Feminism

Omein!

(Besser gezugt…

Der ikkur iz nuch aza machlokes mir zulen ala huben ah git gebenshed choidesh, in yuhr, in ales gitz biz ah hindred in zvunztzig, gezinterheit!!!)

So Health, you define feminism as routinely going shopping?

If you are a women- then nebuch on you that you define your femininity in such inane terms!

Faywee -No where in my post did I even attempt to define feminism.

I obviously struck a chord with my words with you. Also, you conviently left out what I wrote- “They routinely go out to malls and other shopping areas even if they really don’t need to buy something.” Femininity has nothing to do with Feminism!

Clearheaded- In order to respond with a clear head, you must read the post first. Again, I was talking about people who like to Drey in malls or walk up and down streets- “Window Shopping”. They left their house without a definite purpose of- I need to buy “X” now- for whatever. Also, I didn’t imply it, I outright said it. “Call a spade, a spade.”

Yea, but the spirtual void for dreying is caused by feminism. I don’t know what the spiritual void for compulsive shopping is. Maybe it’s just a mental illness.

I think it is important to understand that Feminism is an actual sociological term with a set definition. Not all feminist are men-haters. Some are and they are called radical feminists. These are the women whose agenda is to break down the family institution because they believe it is a system of oppression. It are the radical feminists who are truly a threat to the family as we know it. That said, just like any radical group they tend to be fewer in number but have a greater presence in the mainstream media.

There are also liberal feminists whose main agenda is equal opportunities, similar to the efforts of African Americans during the civil rights movement of the 1950s. They are people promoting “equal pay for equal work.

Hereorthere, I am not sure I understand your logic in the following passage:

“Those trying to claim; There supposedly, is no feminist agenda being pushed in these cases, are proving there is. Because they automatically reject ANYTHING that does not automatically and always blame the man, in each and every case.”

The denial of something does not automatically support or prove the opposite of that. Denying the corruption of the courts does not necessarily mean an individual supports ignoring any evidence that does not support the woman’s case. The logic simply does not follow.

If someone claims or tries to imply that feminists never try and abuse the court system or act like

all divorce cases in the frum community are some kind of abuse.

Who claimed or implied that feminists never tried to abuse the court system? You make it sound like every case is run according to radical feminists who are evil.

The Torah allows divorce. The Torah doesn’t say “treat your marriage like its disposable” but it does recognize that there are times when divorce is needed. Why is there Gittin??? I’m glad the Torah is run according to Hashem, and not Hereorthere.

EDITED

Hereorthere, you say,

“Radical feminists try and hide behind equality but many websites dedicated to feminism if you are a member you get access to their “inner circle” where they admit they are frusterated with equality because they really want superiority and always have. They just understand that they cannot come out and admit such things.”

I am not really sure what websites you are referring to. Feminism is a social movement, not a cult. It is true that radical feminist want superiority, they do not try to hide this fact. On the other hand liberal feminists disagree with the radicals. They do not believe in superiority for anyone, not from men nor for themselves, they seek only for equal opportunity for all people. They are usually aligned with other civil rights activists.

To say that it is a feminist agenda to abuse the court system is simply incorrect. If you are able to find a feminist manifesto which dictates its followers to break laws and lie in court, I would love to see it. But as it stands, greed is a separate attribute from feminism. That is not to say that not a single feminist is not greed, of course people are drive by the prospect of easy money, but this applies to men and women, feminist and anti-feminist. If greed was exclusive to feminism, why have so many men been imprisoned for white collar crimes like tax evasion?

Hereorthere, actually many liberal feminists are actively trying to spread awareness about spousal abuse perpetrated by the wife against the husband. Many of the scholarly articles published by and for psychologists, sociologists, and social workers, dealing with domestic violence, tend to focus on violence against men not by men. My husband, who is currently studying to become a social worker, tells me that he is constantly reading and learning about studies showing that men, too, are victims of spousal abuse. This in turn has lead to a slow rise in men who are succeeding in bringing cases of spousal abuse to the police and the courts. In a sense, it is the same feminists who you are accusing of ruining society, that are also fighting for the things you claim society ignores. (No court will accept a case of spousal abuse, even cases brought by women claiming their husbands hurt them, unless there is clear evidence that shows that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether or not her girl friends believe her claims is sort of irrelevant.)

There is also a fair amount mentioned about the way some children treat their parents. Although I believe that the children’s behavior is not entirely comparable to that of the spouses’ because a child’s mind is not yet fully capable of understanding the complete effects of all their actions. The example you brought, although frustrating, could be considered abuse or bullying,IMO.

Hereorthere:

“his means that in the not too distant future, men will be treated the way women used to in the work place as second class citizens with lower paid and harder jobs”

I do not think that this will happen, at least not in this country because the Supreme Court has ruled against the practice of reverse discrimination. If a man were to be denied a job merely because he is not a woman, he can challenge it and has precedents to rely upon to support his case.

I will agree that in the effort to allow girls to succeed in school, boys have lost out in a sense. The classroom is set up to better allow girls to learn, like using novels that appeal more to girls than boys or and the removal of recess from many schools’ schedules. This is not a conspiracy to make boys fail, instead it is an unintended consequence of trying to level the playing field. It is for this reason that I, and many others, believe that education should only be in same-sex environments. Boys and girls learn differently and it is very difficult to cater to the needs of both in a single classroom.

I think that there is more to the rate of girls vs. boys entering college than simply than actual abuse of boys in the public school. I find it hard to believe that anyone who pursues a career in education wishes for about half of their students to fail. There are other larger societal factors at play that hurt boys chances at graduating high school and continuing on to college. Some of these factors do not tend to apply to the jewish community, but it did not seem like you were talking exclusively about jews. Major factors, especially in poorer areas where fewer boys tend to make it into college than girls, include a greater likelihood of boys getting involved in a gang or because a boy is able to contribute more to a family’s income by getting a job (because they will be able to bring in more money than a girl in the same family could).

Hereorthere, I agree with a lot of what your saying. I guess the case your bringing up is perhaps more recent but it does not negate the fact that there are still precedents that try to strike down reverse discrimination. I think its also important to bear in mind your news sources. Relying exclusively on Hannity or Rush means that your likely only getting one interpretation of a story. I think though that you are mistaken in comparing the fight for equality amongst blacks and whites to girls and boys. No one would deny that most schools populated mostly by minorities tend to be underfunded and therefore not on the same level of the white schools; even in today’s world, this still tends to be true because our neighborhoods are rather segregated. Many liberals who want black and white students to be mixed do not always want for boys to be mixed as well. Co-ed schools are part of a particular educational approach that has nothing to do with liberalism. Also, most of the prestigious schools, like the super-expensive private schools tend to not be co-ed.

It is not the gangs who cause schools to be underfunded, although they may exacerbate the issue. Schools are underfunded because of the cities set up the initial funding for schools. Because they are tax based, a school based next to a housing project is never going to be as well funded as in a middle or upper class neighborhood. Also, there are some al-girls or all-boys public schools.

Hereorthere, the reason you are frustrating to talk to is that you add your commentary to anything someone says and attribute it back to them. I never said abuse was rampant. I said no one should tolerate an abusive relationship. There is a major difference. Please learn to read what I write, not what you percieve.

Also, when you make a claim about websites and are asked to cite, you should. Arose didn’t mention the websites – you did. I know radical feminist exist, no one denies that. I also know not to judge a movement by its radicals only.

You also never responded as to which of those five situations I posted someone should stay in marriage. Please respond.

Why are poor men not allowed to be judges? There was an exception made for a woman, was there an exception ever made for a poor man?

I’m not sure if you realize this, but all forms of discrimination are still rampant. There was a study done recently where they put qualified black men and white men with prior jail sentences (fabricated on their resume for the study). In most cases, the white man with the jail sentence was picked over the qualified black man with no jail sentence. It was a fairly small study so it doesn’t “prove” anything, other than some discrimination still exists.

If feminists had their way there would be gender segregation because studies have shown that girls do better in single gender classrooms and boys do better in coed classrooms.

I’m also not sure what the point of the bleacher story was. Did you ask the father to keep his son from kicking? I would have been really upset with you for yelling at my son like that.

I’m not sure what your issue with feminism trying to tackle women’s issues and not bullying of kids. Their primary purpose is to protect women. We have organizations whos primary function it is to protect Jews. There are all sorts of organizations that focus on some subset of the population. No one can fight every battle.

While I am a fan of Hannity, I realize he too has bias. You can’t trust any news source 100%.

I’m going to research the girls vs boys entering college thing. I don’t know enough about it.

Three points:

1: Saying Feminists all want men to be in the kitchen is like saying all Jews believe the Torah is man made, after all a segement of Reform does believe that. There is no monolithic community of Feminists (or Jews).

2: This is a problem with radical feminists in the outside world, but in the Torah world, it really doesn’t exist (with a few major execptions). I think it goes together with “liberalism”, which is what “Here or There” is really against, not “equal pay for women who work” type feminism. I believe most of us agree that “liberalism” is not the Torah MeHalech.

3: Moshe Rabbainu and Aharon HaKohen were “equal”. That does not mean they were the same, it means both of their inputs were required.

However you define feminism, one thing is for sure. Our Gedolim have said feminism is Keneged HaTorah and a very bad thing.

Actually, your statement is self-contradictory. The gedolim can only say feminism is bad based on the way *they* define it. Perhaps their definition of it was different than mine (and hence they made no statement about *my* definition of feminism).

For example, why would the gedolim have a problem with the concept of equal pay for equal work?

The Wolf

The Gedolim are also the ones who defined “ezer k’negdo” as meaning that sometimes in order to be an ezer, a wife must be neged her husband FOR HIS OWN GOOD.

oomis, great vort!

Hereorther, I thought you were just making mistakes, but now you say you are misconstruing information on purpose. I wont debate you under such circumstances.

EDITED

Thank you.

This is so bizarre that I don’t even know how to respond to this.

LOL.