Protestantism

» Migisi - Kudos to Migisi

In response to Kudos to Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:
.

I don't think I've agreed with you THIS much in a long time, Migisi. Very well said.
.
See... you're a feminist at heart!

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - "Words" and "Things"

In response to Extremely Fortunate! posted by Migisi:
.
The dictionary defines feminism as a movement that advocates equal rights for women.
.
But, according to what I have learned about feminism from its leading experts, that is not the case. Feminism does NOT reach out for equal rights so much as it claims society is based on wrong headed thinking and that personal experience shows us that the way "things" are is highly questionable if not absolutely wrong..
.
Feminism goes on to explain that the very "words" we use to transmit messages to each other are loaded in such a way so that they favor the idea that truth is located in the past. That is probably why Brian made his statements about language earlier in this thread.
.
Other theories and philosophies should be included in any serious look at the subject of feminism--post structuralism and post modernism.
.
It might be pertinent to say that feminism advocates an entire revamping of how we even look at reality itself.
.
More than that, it could be said that feminism has unlocked to doors to rethinking the human experience including such "things" as our institutions; religion, education, government, economy, and the family itself. And, if this is true, then we might have a clue as to the big problems we are faced with in society today. So, feminism is an appropriate subject to discuss in relationship to religion; because, it questions the roots of religious thought.
.
So, feminism can be seen as being about "words" and "things" in a certain way.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Managerial

.
Another aspect of feminism has to do with the way we all are managed by the "words" and "things" that were already in place when we were born.
.
Men ~ long since dead ~ created the major religions by which our personal experience is defined. We can only move into the roles that have already been laid out and defined by the language we speak.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Managerial

In response to Managerial posted by pink101:

.
Men ~ long since dead ~ created the major religions by which our personal experience is defined. We can only move into the roles that have already been laid out and defined by the language we speak.
.
Those limitations are true for the orthodox.

It's unlikely you'd find a feminist actively involved in a patriarchal orthodox religion. However, I believe that religion evolves as society evolves, hence, the emergence of a liberal spirituality which is so often denounced by the orthodox. Just my view, of course.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - "Words" and "Things"

In response to "Words" and "Things" posted by pink101:
.
But, according to what I have learned about feminism from its leading experts, that is not the case. Feminism does NOT reach out for equal rights so much as it claims society is based on wrong headed thinking and that personal experience shows us that the way "things" are is highly questionable if not absolutely wrong..
.
The 'second wave' feminists were/are all about equality and an end to discrimination of every stripe. A pretty simple philosophy with goals clearly defined. Today, we'd be labeled "equity" feminists.
.
The 'third wave' feminists (and their 'leading experts') have developed several social philosophies which are far too complicated (egg-headish) for the average person to comprehend - especially for third-worlders. And IMO, their goals (if they have any) are splintered or not well defined. I think the philosophy you refer to (including the term 'bifurcation') describes third-wavers.
.
Feminism goes on to explain that the very "words" we use to transmit messages to each other are loaded in such a way so that they favor the idea that truth is located in the past.
.
What 'loaded' words do the third-wavers find objectional to their feminist philosophy?
.
That is probably why Brian made his statements about language earlier in this thread.
.
Lot of folks oppose supplemental menus displayed in Spanish at McDonalds and Burger King too. They'll get over it.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - "Words" and "Things"

In response to "Words" and "Things" posted by Migisi:

.
????
.
Can you give some references?
.
I'd like to understand more about what you've posted.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - In Particular

In response to "Words" and "Things" posted by pink101:

.
In particular, I'm interested in the "waves".

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - In Particular

In response to In Particular posted by pink101:
.
In modern western history:
First wave: early 19th century - the Suffragette movement; leaders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, marxists Frederick Engels & August Bebel.
.
Second wave: early 1960s through the mid 1980s (and continuing in the current senior sector); leaders like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinam.
.
Third wave: early 1990s to today; leaders like Gloria Anzaldua, Gloria Jean Watkins (Bell Hooks). And I'm sure you've read works by others.
.
Re: 'words' or language, feminist jargon is like learning a different language. One doesn't become fluent unless it's used frequently. Personally, I don't see the need to speak in gender-neutral terms, but some more radical feminist feel excluded by terms like "mankind" and similar. I too get harped on for not using PC language. Eh, so what.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Very Complex

In response to In Particular posted by Migisi:
.
That's for the response. It was helpful.
.
For what it's worth to anyone, thanks for having any input in this thread.
.
I have learned most of what I know about feminism, here, since this thread was started.
.
I have to conclude, for myself, that I don't get feminism as a single strain of thinking; but, it seems to be a complicated movement that stands in opposition to much of what has been taught to us about reality.
.
I can see how religion wants to reject it; but, at the same time, much of what feminism holds forth comes out of religion. So, the bifurcation expresses itself again. And, the bifurcation does seem to be at the foundation of feminism no matter what discipline it is found. Feminism seems to expose the lies we've been taught to believe. It shows us many contradictions we don't, otherwise, see so easily.
.
I see feminist thinking having much to do in the dialog in which our society is engaged. More than we know. I think it is being played out in our present political scene.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Very Complex

In response to Very Complex posted by pink101:
.
that I don't get feminism as a single strain of thinking
.
I agree. Western feminism is far more complicated nowadays. It used to be a 'grass roots' social movement. It's now become a PC talking point for the intelligenza, sociology academics, and book sellers - which, IMO, is why the movement has lost momentum and change has stalled out. It doesn't reach out to the waitress and store clerk anymore. As I see it, anyway.
.
I can see how religion wants to reject it; but, at the same time, much of what feminism holds forth comes out of religion.
.
If that religion dictates a lower or nonexistent social and economic status for women, equity feminism opposes that. Naturally, orthodox religion opposes feminism because it demands change in age-old established patriarchal doctrine. I can't see how either can co-exist.
.
More than we know. I think it is being played out in our present political scene.
.
An interesting article here. It reflects what I said about not reaching out to the average woman and her everyday issues:
Snippet from:
Why Women Hate Hillary April 2007
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/
.
"Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep's clothing.
.
"Clearly, Hillary and her advisors have calculated that for a woman to be elected in this country, she's got to come across as just as tough as the guys. And maybe they're right. But so far, Hillary is not getting men with this strategy, and women feel written off. After the dark ages of this pugnacious administration, many of us want to let the light in. We want a break with the past, optimism, and a recommitment to the government caring about and serving the needs of everyday people. We want what feminism began to fight for 40 years ago-humanizing deeply patriarchal institutions. And, ironically, we see candidates like John Edwards or Barack Obama-men-offering just that. If Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president, then maybe, just maybe, she should actually run as a woman." (end)
.
Hmm... maybe Hillary read this article - and that's why we saw her cry for the cameras in January in NH??? To appear more human, softer, womanly? I didn't buy it. Did you?

-- posted by Migisi