Hillary - The Gift That Keeps Giving

[Lexicus]

So it seems like arguing over the definition of feminism might ultimately become moot because Hillary’s will become the only kind of feminism.

I strongly doubt this. The direction of societal trend is clear, young people don't have time for that kind of feminism and I think it's great.

Something funny to note here is that a lot of my friends actually hate the word feminism because to them the default definition is white feminism.

I find this mode of thinking to be counterproductive but whatever works for your friends. Incidentally this prompted me to learn just now that postfeminism is a thing, apparently.

 

[Berzerker]

Notice how I'm qualifying my statements with "I think"?

I see that in one statement...and?

 

[Lexicus]

I see that in one statement...and?

So you understand that there might be some space between making authoritative statements about what feminism is and who is a feminist, and having some opinions on those questions while recognizing that others may disagree?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I've always found it bizarre that any Christians at all will swear oaths.

Matthew 5:34

It's like these people cannot read. And this isn't an obscure part of the Bible but an absolutely central part of Christianity.

Many "Christians" prefer the words of men like John Calvin to those of Christ. Calvin argued that, because the old testament includes a commandment to swear in God's name, that it is disobedience to God to refuse to swear solemn oaths. Calvin went so far as to say that swearing an oath in God's name and then keeping it is the absolute best way to glorify God, and that even if you swore to do something sinful it would be far more sinful to break that oath. There are no war crimes that soldiers could commit that he could not excuse as "just following orders" from officers they were sworn to obey. He held that government officials have a right to compel their subjects to swear oaths and to execute anyone who either refuses to make the oath or who later breaks it.

(This is one of the main reasons why Anabaptists have historically been so persecuted.)

Calvin was way more of authoritarian then Machiavelli. (I was of the school that The Prince was meant as parody until I read the Civil government portions of The Institutes of the Christian religion. I then found Montesquieu and Aristotle had some very similar authoritarian works on civics.)

Calvin did however describe one case where a man might legitimately break an oath. A nobleman who pledged his fealty to his king could rightfully kill his liege and usurp the throne in order to punish the monarch for refusing to fulfill his duty of punishing evil doers. Specifically, Calvin said that a ruler could be deposed for allowing heretics or heathens to to live in peace rather than forcibly converting or expelling them from the land. Calvin believed in the divine right of governments rather than kings specially, and said that aristocrats are government agents with a duty to keep their monarchs in check. He held that it is wrong to try to change the constitution of a society such than a monarchy becomes an oligarchy, an oligarchy becomes a democracy, a democracy becomes a dictatorship, etc. Subjects must work within whatever system where they find themselves rather than attempting reforms. Calvin personally expressed a preference for a mixed government, where citizens had a right to vote for their leaders and to serve or juries but must be absolutely obedient to every order from the magistrates except if they try to direct them how to vote. He held that the masses should not be trusted with important decisions like war and peace, but that it was good for Christians to practice judging each other for their sins.


I doubt that many people on the Religious Right have ever bothered to read Calvin's works for themselves, but he is a strong part of their cultural legacy. Admiring such thinkers is probably worse than actually reading their arguments and risking finding the many flaws they contain.

 

[inthesomeday]

I strongly doubt this. The direction of societal trend is clear, young people don't have time for that kind of feminism and I think it's great.

I just mean specifically the word. It seems the word feminism has been unfortunately corrupted to mean something it probably shouldn’t, and that young people are abandoning it as a positive term. Ahnayah prefers to call herself a Womanist, Alice Walker’s (and Nikki Giovanni’s) word.

I find this mode of thinking to be counterproductive but whatever works for your friends. Incidentally this prompted me to learn just now that postfeminism is a thing, apparently.

This brings up another point relevant to a discussion of “feminism”, which, aside the fact that white feminism has been consistently TE, is that perhaps theoretically, feminism itself ultimately becomes useless as a lens for analysis of gender because it can exist only in the context of a binary relationship of oppression. I mean popular discourse on the subject has only in the last few years seemed to realize that non-binary people obviously won’t be advocated as a part of FEMinism, and probably don’t want to, and even TI or POC oriented “womanism” doesn’t really have a response for that. I have yet to find a satisfactory term for a movement that seeks to abolish gender or gender norms while also taking into consideration the material and social differences between the born binaries.

 

[Lexicus]

and that young people are abandoning it as a positive term.

This has, uh, really not been my experience.

I have yet to find a satisfactory term for a movement that seeks to abolish gender or gender norms while also taking into consideration the material and social differences between the born binaries.

I have heard this referred to as fourth-wave feminism and the article on postfeminism also seems to describe it. I know plenty of women who want the gender binary gone who comfortably describe themselves as feminists.

 

[Berzerker]

So you understand that there might be some space between making authoritative statements about what feminism is and who is a feminist, and having some opinions on those questions while recognizing that others may disagree?

I dont see any relevant difference between saying 'Hillary is a feminist' and 'I think Hillary is a feminist'. She removed the victim of sexual harassment from her job and kept the perpetrator on the job and she attacked the victims of her husband. But you think she's a feminist and I think she's a hypocrite. Does it matter if we qualify that with "I think"? No... obviously others disagree with or without qualifiers.

 

[Lexicus]

I dont see any relevant difference between saying 'Hillary is a feminist' and 'I think Hillary is a feminist'.

Well, think on it.

 

[Berzerker]

I did... What is the relevant difference?

edit: I mean, they're both opinions - adding "I think" doesn't change the opinion. You've placed boundaries around the definition of feminism to decide who is or isn't a feminist...and thats fine. But you did decide who is or isn't a feminist, so why deny it?

 

[inthesomeday]

If I say “I think Hillary Clinton is not a feminist,” Lexicus has no problem, but if I say “Hillary Clinton is not a feminist,” he (I might add quite fairly and rationally) says that might be somewhat dismissive of the millions of probably misguided white women in this country who consider her an icon.

 

[Berzerker]

I think... therefore I am

 

[rah]

BAH, to make things clearer use "I believe" instead of "I think". I believe that better conveys that it's only an opinion and not a statement of supposed fact.

 

[Borachio]

Meh. The passage says to honor your word and not embellish. Some sects take it as literally barring oaths, but most read it to mean that oaths should not be freely offered or given lightly. If an oath is requested, that is different. There is a great deal of other verbiage about compliance with lawful authority.

J

I can't see how you can argue with the words "Do not swear an oath at all".

But apparently you can. And I find it bizarre.

BAH, to make things clearer use "I believe" instead of "I think". I believe that better conveys that it's only an opinion and not a statement of supposed fact.

I think you're missing Descartes's point by a country mile, here.

He says "I think therefore I am" as a conclusion to his exercise in stripping away all the knowledge he has which is partial or uncertain. You can, according to Descartes, doubt pretty much everything else.

His argument is basically that if a being can think then it can in no way doubt it's own existence. Because a non-existent being couldn't be said to have thoughts, and be aware of its own thoughts, in any meaningful sense. Beyond the purely fictional.

I think the argument is a solid one, myself.

And I don't believe it works at all rephrased as "I believe therefore I am".

I've seen a lot of people here on CFC miss the point too. And take it to mean something along the lines of "if only you think yourself something forcefully enough then that's what you'll become."

I don't agree with that line either.

 

[aelf]

So it's just a PSA that Hillary Clinton isn't a good person. Gotcha.

It's part of the OP's personal crusade against Hillary. It's been like that for years.

 

[Borachio]

Had people been tempted to swear by their head? I suppose it means "May something bad happen to my head if I fail to deliver on my oath." But it still sounds funny: "I swear by my head that I'll get those materials to you by Friday."

Like decapitation, I suppose.

The oath that has always made me cringe is when people swear on their "baby's life". I've heard this countless times.

And I honestly wouldn't/couldn't do it, if I had any children, myself.

I just don't believe we know the truth that accurately about anything to take that sort of risk.

Nor do I think it does anything but undermine the credibility of the oath swearer.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think you're missing Descartes's point by a country mile, here.

He says "I think therefore I am" as a conclusion to his exercise in stripping away all the knowledge he has which is partial or uncertain. You can, according to Descartes, doubt pretty much everything else.

His argument is basically that if a being can think then it can in no way doubt it's own existence. Because a non-existent being couldn't be said to have thoughts, and be aware of its own thoughts, in any meaningful sense. Beyond the purely fictional.

I think the argument is a solid one, myself.

And I don't believe it works at all rephrased as "I believe therefore I am".

I've seen a lot of people here on CFC miss the point too. And take it to mean something along the lines of "if only you think yourself something forcefully enough then that's what you'll become."

I don't agree with that line either.

I don't think/believe he was referring to the Descarte thing, I believe/think he was referring to the actual discussion in the thread, about thinking/believing that Hilary is a feminist.

 

[onejayhawk]

I can't see how you can argue with the words "Do not swear an oath at all". But apparently you can. And I find it bizarre.

You are focusing on phrasing and missing the commandment, which is to make every word you say true. An oath is to be pure form, with no substantive difference.

Some prefer to render Descartes form as, "I think I am."

J

 

[Lexicus]

white women in this country who consider her an icon.

I mean, plenty of women of color consider her an icon as well. I think the main dimension there is not race, it's class, ie, professional-class college-educated women are much more likely to see themselves in Hillary and their own struggles reflected in her career. I believe there is also a significant observed generational difference in women's attitudes toward her, with younger women having a generally lower opinion of her than older women.

edit: I mean, they're both opinions - adding "I think" doesn't change the opinion. You've placed boundaries around the definition of feminism to decide who is or isn't a feminist...and thats fine. But you did decide who is or isn't a feminist, so why deny it?

So you see no real difference between offering an opinion and making an authoritative statement?

Also Descartes is such a beta philosopher

 

[inthesomeday]

I mean, plenty of women of color consider her an icon as well.

I’ve never met one but then I am younger than you.

I think the main dimension there is not race, it's class,

Considering one means considering both.

Also Descartes is such a beta philosopher

Pretty good at math tho

 

[stinkubus]

Descartes cribbed the math from Fermat.