Feminism - why is it so despised?

No I'm not, although the rapist probably does, he raped a girl.

What I'm saying is that no one is 100% obidient. However, that is what the church wants. When social issues such as abourtion,euthenasia and gay rights are brought up it makes people htink about them, and some times make even religious people second guess some of the church's rules. It doesn' mean they're abandoning the church, it just means they're questioning it. To try and prevent this the church chracks down on this stuff to make the people think they are abandoning the church in that if they follow through with it they're excommunicated.

For a rapist there isn't a point in doing this. There isn't anyone who makes you tink "well, maybe the church is wrong, rape might be okay". People are raised and always told that rape ir wrong, regardless of wether they follow the church or not. Threatening somone with excommunication if they rape somone won't change a thing.

Originally Posted by John

Er, no.

The definition of "feminist" is, and always has been, calling for equal rights for men and women.

It's really a loaded term and it is being falsely defined. Feminism is about bringing female rights to the same level as male rights. Saying it is the definition of "calling for equal rights" is automatically assuming males never have less rights than women, which is false over here.

Of course, most people who call themselves feminists are equalists in this sense - so technically I'd fall into both definitions below.

Or, easymode;
feminism - advocating equality of women with men
masculism (sp) - advocating equality of men with women

Originally Posted by Mattocks

No I'm not, although the rapist probably does, he raped a girl.

What I'm saying is that no one is 100% obidient. However, that is what the church wants. When social issues such as abourtion,euthenasia and gay rights are brought up it makes people htink about them, and some times make even religious people second guess some of the church's rules. It doesn' mean they're abandoning the church, it just means they're questioning it. To try and prevent this the church chracks down on this stuff to make the people think they are abandoning the church in that if they follow through with it they're excommunicated.

For a rapist there isn't a point in doing this. There isn't anyone who makes you tink "well, maybe the church is wrong, rape might be okay". People are raised and always told that rape ir wrong, regardless of wether they follow the church or not. Threatening somone with excommunication if they rape somone won't change a thing.

The entire point that Bravo was making earlier isn't that the girl thought that abortion was "okay", but that she may have thought it would be easy enough to get penance for, and the rapist might have thought the same. No one is one hundred percent obedient, and if the church wants one hundred percent obedience, it should surely take action against all deviation. Not doing so is hardly an exercise in attaining obedience. I already addressed pretty much every argument of this kind earlier, so again maybe you should read through some of my previous posts with Bravo. What I posited is that the church has raised its banner against abortion so many times it's impossible for someone not to know that they don't like it even if they're not a member. So for the girl to have had an abortion could well be a matter of her doing it regardless of what the church thinks because she's willing to deal with the consequences. Again, you seem to be assuming that just because she defied the church, she doesn't understand that they don't like it. This relies on the blind-faith position that "if she understood that it was wrong, she would surely obey."

Then again, I hardly think the church should be stopping people from questioning its authority because they might better justify it in thinking, but for an organisation that relies on faith it's a little too much to expect them to let their wards think, I suppose.

Of course she knows they think it's wrong, but they're trying to re enforce that. Think of it like advertising, you know about Wendy's bacon double cheeseburger, but tere's still ads for it everywhere. Why? Because they're trying to persuade you to get it. The church does that exact same thing. Society is rsuading her that abortion is actually okay despite what the church says, and the church is doing the oposite.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

Of course she knows they think it's wrong, but they're trying to re enforce that. Think of it like advertising, you know about Wendy's bacon double cheeseburger, but tere's still ads for it everywhere. Why? Because they're trying to persuade you to get it. The church does that exact same thing. Society is rsuading her that abortion is actually okay despite what the church says, and the church is doing the oposite.

Last time I checked "Wendy's" wouldn't be telling me my life isn't worth living if I didn't get a bacon double cheeseburger if they advertised here, nor are they targetting me specifically as an example of what kind of bad things will happen if I don't get one. Trying to re-enforce the point against someone who's already demonstrated that she doesn't care is a waste of energy.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Last time I checked "Wendy's" wouldn't be telling me my life isn't worth living if I didn't get a bacon double cheeseburger if they advertised here, nor are they targetting me specifically as an example of what kind of bad things will happen if I don't get one. Trying to re-enforce the point against someone who's already demonstrated that she doesn't care is a waste of energy.

It's setting an example.

As I've already elaborated far too much for my liking, it's a redundant one. Setting an example is serving to teach people a lesson - people either already know that lesson (since they've taught it so many times it's hardly funny anymore) or don't care about the lesson.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

As I've already elaborated far too much for my liking, it's a redundant one. Setting an example is serving to teach people a lesson - people either already know that lesson (since they've taught it so many times it's hardly funny anymore) or don't care about the lesson.

Going to meet you halfway here; although I can't exactly say that a statement from the Vatican is as "simple" as a commercial (and commercials actually do work), I agree that people are generally quite stubborn when it comes to issues regarding faith. It's pretty redundant at this point, other than getting liberals to feel that conservatives (and the religious) are pricks for trying to interfere with their lives. XD

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

As I've already elaborated far too much for my liking, it's a redundant one. Setting an example is serving to teach people a lesson - people either already know that lesson (since they've taught it so many times it's hardly funny anymore) or don't care about the lesson.

You're putting the human mind down to black and white. They either know or they don't and that's it. Knowing i one thing, but agreeing is another. It may not be the most effective way of doing it, but that's pretty much all they're doing is trying to make people who don't agree with one of their ideas, aree with them.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

You're putting the human mind down to black and white. They either know or they don't and that's it. Knowing i one thing, but agreeing is another. It may not be the most effective way of doing it, but that's pretty much all they're doing is trying to make people who don't agree with one of their ideas, aree with them.

I'm not sure what part of me you're not understanding. If they know something they either agree with it or they disagree with it. If they know the church (and they certainly did know, because it was impossible for them not to), and they go ahead and do it anyway, it's clear that they don't agree. Repeating themselves in a specific case isn't going to achieve anything in that regard. On top of this, the rapist clearly doesn't agree with the Catholic church on rape, and as such maybe they should put some effort into getting him to agree with them as well, meaning that again, they should excommunicate in both, or excommunicate in neither.

I don't mean to sound pushy, but should this being going towards an abortion debate topic, and not one about feminism? ^_^;

Also, Lord Zero, I think it's been said many times (not by me) that the Church does excommunicate both. Just...one that doesn't involve a great deal of fanfare, since the media already has that covered. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I'm not sure what part of me you're not understanding. If they know something they either agree with it or they disagree with it. If they know the church (and they certainly did know, because it was impossible for them not to), and they go ahead and do it anyway, it's clear that they don't agree. Repeating themselves in a specific case isn't going to achieve anything in that regard. On top of this, the rapist clearly doesn't agree with the Catholic church on rape, and as such maybe they should put some effort into getting him to agree with them as well, meaning that again, they should excommunicate in both, or excommunicate in neither.

Zero, it's not that I don't understand you, it's that I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you obviously do with me. Let's just let it go, we're both going in circles.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

Zero, it's not that I don't understand you, it's that I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you obviously do with me. Let's just let it go, we're both going in circles.

You seem to be bringing up points I've already addressed several times as if you've been ignoring what I've said previously, this is why I think it's a matter of you failing to understand (especially given that on the previous page, you expressly said that you agree it's unjust even if it's not sexist).

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Also, Lord Zero, I think it's been said many times (not by me) that the Church does excommunicate both. Just...one that doesn't involve a great deal of fanfare, since the media already has that covered. ^_^;

It's been said that the church looks down on both, the entire discussion is that they do not make a declaration of excommunication in both cases, which I have argued is an arbitrary distinction.

I agree with you and I call myself a feminist. I believe in equal rights for both genders and I also care about men's rights, just as I care about women's rights. For me feminism means equality, not dictatorship made by women. Some so called "feminists" might want to make a revenge on men but I think it is a misconception of what feminism really is. The reason why I call myself a feminist is because women have traditionally been the sex which has been discriminated, and they still are. I don't mean that men are not discriminated against, just that women are still more discriminated. 95% of the world is owned by men. There is much more pressure on women in society: how they should act, that they should earn less than their husbands/boyfriends, how they should look etc.
Being a feminist does not mean rebelling against shaving and wearing make up. I shave and I wear make up but I do it because I want it that way. Not to please men or the media. It should be a personal decision, not something to feel pressured into doing. Many women do feel pressured into looking a certain way......

I think the reason why some men and women dislike or hate feminism is because they don't want to be challenged with it. They are scared of what they are not used to. Some people don't want to think and they feel uncomfortable when you tell them things that are logical (that they don't dare to admit). I don't think anyone actually BELIEVE that all feminists are angry man-hating lesbians. Those who are saying that are just threatened by feminism and they have got nothing better to say........ Sadly there are some men who don't want to owe women to do as they want in their lives....... Just because they want all of the power all alone......

Originally Posted by 8bit

Who's to say they don't often hire women for this reason?

Have you ever seen a company refusing men and hiring a large amount of women for less pay? There would hardly be any female unemployment and the male unemployment would be massive.

Given, many jobs are more popular with women (like child care) or are applied for because the job is convenient while the man is at another area of work, but regardless pay is equal.

Originally Posted by Emperor Mateus

Partially true, but the reason why women seem to be more interested in part-time jobs and is 'paid less' is usually because of children and childcare. Women usually (not always, but more often) deal with the issues of children in relationships, while men are free to continue working. This doesn't always have to be the case, especially now where both partners have to work to be able to pay the bills and the mortgage, but when a partner has to stay home to look after children, it's usually the woman doing it. Working mothers often have to take time off work to deal with sick children, and this affects their earnings when they're unable to work. Funnily enough, when I worked at a hospital laboratory, one of my fellow workmates was a Muslim woman, who worked while her husband stayed home with their son as she was more qualified than he was.

QFT.