Escape From Duggarville

[Free]

still using this argument?  this is an exact repeat of stuff that came up four pages ago.

 

not it is not the same.  the feminist movement leaders have pretty set ideas, goals, etc.  to call yourself a feminist makes the presumption you support their goals and positions etc.

 

 there are MANY versions of Christianity out there.   I can say I'm a Christian, and there is no automatic assumption I support a particular version.

 

Clearly you are not reading anything what anybody is posting. It was probably posted 5 pages back...and continuously since then that feminism is not a uniform, monolithic movement. It has no "set beliefs, ideas or goals" except gender equality.

 

So, yet another link for you :laugh: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/there-is-no-real-feminist/

 

[Free]

I think feminism has changed for the better over the last couple of decades. About 20-22 years ago, I had a conversation with my college advisor. She was a far left feminist. In our conversation, somehow the subject of rape came up. I told her how I had watched a SNL sketch that included jokes about male rape in prison and how I was surprised they would do that because no one would ever dream of doing a sketch mocking the rape of women. She honestly had never considered that point of view--that if rape of women was horrible, it was equally horrible when it happened to men. We discussed it for a while. It made an impression on me because I was shocked that she had never even thought of that.

 

I self-identified as a feminist right from when I was quite young. I was proud to be a woman. Yet when I first found online communities, my attitudes were labelled misogynistic. That was quite a shock. I was a feminist. How could I be a misogynist?

 

Apparently, I could be and I indeed was. Cultural conditioning can be powerful and our brains can hold very in-congruent ideas quite comfortably until somebody from the outside points it out and forces us to connect the dots between all our disparate positions.

 

So yes, feminism has evolved not only away from misandry but also from misogyny. It is evolving even more rapidly, now that people have started to understand that gender is not a binary. I view this as a sign of progress. Some of the harshest critics of feminists are other feminists and that kind of dialogue and diversity of views is healthy.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Seriously, rampant sexism is in the news every day.

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/24/foxs-bolling-calls-first-female-uae-pilot-that/200881

 

Or would people claim that the remarks were funny, just not "politically correct?"

[Mrs Mungo]

So, yet another link for you :laugh: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/there-is-no-real-feminist/

 

This was a great read, thanks!

 

Do you think this is too long for a t-shirt?

"So when people call themselves feminists, they’re taking on more than an identity, label, or ideology. They’re marking themselves as part of a movement that’s made necessary strides in advancing women’s rights, a movement that isn’t perfect or unilateral and can’t be."

[*Lulu*]

Seriously, rampant sexism is in the news every day.

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/24/foxs-bolling-calls-first-female-uae-pilot-that/200881

 

Or would people claim that the remarks were funny, just not "politically correct?"

Oh my gosh.

 

Gobsmacked.

 

Utterly gobsmacked.

[SKL]

This was a great read, thanks!

 

Do you think this is too long for a t-shirt?

"So when people call themselves feminists, they’re taking on more than an identity, label, or ideology. They’re marking themselves as part of a movement that’s made necessary strides in advancing women’s rights, a movement that isn’t perfect or unilateral and can’t be."

 

You realize that this implies people can't work toward these goals without wearing that label?  Is that what you meant to say?

[SKL]

Can anyone think of any other label out there that is considered a requirement for everyone who shares a fundamental belief?

[SKL]

Seriously, rampant sexism is in the news every day.

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/24/foxs-bolling-calls-first-female-uae-pilot-that/200881

 

Or would people claim that the remarks were funny, just not "politically correct?"

 

I would not say that sort of thing was "rampant" "in the news every day."  The reason it is considered "news" is because it is outside the range of what we expect to see.

 

And as you insist that we must not be influenced by the fringes of feminism no matter how in-our-faces they are, why does not the same logic apply to the extremes of sexist expression?

[SKL]

It's not exactly a phrase we hear every day in the US, either. I'm sure there are many Americans who have no clue what it means. :)

 

I'm not sure where I learned the term - probably from my mother, who is part Irish and has some relatives with a lot of kids.  (My mom "only" had 6 kids.)

 

However, I have been asked if my kids were "Irish twins" because they are close in age.  So it is a term that gets used occasionally.

 

I think the negative connotation that was once attached to the term is extinct, but if someone wants to feel offended, who am I to stop them....

 

[TranquilMind]

I got a pap smear every year from my regular doctor for years. Now, the advice (according to ACOG's 2014 guidelines) is to get one at least every 3-5 years. But, nowhere do they advise *against* regular pap smears as the pap smears aren't harmful. In fact, there is a statement on their site right now saying that they do *not* discourage yearly pelvic exams even for low risk asymptomatic patients. More regular pap smears are advisable for women who have multiple partners since cervical cancer is usually caused by HPV. Widespread use of pap smears are single handedly responsible for a 50% reduction in cervical cancer over the last 30 years.

 

 

The ONLY place I can find anything like that online is from the Mercola website, which I hope you realize is a hokum site. The advice against unnecessary screening in young, *low-risk* women has to do with unnecessary biopsies more than anything. Please do not pass on dangerous inaccurate information.

Well, it is here also, on cancer.gov:

 

Radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low, but repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer. The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Nevertheless, women should talk with their health care providers about the need for each x-ray.

 

Also here on Live Science:

 

Q: Can frequent mammograms increase the risk of breast cancer?

 

A: The radiation from mammograms is pretty low.  So the use of mammograms could increase cancer slightly, but the benefits of mammograms in women 50 and over outweigh the risk.

This is not true for women under 40. Unless you have very strong risk factors for breast cancer, such as a strong family history, such as BRCA1 or 2 mutations, it's not recommended that women under 40 get mammograms, because the risk of cancer from that mammogram could outweigh any benefit.

 

There are actually dozens of references, but I just grabbed the first couple.    It is not just Mercola. 

[Mrs Mungo]

1. If you press the multi quote button, you don't have to reply 5 times in a row, you can just reply to several posts in one reply.

 

2. Are you on some kind of straw man kick this morning?

 

 

You realize that this implies people can't work toward these goals without wearing that label?  Is that what you meant to say?

 

Let me quote again the line that I was quoting:

"So when people call themselves feminists, they’re taking on more than an identity, label, or ideology. They’re marking themselves as part of a movement that’s made necessary strides in advancing women’s rights, a movement that isn’t perfect or unilateral and can’t be."

 

How *I* interpreted this statement was that labeling oneself a feminist IS, in and of itself, a subversive act. But, it aligns oneself with a movement that has secured women the vote, allowed women into military academies and will continue to make strides toward equality for women.

 

One can surmise that any woman who is interested in gender equality IS a feminist, even if she rejects the label. BUT, actually wearing the label is an act of progress.

 

 

Can anyone think of any other label out there that is considered a requirement for everyone who shares a fundamental belief?

 

I've listed several elsewhere in the thread.

 

If you believe in Christ as your savior, then you are considered a Christian. People don't reject the word because Mormons call themselves Christians and don't believe that Jesus was divine or because Westboro calls themselves a Christian church while marketing only hate.

 

 

 

I would not say that sort of thing was "rampant" "in the news every day."  The reason it is considered "news" is because it is outside the range of what we expect to see.

Sorry, you must not have actually clicked the link. My complaint wasn't about an event featured in the news, but about the behavior of news anchors.

 

 

And as you insist that we must not be influenced by the fringes of feminism no matter how in-our-faces they are, why does not the same logic apply to the extremes of sexist expression?

 

Can you quote where I said anything resembling that? What I said was that you don't need to accept everything any feminist believes in order to call yourself a feminist. In fact, the beliefs are so varied that you would be hard pressed to believe them all.

 

How does that relate to sexist language in any way? What label do the sexist news anchors represent that you think I might reject? This really makes zero sense to me. Can you set it up in a syllogism?

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, it is here also, on cancer.gov:

 

Radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low, but repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer. The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Nevertheless, women should talk with their health care providers about the need for each x-ray.

 

Also here on Live Science:

 

Q: Can frequent mammograms increase the risk of breast cancer?

 

A: The radiation from mammograms is pretty low.  So the use of mammograms could increase cancer slightly, but the benefits of mammograms in women 50 and over outweigh the risk.

This is not true for women under 40. Unless you have very strong risk factors for breast cancer, such as a strong family history, such as BRCA1 or 2 mutations, it's not recommended that women under 40 get mammograms, because the risk of cancer from that mammogram could outweigh any benefit.

 

There are actually dozens of references, but I just grabbed the first couple.    It is not just Mercola.

Except, those recommendations are still in favor of getting mammograms because the benefits outweigh the risk. SKL was claiming the opposite. And nowhere do those statements back up what she claimed about pap smears.

[SKL]

1. If you press the multi quote button, you don't have to reply 5 times in a row, you can just reply to several posts in one reply.

 

2. Are you on some kind of straw man kick this morning?

 

 

Let me quote again the line that I was quoting:

"So when people call themselves feminists, they’re taking on more than an identity, label, or ideology. They’re marking themselves as part of a movement that’s made necessary strides in advancing women’s rights, a movement that isn’t perfect or unilateral and can’t be."

 

How *I* interpreted this statement was that labeling oneself a feminist IS, in and of itself, a subversive act. But, it aligns oneself with a movement that has secured women the vote, allowed women into military academies and will continue to make strides toward equality for women.

 

One can surmise that any woman who is interested in gender equality IS a feminist, even if she rejects the label. BUT, actually wearing the label is an act of progress.

 

 

I've listed several elsewhere in the thread.

 

If you believe in Christ as your savior, then you are considered a Christian. People don't reject the word because Mormons call themselves Christians and don't believe that Jesus was divine or because Westboro calls themselves a Christian church while marketing only hate.

 

 

 

Sorry, you must not have actually clicked the link. My complaint wasn't about an event featured in the news, but about the behavior of news anchors.

 

 

Can you quote where I said anything resembling that? What I said was that you don't need to accept everything any feminist believes in order to call yourself a feminist. In fact, the beliefs are so varied that you would be hard pressed to believe them all.

 

How does that relate to sexist language in any way? What label do the sexist news anchors represent that you think I might reject? This really makes zero sense to me. Can you set it up in a syllogism?

 

"you are considered a Christian" is not the same as "you have to call yourself a Christian" or "you not calling yourself Christian is going to hold back the causes Christians believe in."

 

As for the news story, the headline in your link was clearly about the newscaster's words, not about the substance of the story he was reporting on.  The link existed only because someone made a news story ABOUT his sexist words.  That *was* the news.  Like most headlines, it was reported because it was different from the norm.  Which is rather obvious, unless - are you telling me that you hear guys making jokes about boobs every time you turn on the TV news?  What channel are you watching?  The last time I recall hearing a supposedly serious news reporter joke about private parts was when Anderson Cooper used the term "teabaggers."

 

Point is, let's not have a double standard.  Either the offensive exceptions matter or they don't.  You are implying that the whole world is full of sexist cads because some guy had the gall to say "boobs."  We are in the cave man days because that's what we women have to deal with day in, day out.  No it isn't.  I work with men all the time - all around the developed world - and only once has any one of them made a crude joke about the female body - an older guy back in 1993 - and even he didn't actually say the words.  Actually, if you want to get technical about it, you can go pretty far back in history before you find respectable society being OK with that sort of thing.  If it ever was.  So how that tells me I need to call myself a feminist is evading me.

[Mrs Mungo]

"you are considered a Christian" is not the same as "you have to call yourself a Christian" or "you not calling yourself Christian is going to hold back the causes Christians believe in."

You realize that the inverse of a statement is not always true? That is a basic logic fail to insist that it is. Therefore, my saying "calling yourself a feminist helps to progress the causes that feminists (all of them, even the ones not claiming the label) believe in," does not mean that the inverse "not calling yourself a feminist inhibits women's causes" is true or that I would agree with that. They are inherently different statements. And nowhere did I say that anyone MUST do anything. I said that I saw no reason to reject the label just because I disagree with some feminists on some issues. You're *always* doing to disagree with some of the people on some of the issues in any given group.

 

 

As for the news story, the headline in your link was clearly about the newscaster's words, not about the substance of the story he was reporting on.  The link existed only because someone made a news story ABOUT his sexist words.  That *was* the news. Like most headlines, it was reported because it was different from the norm.

You seem to have misunderstood the link. The link was from media matters, which is NOT a news organization but an organization dedicated to holding the media accountable. The link did not contain a news story; it only contained a clip of the video.

 

 

Point is, let's not have a double standard.  Either the offensive exceptions matter or they don't.  You are implying that the whole world is full of sexist cads because some guy had the gall to say "boobs."

Actually, I found the other comment (the one about her not being able to park) more sexist. Those are the kinds of remarks that I was referring to.

 

 

We are in the cave man days because that's what we women have to deal with day in, day out.  No it isn't.  I work with men all the time - all around the developed world - and only once has any one of them made a crude joke about the female body - an older guy back in 1993 - and even he didn't actually say the words.  Actually, if you want to get technical about it, you can go pretty far back in history before you find respectable society being OK with that sort of thing.  If it ever was.  So how that tells me I need to call myself a feminist is evading me.

Again, that wasn't even the remark I found more offensive. Did you watch the link or no? *That* type of remark is pretty regular in society.

[Impish]

For those that say they believe "children are a blessing", do you believe that those who limit their family size do NOT believe children are a blessing. I find the implication, if that is what it is, a little offensive. I desperately love my four and am immeasurably blessed by them. I do not see how having a fifth child would have made the four I have more blessed to me nor how not having a fifth makes me less blessed.

 

It is a phrase I do not understand. My friend L, who endured eight pregnancies in 16 years in order to finally have one live birth, does not view her daughter as less of a blessing because she is an only child. She does not believe she is demeaning the value of children to not put her body through another pregnancy. My mom had three and adored, absolutely adored motherhood but never felt she devalued children for not having more.

 

My nephew and his wife will never have any. They adore their own niece and nephew and are amazing aunt and uncle, but are choosing not to have children for the sake of a greater ministry they are involved in. I fail to see how this indicates they view children as anti-blessing.

 

I guess I don't understand the meaning and implication of the phrase. I see people who view children as a wonderful blessing whether they have a large number of them or any at all. My husband's cousin who has taught kindergaten for 26 years comes to mind. She finds children to be very precious and loves her role in their lives. She simply does not have any of her own.

 

Can someone enlighten me because the phrase seems to imply judgmentalism and certain assumptions about those that limit family size, but I am not certain if that is how it meant.

I completely believe my kids are a blessing to Wolf and I.

 

I'm so grateful to have them, to have the opportunity to be a part of their lives, to enjoy these wonderful people, to love them and parent them and have our family.

 

I felt that way when I was a single mom w/one child. I feel the same way as a married mom of 6.

 

For me, it has nothing to do w/how many children, or how the children came into the family, or anything else, other than a heartfelt appreciation for being able to love and parent. No other word, for me, than 'blessing' truly encompasses (or at least comes close, b/c I'm not sure there's enough words) how I feel to be their Mother.

[maize]

If you believe in Christ as your savior, then you are considered a Christian. People don't reject the word because Mormons call themselves Christians and don't believe that Jesus was divine

 

Hmm, that would indeed be strange reasoning since every Mormon I know believes Jesus was and is divine :)

 

Doctrinal differences, yes, but "Jesus is not divine", no.

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/34591/34591_000_APP_04-livingChrist.pdf

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ

 

 

Carry on.

[Mrs Mungo]

Hmm, that would indeed be strange reasoning since every Mormon I know believes Jesus was and is divine :)

 

Doctrinal differences, yes, but "Jesus is not divine", no.

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/34591/34591_000_APP_04-livingChrist.pdf

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ

 

 

Carry on.

Sorry, I didn't think Mormons believed in the Trinity or that Christ was the only Son of God? That is what mainline Christians think of as divine, I think? So, different terminology, maybe, but same net meaning.

[maize]

Sorry, I didn't think Mormons believed in the Trinity or that Christ was the only Son of God? That is what mainline Christians think of as divine, I think? So, different terminology, maybe, but same net meaning.

I think the links explain our understanding of Jesus fairly well, but the short version is that He is a member of the Godhead: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. While we view these as three individual beings (not the three-in-one conceptualization of the Trinity) all three are seen as divine.

 

There are very real theological differences between LDS beliefs and other Christian groups, but there are also a lot of misconceptions floating around so I like to make an effort to clear them up when I can :)

[umsami]

Just in case you're getting Ms confused, we Muslims love Jesus…think he was a great Prophet….but is not divine. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Just in case you're getting Ms confused, we Muslims love Jesus…think he was a great Prophet….but is not divine. :)

I'm definitely not confusing the two, lol. I would say that mainline protestants don't really have the same understanding of the terms. If I agreed with Mormonism, then I'd be Mormon, right? ;)

[LucyStoner]

SKL, I find your assertion that feminism needs to be "equalism" to be as literally minded and awkward as I found your previous insistence that Americans need to be "USians". You not infrequently insist that your take on nomenclature and word use to be the only *possible* correct interpretation or use. It's overbearing. Language is fluid and words aren't chosen by some singular arbiter of what makes a "correct" or "accurate" word. Your approach to it rather reminds me of a young child on the autism spectrum who can't let go of his incorrect belief that his interpretation of something is not only the most accurate but the ONLY valid, ONLY accurate interpretation. You do not get to change how millions and millions of people use a word.

[SKL]

SKL, I find your assertion that feminism needs to be "equalism" to be as literally minded and awkward as I found your previous insistence that Americans need to be "USians". You not infrequently insist that your take on nomenclature and word use to the the only *possible* correct interpretation or use. It's overbearing. Language is fluid and words aren't chosen by some singular arbiter of what makes a "correct" or "accurate" word. Your approach to it rather reminds me of a young child on the autism spectrum who can't let go of his incorrect belief that his interpretation of something is not only the most accurate but the ONLY valid, ONLY accurate interpretation. You do not get to change how millions and millions of people use a word.

 

First, I never said Americans should be called "USians."

 

Second, I never said anyone else has to use or not use a word.  I was responding to the repeated suggestions that people who DO NOT identify with the word "feminist" SHOULD use it.

 

Third, I never said feminism "needs to be equalism."

 

People who are happy to call themselves feminists should call themselves feminists.  Those of us who don't like the word are free to not like it.  I don't see the problem.

 

Putting words in others' mouths?  I kinda see a problem there, but in this context I really don't care.

[TranquilMind]

Except, those recommendations are still in favor of getting mammograms because the benefits outweigh the risk. SKL was claiming the opposite. And nowhere do those statements back up what she claimed about pap smears.

Ok.  I decide risk v. benefit myself for any given issue after looking at both sides of it.   

 

I don't let them decide for me that I should do something because it benefits some class of women, which may or may not have anything to do with me, given my own habits and risks.  If the potential is there, repeatedly irradiating my breasts - absent any evidence of a problem - seems risky to me.  YMMV. 

[LucyStoner]

SKL, I'm not going to go back and multi quote you to Toledo and back because I don't have the time or the need to but your take on what had been said here just isn't fully accurate. You have said things you just flat out deny later. It's hardly the first time though so you can't expect people to be surprised.