re: From the Creator of Died Suddenly: What A Woman Is -- Movie Trailer

quote:

---

How are men and women equal?

---

Under the law. Any other questions, dummy?

Poli board is going full retard: qholocaust?, women are subservient, aborting rape-zygotes is murder, Putin is peace.

First off, I agree with you on most of what you wrote about the natural differences between men and women. And in pre-industrial times societies could not afford to indulge the exceptions to these. Industrialization changed that.

We differ on what the first two waves of feminism were about. IMO, the first wave was about the right to vote and the right to work and not be a man’s chattel. The second wave was about abortion and sexual freedom.

I am 100% a first wave feminist. I support much of the second wave. I think a woman ought to have as much sexual license as a man. Abortion is the dilemma. I see the tragedy of each side of that issue, but the elimination of a human being is the worst of it.

I think that a woman who was raped, or whose life is endangered by pregnancy (these are actually very rare cases) should be free to terminate their pregnancies. I oppose other abortions, but because opposition to all other abortions would be a political death sentence, I approve of a Republican stance of free access to abortion through the first trimester.

Your contention that the first and second wave of feminism were also about the idea that boys and girls were the same, except that we socialized them differently, is wrong. There were certainly feminist thinkers back then who professed that, but they were early pioneers of third wave feminism. The vast majority of feminists marching in those movements would have scoffed at that idea, as it’s ridiculous to anyone who has experience with children (which you pointed out).

You make contentions about modern women’s inability to maintain civilization without men. This is not true. They certainly would not be able to do it on a similar scale, because there are not so many pipefitters, engineers, etc, but they could do it on a small scale.

quote:

---

So far I've pointed out that you have no basis for your moral indignation against that claim

---

I have no indignation against a claim I believe is mostly true.

quote:

---

I've also pointed out that the authorities you agree with are either liars, kooks (to use your word) or they are telling the truth about having received this knowledge from a supernatural realm. You haven't weighed in on which one you think it is.

---

I disagree with your framing of the question, which is a classic, “Have you stopped beating your wife” type question.

quote:

---

Finally, I have pointed out that the results of women being "equal" are that at this point, over 2/3 of women have a diagnosed mental condition in America. That's a health crisis by anybody's definition of the term.

---

True. Another health crises is the number of morbidly obese people in America. But I’m not. That’s because I choose to control my appetites. Must I give up my freedom to live as I want because so many others are abusing their freedom?

quote:

---

nobody here or in that video wrote the Bible or the Torah or the Koran or the Veda.

And btw, you still haven't told anybody anything to back up why you think they were all wrong

---

I don’t think they are all wrong. I think they were written by very wise men, without divine guidance, and they are naturally influenced by the culture of those times and places.

quote:

---

Finally, you are ignoring that I specifically said that according to the Christian tradition, it isn't just women who are instructed to be subservient. Men are too. As I said before, there is a hierarchy that is clearly laid out, and men are held accountable to it just like women in that faith.

---

Great! I’m no expert in Christianity, even though I was raised Catholic. Nor am I expert in Islam. Some Muslim’s say that the tenants of Islam demand that women cover their faces and bodies in public, do not appear in public unless accompanied by a male relative, and be subject to honor killings if they transgress some of these rules. And you would be arguing for every one of these but for the accident of being born in Sometown, USA instead of Medina.

Part 1

quote:

---

Industrialization changed that.

---

How so?

Again, even in almost 2025 society as we know it would grind to a halt if men suddenly disappeared because women can't do many of the jobs necessary to keep our modern society running.

In fact, I would argue that they would have been closer to surviving without men before Industrialization than after.

quote:

---

We differ on what the first two waves of feminism were about. IMO

---

Well, that's the problem. You think it's a matter of opinion. It's not. The feminist authors wrote what they wrote. It's a matter of historical record. Fact. Not opinion.

The fact that you started off posting what you posted proves that you don't actually know what they wrote. You're going off some vague perception and you know it, and you know you've been caught in it, which is why you're framing this an an opinion. It's no more "opinion" than what was in the Declaration of Independence or the Book Of Mark.

I do sympathize with you on one point however, and that is that, to my knowledge, there is no history of anything that has been so deliberately whitewashed and revised as the history of feminism.

If all you are doing is typing into Google, "What was first wave feminism about?" you will not get the correct answer.

For example, you write that first wave feminism was about the right to vote.

Well, what do you know about how that came about? The revisionists would have you believe that there was a groundswell of organic support from women that eventually boiled over the side of the pot and could no longer be contained. But that's not at all what happened.

Most women were against having the right to vote. Membership in anti-suffrage organizations dwarfed membership in pro-suffrage groups. In public referendums (in which women were permitted to vote), women overwhelmingly voted against suffrage. As a concrete example, I found a referendum from 1895 in Massachusetts in which only 3.8% of women voted for suffrage, and that is more the norm than an outlier.

In fact, wealthy industrialists were responsible for women's suffrage. Such as Alva Vanderbilt Belmont, who with her sister, published a newspaper that advocated (among other things) free love (yep...that was first wave feminism), legalizing prostitution, no fault divorce (over a century before it happened in America), women's right to dress immodestly, and yes, suffrage. She was one of the largest if not the largest contributor to the women's suffrage movement financially.

Or Phoebe Hearst, mother of Willian Randolph Hearst. She was a founding investor in the Greenacre Inn, which was a conference facility for nutty New Age religions like the one she embraced, the Bahai Faith. Most first wave feminists were Theosophists (thus their claims of channeling spirits), and this was a similar system. She was also a major financial backer of the suffrage movement.

These are only two examples of many off the top of my head. Wealthy industrialists are responsible for women's suffrage, not a grassroots movement. But you won't see that in a Google search because it's been whitewashed out of the history of feminism.

You also won't see the connection between feminists and the occult. Not just Theosophy, but the actual occult. Women of this mindset were drawn to it because it rejected the patriarchy. So you'll read about Mabel Collin's articles in Woman Magazine in your Women's Studies class, but not that she wrote 46 book on the occult and claimed that spirits wrote through her.

Or Florence Farr, whom W.B. Yeats and George Bernard Shaw viewed as the embodiment of the "New Woman," who was career oriented, sexually liberated, and completely independent. You'll read that, but you won't read how she created a secret society called the "Sphere Group" in which she claimed to channel the god Taphthartharath, also known as the demon of Mercury. She also wrote that prostitution should not only be legalized, but that it should become a religious rite, and that she was actively opposed to Christianity and Judaism and made that clear in her writings.

Sidebar: You are free to call me a kook all you want (especially since in this case it makes you look all the worse for listening to these people), but I must pause and point out that things like temple prostitution are exactly the sort of things that ancient people around Israel were engaging in during the Old Testament in their demon-worship. I would think you would ask yourself why something like that idea would re-surface thousands of years later among people who are telling you with their own mouths that they are channeling demons. Think they're just playing the part realistically? Back to the post...

Annie Besant. Who divorced her husband because she regarded the money she made as only her own but regarded the money he made as belonging to the family. She wrote for the National Secular Society in England, advocating for secularism, feminism, and socialism...until she discovered theosophy. You'll read about her writings about the former. You won't read about her adventures in theosophy, which included discovering a 12 year old Indian boy (along with friend C.W. Ledbetter, who lost his position in the Theosophy Society when it was discovered that he molested young boys) that they were convinced should be prepared to receive the spirit of Maitreya and become a new messiah.

These are three examples of prominent 1st wave feminists.

Part 2

But you won't hear about any of that from mainstream sources. You also won't hear that Margaret Sanger (2nd wave) was also a spiritualist, rosicrucianist, and follower of Thomas Huxley, who attempted to contact the spirit world, and that she was caught falsifying abortion statistics (vastly inflating the number of deaths from illegal abortions) in her pamphlets.

You won't read about the fact that Margaret Sanger and Simone de Beauvoir are responsible for setting the ideological table for trans-ideology with their ideas about gender over a century ago. You probably will read about how anti-family the writings of these women (all the ones mentioned so far) were. Maybe you'll read that Margaret Sanger abandoned her children, maybe you won't.

But the point is that these women did not write what you think they wrote, and if I am a kook for taking them at their word about where they came by their ideas, what does that make them?

quote:

---

Your contention that the first and second wave of feminism were also about the idea that boys and girls were the same, except that we socialized them differently, is wrong.

---

Read It And Weep

From the article:

quote:

---

We can retrace this genealogical line back to two feminist foremothers: Margaret Sanger and Simone de Beauvoir. From Sanger, feminism has inherited an antipathy to female fertility and the corresponding technological “solution” of contraception. From de Beauvoir, feminism has inherited the conceptual disconnection of “woman” from “female,” which has become enshrined in feminist theory via the term “gender.”

---

quote:

---

You make contentions about modern women’s inability to maintain civilization without men. This is not true. They certainly would not be able to do it on a similar scale, because there are not so many pipefitters, engineers, etc, but they could do it on a small scale.

---

The claim is that they could not do it to a degree that would allow for modern conditions to be sustained. Do you know how few women can work on an oil pipeline? Lay brick? Be a ship fastener? I'm not talking about how many women currently do those jobs (virtually none). I'm talking about how many women are even capable of doing those jobs. Not many more than virtually none.

quote:

---

I disagree with your framing of the question, which is a classic, “Have you stopped beating your wife” type question.

---

LOL. You disagree because you stepped in it with that one. There's no "Have you stopped beating your wife" in that at all. You call me a kook because I believe what these women said about how they came by their ideas. You want to claim that the ideas themselves are legitimate, but by simple logic, they HAVE to be even bigger kooks than I could ever be.

quote:

---

I don’t think they are all wrong. I think they were written by very wise men, without divine guidance, and they are naturally influenced by the culture of those times and places.

---

Those "very wise men" also claimed to have supernatural inspiration for what they wrote.

Why do you believe what these people wrote but classify how they tell you they came by their ideas as "kooks?" If they are kooks, how can the be "very wise?"

You making self-defeating statements aren't the same as me asking whether you've stopped beating your wife.

quote:

---

And you would be arguing for every one of these but for the accident of being born in Sometown, USA instead of Medina.

---

LOL. Nice try.

2 + 2 = ?

There is one correct answer to that equation.

According to your logic, we should discount (and ridicule) all answers because only one of them is correct. What kind of moron would advocate for that?

But that's exactly what atheists do when they make the argument that because there are lots of answers to the questions about where we come from and what is the meaning of life, that means they all are false.

Not to mention, you just said you grew up Catholic but do not believe.

I grew up nothing (didn't attend church) and was an atheist until about 10-12 years ago.

So how does the, "You only believe what you believe because you were born into it," trope account for you or me?

And here's an article for you about how hundreds of thousands of people in Iran are converting to Christianity despite living in a Muslim theocracy. Despite the fact that they don't allow Christian evangelism in mass media.
Despite the fact that someone can even be executed for renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity.

1 Million Christians In Iran

Back to the main point, though. Most families more or less followed the prescribed Christian model in the first half of the 20th century.

Beginning around the mid 1960s, that shifted.

How has it worked out? Girl bosses, single mothers, divorced families, children living in homes with no father?

See, it would be one thing if we didn't have a control group and an experimental group to compare. But we do.

So how is rejecting the recommended model going for us, to quote Dr. Phil?

You and I both know the answer to that.

quote:

---

True. Another health crises is the number of morbidly obese people in America. But I’m not. That’s because I choose to control my appetites. Must I give up my freedom to live as I want because so many others are abusing their freedom?

---

Red Herring.

Again, please copy and paste where anyone has said that anyone needs to give up their freedom. Please stop using that as a strawman, it's annoying.

The parallel isn't "giving up freedom," which no one has suggested. The parallel is that I'm telling you how marriage and family works best and you're denying it despite the results. So the actual parallel would be you ridiculing the idea that we should all exercise—maybe even calling it a "loss of freedom,"—not overeat, and eat natural foods, while ignoring the disastrous results of doing otherwise.

quote:

---

I think a woman ought to have as much sexual license as a man.

---

Has there been a time in modern history when it was illegal for women to have sex, but not men? If so, I am unaware of it. Maybe some African countries or Middle Eastern countries? Not here, though. Never here.

Therefore, women have always had the same sexual license as men. At least in this country.

But the consequences of sex are different for women and men because women and men are biologically different. And yeah, feminism rails against that difference and attempts to eliminate it on the basis of "equality."

But try as you might, you can't beat the house. Whether you acknowledge God or we default to "nature," it is what it is. Women can get pregnant and men can't.

The solution to that being to murder the unborn human that has been (in almost all cases) voluntarily created by the consensual decisions of the man and woman is not only ghoulish, it's logically absurd.

Imagine flipping it around. Imagine men demanding reparations from women for having been denied the experience of carrying a child in the womb. Of course, women didn't deny them that ability, God (or "nature") did, but taking their anger out on women is no stranger than women taking their anger out on the unborn human she and her baby daddy created.

Feminism, at its core, is all about railing against the way God made human beings, declaring it "injust," and attempting to remake humans in our own image. And yes, that's where trans, LGBTQ ideology comes from, it's where abortion ideology comes from, it's where the ideology that celebrates destroying the nuclear family comes from, it's where all of that comes from.

Starting with 1st and 2nd wave.

quote:

---

That was absolutely, unequivocally their message.

---

This is not the hill I’m willing to die on. I will grant that he does seem to have a strong desire for re-establishing the patriarchy, with a primary focus on what women’s roles are, and without (IMO) enough attention paid to what men could and should be doing. I can see the potential for abuse- from the “cultural” Christian crowd; but, IF his message is received and applied with a correct and consistent understanding of scripture, then there will be no oppression. You and I are merely arguing about whether or not he understands and intends that.

quote:

---

I’m not getting this one. I wrote that the first two waves of feminism were just, but they could not stop, and they went too far. That doesn’t sound like Communism to me.

---

You’re right- apples and oranges. They’re completely different things- that come to us by very similar means, that prosper under similar conditions, and are repudiated by similar means. Just like apples and oranges belong to the fruit family, feminism and communism both attribute their existence to critical theory.

quote:

---

In practice, the Communists never even tried to fully implement Marx’ ideas, as the ones they did not implement were nuttier than the ones they did, e.g. the atrophy of the state leading to no government at all.

---

Are you defending communism? Is that your best argument for the validity of communism? “Well they could have, but they didn’t?”

quote:

---

This last point of yours is thoughtful and has merit.

---

quote:

---

I don’t know a solution to it

---

Well, the guy in the video is trying to give you at least half of it.

quote:

---

Free people can live morally

---

There is the solution. Arguably possible, yet inarguably unlikely.

quote:

---

or otherwise

---

Which is reality for an increasing number of people, and directly attributable to the degradation of the fabric of society.

quote:

---

Our founders knew this and said that the government they set up was only suitable for a moral people.

---

There it is again. Moral. But, in order for someone or something, some action, to be considered more or less moral- there must be an independent and objective standard of morality with which we can compare these things and determine relevance to said standard. Therein lies the problem- we have abandoned the standard of objective morality. We are trying to fit a square shaped peg in a round hole. The message in the video is giving us but one piece of the puzzle.

quote:

---

Aha, there you have it.

---

Just for the record, I didn't say that and don't agree with it.

Not even in the context of marriage.

Men and women are "not equal" only in the sense that in the chain of command, the man outranks the woman as the church outranks the man.

So in that sense they are not equal.

But—especially in a group of two—someone has to lead and someone has to follow. If that is not the case, the marriage will simply dissolve (which is what has happened in society).

But both are equally important to maintain the marriage. The leader and the follower.

Now what is interesting is that if I asked you under your model who should lead and who should follow (because again, there are going to be disagreements or times in which at least one partner is unsure), you might answer with something along the lines of, "Well, whoever is most confident and opinionated on any given matter should take lead. Sometimes it will be one member and sometimes it will be the other."

But that's not "equality" either. Not by your definition.

If being submissive to the other partner = oppression, as you have claimed, then someone is still going to be being oppressed, at very least, half the time.

You might then say, "Well, it's not oppression if they willingly submit, and trust the other partner's lead because they want to."

O.k. The prescription that was given in the Bible is for women to willingly submit and trust their husband's lead, knowing that they have the church to back them up if his judgement or virtue goes awry. And most did, for most of human history. Does that mean they were not oppressed because it was voluntary?

(Just a small aside, but that's why I spent so much time on the actual history of feminism. It was NOT, as you will be told, a grassroots movement from the bottom up. It was an engineered, manufactured movement from the top down. The vast majority of women were not nearly as organically unhappy with the prescribed model as revisionist history would have you believe, and the ones who were tended to be occultist "kooks," which is why I spent so much time on that.)

And if no one is willing to submit, then, as I have pointed out before, the marriage simply breaks up. Again, you only have two members.

You might then argue that because both parties get to lead sometimes and follow sometimes, that means it's not oppressive.

But that is only true if both the quantity and quality of the decisions that each partner gets to make are roughly equal. If one party decides where the couple lives and what house they buy and where the children go to school and the color of the family car and the other party only gets to choose what movie to watch on Saturday night and where to eat out, that's still an unequal distribution of decisions and therefore some degree of oppression is happening according to your definitions.

And I don't know about you, but I don't know many marriages that work according to an actual equal distribution of decision making. One or the other partner pretty much always dominates the decision making. In quality if not quantity.

And yet no one thinks about that. Because we're told that marriage should be "equal" when it comes to decision making, we're expecting something that really isn't possible to happen.

So no wonder the divorce rate is what it is. People are being told that marriage should conform to a model that is practically impossible, then when it doesn't turn out the way it was supposed to, someone is certain that they have been bamboozled and oppressed and the resentment builds up until the marriage breaks up.

Then you might say that in marriage one partner usually just tends to have a more assertive personality and the other a more submissive personality, and therefore no oppression is happening, just two people getting along and fitting together according to their immutable characteristics.

But that presents two problems with your case:

1. Those are still immutable characteristics. So why is it wrong to prescribe a hierarchy based on one immutable characteristic (sex/gender), but excuse hierarchies based on other immutable characteristics (personality?)

2. Men naturally tend to be more assertive than women. That's based on research and common sense. Men simply have more testosterone (at least, they used to). Obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule, prescribing that men should be above women in the chain of command in marriage is no different than saying that the more assertive partner in marriage should lead, with the only exception being that you are making a general rather than an individual prescription.

If you disagree with any of this reasoning, say so. Tell me where I have reasoned incorrectly or failed to anticipate or understand or articulate your position..

Otherwise, what I would say is that you have responded with a lot of assumptions that you have not examined. If I have understood them correctly, they don't stand up to critical examination.

People greatly underestimate these days just how pervasive feminist ideology has become, interwoven in current societal culture and thought without ever being challenged.

I hope Timothy Gordon is doing well. I used to listen to his podcast. No time lately