Spendocrat,
Thankyou for calling me maligning names (eg “silly etc). Many feminists have now called me many maligning names, and I feel very privileged, because I am being called maligning names by people who believe in “equality”.

I would completely agree that terms such as “feminism” can be very "vague" terms, and that is why I would like to know more details about feminism. But whenever I ask for details, I just get called names, and I am now fully convinced that name calling is a very essential part of progressive feminism.

Accurate and reliable information is very important, because if people only have a vague idea about something, then they cannot give very reliable opinions, and such things as public opinion polls would then not be very reliable. And it does appears that feminist are not very reliable sources of information, as feminism is too "vague".

So I am still waiting on some "un-vague" answers to my questions about feminism, or maybe feminism just doesn't hold up too well, if people begin to ask questions about it.

REASON I'll devote my response in the Time for women to raise children, not their status" thread to Mahatma, and give a response to you in this one, as my contention also fits this thread.

You suggested that either matriarchy or patriarchy give "power and bias and are based on a greater sense of worth" -Incorrect conclusions, not based on sufficient factual data.

I am thinking more about your underlying assumption on which that assessment is based. Firstly, I reject your take, because if males sensed females regarded themselves as 'more worthy' they could at any time usurp that by militant action.

Again, I scratch my head at your qualifications on the one hand, and your strange understanding of culture on the other. It continues to appear that you did your degree, then forgot all u learnt and just soaked yourself in secular humanist/socialist/feminist ideology which you are now coming out with.

Now, you described me as:

a) Liar
b) Deceiver
c) Morally blind
e) Brainwashed.
c) Just want an old world power structure. (and I have a vested interest, so shot myself in the foot)

Bless u :) though it sounds a tad like flaming.

I reject all but 'e' and humbly admit that I have deliberately soaked myself in Christ related information, and agree that it has changed my brain chemistry such that 'brainwashed' is probably a true assessment of my condition. This of course, does not alter my ability to look at facts and draw reasonable conclusions based on the inferences of the facts themselves.

So,
-a reproductive rate of 1.75 per couple leads me to conclude "We are dyingout" not entirely unreasonable ?
-High divorce rates and dramatically lowering of marraige rates lead me to conclude 'We are experiencing social decay'.

Admittedly, my conclusion is based on my Biblical perspective, but I do believe they are supported by an overview of history and culture.

I've suggested a patriarchal re-structure and Biblical values as a solution to this. (tried and tested and not as you make it out to be.)

(waits for 'incoming' :)

Boaz,

Maybe its only feminists who can call other people names.

And its only feminists who don’t have to answer questions.

That’s all a part of the feminist’s version of “equality”

Indeed Tim,.. indeed.

Here is an example of 'MALE DOMINATION AND PATRIARCHY' from the Old testament..
From I Samuel
21 When the man Elkanah went up with all his family to offer the annual sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vow, 22 Hannah did not go. She said to her husband, "After the boy is weaned, I will take him and present him before the LORD, and he will live there always."
23 "Do what seems best to you," Elkanah her husband told her. "Stay here until you have weaned him; only may the LORD make good his [d] word." So the woman stayed at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

Did anyone see it ? how this male chauvenist pig Elkanah, ORDERED his wife to do this and that... with the words "Do what seems best to you"

Now isn't that the most dreaded, brutal, repressive, ugly sexist behavior that anyone can imagine ? :)

Something tells me that the negative image of patriarchal society is much more of a myth than the documents I'm using as my sources.

Cheers.

P.S. REASON, I've done an ad hoc survey of women in my own church this morning and general passers by this afternoon on my walk, I cannot find even ONE lady who considers being described as a 'girl' is a negative offensive thing. What one DID consider offensive is the 'YOU WOMEN '! kind of statement that men utter when they are referring to bad female drivers. So, as I already knew, its about tone, and intent. I also found my assumption that 'girl' is a complement for the VERY reasons I suggested. Its not about 'shallow', but I'm beginning to suspect its more about you looking for anything you can hang criticism on, no matter how tenuous.

BOAZ_David

You can call me a "girl" any time you like. You can refer to me as a "sheilla" if you want. You can even call me "mate" but please don't come into the room and say: "Hello guys" (when rererring to both sexes). So American and irritates me beyond belief.

I was at a Feminist Conference back in 1985. Everyone was getting restless about 10.30am. Someone called out: "Come on girls, time for morning tea". She was berated by the visiting female US academic for denigrating women. We all just sniggered and rolled our eyeballs. What a load of bunkum.

Yes, as you correctly point out, it is not so much the term that is used - it is the tone of the use.

Cheers mate!
Kay

Kalweb,
I have heard of a situation where a conference was run a few years ago by the UN for International Women’s Day, and the chairwoman made the mistake of addressing the delegates as “Ladies and Gentlemen”. At that point a number of women delegates got up and walked out, and these were international delegates that had been sent by various countries.

The newly formed Feminist Initiative party in Sweden held its first conference, which appears to have been totally out of control.
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2105&date=20050916

That party began with public support of 22% at the first opinion poll, but this has been systematically dropping as they release their policies, hold conferences etc, and public support is expected to be close to 0% by the next election. This would have nothing to do with men or “patriarchy”, as very few women are now supporting them.

Such situations would be just one of the reasons why I think that details become highly important whenever someone talks about issues such as “equality”, “democracy”, “progress”, “prosperity” etc.