(August 21, 2021 at 11:51 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 11:49 am)Mashmont Wrote: Men are necessary for the creation of children that form a cocoon around a woman and protect her in later life, presumably when the husband is gone.

That elevates women how?
Do men need a "cocoon" as well, by women for example?

Protecting women means treating them well.  That elevates them.   

Of course men need a cocoon by women, and the RCC promotes that as well through marriage.   But I specified women to answer the post about the RCC's treatment of women.

You can find more of the same crap at the forum - Debate Politics - where mushmouth seems to spew a scripted pile of hot steaming BS.

^^^

Not only this, we got here because of the flimsy assertion that radical feminism equates to secularism. It is but one kind of secular view. Not to mention that "better off being poor single mothers" is the strawman of the century.

But then Mashmont kept being wrong.

You shouldn't learn about feminism strictly from the opponents of feminism. And that's what I think is the real problem here.

(August 21, 2021 at 12:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: ^^^

Not only this, we got here because of the flimsy assertion that radical feminism equates to secularism. It is but one kind of secular view. Not to mention that "better off being poor single mothers" is the strawman of the century.

But then Mashmont kept being wrong.

You shouldn't learn about feminism strictly from the opponents of feminism. And that's what I think is the real problem here.

Forgive me for wrapping Marxism, feminism, atheism all together.

They don't always go together.  But I find they usually do.

And I will stand by my assertion that many feminists believe single motherhood is better than "being tied down to a man".

---

(August 21, 2021 at 12:18 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: You can find more of the same crap at the forum - Debate Politics - where mushmouth seems to spew a scripted pile of hot steaming BS.

I've posted in other forums, yes.  But let's not slur my screen name.  Thanks.

(August 21, 2021 at 12:21 pm)Mashmont Wrote: And I will stand by my assertion that many feminists believe single motherhood is better than "being tied down to a man".

Great. An assertion that you can't back up. Got any other unsupported assertions you'd like to get off your chest?

(August 21, 2021 at 12:31 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 12:21 pm)Mashmont Wrote: And I will stand by my assertion that many feminists believe single motherhood is better than "being tied down to a man".

Great.  An assertion that you can't back up.  Got any other unsupported assertions you'd like to get off your chest?

It's so silly and obvious,  no citation is needed.  Not that you want one anyway.

Oh, what the hell.  From the left's bible, Slate:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/white-working-class-women-should-stay-single-mothers-argue-the-authors-of-marriage-markets-how-inequality-is-remaking-the-american-family.html

(August 21, 2021 at 12:21 pm)Mashmont Wrote: Forgive me for wrapping Marxism, feminism, atheism all together.

They don't always go together.  But I find they usually do.

I also find that if someone is a flat earther, they're often a Christian also. That doesn't mean I can argue against Christianity by arguing against flat earth. So, yeah, good idea to treat each idea separately.

Secularism does not necessarily indicate feminism. Secularism doesn't even indicate atheism. A secularist wants a society where religion is not an issue. Secularism supports the advancement of peoples despite their religion.

For instance, if a Muslim society was bigoted against Christians in it's laws and practices, becoming secular may entail repeal of these laws or change in these practices. Even Christians can benefit from secularism. Because secularism says: "I don't care if this person is a Christian, atheist, Jew, etc." They are all equal members of society. Most atheists are secularists. Secularists isn't atheism's anwer to theocracy. It's the abolishment of theocracy altogether.

Quote:And I will stand by my assertion that many feminists believe single motherhood is better than "being tied down to a man".

Feminism isn't one monolithic thing. There is disagreement among feminists concerning a plentitude of things. Most feminists don't hate men. They simply see society as being arranged around men, and they'd like to change that. There are myriad approaches to this problem.

Traditional marital relationships, and women's place in them, is important to many feminists. If you took the time to study the opinions of your detractors you'd see that most wouldn't prefer women be single. It's what they see as vestiges of a patriarchal order that they'd like to see abolished.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 12:34 pm)Mashmont Wrote: It's so silly and obvious,  no citation is needed.  Not that you want one anyway.

Oh, what the hell.  From the left's bible, Slate:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/white-working-class-women-should-stay-single-mothers-argue-the-authors-of-marriage-markets-how-inequality-is-remaking-the-american-family.html

Ummm... did you just read the headline and not the article? The article wasn't an endorsement of single motherhood. It was a description about how, nowadays, single motherhood is a much more viable choice.

(August 21, 2021 at 12:21 pm)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 12:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: ^^^

Not only this, we got here because of the flimsy assertion that radical feminism equates to secularism. It is but one kind of secular view. Not to mention that "better off being poor single mothers" is the strawman of the century.

But then Mashmont kept being wrong.

You shouldn't learn about feminism strictly from the opponents of feminism. And that's what I think is the real problem here.

Forgive me for wrapping Marxism, feminism, atheism all together.

They don't always go together.  But I find they usually do.

And I will stand by my assertion that many feminists believe single motherhood is better than "being tied down to a man".

---

(August 21, 2021 at 12:18 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: You can find more of the same crap at the forum - Debate Politics - where mushmouth seems to spew a scripted pile of hot steaming BS.

I've posted in other forums, yes.  But let's not slur my screen name.  Thanks.

Read our rules. Violation of rule 1 can get you banned. I was giving you fair warning.

I'll call you whatever I want Skippy.

(August 21, 2021 at 11:09 am)Mashmont Wrote: I can speak for the Catholic Church on this.  The Vatican came out very early, 1839, in its denunciation of colonial slavery like was prevalent at that time.  As usual, the RCC was ahead of the game,

It was not ahead of its time. They should have denounced slavery right away, with Jesus and Paul, but no, those two even embraced slavery.

Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The Church did not condemn slavery until 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished the practice. Church even had slaves in the 20th century, in those washeries where they kept unpaid labor as girls to wash clothes for money that the Church collected.

And it's even happening in the 21st century

Quote:Nuns have suffered and are still suffering sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests and bishops, and have even been held as sexual slaves, Pope Francis confirmed on Tuesday. The abuse was so severe in one case that an entire congregation of nuns was dissolved by former Pope Benedict.

The scope of the abuse of nuns by clergy members first came to light with the publication at the beginning of February of the monthly Vatican magazine "Women Church World." The edition included Francis' own take on the scandal -- long known about by the Vatican but virtually never discussed -- in which he blamed the unchecked power wielded by priests and higher clergy across the Catholic Church for such crimes.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-franci...er-france/

(August 21, 2021 at 12:51 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 12:21 pm)Mashmont Wrote: Forgive me for wrapping Marxism, feminism, atheism all together.

They don't always go together.  But I find they usually do.

I also find that if someone is a flat earther, they're often a Christian also. That doesn't mean I can argue against Christianity by arguing against flat earth. So, yeah, good idea to treat each idea separately.

Secularism does not necessarily indicate feminism. Secularism doesn't even indicate atheism. A secularist wants a society where religion is not an issue. Secularism supports the advancement of peoples despite their religion.

For instance, if a Muslim society was bigoted against Christians in it's laws and practices, becoming secular may entail repeal of these laws or change in these practices. Even Christians can benefit from secularism. Because secularism says: "I don't care if this person is a Christian, atheist, Jew, etc." They are all equal members of society. Most atheists are secularists. Secularists isn't atheism's anwer to theocracy. It's the abolishment of theocracy altogether.

Quote:And I will stand by my assertion that many feminists believe single motherhood is better than "being tied down to a man".

Feminism isn't one monolithic thing. There is disagreement among feminists concerning a plentitude of things. Most feminists don't hate men. They simply see society as being arranged around men, and they'd like to change that. There are myriad approaches to this problem.

Traditional marital relationships, and women's place in them, is important to many feminists. If you took the time to study the opinions of your detractors you'd see that most wouldn't prefer women be single. It's what they see as vestiges of a patriarchal order that they'd like to see abolished.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 12:34 pm)Mashmont Wrote: It's so silly and obvious,  no citation is needed.  Not that you want one anyway.

Oh, what the hell.  From the left's bible, Slate:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/white-working-class-women-should-stay-single-mothers-argue-the-authors-of-marriage-markets-how-inequality-is-remaking-the-american-family.html

Ummm... did you just read the headline and not the article? The article wasn't an endorsement of single motherhood. It was a description about how, nowadays, single motherhood is a much more viable choice.

1.  Very few flat-earthers,  so your comparison is irrelevant.
2.  I conflate secularism and atheism because in practice they are the same thing in government.  When a government prohibits Christian teaching for example,  then the default isn't a vacuum, it's atheism.   That's why I think separation of church and state is a myth that can't exist in practicality.  It's like trying to separate morality from Christianity.
3.  Ergo I said many feminists, not all.
4.  Of course I read the article, and according to your sentence it says what I said it said;  that single motherhood is often a better choice.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 11:09 am)Mashmont Wrote: I can speak for the Catholic Church on this.  The Vatican came out very early, 1839, in its denunciation of colonial slavery like was prevalent at that time.  As usual, the RCC was ahead of the game,

It was not ahead of its time. They should have denounced slavery right away, with Jesus and Paul, but no, those two even embraced slavery.

Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The Church did not condemn slavery until 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished the practice. Church even had slaves in the 20th century, in those washeries where they kept unpaid labor as girls to wash clothes for money that the Church collected.

And it's even happening in the 21st century

Quote:Nuns have suffered and are still suffering sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests and bishops, and have even been held as sexual slaves, Pope Francis confirmed on Tuesday. The abuse was so severe in one case that an entire congregation of nuns was dissolved by former Pope Benedict.

The scope of the abuse of nuns by clergy members first came to light with the publication at the beginning of February of the monthly Vatican magazine "Women Church World." The edition included Francis' own take on the scandal -- long known about by the Vatican but virtually never discussed -- in which he blamed the unchecked power wielded by priests and higher clergy across the Catholic Church for such crimes.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-franci...er-france/

Yeah, fallible humans sometimes do bad things in every organization.   But I would wager 99% of molestations are done by people who are not practicing Christians.   But the leftwing media never wants to talk about those cases.  They don't fit their Marxist anti-Catholic agenda.

Biblical slavery is not remotely same as modern colonial slavery.   In biblical times, people who could not pay their bills worked for a master until their debt was paid off.  It's not a lot different from what today's left says about working at Walmart.