Spirituality and Feminism

Lisa Morales4 said:It's the same way you'd view Mother Courage by Bertolt Brecht.🙂

Still not following any of this...

"Quote:"

[Note: The user provided only a single word "medeari" which does not contain any instructions for rewriting, nor does it fit the persona description or substitution list. However, since I am instructed to act as a professional copywriter and follow specific rules, I will await further input if this was an error, or interpret it as a prompt that lacks sufficient content to process according to the complex transformation rules provided.] says: And what "neutral ground" are we even talking about? We have abstraction on one side and reality on the other (which is now staring us right in the face). Where exactly is this change supposed to take place?🤷

Equality is merely an abstraction in our current reality. The concessions granted by patriarchal leaders today are nothing more than crumbs tossed from the table rather than genuine attempts at reform. The system we operate under isn't built on equality; quite the contrary, it is fundamentally rooted in hierarchy. Any semblance of equality might be achieved on certain horizontal levels, but even if it were, it would have zero impact on the vertical power structure.

Where neutrality exists, I have no idea. I am not drawing conclusions; I am merely making an observation.

jademarlin26 said:"Quote:"

[Note: The user provided only a single word "medeari" which does not contain any instructions for rewriting, nor does it fit the persona description or substitution list. However, since I am instructed to act as a professional copywriter and follow specific rules, I will await further input if this was an error, or interpret it as a prompt that lacks sufficient content to process according to the complex transformation rules provided.] says: And what "neutral ground" are we even talking about? We have abstraction on one side and reality on the other (which is now staring us right in the face). Where exactly is this change supposed to take place?🤷

Equality is merely an abstraction in our current reality. The concessions granted by patriarchal leaders today are nothing more than crumbs tossed from the table rather than genuine attempts at reform. The system we operate under isn't built on equality; quite the contrary, it is fundamentally rooted in hierarchy. Any semblance of equality might be achieved on certain horizontal levels, but even if it were, it would have zero impact on the vertical power structure.

Where neutrality exists, I have no idea. I am not drawing conclusions; I am merely making an observation.

Fair enough. I get where you're coming from. If we look at the reality of things right now, the picture is static, which makes any hope for change feel like a total abstraction. All we can really do is watch and try to act within our own small spheres to plant some seeds of momentum. 🙂

Brian Foster3 said:Feminism is basically just what happens when you crank collective human egoism up to its ultimate fourth level—the Malchut stage. People love to blame women for everything, but honestly, they’re only "to blame" because men haven't actually reached true spiritual enlightenment yet; women essentially dictate how men act and what they do through their own desires (Malchut). If the women of America actually demanded that men focus on being spiritual leaders first, this whole world would be fixed overnight, but instead, they go after completely different things...

I guess William Shakespeare was actually hinting at all of this back in his brilliant play *Macbeth*. It’s almost like how Slobodan Maddox demonstrated those same patterns with his Baba Yaga, though I suppose that's just my interpretation. Then you have Josip Broz Marshall, who clearly loved women, but he was careful enough to never let them dictate how he acted. He certainly had an appreciation for women, but... MamićI don't quite understand Bandić, I guess. He doesn't seem like the type to show much affection to his wife, but I have this feeling that Dropulićka has been pulling the strings behind him for a long time—she feels like that "missing link" connecting the old Communist Party to the Republican Party. Speaking of which, even though most of them are married just for appearances, I think many male members of the Republican Party are, IMHO, at least latently homosexual. It seems to be the nature of relationships in parties led by a single strongman—an alpha male surrounded by betas, much like how things work in the Komaj community, at least until the Prime Minister arrived, which changed everything to look more like Snow White and her seven dwarfs. So, they all (along with their wives, I suppose) share this collective Malchut that performed exceptionally well during the transition and privatization era of the 90s, and even later on... if you want just one example to prove it, you could look at former Prime Minister Sanders, and even that leader Haider showed similar inclinations. 😍

If it weren't for that constant, petty greed, we probably wouldn't have these massive shopping malls, or people like Todorić, or the national debt, or the way the government keeps buying more and more expensive cars for federal agencies... which, I guess, makes you wonder, why does the American government act like Vlatka Pokos? And it isn't just since Jadranka became Prime Minister; it goes back to Sanders's era, too. Maybe things were slightly more frugal during the time of the late former Prime Minister Račan, though even he had to satisfy various little opportunists around him—and by that, I don't just mean how he handled his personal life with Agatha and Dijana Pleština... but also things like Čačić's roads, Fižulić's messy Magma, and Jakovčić's fire sale of California... all of which seems to have been driven by the whims of people like Vesna Pusić and Biserka Fižulić... I suppose the worst example is Kerum, whose name literally translates to having a dog's mind—you know, someone stuck in a deep ego trip, constantly bowing to every kind of opportunist. ☕

It's true—there is such a thing as militant feminism, just as there is a more "feminine" approach, where women can remain soft and lady-like while still being just as 'strong.'

The issue is that nowadays, feminism is often lumped together with radical movements and their obsession with
rejecting traditional gender roles (the movement is secular and strictly anti-clerical, after all). To avoid those ideological extremes, many Christian women prefer the term egalitarianism instead.

On the flip side, we see incredibly narrow-minded teachings in places like the Muslim world, where gender discrimination is openly supported. Women are marginalized based on the belief that they are inherently less valuable than men due to biological traits.
These views stem from the idea that men have a right to dominate (and even abuse) because they emphasize moral (LOL) deficiencies in women, labeling them unpredictable or irrational; they are quite literally dismissed as fools—and not just any fools, but crazy ones. They are seen as 🙈 nothing less than fundamentally inferior to men (though they offer a "solution" too, yeeeey—frequent beatings and sexual violence, supposedly to 'bring them to their senses' so they stop being so 'unstable.' bless).

Both perspectives are extremely primitive and limited. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, as it always does, I suppose.

All we know for certain is this: God does not discriminate based on biology.🙂

jademarlin26 said:"Quote:"

[Note: The user provided only a single word "medeari" which does not contain any instructions for rewriting, nor does it fit the persona description or substitution list. However, since I am instructed to act as a professional copywriter and follow specific rules, I will await further input if this was an error, or interpret it as a prompt that lacks sufficient content to process according to the complex transformation rules provided.] says: And what "neutral ground" are we even talking about? We have abstraction on one side and reality on the other (which is now staring us right in the face). Where exactly is this change supposed to take place?🤷

Equality is merely an abstraction in our current reality. The concessions granted by patriarchal leaders today are nothing more than crumbs tossed from the table rather than genuine attempts at reform. The system we operate under isn't built on equality; quite the contrary, it is fundamentally rooted in hierarchy. Any semblance of equality might be achieved on certain horizontal levels, but even if it were, it would have zero impact on the vertical power structure.

Where neutrality exists, I have no idea. I am not drawing conclusions; I am merely making an observation.

Exactly—the feminist lobby is just that: a political lobby.🙂

Without a shift in consciousness, the frequent hysterical outbursts from such groups (feminists) are nothing more than the croaking of crows... (equally ugly and ominous?? 😁)

Susan Price30 said:

It's true—there is such a thing as militant feminism, just as there is a more "feminine" approach, where women can remain soft and lady-like while still being just as 'strong.'

The issue is that nowadays, feminism is often lumped together with radical movements and their obsession with
rejecting traditional gender roles (the movement is secular and strictly anti-clerical, after all). To avoid those ideological extremes, many Christian women prefer the term egalitarianism instead.

On the flip side, we see incredibly narrow-minded teachings in places like the Muslim world, where gender discrimination is openly supported. Women are marginalized based on the belief that they are inherently less valuable than men due to biological traits.
These views stem from the idea that men have a right to dominate (and even abuse) because they emphasize moral (LOL) deficiencies in women, labeling them unpredictable or irrational; they are quite literally dismissed as fools—and not just any fools, but crazy ones. They are seen as 🙈 nothing less than fundamentally inferior to men (though they offer a "solution" too, yeeeey—frequent beatings and sexual violence, supposedly to 'bring them to their senses' so they stop being so 'unstable.' bless).

Both perspectives are extremely primitive and limited. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, as it always does, I suppose.

All we know for certain is this: God does not discriminate based on biology.🙂

Luckily, the Christian world has mostly outgrown that biblical way of treating women, thanks to education and secularization. 😛 👍

Anthony Perez9 said:Luckily, the Christian world has mostly outgrown that biblical way of treating women, thanks to education and secularization. 😛 👍

That biblical perspective is essentially rooted in creationism. The Creator made the world, the plants, the animals, and then, as the peak of creation, He made Adam in His own image—followed by Eve from his rib to be his companion, though she was led astray by the serpent, and so on. So, when people blame all the evil in the world on women—that whole cherchez la femme idea—well, even Bora Čorba acknowledges that sentiment. But the theory of evolution offers a different view, I think. It suggests our genes aren't inherently more valuable than those of a fruit fly; in fact, we carry quite a few of the same genes. Similarly, a woman's genes or her X chromosome can't be a priori less valuable than a man's genes or the Y chromosome. The issue, perhaps, is that how much certain genes are "valued" is determined by whoever holds power in society, which has mostly been men, so suddenly the traits carried by the Y chromosome become "superior." There isn't really a difference, if you think about it, between gender discrimination and racial discrimination—it all comes down to genetics. Those Nazi racial theories claiming an "Aryan" race exists, while others like Slavs, Black people, Roma, or Jewish people are "inferior," aren't any worse than the widespread theories regarding the genetic inferiority of women, which both rely on a creationist worldview. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery, claiming Black people were lesser beings in the eyes of God, but today we understand that the New Testament actually forbids all forms of slavery. I suspect the same logic should apply to women, though I suppose it depends on how believers choose to interpret it in practice. On one hand, the right to choice should mean liberating women from a kind of servitude, yet on the other hand, some see it as violating human rights—specifically the embryo's right to life. It’s not a simple problem, maybe, but I personally don't believe an embryo can be considered a person. I’m not sure if that’s just a product of secularization, because I suspect that historically, people didn't consider a conception to be a person either—only someone who was born or could potentially survive birth. Yet, today, our knowledge of evolution and genetics has somehow birthed a new way to subjugate women, based on the idea that humanity begins at conception. So, education and secularization don't always lead to progress in consciousness; they might just lead to new types of fundamentalism. For instance, there is very advanced science in Iran—oil engineering, for example, and they produce enriched uranium—but still...

Anthony Perez9 said:Luckily, the Christian world has mostly outgrown that biblical way of treating women, thanks to education and secularization. 😛 👍

You might want to brush up on your history books. As for secularization, women are "liberated" to such an extent now that they can choose to be sex workers and claim it’s just a manifestation of their sexual freedom.

dustyskipper3 said:That biblical perspective is essentially rooted in creationism. The Creator made the world, the plants, the animals, and then, as the peak of creation, He made Adam in His own image—followed by Eve from his rib to be his companion, though she was led astray by the serpent, and so on. So, when people blame all the evil in the world on women—that whole cherchez la femme idea—well, even Bora Čorba acknowledges that sentiment. But the theory of evolution offers a different view, I think. It suggests our genes aren't inherently more valuable than those of a fruit fly; in fact, we carry quite a few of the same genes. Similarly, a woman's genes or her X chromosome can't be a priori less valuable than a man's genes or the Y chromosome. The issue, perhaps, is that how much certain genes are "valued" is determined by whoever holds power in society, which has mostly been men, so suddenly the traits carried by the Y chromosome become "superior." There isn't really a difference, if you think about it, between gender discrimination and racial discrimination—it all comes down to genetics. Those Nazi racial theories claiming an "Aryan" race exists, while others like Slavs, Black people, Roma, or Jewish people are "inferior," aren't any worse than the widespread theories regarding the genetic inferiority of women, which both rely on a creationist worldview. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery, claiming Black people were lesser beings in the eyes of God, but today we understand that the New Testament actually forbids all forms of slavery. I suspect the same logic should apply to women, though I suppose it depends on how believers choose to interpret it in practice. On one hand, the right to choice should mean liberating women from a kind of servitude, yet on the other hand, some see it as violating human rights—specifically the embryo's right to life. It’s not a simple problem, maybe, but I personally don't believe an embryo can be considered a person. I’m not sure if that’s just a product of secularization, because I suspect that historically, people didn't consider a conception to be a person either—only someone who was born or could potentially survive birth. Yet, today, our knowledge of evolution and genetics has somehow birthed a new way to subjugate women, based on the idea that humanity begins at conception. So, education and secularization don't always lead to progress in consciousness; they might just lead to new types of fundamentalism. For instance, there is very advanced science in Iran—oil engineering, for example, and they produce enriched uranium—but still...

Creationism and taking the Bible literally are relatively modern phenomena.

dustyskipper3 said:I guess William Shakespeare was actually hinting at all of this back in his brilliant play *Macbeth*. It’s almost like how Slobodan Maddox demonstrated those same patterns with his Baba Yaga, though I suppose that's just my interpretation. Then you have Josip Broz Marshall, who clearly loved women, but he was careful enough to never let them dictate how he acted. He certainly had an appreciation for women, but... MamićI don't quite understand Bandić, I guess. He doesn't seem like the type to show much affection to his wife, but I have this feeling that Dropulićka has been pulling the strings behind him for a long time—she feels like that "missing link" connecting the old Communist Party to the Republican Party. Speaking of which, even though most of them are married just for appearances, I think many male members of the Republican Party are, IMHO, at least latently homosexual. It seems to be the nature of relationships in parties led by a single strongman—an alpha male surrounded by betas, much like how things work in the Komaj community, at least until the Prime Minister arrived, which changed everything to look more like Snow White and her seven dwarfs. So, they all (along with their wives, I suppose) share this collective Malchut that performed exceptionally well during the transition and privatization era of the 90s, and even later on... if you want just one example to prove it, you could look at former Prime Minister Sanders, and even that leader Haider showed similar inclinations. 😍

If it weren't for that constant, petty greed, we probably wouldn't have these massive shopping malls, or people like Todorić, or the national debt, or the way the government keeps buying more and more expensive cars for federal agencies... which, I guess, makes you wonder, why does the American government act like Vlatka Pokos? And it isn't just since Jadranka became Prime Minister; it goes back to Sanders's era, too. Maybe things were slightly more frugal during the time of the late former Prime Minister Račan, though even he had to satisfy various little opportunists around him—and by that, I don't just mean how he handled his personal life with Agatha and Dijana Pleština... but also things like Čačić's roads, Fižulić's messy Magma, and Jakovčić's fire sale of California... all of which seems to have been driven by the whims of people like Vesna Pusić and Biserka Fižulić... I suppose the worst example is Kerum, whose name literally translates to having a dog's mind—you know, someone stuck in a deep ego trip, constantly bowing to every kind of opportunist. ☕

At its core, this is just pure, unadulterated greed, taken to the extreme...

If women weren't constantly trying to impress people and instead actually demanded that men be spiritual—like, if that became the actual standard or "trend" most women looked for—men would be rushing to find enlightenment faster than you can blink. 😉

But let's be real, women want something else entirely...(just follow the money in those women's magazines)

silentridge8 said:Creationism and taking the Bible literally are relatively modern phenomena.

That’s how it's always been read, up until recently. Only a tiny handful of people ever really leaned into the symbolism and allegories—kind of like how Origen did with certain parts. That's exactly why he was branded a hated heretic. 😁

"Quote:"

silentridge8 said:You might want to brush up on your history books. As for secularization, women are "liberated" to such an extent now that they can choose to be sex workers and claim it’s just a manifestation of their sexual freedom.

I think that... Biblical. I was referring to the Old Testament historical perspective, because some people... still haven't realized that Christianity and Judaism aren't the same thing. 🤣 Christians ought to model themselves after the teachings of Christ found in the New Testament.

But everything is fine; let's not feed the trolls. 😁 As the Druid says...

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s how it's always been read, up until recently. Only a tiny handful of people ever really leaned into the symbolism and allegories—kind of like how Origen did with certain parts. That's exactly why he was branded a hated heretic. 😁

The literalist approach to the Bible really only gained traction with Protestantism; using symbolism and allegory was actually the standard back in the day. Origen was never truly viewed as an apostate; rather, some people just completely misinterpreted his writings on transmigration 😬

dustyskipper3 said:That biblical perspective is essentially rooted in creationism. The Creator made the world, the plants, the animals, and then, as the peak of creation, He made Adam in His own image—followed by Eve from his rib to be his companion, though she was led astray by the serpent, and so on. So, when people blame all the evil in the world on women—that whole cherchez la femme idea—well, even Bora Čorba acknowledges that sentiment. But the theory of evolution offers a different view, I think. It suggests our genes aren't inherently more valuable than those of a fruit fly; in fact, we carry quite a few of the same genes. Similarly, a woman's genes or her X chromosome can't be a priori less valuable than a man's genes or the Y chromosome. The issue, perhaps, is that how much certain genes are "valued" is determined by whoever holds power in society, which has mostly been men, so suddenly the traits carried by the Y chromosome become "superior." There isn't really a difference, if you think about it, between gender discrimination and racial discrimination—it all comes down to genetics. Those Nazi racial theories claiming an "Aryan" race exists, while others like Slavs, Black people, Roma, or Jewish people are "inferior," aren't any worse than the widespread theories regarding the genetic inferiority of women, which both rely on a creationist worldview. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery, claiming Black people were lesser beings in the eyes of God, but today we understand that the New Testament actually forbids all forms of slavery. I suspect the same logic should apply to women, though I suppose it depends on how believers choose to interpret it in practice. On one hand, the right to choice should mean liberating women from a kind of servitude, yet on the other hand, some see it as violating human rights—specifically the embryo's right to life. It’s not a simple problem, maybe, but I personally don't believe an embryo can be considered a person. I’m not sure if that’s just a product of secularization, because I suspect that historically, people didn't consider a conception to be a person either—only someone who was born or could potentially survive birth. Yet, today, our knowledge of evolution and genetics has somehow birthed a new way to subjugate women, based on the idea that humanity begins at conception. So, education and secularization don't always lead to progress in consciousness; they might just lead to new types of fundamentalism. For instance, there is very advanced science in Iran—oil engineering, for example, and they produce enriched uranium—but still...

That's right: just as a fruit fly has a right to life, so does (a single) embryo.
Everything is wrapped in the same love.

Brian Foster3 said:At its core, this is just pure, unadulterated greed, taken to the extreme...

If women weren't constantly trying to impress people and instead actually demanded that men be spiritual—like, if that became the actual standard or "trend" most women looked for—men would be rushing to find enlightenment faster than you can blink. 😉

But let's be real, women want something else entirely...(just follow the money in those women's magazines)

So you think they just want to please men?🙄

Lisa Morales4 said:So you think they just want to please men?🙄

Look, let's be real: when a woman goes out of her way to please a man, there’s always some kind of underlying calculation at play to benefit her. I'm mostly talking about all those perks you get from this hyper-materialistic, consumerist culture we're stuck in—it's all just part of the game.

Brian Foster3 said:Look, let's be real: when a woman goes out of her way to please a man, there’s always some kind of underlying calculation at play to benefit her. I'm mostly talking about all those perks you get from this hyper-materialistic, consumerist culture we're stuck in—it's all just part of the game.

I actually think there are plenty of other motivations behind why a woman might try to please a man.
We can't ignore all those "social norms" shaped by upbringing, societal mindsets, and various collective "guidelines." Right here in the States, we see examples of a culture where women are raised specifically to be accommodating—to serve men. They aren't necessarily looking out for their own interests; they are simply fulfilling a role they find completely acceptable because they haven't been exposed to any other way of living.
We are all painfully aware of the rising number of women facing abuse, sometimes even losing their lives at the hands of their partners. What’s truly alarming isn't just the lack of awareness among these women (which is why feminism is more than welcome, though perhaps not just through press conferences), but the passivity of law enforcement and the total lack of educational resources available to both men and women—especially to those who are still growing up.

I don't usually go around verbatim copying things, but this is just too concise and on point to pass up:

"Western civilization has traditionally prioritized the masculine over the feminine. Rather than acknowledging that every man's and woman's personality is actually the result of an interplay between male and female elements, Western society establishes a static order where all men are expected to be masculine and all women are expected to be feminine, granting men the leadership roles and the lion's share of social privilege.

Following this pattern, there's been an overemphasis on all the yang—or masculine—traits of human nature: entrepreneurship, rational thought, competitiveness, aggression, and so on. Meanwhile, the yin—or feminine—forms of consciousness, which could be described as intuitive, religious, mystical, occult, or parapsychological, are constantly being suppressed in our male-oriented society." — F. Capra

The book was written way back in 1975, so I’m holding out hope that things have shifted at least a little bit... personally, I make sure not to raise my boys with those kinds of attitudes, especially since they’re already dealing with enough pressure from their increasingly demanding female peers.🤷

...there’s this stunning Sherwin statue in a Hindu temple over in Elephant, showing three different faces of the deity. On the right, you see his masculine profile—pure strength and willpower. Then on the left, there's the feminine side, all soft, graceful, and alluring. But right in the center, there’s this sublime unity where both sides just... merge...