Misogynism

Wescli Wardest wrote: But I wonder if we all believe in the same doctrine.

Not all of Christendom believes the same doctrine. Not all Muslims share the same exact specifics of faith. Differing paths of Wicca, traditional vs. urban shamanism...sectarianism exists because of differences in interpretation of doctrine. If we all believed exactly the same thing, precisely, every jot and tittle, then one of us isn't *really* thinking, are they?

True, very true.

But is there a difference in thinking for yourself and discovering exactly what you believe and blatant disregard. Our Doctrine says that…

Jedi Believe
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.

So, if we have some experience in our lives that creates a desire to believe otherwise, do we try to understand that urge and work through it? Or disregard the things that just don’t agree with our current views?

I came here to grow as a person. To be a Jedi. And sometimes that means I have to really examine the beliefs I had when I came here.

16. Jedi make a commitment to their cause and to humanity. Our ideals, philosophies, and practices define the belief of Jediism and we take action on this path for self-improvement and to help others. We are both the witnesses and protectors of the Jedi way by the practice of our convictions.
Loyalty: To have faith in your Jedi brothers and sisters.

A Jedi remains true to what they have learned and to their own teachings. A Jedi always serves those who wish to learn more of the ways of the Force and in doing so, remain loyal to the way of Jediism and their Order.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Our Doctrine says that…

Jedi Believe
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.

="Merriam-Webster"]dis·crim·i·nate verb \dis-ˈkri-mə-ˌnāt\
1: to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups

2: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

I assume we all agree that the first definition is the one used in the Doctrine? If so, it is based upon action--not thought, not caution, not regret, not bad experiences, but directly how one person treats another person, or a group of people.

I am well within my rights to think and feel however I wish, and so long as my actions aren't unfair to a person or group, it isn't discrimination. For example, I personally have a harder time trusting women than men, and it takes a very long time for a woman to earn my trust, because I have a Pavlovian disposition to assume that they are lying to me. But, so long as I don't treat them unfairly, I'm not being unfair. And so long as I don't treat them unfairly because they are women, then I'm not discriminating against them based on gender. Right? Isn't that how words work?

Discrimination is tricky, because it may seem that a person hates women or despises men, when in reality, they hate a particular individual or group of individuals completely unrelated to how they were born. I don't hate women, I hate liars. It just happens that in the Venn diagram of my experience, they tend to overlap. Am I wrong to be cautious because statistically 100% of the women I've dated have lied to me through our entire relationship, or of wanting to keep marijuana smokers off my property because, statistically, 80% of the stoners I know have stolen from me, and nearly 60% have actively tried to kill me? The difference between blanket statements of discrimination and prejudice and personal reasonings and rationales for feelings is a distinction impossible to see from the outside.

steamboat28 wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Our Doctrine says that…

Jedi Believe
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.

="Merriam-Webster"]dis·crim·i·nate verb \dis-ˈkri-mə-ˌnāt\
1: to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups

2: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

I assume we all agree that the first definition is the one used in the Doctrine? If so, it is based upon action--not thought, not caution, not regret, not bad experiences, but directly how one person treats another person, or a group of people.

I am well within my rights to think and feel however I wish, and so long as my actions aren't unfair to a person or group, it isn't discrimination. For example, I personally have a harder time trusting women than men, and it takes a very long time for a woman to earn my trust, because I have a Pavlovian disposition to assume that they are lying to me. But, so long as I don't treat them unfairly, I'm not being unfair. And so long as I don't treat them unfairly because they are women, then I'm not discriminating against them based on gender. Right? Isn't that how words work?

Discrimination is tricky, because it may seem that a person hates women or despises men, when in reality, they hate a particular individual or group of individuals completely unrelated to how they were born. I don't hate women, I hate liars. It just happens that in the Venn diagram of my experience, they tend to overlap. Am I wrong to be cautious because statistically 100% of the women I've dated have lied to me through our entire relationship, or of wanting to keep marijuana smokers off my property because, statistically, 80% of the stoners I know have stolen from me, and nearly 60% have actively tried to kill me? The difference between blanket statements of discrimination and prejudice and personal reasonings and rationales for feelings is a distinction impossible to see from the outside.

Ah! And finally somebody hits on the crux of my original point. The question wasn't to debate men vs women, feminism vs misogyny. I asked for an examination of the intolerance. One when examined reveals the prejudice created from past experience, informing and impacting the current reality. There is a huge difference between being aware of the past experience and drawing on it, and allowing past pain to make our decisions and judgements.

In other words, unresolved past emotional pain impacting our ability to be effective people who truly practise what we preach.

People can agree about something yet disagree on the method to achieve it.

It's late at night so I only had to will to only slightly delve into the conversation, so I'll start off with my reply to the main post.

Frankly, I can't believe this is still a problem, we've got some appalling regimes and pseudo-democracies and the majority of men would believe such things which you have previously stated. As with most things extremism poisoned this movement.

I will refer you to this video.


This video contains footage of radical feminists.

I don't know if you are aware of the story in which a woman overhears a joke between two friends and eventually reports it to either the officials at the event or directly to the police, nevertheless she managed to get one of the gentlemen in question fired from his job, later the woman was also fired but I admit to forgetting something, although it escapes me now.

Though non-extremist feminism I'm in favour of. I'm all for equality but right now it's not as grand a problem as what faces humanity and democracy at this point in time. When the world is at a somewhat more "stable" position I think we should prioritise equality among the sexes.

Pardon me for any missing links or vague writing it's nearing the time for me to go t bed. I have to wake up early so....

The majority of feminists are not radical feminists. Radical feminists shout things that make no sense, think gender is not innate but you can't break out of your gender (as if those two thoughts don't contradict each other), think women have a duty to be lesbians, think women should be above men, think all men are violent rapists, and occasionally advocate for killing and eating men (still not sure if they're serious on that one).

This is where the "crazy feminist" idea comes from. The problem is, they are a very small minority of the feminist movement, and they are one that liberal feminists try to push out as much as possible because they do not represent mainstream feminism. So videos about radical feminists have almost no bearing on conversations about feminism except to point out that those are the stereotypes that are not true of most feminists. Please don't mistake the people getting media attention for the majority of people in the feminist movement who laugh at radical feminist ideas.

any movement that acts to the benefit of a specific group will eventually degenerate into a bigot movement.

Early feminism should have never been feminist. It should have (ideally) been humanist. the climate of conflict it creates is inevitable. It is responsible for creating men's rights movements, which too will inevitably lead to even more conflict. If you want to live in a society that is free from discrimination on circumstances of birth, then that society can never allow groups based on those circumstances of birth. It can never allow legislation to even mention it. Why? a simple mention is, in itself, a discrimination, a segregation of people into one group or another...

I've already said many times before that feminism has nothing to do with benefitting women. It is only about dismantling the patriarchy. That is it. Dismantling the patriarchy will help women more naturally because they are oppressed more under the patriarchy, but it will also help men. Feminism is not about giving special treatment to women. It is about creating a society where femininity in any form, whether it is in a woman or a man, is not seen as a bad thing.

We are all made the same way.

Arms, legs, torso, kidney, liver, heart, blood… the same basic parts, the same basic structure. Conscience, soul, feelings, wants and fears… we all have these too. There are differences between us but these don’t make us less equal! These differences produce a kind of variety. Like the color of a car or automatic compared to standard. It’s a matter of preference; not one is better over the other.

This isnt true at all. Some people are born sith faulty organs, deformed limbs, no limbs, autism, down syndrome, etc,etc.

Some people are genetically prone to certain things...

Some cant even hold a football, much less play the game.

Or look at it professionally, you have a good workers and poor workers. While yes, the poor workers can probably still do a half assed job, they dont normally get to keep the job unless the employer is a moron.

Even though our species has commonalities, that does not mean the same thing as equality.

Even genetically speaking, we are not created equal.