traced back to the old Christian conservative society of the 50's, but the liberals have had enough time to show us some improvement. If anything, the problems are worse now than ever have been before, and I blame the liberals more than anybody else. George Bush is going to be blamed for the politico-economic problems in this country right now because he is the President. He cannot blame the problems right now on past-President Bill Clinton. Similarly, the liberals cannot continue to blame the social problems - the family crisis in America - on the old Christian conservative society of the 50's.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You have lost here.

I had nothing to lose, so I don't know what you are talking about. I have no power or influence in America. On the other hand, you, as liberals, have everything to lose if you don't start defending your track record and stop scaring people about how bad Islam is.

Nowhere357

September 3, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I had nothing to lose, so I don't know what you are talking about. I have no power or influence in America. On the other hand, you, as liberals, have everything to lose if you don't start defending your track record and stop scaring people about how bad Islam is.
Freedom opposes tyranny and speaks for itself. This thread has been about (pay close attention here) the tyranny of Muslim nations when they discriminate against women.

You have argued that the discrimination is justified. You have failed to demonstrate that, and you have lost the argument. There is no justification for the continued discrimination of women.

NonContradiction

September 3, 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Freedom opposes tyranny and speaks for itself. This thread has been about (pay close attention here) the tyranny of Muslim nations when they discriminate against women.

You have argued that the discrimination is justified. You have failed to demonstrate that, and you have lost the argument. There is no justification for the continued discrimination of women.

Declare yourself the winner. Do you think that it really makes a difference? Islam is here to stay in America, and there are people, many of them WOMEN, who are coming into Islam every day. Are these women too stupid to see what you claim? Many of them are very well educated women. Perhaps, they see something that you don't? Why is it so difficult for myopic liberals to see that the liberal society here in America doesn't treat women or families very well?

You have your definition of what oppression is, and Islam has its own definition. You to your definition and Islam to its own.

Soundsurfr

September 3, 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The only lies, deception, and ignorance here are those of the liberals.

<deleted - you can point out that NonContradiction's statements are false, but calling NC a liar is against the behavior rules. Address the arguments, not the person>

NonContradiction

September 3, 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Fluffy
DK and NC, please answer Nowhere357's questions or admit defeat :
�What does elevate a person to head of household, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement? What does it imply, other than the right/responsibility to administer punishment/physical enforcement?�

Also, DK and NC, if you had the power to create the perfect society, what would it look like?

Let's talk about what is wrong with the current liberal society that we are living in now. Unless liberals are willing to admit that there are problems, then what good is it to talk about solutions?

Soundsurfr

September 3, 2003, 01:02 PM

dk: How do you answer Muslims that don�t want their children exploited by perverts in the public square?
Soundsurfr: Straw man argument. The exploitation of children by perverts is illegal, whether in the public square or elsewhere.
dk: Illegal? Yes/No... Kiddy porn is digital on the Internet, but virtual kiddy porn is legal and indistinguishable from real kiddy porn.

I don't know that means. The exploitation of children for pornographic purposes is illegal.

dk: Law enforcement is caught in a vice between �the presumption of innocents� and the perfect crime. The point is Muslim Nations have a legitimate grievance, so no straw-man.

I don't understand what the real or perceived proliferation of kiddie porn has to do with the presumpton of innoncence in US jurisprudence. Just as much kiddie porn comes from countries where there is no presumption of innocence in the court systems. And why were we talking about Muslim nations and their grievances regarding virtual kiddie porn in the first place? Could you maybe tie this back to the patriarchal family discussion? I can't seem to do it.

dk: Obviously Muslims have concerns about cultural pollution, and so do many people in Western Nations. A Government�s inability to address a legitimate grievance by citizenry poses a very serious problem.

I agree. What course of action would you propose? I've noticed that, while you are quite skilled in the art of pointing out problems with Western society, culture and government, your penchant for voicing suggestions aimed at addressing said problems seems weak.

Soundsurfr: But in response to the comment that there's no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws - there's no escaping oppression in a religious society governed by religious laws. If dk calls what we have in the West "egotism", I'll take egotism over oppression any day.
dk: I think you have a legitimate point, though overstated. Theocracies and secular governments are both very danderous because the power stems from one source in secularism, and in a Theocracy power is centralized in one seat.

The power of the US government does not stem from one source. And unlike any theocracy, there are deliberate checks and counterchecks on the powers of our particular government. They are there because our country's founders understood very well that all types of government are dangerous.

By the way, what type of government do you advocate - a theocracy or a secular government?

(snip)

dk: The courts assess harm on positive evidence, and the only acceptable source of positive evidence follows science.
Soundsurfr: Correct. What would be a better source of positive evidence in a court of law in your opinion? Your particular religious views? The religious views of the majority religion?
dk: I have two concerns�
1. positive knowledge is unreliable.
2. other souses of knowledge have proven to be reliable.
It seems our jurist our poor horse traders, besides being arrogant and opinionated.

I sincerely doubt that anybody could figure out what you're ranting about in the above statements. You seem to be reluctant to get specific about your concerns, but much less reluctant to paint groups of people like *jurists* with insulting brush strokes. Do you have a suggestion for legal reform to make court decisions more *reliable*, or are you just lamenting the limits of epistemology in general? Please define "positive knowledge" and perhaps explain how you go about assessing its reliability. Then state specifically what other sources of knowledge are more reliable.

dk: I mean psychiatry has no rational basis apart from of egotism, and no material basis at all.

Not sure what that means or what it implies for psychiatry either. Do you want to do away with psychiatry? Eliminate it from the courts? What?

(snip)

dk: NC is right, radical feminists have folded their hatred of the patriarchic family (based on egotism) into a Marxist utopia.
Soundsurfr: NC is delusional, and so are you. There aren't any radical feminists or Marxists participating in this conversation.
dk: I don�t think you or Kalkin are radical or Marxists, but I wanted affirmation.

All you had to do was ask.

(snip)
dk: The idea may well be preposterous, but there have been several highly acclaimed books written on the subject by Marxists, see Herbert Marcuse.

Highly acclaimed by whom?

NonContradiction

September 3, 2003, 01:26 PM

Nowhere357

September 3, 2003, 01:42 PM

NonContradiction
Declare yourself the winner. Do you think that it really makes a difference?
Pretend you still have a case for the continued discrimination against women. Do you think your pretending makes a difference?

You have your definition of what oppression is, and Islam has its own definition.
And to the extent that islam subjegates women, to that extent Islam must change or fall.

Let's talk about what is wrong with the current liberal society that we are living in now.
Then start a new thread. This thread is about Islamic tyranny of women, and you have lost your case. There is no justification for the continued discrimination against women.

I don't expect myopic sick liberals to see how disgusting their society has become.
Irrelevant in this thread. Your position that a house needs a head reduces to allowing the male to physically dominate the woman. This won't fly in the modern world - you have failed to justify it. You have lost this argument.

You want to bash "liberalism" then go start a new thread.

lpetrich

September 3, 2003, 02:55 PM

NonContradiction:
... It seems as though the social hierarchy of the 50's has been completely inverted by the liberals. Children are telling their parents what to do, wives are telling their husbands what to do, and special interest groups are telling our government what to do. As I have said before, the tail is wagging the dog here, and sooner or later, this society will implode by itself. ...

NC clearly and plainly reveals here who ought to be giving the orders in the husband-wife relationship; he seems to think that nowadays it's the wife who gives all the orders -- and he thinks that that is unnatural and evil.

NC also shamelessly scapegoats "liberals" in a fashion that would make Ann Coulter proud.

NonContradiction

September 3, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Pretend you still have a case for the continued discrimination against women. Do you think your pretending makes a difference?

You have failed to prove your case that Islam discriminates against women. Islam discriminates against liberals, but not against women.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
And to the extent that islam subjegates women, to that extent Islam must change or fall.

Islam doesn't have to change. Since Islam has come to America, it has been steadily growing, without the use of force, I might add, so why should it change? Even after 9/11, people are still coming into Islam. The people who need to change are the liberals who blame everything wrong in America on the Christian conservatives.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Then start a new thread. This thread is about Islamic tyranny of women, and you have lost your case.

That's funny...I thought that this thread was about the covering up of Muslim women. You have failed to lead us, step by step, to the conclusion that Islam is a tyrannt of women. Face it, you have lost your case.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
There is no justification for the continued discrimination against women.

First, prove that Islam discriminates against women.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Irrelevant in this thread. Your position that a house needs a head reduces to allowing the male to physically dominate the woman. This won't fly in the modern world - you have failed to justify it. You have lost this argument.

The burden of proof is upon you, remember? You are the one who is trying to prove, ineffectively, I might add, that Islam is a tyrannt of women. Just because Islam says that the man should be the head of the household doesn't automatically translate into tyranny and oppression. Perhaps, in your twisted world, that is the case, but not everybody else's world.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You want to bash "liberalism" then go start a new thread.

Point taken.

Dr Rick

September 3, 2003, 09:43 PM

oops

Dr Rick

September 3, 2003, 09:47 PM

oops again

Dr Rick

September 3, 2003, 09:47 PM

Oops, my mistake... sorry, quadruple post; ahh, here we go:

Dr Rick

September 3, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You have failed to prove your case that Islam discriminates against women. Islam discriminates against liberals, but not against women.

...and:

Islam stopped short of complete equality, true...Islam didn't treat women and men with complete equality...

wait, there's more:

That's funny...I thought that this thread was about the covering up of Muslim women.

...and:

It's not about clothes, and it never has been. It's about politics...Women's dress is a political football. The issue isn't about clothes...NOBODY has been focusing on clothing.

The truth just seems to elude him:

You can NOT buy and sell women in Islam.

...and, after having the ahadith that compare women slaves to fields for men to "cultivate" as they see fit posted:

If you use the word "women" it implies that any woman, free or slave, could be bought and sold. The correct translation would be female slaves and not women.

There's also this little gem:

Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage.

"Amina Lawal, 30, was sentenced to death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm) for becoming pregnant after her divorce, which is considered as adultery under Nigeria's interpretation of the Islamic law, or Sharia.

On the same day, another Nigerian woman, Safiya Huseini, who had been convicted for adultery and sentenced to be stoned, was freed on appeal after pressure was exerted by the international community and the Nigerian government."

Kalkin

September 3, 2003, 10:07 PM

Thank you for presenting a summary of your basic position against feminism - maybe now we can stay on topic. I'm going to assume that you'll grant that if universal human rights of the kind advocated by liberals are needed, so is equal treatment for women. Therefore, I'll just be defending universal human rights here.

dk: All I can do is present evidence. Again I can�t prove the sun will rise tomorrow, so proof is irrelevant. I�ve stated� Human Rights once detached from reality become a fiction. My burden therefore was to show that�

1. egotism has no material substance rather is based upon a rational idea.
2. Human Rights (in a secular government) rests upon egotism (the individual), the accepted psychological theory.
3. Radical Feminism is based on egotism.

Since all secular (positive) psychological theories regard all human knowledge as experiential, and science recognizes only experiential knowledge, ego by necessity must be the fundamental theory, where Human Rights focus upon the individual. Common sense however says otherwise, (a scientific theory based on gestalt theory)...

I have provided my evidence, and your job is to contest it, by saying something of the form� You�re wrong dk Human Rights are based on Beethoven�s music, or Jimmy Deane sausage. If you can�t contest my evidence then withdraw and think about it or concede.

The problem is your evidence and your reasoning regarding it are both seriously flawed - this is gonna be long.

Not only do I disagree with your 2nd and 3rd points, but you use different meanings of egotism in each. In your 1, you're talking about the selfish hedonism that letter attacked; in 2, you're talking about a psychological theory; and in 3, you're talking apparently just about individualism. Although some of these are related, they aren't the same, which leads to a number of problems with your case.

Your reasons why egotism is bad all apply either to extreme hedonism or the idea that pure self-interest is the moral way to act as per Rand's objectivism. They don't apply to all morality based on individuals, which is the only kind of "egoism" you can show to be the basis of feminism or human rights.

Your main argument against feminism is simply feminism is bad because it's secular. Not only is your attack on secularism misguided, it's also somewhat irrelevant to this thread. If what you really hate is secularism, get out of this thread and go argue in CSS - you're not attacking anything specific to feminism.

Your reasons why secularism must be egotistical even if true would only show that it's based on Freud's theory of the ego - that doesn't mean it's egotistical in the sense of selfish hedonism, the only "egotism" you prove is bad.

And anyway, it's simply not true that all secular morality is based on egotism. Many people in this forum defend many secular moral systems quite well - from utilitarianism to intersubjectivism. You need to prove those wrong before you can say only egotism can be a secular basis for human rights.

Plus, you're simply ill-informed about modern psychology. Psychiatry is mostly no longer Freudian - have you read anything about the science written in the last quarter-century? New biological theories have largely replaced Freud's ego, superego, and id. Even if psychiatry was the only basis for human rights, that wouldn't mean they were egoistic.

Additionally, you're rejecting all secularism. If all egotism is bad, and all psychological science is based on egotism, and all secular morality is based on psychological science, then all secularism must be bad (if I've mistated your position in one of those conditionals, say so). That conclusion is plainly false - seperation of church and state is good for both. Secularism is key to stopping religious violence, allowing rational scientific progress, and stabilizing democracy. When religion rules, reason and the people can't, and that's bad - see my earlier posts to NC on democracy.

You mention twice mention common sense, but without explanation. Common sense doesn't reject individualism - even if that were inherently egoistic in the sense in which you attack egotism. Common sense says that people vary widely and defy catagories and must be treated independently of them - see my previous posts. You don't explain what's not common sensical (real word?) about individualism.

To summarize, my basic argument is that your 2nd and 3rd points are false both because the conclusions are wrong and because your process of reaching them is flawed by redefinition of egotism. Now, lets get to your alternative, your positive arguments for the patriarchal nuclear family.

Now I�ll provide an alternative theory�

Our society (US) today in every secular sense touts human nature as a loci of individuals i.e. egotism. Assuming you don�t contest the evidence I�ve provided I now state, �Feminist Human Rights are detached from reality�, and enter into evidence�

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Koffka� died 22 Nov 1941 (born 18 Mar 1886)
German-American psychologist who cofounded, with Wolfgang K�hler and Max Wertheimer, the Gestalt school of psychology. Koffka became in time their most influential spokesman of Gestalt psychology. He applied it to child development, learning, memory and emotion. The name Gestalt, meaning form or configuration, emphasizes that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Gestalt psychology grew as reaction against the traditional atomistic approach to the human being where behaviour was analyzed into constituent elements called sensations. He made an influential distinction between the behavioural and the geographical environments - the perceived world of common sense and the world studied by scientists --- http://www.todayinsci.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly if the sum doesn�t equal the parts then egotism and common sense present two independent theories. I contend that human nature and civilization rests upon common sense (nuclear family), as opposed to ego theory (individual).

Whether the sum of a human is more than whole of its parts isn't relevant to anything on this thread as far as I can see. Human rights are perfectly compatible with this idea - in fact, they rely on some kind of specialness for people. So is your position - men and women theoretically could have different sums. So, how does this affect our argument? Who's claiming the opposite of this Koffka guy?

In this vein I present the nuclear family as the archetype of all living civilizations (evidence 1),

Did you mean to insert evidence where you said "(evidence 1)" or something? I see no evidence for this so far... all your attacks on egotism don't prove that the nuclear family is key to all civilization, or that equality would destroy it. That Kofka summary doesn't even mention the family. I believe that while the nuclear family is good, weakening it isn't as bad as allowing sexism, and also that equality is more likely to strengthen a family than weaken it.

and common sense dictates gender as an essential component of human nature(evidence 2)

More missing evidence? Your assertion of common sense isn't worth anything, and you don't provide other evidence anywhere - the Kofka summary doesn't mention gender either. The burden of proof is on you to provide an essential (not physical) difference if you want to treat a group of people differently.

�Why?�Answer: while 1 + 1 = 2 in an ideal world, in the real world the union of a woman and man reliably produces babies, so �1man Union 1woman = 3,4,5�. people� forming a nuclear family (explanation).

What the hell does this have to do with anything? What is it an explanation of? Or did you forget to insert an explanation? That men and women make babies doesn't prove that they must do so in a nuclear family or that making them equal will prevent them from being in a nuclear family...

Thus Gestalt psychology describes an essential component of civilization and human nature. My point is that egotism is not real, but ideal, were as common sense dictates people are real and complex creatures (not ideal)�Therefore to construct Human Rights upon ego theory produces a fiction�Therefore common sense requires governments to consider the nuclear family an essential fact of human nature. (argument)

Before I can evaluate your argument about egotism being only an ideal I need to know which of the many definitions of egotism you've used you're using here.

Human rights aren't a fiction just because they're based on idealism, which I'll concede they are to some degree - I think I answered this before. Human rights take the fact that people all have some needs in common, and the fact that individuals vary widely and unpredictably, and say that therefore we should give certain rights to all people - all need them and membership in a group isn't enough on its own to deny them. Certainly, there's idealism involved there, but no more than in any moral system.

The ball is now in your court.

Back to you.

I�ll go ahead and respond to the rest, but its my feeling this post conveys and summarizes the substance of our differences.

No real need to respond to anything else- we've got the key points, your attack on feminist universal human rights and your belief in the necessity of your version of the nuclear family, right here, and I've posted my responses containing summaries of my position. This is long enough already, lets not make it any longer.

[snip]quote which doesn't say anything new

[edited to correct cut-and-paste problems]

Nowhere357

September 3, 2003, 10:29 PM

NonContradiction
You have failed to prove your case that Islam discriminates against women. Islam discriminates against liberals, but not against women.
Others have shown - with copies and links - that Islam discriminates against women both in theory and in fact. The commands in the Koran and the way they are implemented are discriminatory against women.

That's funny...I thought that this thread was about the covering up of Muslim women. You have failed to lead us, step by step, to the conclusion that Islam is a tyrannt of women. Face it, you have lost your case.
Covering up women is an example of Islamic tyranny of women, of course. Others have detailed the steps. The Koran gives commands which are discriminatory towards women, and some Muslim nations still follow these commands. All I've done is shown that the notion of "head of household" must involve a right/resposibility to enforce decisions.

First, prove that Islam discriminates against women.
Already done. Do you really wish to again see copies of the passages in the Koran which discriminate, and examples of current Muslim nations which discriminate? Haven't these already been posted?

Islam doesn't have to change. Since Islam has come to America, it has been steadily growing, without the use of force, I might add, so why should it change? Even after 9/11, people are still coming into Islam. The people who need to change are the liberals who blame everything wrong in America on the Christian conservatives.
Good for Islam. Muslim women in America are free to remove their burkas. Ignoring indoctrination and domineering husbands, of course. My point stands - Islam must understand that women will receive equal treatment, so Islam must adapt or die.

The burden of proof is upon you, remember?
Islam is discriminatory, already proven. Head of household implies the right to enforce but males have no right to enforce on females, already shown. You have lost this argument.

You are the one who is trying to prove, ineffectively, I might add, that Islam is a tyrannt of women. Just because Islam says that the man should be the head of the household doesn't automatically translate into tyranny and oppression. Perhaps, in your twisted world, that is the case, but not everybody else's world.
Islam does not have to be a tyrant of women. Christianity also has discriminatory commands - and modern Christians recognize that those commands don't apply to modern life.

Women are not a sub-species. They deserve the same rights as other humans. Islam denies these rights, and is discriminatory. You have lost this argument.

Point taken.
Good. You have valid complaints about problems in the western world. Those problems do not justify continued discrimination against women, this has been explained in detail repeatedly. You have lost this argument. By refusing to concede, without offering anything new, you simply undermine your own credibility.

Soundsurfr

September 4, 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The point is that this liberal society is a sick society for allowing virtual kiddy porn to be allowed as freedom of expression. Virtual kiddy porn isn't a healthy thing to be allowed in the society. I don't expect myopic sick liberals to see how disgusting their society has become.

The reason it hasn't been outlawed is because conservatives don't really want it outlawed. You see, if it were outlawed, the conservatives would have nothing to subscribe to on the internet anymore!

Conservatives are so sick and twisted. They're selfish, bigoted, mean spirited, sick people, and YES - THEY'RE the ones who actually watch all the kiddie porn. All they do is lie about everything.

Of course, I wouldn't expect any conservative to understand how completely ridiculous and illogical they are. It's beyond their ability to comprehend.

OH NO! I've sunken to the level of argument that the conservatives have been using!! Somebody help me! :(

(My apologies to those who actually maintain a voice of reason and civil discourse in their posts.)

NonContradiction

September 4, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Others have shown - with copies and links - that Islam discriminates against women both in theory and in fact. The commands in the Koran and the way they are implemented are discriminatory against women.

What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for men over women. So what? Allah has made men stronger than women. Is that not preference? Of course it is, but so what? It's not discrimination. Allah also has said in the Quran that He has preferred some people over others in wealth, beauty, etc. To show preference doesn't necessarily translate into discrimination against, but I don't expect the myopic liberals here to get the point.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Covering up women is an example of Islamic tyranny of women, of course.

That may be obvious to you, but it's not so obvious to me. First, when people say that Islam is sexist, misogynistic, or tyrannical, they are NOT stating an empirical fact. To say murder IS wrong is to say that one SHOULD not commit murder. To say that Islam IS tyrannical is to say that Islam SHOULD not do x,y, or z. So far, no one has presented a moral argument that supports the assertion that liberals are the sole moral authority in the world to tell all people, including Muslim people, what they SHOULD or SHOULD not do.

Given the failed policies of the liberals in the Great Society and the destructiveness of the sexual liberation movement in the 60's, I have to seriously question liberals telling others what they should or should not do.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Others have detailed the steps. The Koran gives commands which are discriminatory towards women, and some Muslim nations still follow these commands. All I've done is shown that the notion of "head of household" must involve a right/resposibility to enforce decisions.

You keep saying that Islam is discriminatory, but that is about all you are doing. You just keep repeating yourself.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Already done. Do you really wish to again see copies of the passages in the Koran which discriminate, and examples of current Muslim nations which discriminate? Haven't these already been posted?

Here we go again...You keep repeating that Islam discriminates against women like you are chanting some mantra.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Islam is discriminatory, already proven. Head of household implies the right to enforce but males have no right to enforce on females, already shown. You have lost this argument.

Again, here we go again...Islam is discriminatory and I have lost the argument. Do you think that the more you repeat this statement that the truer it will become?

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Women are not a sub-species. They deserve the same rights as other humans. Islam denies these rights, and is discriminatory. You have lost this argument.

Yes, we have heard your chant before.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Good. You have valid complaints about problems in the western world. Those problems do not justify continued discrimination against women, this has been explained in detail repeatedly. You have lost this argument. By refusing to concede, without offering anything new, you simply undermine your own credibility.

All you are doing is singing the same old song - Islam is discriminatory.

September 4, 2003, 10:45 AM

dk: Illegal? Yes/No... Kiddy porn is digital on the Internet, but virtual kiddy porn is legal and indistinguishable from real kiddy porn.
Soundsurfr: I don't know that means. The exploitation of children for pornographic purposes is illegal.
dk: The absence of common sense in the law makes pornography into art and then art becomes a perfect crime. The US government seldom prosecutes porn anymore. �In fact, the U.S. Justice Department's prosecution of interstate shipment and sale of unlawful pornography has fallen by 75 percent since 1992. This huge reduction has come despite the fact that in 1996 Congress specifically amended the law against unlawful distribution of smut to include sending it over the Internet. The Justice Department has not yet prosecuted a single Internet porno merchant, even though we in Congress gave the department the authority four years ago!!! In one recent year - 1997 - there were only six federal ILLEGAL pornography prosecutions in the entire nation.� --- http://www.house.gov/ (http://www.house.gov/wamp/col000402.htm)

dk: Law enforcement is caught in a vice between �the presumption of innocents� and the perfect crime. The point is Muslim Nations have a legitimate grievance, so no straw-man.
Soundsurfr: I don't understand what the real or perceived proliferation of kiddie porn has to do with the presumpton of innoncence in US jurisprudence. Just as much kiddie porn comes from countries where there is no presumption of innocence in the court systems. And why were we talking about Muslim nations and their grievances regarding virtual kiddie porn in the first place? Could you maybe tie this back to the patriarchal family discussion? I can't seem to do it.
dk:
First� from a common sense perspective porn denigrates human beings with an object, and kiddie porn betrays our sense of family. In a Muslim gestalt porn presents an object of infidelity connected to an infidel. From an egotistical perspective porn looks like erotic art absent social commentary.
Second� Western secular culture sexualizes everyone as a market strategy because sex sells. Muslims dress codes are an immune response to Western secular culture. I think most everyone agrees that the Muslim dress codes symbolize traditional values synonymous with the patriarchal family.

dk: Obviously Muslims have concerns about cultural pollution, and so do many people in Western Nations. A Government�s inability to address a legitimate grievance by citizenry poses a very serious problem.
Soundsurfr: I agree. What course of action would you propose? I've noticed that, while you are quite skilled in the art of pointing out problems with Western society, culture and government, your penchant for voicing suggestions aimed at addressing said problems seems weak.
dk: Western secular culture needs to temper its egotistical ideals with common sense. If Muslims didn�t feel threatened they wouldn�t need to enforce strict dress codes, but I much prefer dress codes to state sponsored terrorism. I also think Western culture has reached a point of no return. Common sense dictates a shared problem statement is needed to direct our collective efforts. Short of some natural catastrophe on a planetary scale I think the Cultural Wars will continue to divide people along increasingly disparaging lines. At some point the pretense of communication will completely breakdown and people will begin a bloody process to cancel out opposing viewpoints in the real world. To this end, I place great importance on antagonistic discussion like this. Not because we are going to persuade one another, but so we might understand one another. Over the long run nations and people that demonstrate the capacity to effectively solve problems will grow and prosper, its only common sense.

Soundsurfr: But in response to the comment that there's no escaping egotism in a secular society governed by secular laws - there's no escaping oppression in a religious society governed by religious laws. If dk calls what we have in the West "egotism", I'll take egotism over oppression any day.
dk: I think you have a legitimate point, though overstated. Theocracies and secular governments are both very dangerous because the power stems from one source in secularism, and in a Theocracy power is centralized in one seat.
Soundsurfr: The power of the US government does not stem from one source. And unlike any theocracy, there are deliberate checks and counterchecks on the powers of our particular government. They are there because our country's founders understood very well that all types of government are dangerous.
dk: I�ve read the power of the US comes from the people. A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created with inalienable rights, and that governments are formed to protect those rights. The Supreme Court�s power of judicial review cancels out all checks and balances. The Founding Fathers were great men, but clearly not omnipotent. The US Revolutionary War has been proclaimed a triumph by the whole world, where the French Revolution became the French Terror and a failure. Let me ask you 2 questions�
1) Did men and women benefit equally from the US revolution?
2) Did men and women suffer equally from the French Terror?

Soundsurfr: By the way, what type of government do you advocate - a theocracy or a secular government?
dk: Structurally I favor a constitutional republics, built upon a triad architecture. I think the great failures (and there have been many successes) of the US government in the 20th Century was 1) the transformation of Universities from Islands or free thought into big government planners/social engineers/bureaucrats and 2) a belligerent media run amok in pursuit of ratings.

dk: The courts assess harm on positive evidence, and the only acceptable source of positive evidence follows science.
Soundsurfr: Correct. What would be a better source of positive evidence in a court of law in your opinion? Your particular religious views? The religious views of the majority religion?
dk: I have two concerns�
1. positive knowledge is unreliable.
2. other sources of knowledge have proven to be reliable.
It seems our jurist our poor horse traders, besides being arrogant and opinionated.
Soundsurfr: I sincerely doubt that anybody could figure out what you're ranting about in the above statements. You seem to be reluctant to get specific about your concerns, but much less reluctant to paint groups of people like *jurists* with insulting brush strokes. Do you have a suggestion for legal reform to make court decisions more *reliable*, or are you just lamenting the limits of epistemology in general? Please define "positive knowledge" and perhaps explain how you go about assessing its reliability. Then state specifically what other sources of knowledge are more reliable.
dk: The first question asked about positives evidence, and I responded that positive knowledge was unreliable. Since the source of positive evidence follows from positive knowledge alone, they must both be unreliable. Let me give an example. Fingerprints since 1900 have been called positive evidence, yet today matching fingerprints has become an art.. see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020320.html Obviously an art is only as good as the artist, therefore fingerprints in a trial aren�t really positive knowledge at all. In the case of fingerprints positive evidence has become an art, so obviously art is one source of reliable evidence.

dk: I mean psychiatry has no rational basis apart from egoism, and no material basis at all.
Soundsurfr: Not sure what that means or what it implies for psychiatry either. Do you want to do away with psychiatry? Eliminate it from the courts? What?
dk: No, I�m simply saying positive evidence alone is unreliable. At a trial, first the judge determines what constitutes positive evidence, then both sides present their witnesses to interpret the �whatness� of the positive evidence. The positive evidence in the course of a trial becomes unreliable i.e. subject to multiple interpretations. Obviously, if positive evidence can mean two or more things, then its unreliable. I don�t wish to eliminate anything, I merely seek to separate the fictional from the real. There is a lot of confusion about the finding of law and a finding of fact. In my view both a finding of law and fact requires judgment, , and that�s the unavoidable fact of common sense. I also recognize that in a �positive� sense �common� sense has no meaning;

dk: The idea may well be preposterous, but there have been several highly acclaimed books written on the subject by Marxists, see Herbert Marcuse.
Soundsurfr: Highly acclaimed by whom?
dk: I can�t say, but if you do a google search on �Marcuse Herbert site:edu� it comes back with 2,980 entries. Marcuse was sometimes called the �Guru of the New Left�.

Nowhere357

September 4, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
All you are doing is singing the same old song - Islam is discriminatory.
You offer nothing new, and undermine your credibility.

Islam is discriminatory, and you have lost this argument.

Soundsurfr

September 4, 2003, 12:46 PM

From NonContradiction:

What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for men over women. So what?

This is my favorite quote of the day.

Many thanks.
:)

(By the way, NC, substitute any other human descriptors into that statement, and you might.....I say might....understand what the issue is. For example:

"What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for whites over blacks. So what?" or....

"What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for Arabs over Jews. So what?"

So what? Oh....nothing. :rolleyes:

NonContradiction

September 4, 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You offer nothing new, and undermine your credibility.

Islam is discriminatory, and you have lost this argument.

You can repeat it all you like. Repetition doesn't make it any truer. Until you put a MORAL argument on the table that Islam SHOULD or SHOULD not do x,y, and z, then you are the one who has lost by forfeiture. Who are you, and the rest of the liberals here, to dictate to Islam and the rest of the world what they SHOULD or SHOULD not do? Your statement, 'Islam is discriminatory", isn't an empirical fact so stop trying to make it into one.

NonContradiction

September 4, 2003, 02:06 PM

From NonContradiction: What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for men over women. So what?

Soundsurfr:
This is my favorite quote of the day.

Many thanks.
:)

(By the way, NC, substitute any other human descriptors into that statement, and you might.....I say might....understand what the issue is. For example:

"What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for whites over blacks. So what?" or....

Well, show me in the Quran where Allah has preferred whites over blacks, or has discriminated against blacks in any way shape or form? The two big mistakes that the myopic liberals make is to equate race with gender and sexuality, and second, to equate preference with discrimination.

The white/black binary opposition (race) is completely different from the masculine/feminine opposition (gender) and canNOT be equated. I see no good reason why, as a society, racial roles should be encouraged as they were in the traditional 1950's society in America.

However, the same cannot be said about gender roles. I do see where it's very important for a society to have very clear cut gender roles, particularly for young adolescents, and when those gender roles become inverted or eliminated completely, instability is introduced into the society that neither benefits men nor women in the long run. It ruins the family and the society in the long run, and this is why I call liberals "myopic" people. The same can be said about the straight/gay binary opposition (sexuality).

Soundsurfr: "What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for Arabs over Jews. So what?"

So what? Oh....nothing. :rolleyes:

Allah has shown a degree of preference for Muslims over Jews and Christians in the Quran, but He did not discriminate against them. The history of Islam is a testimony to what I am saying. The examples of Jews living in peace with Muslims in Spain before the Inquisitions are well known. However, the Quran DID discriminate against the pagans of Mecca because of their previous discrimination of Muslims. Also, a Muslim can marry a woman from among the People of the Book, whereas he cannot marry a pagan woman. I believe Islam did, and does, discriminate against pagans - and by extension, Gays and Lesbians - for good reason.

In short, there is a big difference between preferring and discriminating against. The Quran preferred Muslims over Jews and Christians, but it did not discriminate against them. On the other hand, the Quran does discriminate against pagans, and by extension, Gays and Lesbians, and also atheists. You won't find many Muslims nowadays that are honest enough to admit to what I just said, but it is true.

Nowhere357

September 4, 2003, 03:01 PM

NonContradiction
You can repeat it all you like.
You offer nothing new, and undermine your credibility.

Islam is discriminatory, and you have lost this argument.

There is no reason to read any more of your dogmatic rhetoric in this thread.

NonContradiction

September 4, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You offer nothing new, and undermine your credibility.

Islam is discriminatory, and you have lost this argument.

There is no reason to read any more of your dogmatic rhetoric in this thread.

Ok, have a nice day.

Dr Rick

September 4, 2003, 03:10 PM

NC works it:What others have shown is that Allah in the Quran has shown a degree of preference for men over women. So what?

Allah has shown a degree of preference for Muslims over Jews and Christians in the Quran, but He did not discriminate against them.

On the other hand, the Quran does discriminate against pagans, and by extension, Gays and Lesbians, and also atheists.

...and if you let him, he just might dig himself all the way to China. :D

You won't find many Muslims nowadays that are honest enough to admit to what I just said, but it is true.

He's right, ya' know; Muslim or not, most theists are much more circumspect and a lot less confused about their intolerance.

Nowhere 357: There is no reason to read any more of your dogmatic rhetoric in this thread.

I respectfully disagree; some of his rhetoric is positively priceless.

September 4, 2003, 06:48 PM

Kalkin: The problem is your evidence and your reasoning regarding it are both seriously flawed - this is gonna be long.
dk: Flawed perhaps, but certainly real.

Kalkin: Not only do I disagree with your 2nd and 3rd points, but you use different meanings of egotism in each. In your 1, you're talking about the selfish hedonism that letter attacked; in 2, you're talking about a psychological theory; and in 3, you're talking apparently just about individualism. Although some of these are related, they aren't the same, which leads to a number of problems with your case.
dk: You first two objections are baseless, I�m talking about psychology in both statements, and the accepted theory in secular psychology has been egoism.
2) I�m talking about the reigning psychological theory. You�re free to contest my statement, but you must respond with some alternative theory.
3) Individualism and egoism refer to different perspectives of the same thing, an indivisible human being. Individualism regards all of the person, where egoism references the mental form. Feminism respects the whole individual, but rests upon egoism.

Kalkin: Your reasons why egotism is bad all apply either to extreme hedonism or the idea that pure self-interest is the moral way to act as per Rand's objectivism. They don't apply to all morality based on individuals, which is the only kind of "egoism" you can show to be the basis of feminism or human rights.
dk: I didn�t say egoism was all bad, I said it was great because it allowed psychology to examine people�s mind without cutting their skull open. Since any form of egoism (atomism, individualism) holds a monism form, all secular speculations remain a fiction. Hedonism names one many possible forms that exist in a monistic Universe. The classical secular choices being monism(Spinoza), dualism (Descartes) and pluralism (Aquinas)

Kalkin: Your main argument against feminism is simply feminism is bad because it's secular. Not only is your attack on secularism misguided, it's also somewhat irrelevant to this thread. If what you really hate is secularism, get out of this thread and go argue in CSS - you're not attacking anything specific to feminism.
dk: No, I haven�t stated my augment, but I now argue that monistic secularism is unreliable because it regards common sense as transcendental moonshine. I have no problem with secularism except when it stands atop the world to declare �Its all nonsense�, except me. Talk about ego!!!!

(snip)

Kalkin: And anyway, it's simply not true that all secular morality is based on egotism. Many people in this forum defend many secular moral systems quite well - from utilitarianism to intersubjectivism. You need to prove those wrong before you can say only egotism can be a secular basis for human rights.
dk: There�s nothing to prove, since in a secular world every possible universe in monistic. Secularism in an epistemological sense acknowledges only statements verified by experience and/or systematic logic, and everything else gets trashed as transcendental moonshine. Psychology is essential. .John Paul II writes, �Today the most attentive epistemological reflection recognizes the need for the human and natural sciences to enter into dialogue once again, so that learning may recover the sense of a profoundly unified inspiration. Scientific and technological progress in our day puts into human hands possibilities which are both magnificent and frightening. A recognition of the limits of science, in the consideration of moral demands, is not obscurantism. but is the guarantee that research will be worthy of the human person and put at the service of life.� I predict you yourself will upon reading such a quote will unceremoniously discard it as meaningless, thus demonstrating my point.

(snip)

Kalkin: You twice mention common sense, but without explanation. Common sense doesn't reject individualism - even if that were inherently egoistic in the sense in which you attack egotism. Common sense says that people vary widely and defy catagories and must be treated independently of them - see my previous posts. You don't explain what's not common sensical (real word?) about individualism.
dk: I agree, common sense doesn't reject individualism, but secularism does reject common sense, so your point is mute. As a feminist you have some stake in common sense, which gets trashed by a secular government.

Nowhere357

September 4, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by dk
No, I haven�t stated my augment, but I now argue that monistic secularism is unreliable because it regards common sense as transcendental moonshine. I have no problem with secularism except when it stands atop the world to declare �Its all nonsense�, except me. Talk about ego!!!!
Does anyone see an argument against feminism in here? :confused:

Dr Rick

September 4, 2003, 08:30 PM

...no, but then I never inhaled...

Soundsurfr

September 4, 2003, 09:49 PM

dk: Illegal? Yes/No... Kiddy porn is digital on the Internet, but virtual kiddy porn is legal and indistinguishable from real kiddy porn.
Soundsurfr: I don't know that means. The exploitation of children for pornographic purposes is illegal.
dk: The absence of common sense in the law makes pornography into art and then art becomes a perfect crime.

No, the courts draw a distinction between pornography and artrt and restrict the distribution of pornography to adults.

dk: The US government seldom prosecutes porn anymore.

That's an entirely different argument, and doesn't directly address the child pornogrphy issue. Porn is not illegal. The exploitation of children for pornographic purposes is illegal.

Soundsurfr: I don't understand what the real or perceived proliferation of kiddie porn has to do with the presumpton of innoncence in US jurisprudence. Just as much kiddie porn comes from countries where there is no presumption of innocence in the court systems. And why were we talking about Muslim nations and their grievances regarding virtual kiddie porn in the first place? Could you maybe tie this back to the patriarchal family discussion? I can't seem to do it.

dk: First� from a common sense perspective porn denigrates human beings with an object,....

No, that's from a personal perspective. That's part of the problem with your use of the term "common sense". You can't define it, except to use it when you're forwarding your personal opinion.

dk:...and kiddie porn betrays our sense of family.

Once again, for hopefully the last time - kiddie porn is illegal. And what kiddie porn there may be on the internet does not only eminate from the United States.

dk: In a Muslim gestalt porn presents an object of infidelity connected to an infidel.

Fine. In lots of "gestalts", that's true. But it's a moral judgement, not a legal one. There is a distinction in our society. It's one of the things that sets our society apart, for better or worse.

dk: From an egotistical perspective porn looks like erotic art absent social commentary.

I perceive that to be a misrepresentation. From an individual rights perspective, porn is porn if it appeals only to the prurient interests of the viewer. It's not erotic art. There is a difference. And yeah, there's a hazy line between them, but that's true for all aspects of free speech, including hate speech.

dk: Second� Western secular culture sexualizes everyone as a market strategy because sex sells.

Agree.

dk: Muslims dress codes are an immune response to Western secular culture.

Muslim dress codes were around long before Western secular culture.

dk: I think most everyone agrees that the Muslim dress codes symbolize traditional values synonymous with the patriarchal family.

Definitely. I think they also symbolize man's fear of women, but that's just me.

dk: Western secular culture needs to temper its egotistical ideals with common sense.

Common sense is at best a misnomer for what you're advocating and at worst a euphemism for "what some of us perceive is best for everyone". And in terms of *reliability*, it's even less reliable than objective inquiry. Given all the information we gather through our senses, common sense would tell us that the sun revolves around the Earth. Objective inquiry tells us otherwise. We know which one is more reliable.

dk: If Muslims didn�t feel threatened they wouldn�t need to enforce strict dress codes,

I disagree. It has nothing to do with threats from the West. If there were no Western civilization at all, they would still enforce strict dress codes.

dk: but I much prefer dress codes to state sponsored terrorism.

? I don't understand that part of your comment.

dk: I also think Western culture has reached a point of no return.

I hope so. I don't see much in the past that I'd like to return to.

dk: Common sense dictates a shared problem statement is needed to direct our collective efforts. Short of some natural catastrophe on a planetary scale I think the Cultural Wars will continue to divide people along increasingly disparaging lines.

I would agree, except that I would not attribute the sentiment to common sense.

dk: At some point the pretense of communication will completely breakdown and people will begin a bloody process to cancel out opposing viewpoints in the real world.

No, not at some point. This has already begun. We're well into it.

dk: To this end, I place great importance on antagonistic discussion like this. Not because we are going to persuade one another, but so we might understand one another.

Absolutely. I think you are very wise to feel that way, and I applaud you.

dk: Over the long run nations and people that demonstrate the capacity to effectively solve problems will grow and prosper, its only common sense.

Its sensible, but it doesn't seem to be common.

dk: I�ve read the power of the US comes from the people. A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created with inalienable rights, and that governments are formed to protect those rights. The Supreme Court�s power of judicial review cancels out all checks and balances.

How so?

dk: The Founding Fathers were great men, but clearly not omnipotent. The US Revolutionary War has been proclaimed a triumph by the whole world, where the French Revolution became the French Terror and a failure. Let me ask you 2 questions�
1) Did men and women benefit equally from the US revolution?

Directly or in the short term? I don't know. In the long run, I would say yes.

2) Did men and women suffer equally from the French Terror?

Again, I don't know. And I don't know where you're going with this.

Soundsurfr: By the way, what type of government do you advocate - a theocracy or a secular government?
dk: Structurally I favor a constitutional republics, built upon a triad architecture.

That sounds like the US government.

dk: I think the great failures (and there have been many successes) of the US government in the 20th Century was 1) the transformation of Universities from Islands or free thought into big government planners/social engineers/bureaucrats and 2) a belligerent media run amok in pursuit of ratings.

Hmm. OK. So, you think the government should crack down on the belligerent media? I would think they do that at our peril. The media may be belligerent, but they keep the government on its toes.

dk: I have two concerns�
1. positive knowledge is unreliable.
2. other sources of knowledge have proven to be reliable.
It seems our jurist our poor horse traders, besides being arrogant and opinionated.
Soundsurfr: I sincerely doubt that anybody could figure out what you're ranting about in the above statements. You seem to be reluctant to get specific about your concerns, but much less reluctant to paint groups of people like *jurists* with insulting brush strokes. Do you have a suggestion for legal reform to make court decisions more *reliable*, or are you just lamenting the limits of epistemology in general? Please define "positive knowledge" and perhaps explain how you go about assessing its reliability. Then state specifically what other sources of knowledge are more reliable.

dk: The first question asked about positives evidence, and I responded that positive knowledge was unreliable.

Yes, but you didn't explain, even after I asked, what is meant by *unreliable* and what, if anything, was more reliable.

dk: Since the source of positive evidence follows from positive knowledge alone, they must both be unreliable. Let me give an example. Fingerprints since 1900 have been called positive evidence, yet today matching fingerprints has become an art..
see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020320.html

What I find interesting is that you use *positive evidence* to make that determination. How do you know your determination is reliable?

(snip)

dk: I mean psychiatry has no rational basis apart from egoism, and no material basis at all.
Soundsurfr: Not sure what that means or what it implies for psychiatry either. Do you want to do away with psychiatry? Eliminate it from the courts? What?
dk: No, I�m simply saying positive evidence alone is unreliable.

Compared to what???

At a trial, first the judge determines what constitutes positive evidence, then both sides present their witnesses to interpret the �whatness� of the positive evidence. The positive evidence in the course of a trial becomes unreliable i.e. subject to multiple interpretations. Obviously, if positive evidence can mean two or more things, then its unreliable.

False dichotomy. If positive evidence can be mis-interpreted, then the reliability of our methods of interpretation is in question. This does not mean that all positive evidence is unreliable. Do you think there's a possibility that the earth does not revolve around the sun?

dk: I don�t wish to eliminate anything, I merely seek to separate the fictional from the real.

As we all do. So how do you propose to do it?

There is a lot of confusion about the finding of law and a finding of fact. In my view both a finding of law and fact requires judgment, , and that�s the unavoidable fact of common sense.

Yes, but there are some judgements that are made in the context of a strict set of rules for judgement, and others that are not. I refer to the generally accepted rules for critical inquiry.

dk: I also recognize that in a �positive� sense �common� sense has no meaning;

Good. In what sense does it have meaning?

(snip) On the idea that there is a Marxist/feminist conspiracy....
dk: The idea may well be preposterous, but there have been several highly acclaimed books written on the subject by Marxists, see Herbert Marcuse.
Soundsurfr: Highly acclaimed by whom?
dk: I can�t say, but if you do a google search on �Marcuse Herbert site:edu� it comes back with 2,980 entries. Marcuse was sometimes called the �Guru of the New Left�.

You call this book "highly acclaimed", but you can't say who it might be acclaimed by. Then you cite Google hits as a possible measurement of its "acclaim". There are perhaps too many problems with this approach to even go into, but here are just a few....

1. The number of Google hits on a given topic have nothing to do with whether the subject material has achieve any acclaim.

2. 2,980 Google hits is peanuts. Really, really peanuts, so the idea that this guy has any measurable influence on mainstream thought or even splinter group thought in the West is pretty much DISPROVEN by the number of hits you cite. Simply put, this guy is a nobody and his book is obscure. If you put my name into a Google search, you it will respond with 1, 472 hits. The last thousand or so hits are websites with people's names that are similar to mine, but have nothing to do wth me. The first 472 contain a ton of repeats, and are all based on some work I've done and books/articles I've authored in my career as a music composer and audio consultant. I am not, in any way, shape or form, an "acclaimed" person (except maybe, by my mother).

3. Even if his name generated 500,000 or so hits (still low for a mover/shaker), that would speak only to his notoriety, not to his acclaim as an author. The name Charles Manson will generate 319,000 hits on Google, but his work has not really been acclaimed by very many people.

Stay well,

Soundsurfr
www.soundsurfr.com

Luiseach

September 5, 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by dk
John Paul II writes, �Scientific and technological progress in our day puts into human hands possibilities which are both magnificent and frightening....�

lol...

Hmmm, in keeping with the focus of the thread, then, I wonder if the Pope finds the birth-control methods brought about by 'scientific and technological progress,' and which give women more control over their own reproductive destinies (thus freeing them up from being at the mercy of their anatomy, so to speak), 'magnificent,' or 'frightening,' or both?

Let's see what Google has to say...

Ah.

from BBC website
"In 1995 Pope John Paul II supported Pope Paul's view on birth control in his enclyclical, Evangelium Vitae: the Gospel of Life."

Excerpt taken from here--->

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/29/newsid_2975000/2975206.stm

And then there's this--->

No one expects him to apologize to the Third World, which has been kept in hunger, in major part, due to the Vatican's ideas on birth control. Women may not expect an apology either, as he is convinced they have no right to control their own bodies.

---by John Patrick Michael Murphy, in 'The Apology of John Paul II' (2000)

...found here--->

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/apologyofjohnpaul2.html

Food for thought, yes?

September 5, 2003, 07:55 AM

(snip) not snipped as prattle but because this post grows to long, so in an attempt to get at the meat.
dk: First� from a common sense perspective porn denigrates human beings with an object,....
Soundsurfr: No, that's from a personal perspective. That's part of the problem with your use of the term "common sense". You can't define it, except to use it when you're forwarding your personal opinion.
dk: Common sense is the basis of Gestalt psychology, and rejected by secular powers (whomever they may be) in favor of egoism i.e. errantly rejected as transcendental moonshine. Today, there is much new interest in Gestalt theory with applications in art, design and aesthetics. �That such tendencies are inborn, not learned, is suggested by the cross-cultural effectiveness of sleight-of-hand magic and camouflage, both of which work by subverting the "laws" described in Wertheimer's paper.� --- http://mitpress2.mit.edu (http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/articles/behrens.html)

dk: In a Muslim gestalt porn presents an object of infidelity connected to an infidel.
Soundsurfr: Fine. In lots of "gestalts", that's true. But it's a moral judgement, not a legal one. There is a distinction in our society. It's one of the things that sets our society apart, for better or worse.
I perceive that to be a misrepresentation. From an individual rights perspective, porn is porn if it appeals only to the prurient interests of the viewer. It's not erotic art. There is a difference. And yeah, there's a hazy line between them, but that's true for all aspects of free speech, including hate speech.
dk: My point was that secularism is the odd man out, and only from a secular egotistical perspective does pornography have any merit. Common sense says, �avoid evil and do good�.

(snip)

dk: Muslims dress codes are an immune response to Western secular culture.
Soundsurfr: Muslim dress codes were around long before Western secular culture.
dk: Exactly, Muslims also have a long tradition of tolerance and a reputation for being great merchants.

dk: I think most everyone agrees that the Muslim dress codes symbolize traditional values synonymous with the patriarchal family.
Soundsurfr: Definitely. I think they also symbolize man's fear of women, but that's just me.
dk: Which traditions Muslim nations call upon to meet Secular nations depends upon Secular Nations.

dk: Western secular culture needs to temper its egotistical ideals with common sense.
Soundsurfr: Common sense is at best a misnomer for what you're advocating and at worst a euphemism for "what some of us perceive is best for everyone". And in terms of *reliability*, it's even less reliable than objective inquiry. Given all the information we gather through our senses, common sense would tell us that the sun revolves around the Earth. Objective inquiry tells us otherwise. We know which one is more reliable.
dk: From a secular egotistical perspective I agree, yet our agreement only raises more contentious issues i.e. why must secular egotists disparage any and all competing schools of thought. MIT engineers (and many others) have defrocked the rest of your statements.

dk: If Muslims didn�t feel threatened they wouldn�t need to enforce strict dress codes,
Soundsurfr: I disagree. It has nothing to do with threats from the West. If there were no Western civilization at all, they would still enforce strict dress codes.
dk: Muslims have many traditions, and the Nations of Islam showed tolerance and openness enough to build a great Empire that rivaled the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and clearly surpassed the Dark Ages and Feudal system that rose from the ashes of the Roman Empire. I think you�re being unnecessarily dogmatic and closed minded.

dk: I also think Western culture has reached a point of no return.
Soundsurfr: I hope so. I don't see much in the past that I'd like to return to.
dk: You hit the nexus right on the mark!!! Secularism aspires to detach humanity from all tradition, to establish a new world order established solely upon a Hegelian faith in progress. The roots are clear and philosophical. They run to the Father of rational philosophy. Descartes is the Father of modern philosophy based upon a method, not his aspirations or conclusion. Descartes aspired to deconstruct all knowledge, then rebuild it upon a sound footing. But his motivation was to affirm the truth; not detach humanity from reality with revisionist cynicism and subterfuge. I don�t understand this secular compulsion to destroy what people value most, its almost as if they hate people.

dk: Common sense dictates a shared problem statement is needed to direct our collective efforts. Short of some natural catastrophe on a planetary scale I think the Cultural Wars will continue to divide people along increasingly disparaging lines.
Soundsurfr: I would agree, except that I would not attribute the sentiment to common sense.
dk: I know, because common cause defrocks egoism as a coherent basis of civilization.

(snip)

dk: I�ve read the power of the US comes from the people. A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created with inalienable rights, and that governments are formed to protect those rights. The Supreme Court�s power of judicial review cancels out all checks and balances.
Soundsurfr: How so?
dk: I paraphrased from the Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address and Cady Stanton�s Seneca Falls: Declaration of Sentiments (feminism) 1848.
The power of judicial review gives the Supreme Court alone the power to interpret the Constitution. The power of judicial review was not derived from the Constitution, therefore the power of judicial review can not be restrained by the Constitution. In summary, the Bill of Rights say whatever a simple majority of 9 men want them to say.

dk: The Founding Fathers were great men, but clearly not omnipotent. The US Revolutionary War has been proclaimed a triumph by the whole world, where the French Revolution became the French Terror and a failure. Let me ask you 2 questions�
Did men and women benefit equally from the US revolution?
Did men and women suffer equally from the French Terror?
Soundsurfr: Directly or in the short term? I don't know. In the long run, I would say yes.
Again, I don't know. And I don't know where you're going with this.
dk: I wish to show common cause, that men and women over the long haul benefit and suffer together, whatever government does. Common cause, common sense and common interests reflect the substance of Human Rights� Whereas {My, yours, their} cause, {My, yours, their} perspective, {My, yours, their} cause reflects {My, yours, their} personal egotistical interests in a contest of liberty v. freedom. Feminists that adopt a purely egotistical perspective speak for themselves, not the common cause reflected by human rights.

(snip)

dk: I think the great failures (and there have been many successes) of the US government in the 20th Century was 1) the transformation of Universities from Islands or free thought into big government planners/social engineers/bureaucrats and 2) a belligerent media run amok in pursuit of ratings.
Soundsurfr: Hmm. OK. So, you think the government should crack down on the belligerent media? I would think they do that at our peril. The media may be belligerent, but they keep the government on its toes.
dk: Not exactly, I think government negligence and corruption caused these problems i.e. the government�s reliance upon media and the educracy has become the source of many problems. The government has an obligation to police the airwaves and the Internet, just like they police the highways and trade routes. Sadly, the infrastructure upon which media rests defies any effective police action. That�s the reality, and we can�t address the reality without a real problem statement based upon common cause. The media and educracy having acquired a vested interest in the status quo rail against the common cause.
Soundsurfr: I sincerely doubt that anybody could figure out what you're ranting about in the above statements. You seem to be reluctant to get specific about your concerns, but much less reluctant to paint groups of people like *jurists* with insulting brush strokes. Do you have a suggestion for legal reform to make court decisions more *reliable*, or are you just lamenting the limits of epistemology in general? Please define "positive knowledge" and perhaps explain how you go about assessing its reliability. Then state specifically what other sources of knowledge are more reliable.
dk: The first question asked about positives evidence, and I responded that positive knowledge was unreliable.
Soundsurfr: Yes, but you didn't explain, even after I asked, what is meant by *unreliable* and what, if anything, was more reliable.
dk:
dk: Since the source of positive evidence follows from positive knowledge alone, they must both be unreliable. Let me give an example. Fingerprints since 1900 have been called positive evidence, yet today matching fingerprints has become an art.. see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020320.html
Soundsurfr: What I find interesting is that you use *positive evidence* to make that determination. How do you know your determination is reliable?
dk: I agree and it�s a Catch 22. A Catch 22 that bespeaks the inherent fatal flaw that deprives secular egoism of legitimacy. It at the same time undermines the establishment of secularism by establishing a fiction based upon egotism. It�s a magicians act, abracadabra, now you see it, now you don�t.

(snip)

dk: I mean psychiatry has no rational basis apart from egoism, and no material basis at all.
Soundsurfr: Not sure what that means or what it implies for psychiatry either. Do you want to do away with psychiatry? Eliminate it from the courts? What?
dk: No, I�m simply saying positive evidence alone is unreliable.
Soundsurfr: Compared to what???
dk: Compared to common sense.

dk: Soundsurfr: At a trial, first the judge determines what constitutes positive evidence, then both sides present their witnesses to interpret the �whatness� of the positive evidence. The positive evidence in the course of a trial becomes unreliable i.e. subject to multiple interpretations. Obviously, if positive evidence can mean two or more things, then its unreliable.
Soundsurfr: False dichotomy. If positive evidence can be mis-interpreted, then the reliability of our methods of interpretation is in question. This does not mean that all positive evidence is unreliable. Do you think there's a possibility that the earth does not revolve around the sun?
dk: Exactly, now you see it, now you don�t, abracadabra, and that makes secularism a fiction based on human aspirations of Utopia. There must be something else that underlies common cause besides personal interest (egoism), and that something must be common sense. Human Rights reflect common cause derived from �active judgements�. In a state of freedom people must practice �active judgments� in the course of everyday life, and with practice comes reliability. But it must be something more than memory reflex learned by indoctrination, it must be inborn. If inalienable human rights exist they must be innate to the human condition. Our secular educracy/social engineers/government undermine freedom with propaganda and indoctrination that projects a fiction. This betrays the very concept of freedom, it aspires to transcend the �active intellect� by depriving it of judgment. For example I am not free to descent against any article of feminist, racist or secular doctrine without becoming a bigot and a hate monger. This is pure and simple cultural brainwashing that deprives people of the freedom essential to participate in their own lives. It fundamentally deprives them of �active judgments�, and thus reduces them to virtual egotistical creatures that live in a virtual reality.

dk: I don�t wish to eliminate anything, I merely seek to separate the fictional from the real.
Soundsurfr: As we all do. So how do you propose to do it?
dk: We proceed by simply recognizing the fiction as a dogma (not a science), recognize common sense and embrace the necessity of �active judgments� as a bases of common cause. Then we to practice �active judgments� and in the process learn from our mistakes.

dk: There is a lot of confusion about the finding of law and a finding of fact. In my view both a finding of law and fact requires judgment, , and that�s the unavoidable fact of common sense.
Soundsurfr: Yes, but there are some judgements that are made in the context of a strict set of rules for judgement, and others that are not. I refer to the generally accepted rules for critical inquiry.
dk: Generally accepted rules of critical inquiry based upon a purely egotistical foundation terminate upon a cartoonish fiction. Active judgements based upon common cause aren�t egotistical but grounded upon common cause, and common cause sounds a lot like human nature.

dk: I also recognize that in a �positive� sense �common� sense has no meaning;
Soundsurfr: Good. In what sense does it have meaning?
dk: In a human sense, as opposed to a scientific sense.

(snip) On the idea that there is a Marxist/feminist conspiracy....

Soundsurfr:: You call this book "highly acclaimed", but you can't say who it might be acclaimed by. Then you cite Google hits as a possible measurement of its "acclaim". There are perhaps too many problems with this approach to even go into, but here are just a few....
dk: As I said, Herbert Marcuse is often called �the guru of the New Left� in academic circles.
Soundsurfr: The number of Google hits on a given topic have nothing to do with whether the subject material has achieve any acclaim.
2,980 Google hits is peanuts. (snip)
dk: Were you to do a google search on yourself filtered by educational institutions( site:edu), its unlikely any of the hits would be about you. Again, egoism has lead you astray, its not about you and me.
Soundsurfr: 3. Even if his name generated 500,000 or so hits (still low for a mover/shaker), (snip)
dk: You should read a little about him before casting your opinion in the trough.