I :heart: my penith, and so do you!!! (NC Thread)

[jaxUp]

My intro to family therapy class had 55 people. I was the only male. It was one of my favourite classes for sure. It's very interesting to be so overwhelmed with the female viewpoint (not that there's only one, mind you).

[fretelöo]

Not all of them, no.

Also, when I expressed the opinion that after a few decades of feminist philosophy (or, in my case, theology) any balanced feminist positon should realize the need of a new form of masculine philosophy/theology as well in order not to drift into ideology, I got a general polite "Uhum?" instead of what I would have assumed to be a heartfelt "FY!!!" or a heartfelt "You're so right, actually."

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all of them, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that some women don't try to be objective unless there are men around?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, when I expressed the opinion that after a few decades of feminist philosophy (or, in my case, theology) any balanced feminist positon should realize the need of a new form of masculine philosophy/theology as well in order not to drift into ideology, I got a general polite "Uhum?" instead of what I would have assumed to be a heartfelt "FY!!!" or a heartfelt "You're so right, actually."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not totally sure what your statement means, but I think what you're saying is "After x amount of time during which inequities between men and women are adjusted in favor of women, we'll reach an equilibrium point and will no longer need a bias in favor of women." As a hypothesis this is correct. I don't really know what context this was in or what your class didn't understand about it.

I also don't know what feminist theology is(?)

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]
My intro to family therapy class had 55 people. I was the only male. It was one of my favourite classes for sure. It's very interesting to be so overwhelmed with the female viewpoint (not that there's only one, mind you).

[/ QUOTE ]

Word, sir. You are probably a huge pimp, no?

[Befolder]

[ QUOTE ]
My intro to family therapy class had 55 people. I was the only male. It was one of my favourite classes for sure. It's very interesting to be so overwhelmed with the female viewpoint (not that there's only one, mind you).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you in a counseling program Jax?

I'm in the second year of sending out applications for graduate schools for counseling programs. Can't wait to get back to some book learnin.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not all of them, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that some women don't try to be objective unless there are men around?

[/ QUOTE ]

re this kind of subject, no, some don't. (btw: Maybe it's just me but this kind of "so you are saying" kind of putting-words-in-others-mouths is a bit tiring. Same as in that AA vs 456monotone board. It takes some effort to construe my statement in the way you did - but somehow you seem to jump at every occasion. But again, maybe that's just me and my european feel for things. Maybe you guys just have a different way of arguing.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, when I expressed the opinion that after a few decades of feminist philosophy (or, in my case, theology) any balanced feminist positon should realize the need of a new form of masculine philosophy/theology as well in order not to drift into ideology, I got a general polite "Uhum?" instead of what I would have assumed to be a heartfelt "FY!!!" or a heartfelt "You're so right, actually."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not totally sure what your statement means, but I think what you're saying is "After x amount of time during which inequities between men and women are adjusted in favor of women, we'll reach an equilibrium point and will no longer need a bias in favor of women." As a hypothesis this is correct. I don't really know what context this was in or what your class didn't understand about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't mean that (they didn't understand it either, thus the "uhum"). What I mean is, that there's one side to every feminist point of view - that's the women-aren't-treated-like-men-under-equal-circumstances thing. No matter whether it's wages or runs for office or whatever. To me, that's true, but rather uninteresting. Women aren't treated equal to men, that sucks. Fine. And it's so plainly obvious, that there's not much reason to waste a lot of thought about it.
But theres a lot of other perspectives to it, and a lot has changed there, starting with female sexuality, female roles (you'll have to excuse, I def. don'T get the terms here right - I hope you get the idea) and so on and so forth.

And the same 30 years or so this kind of thing has been debated, not a single thought has been spend about the male part of this.
With the result, that in todays society, it's perfectly clear that and what roles females can occupy. They are mother, but of course they can work, feed the family, have a career etc. Their emotionality is great and they are "softer" than men but that makes them even more qualified for most jobs/tasks. What was been forgotten/overlooked at this time, that male roles for those our same society have not found much thought. In an average german family, both woman and man are having a job, and a lot of what would usually be part of the female role (e.g. being emotional, being able to talk about feelings blablub) is viewed as something that every male should try to incorporate.
But what this ammounts to, in effect, is that there's no clear "male" role anymore. Males, and their role as protector/feeder, is completely dispensable in our society.

And I guess, that's something that should be genuinely interesting and urgent for any feminist course. They didn't think so.

(I don't think that was very coherent, but maybe you get what I mean even though)

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't know what feminist theology is(?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Theology is the one reason why emancipation was necessary. We're partriarchalic not in nature but by tradition. And you can read the bible without seeing in god a man with a long white beard. You can find a lot of "strong women" in the bible about which sunday school is usually very quiet (or at least traditionally has been) (e.g. Judith, Ruth). Female aspects, female sexuality (Song of songs), female imagery (doves/the wisdom as female imagery; Zion as a mother and bride to JHWH) play a greater role in the OT than has long been acknowledged.

Generating a balanced view here does change the way you do theology, which, at least in theory, should be based on the bible.

[fretelöo]

addendum: Zilbergeld, Bernie: "The New Male Sexuality", New York, 1992; you probably didn't read that (yet [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).
(the guy teaches at University of California - have no idea if that's a good thing or not)


Books this title with "Female" would have been printed 30 years ago.
That's (part) of what I meant: now it's our turn and it's long overdue [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] and we have no idea who we actually are / supposed to be.

[fretelöo]

addendum II: We should stop, this thread is no longer NC. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Absolution]

Maybe insteal of analyzing feminism we should analyze shadow and why feels this way about women in general.

[DrModern]

Hey Fret,

Sorry if my way of arguing offended you, it's just general 2p2 speak as far as I understand. There's a lot of sarcasm and outright challenges on this board, which can take some getting used to, but are just sort of part of the kind of banter that goes on here. It's IMO part of what makes 2p2 forums so good--namely, that people are willing to call each other out on things they think are mistakes. It makes for a lot more interesting discussion than just nodding along.

Anyway, I have some idea of what you're saying, and I don't find it totally unsympathetic. I'll send you a PM with some more in-depth responses.

Anyway, keep it real.

--Doc