Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Feminism

2022-05-30T16:10:05Z

LeonardRobinson: Undo revision 1862197 by RobSmith (talk) A less biased version restored. Who are these old misogynists that reverted this?

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideology that fights for equal rights. Feminism downplays differences between men and women; feminists believe that women should be able to lead as full lines as men and not be unduly burdened by homemaking, child-rearing, They promote participation by women in the same pursuits as menpredominantly male. Most prominent modern feminists believe that women should have full control over their bodies, though they believe that education and freely available birthing control and aid for young mothers should be used to reduce the number of abortions now performed..

Feminist comment on the privileges of their male counterparts.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Eeminism care critical of marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominates universities, many large corporations, and women's team sports. Feminists want to make men and women equal but in reality.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are advocatese of [[lcensorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived, according to some conservative thinkers, from Communist doctrine, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most feminists:

* Want gender equality.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* Believe that there no major differences many areas between men and women (e.g., women and men equally in military combat), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).{{fact}}
* Oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* View traditional [[marriage]] as [[patriarchal]].
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [https://web.archive.org/web/20071204191342/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* Advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* Choose not to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* Believe marriage can involve "female servitude" ratherbthan a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* Often condemn ther gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]] for the ancient Hebrews
* Believe that [[homosexuals]].should be shown respect
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism was glamourized in the 1940s and 1950s by Hollywood film stars such as [[Joan Crawford]], attempting to portray a single mother as having a successful career and family without a husband. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. president.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017, were urged by the Iranian women's right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
While the Feminist movement may contribute to the [[Cultural Marxist]] undermining of [[family values]] , the main cause is [[divorce|marital breakdown]], and fathers who abandon their family, or fail to contribute to the raising of their children, Studies show that:
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
*90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
*Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/bowling-alone-how-washington-has-helped-destroy-american-civil-society-and-family-life/</ref>

== Feminism and population decline ==

The historian Martin van Creveld wrote in his book ''Equality: The Impossible Quest':
{{Cquote|In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy — not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous [[Islam]]ic variety—seems assured...

If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear.<ref>Martin van Creveld, ''Equality: The Impossible Quest'' (p. 165-166, 174). Castalia House. Kindle Edition</ref>}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women's rights]] and [[Atheism and women]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor's husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization's leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

Surveys throughout the world and other data indicate that women are less inclined to be [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010). [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ "Gene expression; Sex differences in global atheism, part N"]. Discover magazine website.
*Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015). [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap "The atheism gap"]. ''BloombergView''.
*[http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/atheism-feminism/#sthash.0yIBbelF.dpuf Atheism and Feminism], ''Oxford University Press'' blog</ref>
<ref name="PZ">Myers, P.Z. (June 29, 2010). [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ "The woman problem"]. Pharyngula [blog].</ref> See: [[Atheism and women]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Writing on the [[Atheism and sexism|sexism within the atheist population]], atheist Victoria Bekiempis wrote in a ''Guardian'' article entitled ''Why the [[New Atheism]] is a boys' club'':
{{cquote|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]], who founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation with her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in 1978, sums it up succinctly: “One word — sexism.” Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who helms the organization along with her, is usually the one invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her numerous books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>}}

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

== Intersectionality==
As women attain a majority in society and a significant portion of the workforce, including leadership positions, the predicate of "disadvantage" was overtaken by competing "identity groups." In fact, many women identify with these other groups, and a theory was needed to sort out conflicting claims for social redress. For example, should the alleged social handicap of being a black deaf woman be addressed in terms of 1) race, 2) hearing impairment or 3) gender? Under the [[intersectionality]] theory, such people should receive accommodations from society for all of their identities and a hierarchy of identify groups governs how much claim each group has to social capital based upon identity. Without intersectionality, the comparative privilege held by women in Western societies would be overshadowed by and put into competition with the claims of other identity groups.

"Intersectionality" was coined by [[Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw]] in 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | title=Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later | accessd-date=9 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223111809/https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | archive-date=23 February 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |title=Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics |author=Kimberlé Krenshaw |publisher=University of Chicago Legal Forum |date=1989 |accessdate=7 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513141436/https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> Without intersectionality, feminism and its advocates would be regarded as out-of-date by social justice warriors.
== Femen ==

''See also:'' [[Femen]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women]]

[[Femen]] is a [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] radical feminist activist group which is now based in Paris. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Femen’s members consider [[atheism]] to be a fundamental tenet of the group’s ideology."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/12/meet-femen-naked-shock-troops-feminism-who-greeted-trump-with-topless-protest-paris/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb5ef3499053 Meet Femen, the ‘naked shock troops of feminism’ who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Erica Jong]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/f0wr6b/conservatives_find_unlikely_ally_in_fighting/ Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', February 8, 2020.

{{Communism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2022-05-29T00:10:01Z

LeonardRobinson: There's a need for more open mindedness here. How naïve?

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''
{{{bias}}
== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.

2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no

3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.

4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?

5. I was 11 months old.

6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?

7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.

8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.

9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.

10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!

11. It is possible, yes.

12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.

13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.

14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::I just find it amusing that this is supposed to be an "open mindedness test," but the creator of the test is nowhere near open minded as evidenced by his statement that the statements following the phrase "resist admitting" are "undeniably true." An open mindedness test is not effective when made but someone who is not open minded.

==Gay marriage and the Olympic Games==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

You are absolutely right King, though the practice may be morally wrong. I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with the Olympics, many other countries don't have the same attitude about gay marriage as the U.S. does.

== Berlin Wall question ==
I think there should be an alternative question for those who weren't born yet, or weren't old enough to have any what it was/to care about it. Maybe add an alternative that addresses the same idea, but is more relevant to today? Such as 'Do you think it is impossible that Cuba will become a democracy?' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

: How about adding it as an alternative question on the same line, without erasing the original? The advantages of the original question is that it is historical, not speculative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::That is what I meant, wasn't as clear as it could've been, but that is what I meant. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::And another possibility - "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?" - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:06, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Objectivity ==
Wouldn't it be better to ask more objective questions ? For example by replacing
* Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
by
* Do you think that evolution '''or''' creation must have occurred? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]]

: The first question is meaningful, because if someone thinks that evolution '''''must''''' have occurred then he is closed-minded to what the evidence may show to the contrary. That question does address the degree of openmindedness. The second question doesn't seem to disclose any information: lots of closedminded and openminded people would answer "yes", and the question does not distinguish between the two mindsets.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Even if there is strong evidence to support [[Creation]], you can never be 100% sure and I believe it is a sign of open-mindedness to acknowledge the fact that there may be another answer, unlikely as this may be. --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:::I see your point, but the revised question does not differentiate between those who are closedminded in their belief in evolution, and those who are openminded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Then what about this: If there was an absolute proof that either [[evolution]] or [[creation]] is true, would you change your mind ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:42, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would suggest altering that to say "Is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of evolution, and is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of creation?" (With 1 yes and 1 no counting as yes for the essay)That way people can't go 'sure, I'd believe evolution if there was absolute proof. But it isn't so there can't be absolute proof' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 19:09, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Equivalent? ==
Many of the questions in the test can be rewritten in a reversed form. I am interested to hear people’s views on whether they believe these opposite questions could be substituted for the current ones without affecting the validity of the test. If you feel that these reversed questions would affect validity, then how can they be valid in their current form either? If you don't think it would affect validity, then why not make the test a mixture of conservative and liberal slanted questions?

Two examples
: 1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
:12. Do you think that evolution ''must not'' have occurred?

== Answers from a liberal Atheist ==
1. It depends on your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." But generally, any approach to education can be effective at some things and ineffective at others. So no. This question is a bit oddly phrased, though, as the words "resist admitting" assume that the following proposition is true and if someone believes the opposite, they are wrong.
 

2. Of course not. That would be stupid and annoying.
 

3. If something I accepted for over a decade was proven to be false, yes, I would drop it. Same as the first question.
 

4. That depends on what you mean by "Hollywood Values." However, generally, any value system can prove to be harmful. Yes, even the one pushed by this site. In real life, everything is not black and white. That is only in movies. And books.
 

5. Of course not. It could very well be the case. That is an objective fact, and therefore I can not have an opinion on it.
 

6. I am a bit to young for this question to understand what it is referring to, but obviously a wall can be torn down with applied force and lots of heavy machinery.
 

7. Again, to young to know what that is.
 

8. Nothing is impossible. It also depends on what you mean by "authentic." If you mean the claim that the shroud comes from the time it is claimed to have come from, than possibly. if you mean some sort of religious thing, than no, probably not. Nothing is impossible, but many things are improbable.
 

9. This is an odd question. It is also an objective fact, and I can not have an opinion on it. I am also not knowledgeable enough to answer it.
 

10. Not at all. Again objective fact, and again I'm not knowledgeable enough.
 

11. Not necessarily. But I'm not a fan of these types of tests. I don't actually believe the IQ test measures "intelligence" because that word can be used to indicate many things, not just how much information you've crammed into your brain.
 

12. "Evolution" must have occurred, yes, because it is occurring all the time. We've even made it occur. The evidence is to staggering not to believe it happened and continues to happen. You mean the "common descent" theory, however, and the beginning of life is an objective fact. I can not have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the "common descent" part.
 

13. I honestly have no idea what that is, and I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough for it.
 

14. Of course there are things taught in school that are completely false, but the teachers may not know that. I, myself, was taught in elementary school the George Washington story, about him cutting down the cherry tree. I went to a religious school also, so I was taught many myths from the Bible and I was taught that all of the evidence for evolution was fabricated in a big conspiracy. The teachers honestly believed these things. Thus, I do think that there are things taught in schools that are completely false, but I don't think the teachers know that, because they believe everything they teach.
 
15. That, of course, depends on what theories you are talking about. It also depends on what you mean by the "progress" of science. Is science trying to reach some goal? I was under the impression that science exists for the exploration of the world and how it works.
 

16. Socialism and same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. So this question makes no sense.
 

17. Just because someone is an "expert" does not mean they know everything about their topic. It just means that they know a lot more about their topic than the average person. So, of course, "experts" do not have all the answers. However, I would be inclined to go to one if I had a question about their particular field of study, because they would be more knowledgeable about their topic than I would. As for the "best of the public" idea, the idea is extremely vague. However, yes, of course, there are people who are knowledgeable about things that are not experts. Just because someone hasn't gone to school or doesn't have a degree, it doesn't make them not smart. However, I would trust an "expert" more than I would trust some random guy on the street because I assume they know more about their topic than any random person.
 

18. This question is vague and depends largely on what is meant by "read the Bible." It also depends on the definition of reading something. If you think that reading requires you to have read the entire text than no. If you think that reading something requires you to have read any part of the text than yes. However, there really isn't a reason to read the Bible "regularly," any more than there is a reason to read the Koran regularly or the Odyssey regularly.
 

19. This is an objective fact, so I can't have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer it.

So according to Conservapedia, this liberal atheist is open-minded. However, I would like to say that some of the questions are asked in such a way that they assume their proposition to be automatically true and every other proposition to be false. This is the case with phrases like: "Do you resist admitting" or "Do you deny." {{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow. Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit. Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::The qualifications are needed because many of these questions are to vague for a yes or no answer. My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.{{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:::Your first 5 out of the 19 questions would get full credit, but after that many of the answers would not. Your answers to 9 and 12, for example, would not get credit. Your answer to question 14 would not receive credit because of its statement that teachers in school "believe everything they teach." Surely some school teachers sometimes teach things they do not believe, such as aspects of evolution (only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::::Why not 9 and 12? Or many of the others? You are correct, and I was incorrect, that there are times when teachers teach things they don't believe to be true. However, I would say for the most part, they do teach things they believe to be true. What is your source for that last assertion -"only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school"-?

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==
Just for fun:
 
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
 
2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
 
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
 
4. Do you resist the possibility that conservative values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
 
5. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
 
6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was possible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
 
7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is possible?
 
8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is inauthentic?
 
9. Do you think that there must be a purely religious-based explanation (such as creationism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
 
10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have stayed the same in the past?
 
11. Do you think that it is possible to measure openmindedness?
 
12. Do you think that evolution must not have occurred?
 
13. Do you think that is possible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
 
14. Do you believe that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
 
15. Do you believe that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
 
16. Do you believe that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
 
17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may have the answers, and that the best of the public may not have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
 
18. Do you think that people should read the Bible regularly?
 
19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are not guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
 
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?

== Answers from an ex-creationist ==
'''Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?'''

''No, there are a number of approaches to education. Any of them could work, experimentation is key. However, I'm not sure the methods of education are necessarily conservative or liberal, different methods have different merits and some appeal more to certain ideologies certainly, but you can't really brand any system of education as being inherently conservative or liberal. ''

'''If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?'''

''No, no rational person, liberal or conservative, would. Though biologically we are programmed to resist change, I would hope I am open-minded enough to accept change. ''

'''Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?'''

''No, appeals to tradition are meaningless. ''

''' Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?'''

''Hollywood values by the definition presented are personal choices that people are free to make. I personally believe they are harmful, but I do not believe you can impose your will on someone else on the matter. ''

'''Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?'''

That's an incredibly vague question. Increased gun ownership leads to greater guns amongst criminals. I think that guns should come with training of the level required of military personel and police officers, and that they should be controlled so as to keep them in proper hands. Do I think its impossible? No, but it's not conducive.

''' When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?'''

'' Wasn't alive, can't comment''

'''Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?'''

''No, technology is developing at a rapid rate, it's just a matter of time. ''

'''Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?''

''Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely, the evidence against (fibers, design) is pretty damning''

'''Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?'''

''If by material-based you mean without God, then yes.''

'''Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?'''

''Most likely, yes. ''

'''Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?'''

''No, but this quiz almost certainly doesn't appear to be a good method.''

'''Do you think that evolution [2] must have occurred?'''

''It has happened, it is happened, it's a continual process that has happened since the beginning of life. ''

'''Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?'''

''I do not know enough about the situation to comment properly.''

'''Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?'''

''No, I admit that a lot of what I was taught about God and his existence and his role in the creation of the world. ''

'''Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?[3]'''

''Yes, the theory of evolution is a powerful tool and its role in describing biological processes is incredible.''

'''Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?'''

''Yes, such an imposition is preposterous.''

'''Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?'''

''Again a very vague and loaded question. Certainly the more perspectives on a subject, the more insight, but more often than not, credible experts have training and knowledge that the "best of the public" does not (for instance, Lisa Rudley and the autism and vaccine nonsense)''

'''Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?'''

''No, certainly it should be studied for its historical significance.''

'''Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years? '''

''No, there is no reason that other anomaly, such as another stronger body of gravity, altering the course of the bodies in question.'' [[User:Jacobsladder|Jacobsladder]] 15:41, 28 December 2011 (EST)

== New Question about Korea ==

I don't see how this question tests open-mindedness: "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:Given the current very unfriendly relationship between the two countries, it seems unlikely that the relationship will improve to a point where the two countries will reunite. Additionally, with North Korea slowly becoming more proficient with nuclear weapons, they are becoming more of a threat to the rest of the world, which makes it more likely that another country will have to take a forceful hand with their attitude towards North Korea. The point is, it is unlikely that they will reunite peacefully into a single country. And whether someone thinks that just because an event is unlikely doesn't make it impossible, is a test of openmindedness. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:18, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== A comment on #2 and problems with #20 ==

Firstly, with 2, using an argument you know to be flawed can, in certain situations, be useful. On the rare occasion, I have used it when my purpose is to teach them/make them think more. I would use the flawed argument, knowing the flaws in it, and try to help them find the flaws in the argument. However, in that case I was trying to make them think, rather than convince them I was right.

And with #20, firstly, possible grammar problem, you're comparing one person to two people, so can someone who knows the intricacies of grammar check to make sure it's right, caus it just sounds weird. But more importantly, that question is a test of closed-mindedness, not openmindedness. Firstly, by giving no additional information about any of them, it suggests that if you do not think that a woman who is: straight, a radical Muslim intent on destroying America, a serial killer and abuser of children... is a better mother than a woman who: is gay, attends Church every Sunday, volunteers at a homeless shelter, is charitable and treats everyone and all animals with kindness... then you are closedminded. This interpretation is perfectly allowable under the current form of the question.

Secondly, by effectively suggesting that ALL straight woman are better mothers than ALL gay woman, the question is a test of closedmindedness. Regardless of which you believe is more likely to be a better mother, it is closedminded to think that it is impossible for a gay woman to be a good mother. Openmindedness is about two things: accepting that what you believe, may be wrong, and being willing to change your mind about an issue. This question doesn't address the second (which is fine), however it rejects the first and suggests that if you don't agree with the statement, then you are wrong, because the statement is unquestionable and IS NOT WRONG.

I strongly suggest either changing the question to reflect a test of openmindedness, or removing it entirely. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:43, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== Does this test measure open-mindedness? ==

This questionnaire appears geared towards making "liberals" fail it rather than establishing relative levels of open-mindedness. Consider the first question,

"Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"

Equally, you could pose the question

"Do you resist admitting the possibility that a ''liberal'' approach to education is far more effective for students than a ''conservative'' one?"

and in both cases say that a 'yes' means closed-mindedness and an 'no' means open-mindedness.

If you had a set of questions like that second one (e.g. "Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership ''increases'' the rate of crime?" instead of decreases, "Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is ''fake''?" instead of authentic) you would have a questionnaire that does not find conservatives to be open-minded, but the reverse, that conservatives are closed-minded. --[[User:Thal|Thal]] 11:21, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

:The questions could be reversed, but most conservatives would pass it. For example, most conservatives would answer "no" to your question "Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is ''fake''?" while most liberals would answer "yes" to the reverse question, "Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:35, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

::How about if the questions were, "Do you think that it is impossible that there is no god?", "Do you think that evolution cannot be true?", "Do you think that it is impossible that the theory of relativity is true?", "Do you think that homosexuality cannot be allowed in society?" Wouldn't a conservative answer "yes" to them, and therefore be 'closed-minded'?

::If I am missing the point of all this (maybe a conservative would answer "no" to those questions?), then I'm happy to learn, but what this questionnaire seems to be is a list of things conservatives believe in, and if you do not agree it says you are closed-minded, rather than merely, "not a conservative". --[[User:Thal|Thal]] 11:54, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Extremely poor design ==

As someone who actually has training and education in research methodology, survey design, statistics, and data analysis I find this test of "quantifying" open-mindedness insulting to the profession. The author of this test obviously has little to no understanding of proper survey design. At best, I would say that if this test quantifies anything, it's the open-mindedness towards Conservative ideals of Conservapedia's regular visitors. Question #2 is the only question I would accept as a decent measure of actual open-mindedness.

(My use of the terms "error" and "bias" are used strictly in the statistical/research design sense)

Just a sample of the errors include:
A) Biased questions: This test, as another person has mentioned, is designed to make Conservatives appear more open-minded than liberals. If I were to develop a test in direct opposition to this test I would have questions such as, "Do you think it's impossible that Jesus never existed?" or "Do you resist accepting that God doesn't exist?" and so on.....using the same "yes/No" format we can assume that questions such as these would make "Liberals" appear more open-minded (as long as answers are honest).

B) The fact that the author has told us in advance what he considers to be the "correct answers" (I'll use this term since it's obvious that the measure of open-mindedness reflects only conservative ideals). This fact increases greatly the response bias....which means additional survey error to muddle through to find any truth in the analysis of the data.

C)Closed-ended questions that require respondents to provide answers as though they were responding to open-ended questions. Basically, the individual questions are so poorly designed, convoluted, and imbued with biased assumptions that the test becomes even less quantitative and more qualitative as respondents feel necessary to explain their yes/no answers which fail to address the questions sufficiently.

D)Even if the questions truly were quantitative in nature, the obvious sampling bias pretty much makes this test useless outside of Conservapedia.

E)The use of absolute terms such as "Impossible", despite attempts to define it, lead to even more error and bias. Even grade school children are taught to watch out for these types of terms on multiple choice exams ("always" and "never").

F) I'll finish with this although I could go on: This measurement does a very poor job of defining actual open-mindedness. IF you look at the questions and ask yourself, "Do these questions accurately reflect true open-mindedness in its most general sense?" the honest answer is no. Open-mindedness, in this test, reflects only an openness to specific conservative/literal creationist ideals.

Using some of the questions provided, a better design would include questions such as (and these are a bit off the cuff so I will not say these are perfect, perfecting questions like this requires trial and error):
#3) Do you find it difficult to admit when a long held belief is proven wrong? (which can replace a majority of the questions)
#14) Do you find it difficult to admit that what you are taught in school may not be accurate?
#17A) Do you find it difficult to question the validity of expert opinion on subjects you are not familiar with?
#17B) Do you find it difficult to accept the insights of non-experts/laymen on subjects you are not familiar with?

Towards the end of the following research are a set of questions which I feel do a far better job at measuring true open-mindedness. Notice the variation in how questions are asked, enabling a wider interpretation of what open-mindedness means. Also notice how much more sophisticated the statistical analysis is over the simplistic method used on the test provided by Conservapedia which relies on simply adding up yes and no answers without even the most basic weighting method.
http://www.psyc.jmu.edu/assessment/research/pdfs/APS_AOT_Final_Marsh&Pastor.pdf

[[User:Willingham|Willingham]] 10:33, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

== A response to the recent main page answers ==

This is in response to the answers posted by JerryD on the main page, and Andy's scoring of them.

1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?
:J - I’m not exactly sure what conservative and liberal approaches to education are, and if the rest of this site is any indication I’d suspect your definition of “liberal education” will be a combination of rather cherry-picked examples of the worst elements along with some strawmen. Besides that, I don’t know how I can resist admitting some ill-defined terms, but if the overall question is “is it possible that a conservative approach to education is better than a liberal one” I’d answer, possibly, sure, depending on the definitions.
:A - OK, one point of credit given.
:Me - Due to the uncertainty of what is meant by a liberal or conservative education, a score of 0/0.

2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
:J - No.
:A - Good. One more point.
:Me - One point.

3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
:J - I think everyone ‘’resists’’ changing their long held views. We wouldn’t hold them very strongly if we didn’t. Few people turn on a dime on things they’ve thought for years. If I were convinced about it, after studying the evidence, I would accept that the belief in question is false.
:A - Half-point credit, in light of the equivocation.
:Me - Full point. Resisting changing one's opinion is necessary to have opinions which last for more than 10 seconds. He does suggest that having held the opinion for 10 years wouldn't affect whether he changes his mind or not, the evidence would change his mind.

4. Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
:J - “Hollywood values” isn’t exactly well-defined either. If you’re going to define Hollywood by its worst aspects, such as drug use (which exists in every city in the country), then sure. We all know drugs can be quite harmful. Does that make watching a typical Hollywood blockbuster harmful? No. Although most are basically crummy movies these days, but that’s subjective and irrelevant.
:A - No credit here. Hollywood values is worse in many ways than what is typical in many cities.
:Me - Without Hollywood values defined, 0/0

5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
:J - It’s possible, and I believe there have been studies that have shown some evidence for this. There’s also evidence against it, if you look at foreign countries with less gun ownership and less crime. If I had to guess I’d say widespread gun ownership might lead to a modest decrease in things like muggings and robberies, but a modest increase in murder and accidental firearm deaths.
:A - Credit is given because you say it is possible. Note that the rate of accidential firearm deaths is very small.
:Me - Full point.

6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
:J - The wall was made of steel and cement, of course it could be torn down. No sane person could think otherwise. At some point in the future its demise was inevitable. Did Reagan cause the wall to be torn down? I’ve seen no evidence for it. Certainly not directly, anyway.
:A - Zero credit because the point of the question is whether it would be politically possible, not physically possible.
:Me - He seems to have missed the point of the question. No reason to penalise that. 0/0

7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?
:J - Again, there’s very little that is impossible. SDI was theoretically possible. Was it practical though? From what I know of it, probably not. It was never implemented for a reason.
:A - Zero credit. Lots of things are impossible. The question is not limited to what is "theoretically possible."
:Me - I see nothing wrong with his answer, however because I don't understand Andy's objection, will give 0/0 instead of 1/1.

8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
:J - Possible, but very unlikely.
:A - Half credit due to the "very unlikely" statement.
:Me - Full point. Nothing wrong with thinking something is possible but unlikely. Really, if he was asked to give a percentage of how likely it is to be authentic, any answer except 0% and 100% should be enough to grant a point.

9. Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
:J - I think it is by far the most likely scenario.
:A - Half credit.
:Me - Full point. Same reason as above.

10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
:J - My understanding of the laws of physics seems to indicate this is more or less impossible. It’s possible the laws are wrong, I suppose, and there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case. But, no, I guess it falls a bit short of impossible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.

11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
:J - It would be very difficult to in any real accurate and specific way. This test is quite biased. I think it can measured in a vague way.
:A - Half credit - "measured in a vague way"?? Either it can be measured, or it can't.
:Me - Half point. Stating that it would be very difficult to measure in any real accurate or specific way, and then saying that it can be measured in a vague way is enough for me to interpret it as saying it's impossible to measure in a quantitative way.

12. Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
:J - All evidence points to it, so I’d say it has occurred, but it’s not impossible it didn’t.
:A - Full credit because you say it is "not impossible."
:Me - Full point.

13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
:J - I have to admit I know nothing about this, and there is very little in the universe that is 100% impossible, so sure, it’s possible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.

14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
:J - No. I realize my teachers didn’t always get everything right. They’re human, like the rest of us.
:A - Zero credit. The question asks about teaching known falsehoods. That's not an issue of being "human, like the rest of us."
:Me - 0/0. Missed the point of the question

15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?
:J - I’d like to see evidence that they do before condemning them. Overall I’d say they do more good than harm, if that’s the question.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Although I'm not confident in my interpretation of his answer. Nothing wrong in wanting to see evidence before condemning a specific theory. I think he means that all theories do more good in progressing science than harm in progressing science.

16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
:J - I fail to see how they could. Given some evidence for this hypothesis I could conceivably change my mind, but there seems very little relation between the two subjects, so I can’t envision how one would measurably affect the other.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - Full point. Says he could change his mind if presented with evidence. Nothing wrong with not seeing how one would affect the other. He doesn't say it is impossible, just that he doesn't personally see how it is possible.

17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
:J - Oh not at all. Experts don’t always get everything right. They can’t, as different experts often have different views on the same subject, and they can’t both be right. A legitimate expert, however, will be in a better position to have the answer on a relevant subject than a non-expert. The best of the public is an intriguing idea that has merit, but deciding who “the best” of the public is is no easy task. I haven’t yet observed them on this site.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point. But with hesitation. He focuses on who is more likely to be right, rather than whether the best of the public can offer ideas or insights which are useful.

18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
:J - This seems more of a semantic argument than anything else. Are only people who’ve read the Bible cover to cover (including all the boring lists of laws and who begat whoms) able to really say they’ve read the Bible? The reason to read it regularly is if you want to, or you want a better knowledge of what it says. Those who want to have a reason to read it, those who don’t, don’t.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Suggests that wanting a better knowledge of what the Bible says is the only reason non-Christians read the Bible. The Bible can offer interesting and useful ideas or thoughts to non-Christians, which he seems to suggest is impossible. I may be reading more into his response than is reasonable though.

19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
:J - I don’t think the universe issues guarantees. I believe the laws of physics do indicate the relatively stable orbit, though not necessarily unchanging.
:A - Zero credit. Earth's orbit is unstable.
:Me - Full point. By using the word "relatively", he basically says that over extreme lengths of time, it may not be stable, but for time-scales of interest to us, it is stable. The question doesn't make the distinction between long-term, and short-term, stability.

Andy gave a score of 9.
I give a score of 11.5/13, which is 88%.
- [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 10:39, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

== my answers :) ==

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yeah probably at first, human nature isn't it? but once I realised that I was wrong I would accept that.

4. Not really sure what these are, but judging by the state of the lives of loads of people who work in Hollywood I would think that they do.

5. No I don't think it's impossible. Unlikely and rather counter-intuitive, but not impossible.

6. I wasn't born at the time, and as I grew up in an entirely different political landscape I don't think I could really know what I would have thought. Probably yes, but I don't know.

7. Too long ago, and I'm not from America. From the little I know about it I think that it may have been possible, but impractically expensive? I really don't know.

8. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

9. Not quite sure what is meant by 'purely material-based' here. I think there is a material explanation, but I don't see how that makes it less miraculous or impressive, especially seeing as how in many species the young birds on their first migration will leave slightly later by themselves, and make the journey relying entirely on instinct and some form of navigation.

10. I don't really know much about this one. I suppose it's possible.

11. I think it is possible to measure, though not in a very precise way. (I don't think this test is great though, too political).

12. No.

13. Don't know anything about this one.

14. I was home-schooled, so that's my mum you're talking about :) No I don't think that happens. Call me naive but I think that all the information taught in schools is believed by those responsible. (probably not true for all countries though.)

15. No not really. If evolution for instance turns out to be false then that will have impeded the progress of science i suppose.

16. Yes I do, I really can't see the connection.

17. No. On the whole I would go with the expert opinion though.

18. No. It's important to read the bible. (I don't think this question has much to do with open-mindedness though)

19. I wouldn't say guaranteed, no.

Of the sixteen that I knew anything about I answered 'no' 12 and a half times or maybe 12 times, and 'yes' about three times. I don't know how I would mark the ones I didn't know anything about. Interesting test, though I don't think all the questions are particularly relevant.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:01, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== More answers ==

Here are my (JudyJ) answers to this test. I have added a few new questions, and expanded on a few others. These changes are in italics. The numbering is the same as in the original.

*1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
*''1a. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[liberal]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[conservative]] one?''
::I don't accept either of these premises in their absolute form. Each side has something to contribute.
*2. If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
::Of course not.
*3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
::Of course not.
*4. Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
::Assuming that, by "Hollywood values", you mean drug use, scandalous behavior, and a belief that the rules apply only to other people, of course such things harm the individuals involved and other people. People in show business are often associated with these attitudes, but they can be found everywhere.
*5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
*''5a. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?''
*''5b. Do you think it is impossible that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and crime rates?''
::Crime rates depend on many many things, as a study of historical crime rate statistics shows. If have seen comparisons of crime rates and gun ownership rates for a number of countries, and there is no conclusion that one can draw in either direction.
*6. When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
::Given that this is an event that actually happened, it isn't a good test of openmindedness. See my new question about Korea at the end.
*7. Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
::It's really a question of whether it would have been feasible. It is possible, but may well not have been economically reasonable.
*8. Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
::I don't know.
*9. Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
::I don't know, though my scientific sensibilities suggest that a scientific explanation will be found. This question appears to by attempting to elicit a response similar to the "intelligent design" position that some people take on biological evolution. I don't take such a position.
*10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
::It could have been, but it's confounded by things like the expansion of the universe. Same meter sticks? Same clocks? What does that even mean? We do know, from spectral lines of distant stars, that the properties of the universe have not changed significantly in its "recent" (say, 10 billion years) history.
*11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
::I have no idea, really. I'm just going along with the hypothesis.
*12. Do you think that [[evolution]] ''must'' have occurred?
::Yes. To avoid filling this page with too much text, I have written an extensive essay on the subject on my [[User:JudyJ|user page]].
*13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
::This question is a little more complicated than meets the eye, since Newton's law was ''stated'' to be inverse square, so any deviation would not be Newton's law. Restating that as "would Newton's law, as modified to have an exponent of 2.00000001 (or whatever) better explain the universe? It would not. This theory was advanced by Asaph Hall and Simon Newcomb, with exponent 2.0000001574, in the late 19th century, to explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. ''It fails for the Moon and the other planets'', and was discarded shortly thereafter. I am not so openminded as to accept that it might nevertheless by correct.
*14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
::Absolutely not. I could tell you some doozies from my 2nd grade teacher, and from my 8th grade science teacher. I do not know whether those teachers actually believed what they were saying.
*15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
::It occasionally happens that some theories harm overall scientific knowledge. The Ptolemaic universe, "cold fusion", and various proposals relating to biology, medicine, genetics, and geology come to mind. But the problems seem to get straightened out by further study.
*16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
::I know of no reason to believe there could be any correlation.
*17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
::Of course not.
*18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
::This seems to be a question of how one interprets the semantic meaning of "have read ...", rather than one of openmindedness about any factual matter. I believe that saying that one "has read" something should mean that one has read it in its entirety, or nearly so. In that sense, I have not read the Bible, though I have read many parts of it, on my own and in various Bible study classes in college and in my church.
*19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
::Of course there are no guarantees; another star could totally disrupt the Solar system in then next few million years, but we have (at present) no way of predicting such things. I am aware that Young Earth Creationists sometime make exaggerated claims about the instability of the Earth's orbit, apparently in order to advance a claim that the orbit could not have been stable for more than a few thousand years. So I'll say that there is extremely good reason to believe that it has been stable for a few billion years, and will continue to be stable for a few billion more years. There is compelling geological and biological evidence that the Earth has been at roughly the same distance from a star with roughly the luminosity of the Sun for, say, 3 billion years. Also, extremely precise computer simulations<ref>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UasEK0r-uY8J:groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/keithw/Sussman-Wisdom.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESglombZ-xHvE-G9KSVHXBN-ZBdwKxZetIOnM5ATh6pL5QJsdj2ZfHrAYzrjVBr-6TPPKCfAazSBhixS04mA90GQ4e00385sQwu0U1qWCf26C4iKp515jvlSjPaa79fVF_pIKBI0&sig=AHIEtbTIS_9STbbpxZN5LDIIycucGuGKIw</ref> over a period of a few hundred million years into the future show that, while the Lyupanov time scale is only a few million years, the overall instability is quite small over that time frame.

''Here are a few questions that I have added. The one about Korea was added and discussed on the talk page, but was removed. I believe it is a better question than the one about the Berlin wall, because it refers to a situation whose outcome we do not know.''

*20. Do you deny the possibility that North and South Korea will someday be united, without a war?
::Absolutely not.
*21a. Do you deny the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?
::Absolutely not.
*21b. Do you deny the possibility that ''no'' intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe?
::Absolutely not.
*22a. Do you deny the possibility that special and general relativity are a substantially correct explanation for how the universe works at non-microscopic (not quantum scale) levels?
::Absolutely not.
*22b. Do you deny the possibility that relativity is ''not'' a correct explanation?
::I believe that future developments will eventually supplant the 20th century notion of special and general relativity. But I totally accept it as the correct scientific paradigm for its time, just as Newtonian mechanics was the correct scientific paradigm for its time.

== Key wiki metric ==

This is a dubious method for measuring open mindedness. Many blocked accounts are those of mindless vandals, that the aren't real editors. Also some administrators block an editor, if s/he's opinion is different from their's ( i.e. too liberal, like, for example, my choice of s/he here). --[[User:LeonardRobinson|LeonardRobinson]] ([[User talk:LeonardRobinson|talk]]) 17:32, May 28, 2022 (EDT)

Talk:Feminism

2022-05-29T00:03:58Z

LeonardRobinson: Tagged. This article should not be protected

{{bias}}
==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

::Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

:What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article:
- Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity.
- Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that.
- View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope.
- Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know.
- shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities?
- support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say?
- prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the ''bête noire'' of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: ''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children'' or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
:#There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
:#I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
:#There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
:Hope this clears it up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"''? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"'', then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense (''"Specifically, modern feminists tend to"'' as opposed to ''"Specifically, modern feminist tended to"'') after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists ''"oppose single-sex schooling"'' is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism and choice==

Feminists say they '''only want choice''' while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we '''all''' know that [[Simone de Beauvoir]] condemned the [[choice]] of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the [[liberal deceit|pretense]] that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your [[freedom of press]] to tell lies. You can't do it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. [[Feminism]] plainly represents views about how women ''should'' act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book ''The Second Sex'' in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.

:::: Likewise here. The ''[[sine qua non]]'' of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name Changes==
The article says that feminists ''"refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes"''. However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be ''"feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry."'' Two relevant quotes from the article: ''"...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?"'' and ''"Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want."'' <ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==Question for the Editor--==
I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== Unsourced quotes ==

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan
I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:
*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan
I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.}}
I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:
*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."
It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:
*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"Ice and Fire" is a ''novel''. As in ''fiction''. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.
*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
This quote is [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp attributed] to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:
*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Quotations and flowing prose==

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper==

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

== Suggestion for separation ==

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- [[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 11:28, August 28 2011

== Reversion explained ==

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

and

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Enough quotations? ==

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --[[User:Marxian21|Marxian21]] 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== "No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" ==

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

:Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
::I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

==Full rewrite==

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see [[Chivalry]]), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting '''any''' help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose [[pornography]] and [[sexual slavery]], and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

I am trying to make this page compatible with a little Amazon Alexa Mod I cooked up, so far when It reads it,
There were multiple spelling errors, and when she spoke it sounded more like a rant then an actual informative conservative essay. Also the bulleted list doesn't play and the alexia device just stops playing, I believe the hardware isn't used to bullet points not being with-in heading or heading font so the Device just tries to reload the text in pure html using Wikipedias default source php (which I deleted to make my own.)
I understand that I need to be of higher standing, so can someone edit the article so it doesn't sound like a gigantic rant without any sources.
--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] [[User talk:Reevestehsnek|Talk]] 10:59, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:Sorry, we don't change pages so Amazon Alexa handles them better. That's Alexa's problem, not ours. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:48, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I wasn't clear I made a mod for an alexa device that uses conservapedia as its source, but its obvi you don't care about all the hard hours of work it took to actual remove the php through bluetooth and rewrite the script using BSD. {{unsigned|Reevestehsnek}}
:::I'm not saying that at all, and that sounds like a great accomplishment that I could not do myself.

:::What I '''am''' saying is that this is not a sufficient reason for making major changes to the article. We simply cannot change an article's wording and point of view because it runs better through a speaking device. Articles are generally created to be read, and it's unusual for people to have them spoken to them by a device. Wording and point of view changes should only be made based on their own merits. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (EST)

== feminism and obesity ==

feminism and obesity: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Create a feminism and obesity article ==

Consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:The blog you want cited makes a ''huge'' leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that this article is no good, even though I wish it were true.
--[[User:corneliuscalvin|corneliuscalvin]] 7:56, 26 November 2012 (PDT)

:Can't talk now. of the World happening. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:01, 26 November 2012 (EST)

== No Christian feminism? ==

I think that this article would be served well if a section on [[Christian feminism]] was included. Maybe a new article on it would be better.[[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:That seems like a good idea, but an article on it would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view. But there's also the fact that the same term can have a different meaning for different people -- what one person considers Christian feminism can be completely different than what another person does. We would need to define the term clearly, but I think we'd be talking about second- and third-wave feminism, adherents of which have theologically and socially left-wing views. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:47, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:::No, there is no requirement that a Conservapedia article discussing the topic of Christian feminism "would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view." There are no such requirements on content at Conservapedia, and no one, except perhaps Andy, has the authority to enforce such a requirement. All that is required is that "Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project". Though many of our members are not Christians and are not politically conservative, they are required to edit in a manner consistent with the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]. To require otherwise would turn this wiki into a Wikipedia-style "mobocracy" rather than a "best of the public" project.

:::The concept of feminism covers a lot of ground. There are conservative feminists, Christian feminists, and Republican feminists. Not all feminists subscribe to some of the silly excesses that one sometimes sees looking around on the internet and various media outlets. Many conservative feminists, for example, fully support encouraging girls to go into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.

:::So feel free to write sensible content on this topic. I look forward to reading it.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::::SamHB, they have found that promoting the idea that women are underrepresented in STEM fields and that this has to be corrected has the effect of telling women that STEM is not feminine/girly and thus women are more likely to avoid those fields. In other words, the policy is probably backfiring. See: http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/how-promoting-stem-fields-women-can-backfire

::::Women tend to be more likely to be conformists and not mavericks.

::::Over and over again, liberals fail to take into account the unintended consequences of their social engineering! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::Once Christian denominations filly embrace the notion of female pastors, their memberships almost invariably spiral downward. That should surely be mentioned in relation to "Christian feminism".

::"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." - 1 Timothy 2:12-13[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:::Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Mr. Guye was even talking about female pastors when he was talking about Christian feminism, just something akin to, say, the Suffragettes, many of whom were Christian women who would NEVER advocate the pill, let alone abortion. But yes, we probably should note that bit somewhere either way. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:35, 2 December 2017 (EST)
::::What percentage of so-called "Christian feminists" believe that a wife is to obey her husband and that a husband is the head of the family? At least in its present form "Christian feminism" is just another endeavor to infect Christianity with unbiblical ideas. As far as the suffragette movement, I don't know if any of them were Christian women who held biblical Christianity views related to women. I do know that various suffragettes burned down churches.[https://www.christiantoday.com/article/suffrage-the-churchs-rocky-relationship-with-rebellion/67361.htm]

::::Christianity was at the forefront of various movements like abolition, child labor laws, etc. etc. Christendom is also known for its favorable views on the treatment of women (husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the church, etc. etc.), but it is not known for leading the charge as far as feminism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2017 (EST)

:::::Well, I do know that Susan B. Anthony specifically condemned abortion and the pill and stated that would make women even more enslaved, and I do know that Christians also do not support abortion and the pill (in fact, among us Catholics, it's considered a mortal sin), so there's that to consider. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (EST)
==First-wave feminism was good?==
This article makes it sound like first-wave feminism was good and its doctrines were just simply corrupted in the 1960s. As it turns out, first-wave feminists were anti-Christianity and anti-man too, as pointed out by Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire and [[John Doyle]].[https://youtu.be/sgJoJsaI1WY][https://youtu.be/ME-JIO8_cic] Elizabeth Cady Stanton once said that the Bible and the church were the two greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation. Susan B. Anthony was a religious skeptic, and other early feminists held similar views too. In fact, many were free lovers, like Victoria Woodhull. I strongly recommend that the early section saying liberals just twisted the term be deleted. -[[User:Mr. Nationalist|Mr. Nationalist]] ([[User talk:Mr. Nationalist|talk]]) 20:22, November 9, 2021 (EST)
:But the early feminists were [[pro-life]], right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:45, November 9, 2021 (EST)
::The Bible says wives must submit to their husbands (Pauline epistles and the Apostle Peter taught this). No doubt this was anethema to first wave feminists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:04, November 9, 2021 (EST)
:::I'm pretty sure if they were truly anti-Christianity, they'd be all in favor of unlimited abortion on demand even back then (especially when the Church was ALWAYS against abortion), and yet, as demonstrated with [[Susan B. Anthony]], several of them were AGAINST abortion. I know [[Vladimir Lenin]] [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/11/17/november-1920-2020-a-century-of-abortion-in-russia/ certainly was all in for unlimited abortion], being notorious for literally legalizing unlimited and unrestricted abortion in the USSR and being the first state leader to EVER do so, even having the audacity to claim THIS emancipated women, and was such that even the likes of [[Margaret Sanger]], herself no pro-life adherer, was reportedly aghast at it. Besides, my idea of having my hypothetical wife submitting to me would be closer to [https://youtu.be/xtO-AHuEhJc?t=428 what Geldoblame advocated for everyone under his rule] from ''Baten Kaitos'', and I'm pretty sure even Jesus and his disciples NEVER advocated for that kind of submission (even less so when Geldoblame used THAT as justification for committing mass murder against a mining community by torching it simply because they withheld ore shipments thanks to his draconian labor statutes that left them dangerously overworked). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:03, November 9, 2021 (EST)
:Being pro-life does not necessarily make one pro-Christianity. Victoria Woodhull was against abortion and she was a Marxist and practically a communist. Also even Sanger claimed to be against abortion if I am not incorrect, saying birth control got rid of the need for it. Planned Parenthood did not start to endorse the legalization of abortion until 1969, and abortion did not even start to become popular until after Roe v. Wade. That was really more of the Overton Window being shifted in conservatism's direction back then than feminism being conservative. It just really goes to show how much ground we've lost. -[[User:Mr. Nationalist|Mr. Nationalist]] ([[User talk:Mr. Nationalist|talk]]) 22:42, November 9, 2021 (EST)
::Maybe so, but the anti-Christians most certainly tended to be very much anti-life, as Lenin and even Trotsky proved there (not to mention the Bolsheviks), and even the Jacobins, their ideological ancestors, were known to practice abortion in the most crude manner (specifically, bayonetting pregnant women, and/or using wine pressers to crush them). And since Marx was brought into it, Marx himself advocated massively for abortion as well, as did Engels, all in their plan to "abolish the family." And what better way to abolish the family than to destroy reproduction. If she was a Marxist, it only shows she didn't know Marx all that well, as otherwise, she'd be all in favor of abortion like her idol Marx. And let's not forget that this view of pro-abortion has been going on since 1923 with [https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/marxist-roots-abortion-joseph-hippolito/ Dr. Antoinette Konikow], who was a fellow traveler of Trotsky during the Russian Revolution, AND committed several abortions in the Boston area specifically as part of her Marxist advocacy. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:49, November 9, 2021 (EST)
:That may be true, but some anti-Christians are more radical than others. Also America was more conservative than Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution, so something like abortion would definitely be seen as morally unacceptable in that time regardless of where you were on the political spectrum. But my main point is if Stanton said Christianity got in the way of feminism, and she was the founder of American feminism and first-wave feminism, I just don't know how you can say feminism wasn't anti-Christian even back then. -[[User:Mr. Nationalist|Mr. Nationalist]] ([[User talk:Mr. Nationalist|talk]]) 23:27, November 9, 2021 (EST)
::I've heard of some feminists getting back to the Christian faith. Victoria Woodhull, for one actually renounced the free love bits and advocated strongly for the Christian concept of motherhood later in life (too bad she didn't quite own up to how she did badly during that time, though). Besides, technically speaking, there have been PLENTY of Founding Fathers in America who were significantly anti-Christian, including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and apparently even John Adams. By that same logic, America ITSELF is anti-Christian from conception. In fact, [[Christopher Ferrara|Christopher A. Ferrara]] actually makes this argument in his book ''Liberty: The God that Failed''. I guess you could also argue that liberty in itself was anti-Christian. For that matter, I'd argue [[Freedom of Religion]] is ultimately anti-Christian as well. The Israelites tried that bit back in the day, and that led directly towards the [[Babylonian Exile]], per God's direction. And Russia was still conservative enough to have abortion be deemed explicitly illegal until Lenin and his Bolsheviks took over (there's a reason why the USSR under Lenin was the first country in all of history to actually make unlimited abortion legal, to the extent that STALIN of all people threw a bone to us pro-lifers by outlawing abortion for a year). I'd mention divorce, but Robespierre and the French Revolution beat Lenin to that bit. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 23:33, November 9, 2021 (EST)

== Fatherless children ==

Does only feminism cause this? --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 10:28, January 24, 2022 (EST)
:Re-reading the section "Cultural Marxism", it seems out of place in an article on feminism. Isn't it about men who abandon their children? --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 13:24, March 11, 2022 (EST)

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2022-05-28T23:59:48Z

LeonardRobinson: Tagged for bias

{{bias}}

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" we mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. We do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness here means what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible we do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
__NOTOC__
== Test Your Open-mindedness - 21 Questions ==
Note that these questions are for liberals only. conservatives may fall into the [[sin]] of '''[[pride]]''' if they take this test.

# Do you deny the possibility of an occasional [[angel]], such as the unknown carpenter who built without modern tools the gravity-defying [[Loretto spiral staircase]] in [[Santa Fe]]?
# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
# If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
# When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
# Do you think that [[evolution]]<ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
# Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
# Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[https://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[https://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[https://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[https://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[https://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[https://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutionists - Vox Day]</ref>
# Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
# Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
# Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] might have been authored by Jesus?
The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''

:a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

::i. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

::ii. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

:b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

::i. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

::ii. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::iii. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== Conservapedia has come up with a key wiki metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and groupthink of a wiki. ==

[[Conservapedia]] has come up with a key [[wiki]] metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and [[groupthink]] of a wiki.

Mathematically, the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki can be expressed as: Edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki = E % BE, where E is the number of edits to the wiki and BE equals the number of blocked editor accounts of the wiki.

The edits to blocked editor accounts ratio was partly inspired by [[Andrew Schlafly]]'s essay Quantifying Openmindedness.

Unlike Conservapedia, RationalWiki does not have a policy where members of the public are free to set up debate pages and engage in vigorous debate where the debate pages are lightly moderated (see: [https://conservapedia.com/Category:Conservapedia_Debates Conservapedia debates pages]). Conservapedia debate pages are lightly moderated and can be freely set up and/or participated in by members of the general public who behave in a civil manner (see: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]).

== Atheism and open-mindedness ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]

Research indicates that [[Atheism|atheists]] tend to be less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).

For more information, please see:

*[[Atheism and intolerance]]

*[[Atheism and dogmatism]]

*[[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]

*[[Atheism and groupthink]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Quantifying Perfection]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Quantifying Openmindedness}}

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2022-05-28T23:53:51Z

LeonardRobinson: Warning re the sin of pride.

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" we mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. We do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness here means what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible we do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
__NOTOC__
== Test Your Open-mindedness - 21 Questions ==
Note that these questions are for liberals only. conservatives may fall into the [[sin]] of '''[[pride]]''' if they take this test.

# Do you deny the possibility of an occasional [[angel]], such as the unknown carpenter who built without modern tools the gravity-defying [[Loretto spiral staircase]] in [[Santa Fe]]?
# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
# If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
# When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
# Do you think that [[evolution]]<ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
# Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
# Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[https://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[https://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[https://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[https://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[https://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[https://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutionists - Vox Day]</ref>
# Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
# Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
# Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] might have been authored by Jesus?
The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''

:a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

::i. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

::ii. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

:b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

::i. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

::ii. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::iii. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== Conservapedia has come up with a key wiki metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and groupthink of a wiki. ==

[[Conservapedia]] has come up with a key [[wiki]] metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and [[groupthink]] of a wiki.

Mathematically, the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki can be expressed as: Edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki = E % BE, where E is the number of edits to the wiki and BE equals the number of blocked editor accounts of the wiki.

The edits to blocked editor accounts ratio was partly inspired by [[Andrew Schlafly]]'s essay Quantifying Openmindedness.

Unlike Conservapedia, RationalWiki does not have a policy where members of the public are free to set up debate pages and engage in vigorous debate where the debate pages are lightly moderated (see: [https://conservapedia.com/Category:Conservapedia_Debates Conservapedia debates pages]). Conservapedia debate pages are lightly moderated and can be freely set up and/or participated in by members of the general public who behave in a civil manner (see: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]).

== Atheism and open-mindedness ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]

Research indicates that [[Atheism|atheists]] tend to be less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).

For more information, please see:

*[[Atheism and intolerance]]

*[[Atheism and dogmatism]]

*[[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]

*[[Atheism and groupthink]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Quantifying Perfection]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Quantifying Openmindedness}}

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:47:02Z

LeonardRobinson: Undo revision 1862184 by Aschlafly (talk) This article contained much nonsense, including the idea that only feminists wear trousers. I admit women look great in dresses but it is a rarity..

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:30:17Z

LeonardRobinson:

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:28:06Z

LeonardRobinson: Trivia

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideology that fights for equal rights. Feminism downplays differences between men and women; feminists believe that women should be able to lead as full lines as men and not be unduly burdened by homemaking, child-rearing, They promote participation by women in the same pursuits as menpredominantly male. Most prominent modern feminists believe that women should have full control over their bodies, though they believe that education and freely available birthing control and aid for young mothers should be used to reduce the number of abortions now performed..

Feminist comment on the privileges of their male counterparts.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Eeminism care critical of marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominates universities, many large corporations, and women's team sports. Feminists want to make men and women equal but in reality.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are advocatese of [[lcensorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived, according to some conservative thinkers, from Communist doctrine, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most feminists:

* Want gender equality.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* Believe that there no major differences many areas between men and women (e.g., women and men equally in military combat), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).{{fact}}
* Oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* View traditional [[marriage]] as [[patriarchal]].
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [https://web.archive.org/web/20071204191342/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* rChoose not to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* Believe marriage can involve "female servitude" ratherbthan a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* Often condemn ther gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]] for the ancient Hebrews
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism was glamourized in the 1940s and 1950s by Hollywood film stars such as [[Joan Crawford]], attempting to portray a single mother as having a successful career and family without a husband. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. president.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017, were urged by the Iranian women's right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
While the Feminist movement may contribute to the [[Cultural Marxist]] undermining of [[family values]] , the main cause is [[divorce|marital breakdown]], and fathers who abandon their family, or fail to contribute to the raising of their children, Studies show that:
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
*90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
*Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/bowling-alone-how-washington-has-helped-destroy-american-civil-society-and-family-life/</ref>

== Feminism and population decline ==

The historian Martin van Creveld wrote in his book ''Equality: The Impossible Quest':
{{Cquote|In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy — not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous [[Islam]]ic variety—seems assured...

If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear.<ref>Martin van Creveld, ''Equality: The Impossible Quest'' (p. 165-166, 174). Castalia House. Kindle Edition</ref>}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women's rights]] and [[Atheism and women]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor's husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization's leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

Surveys throughout the world and other data indicate that women are less inclined to be [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010). [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ "Gene expression; Sex differences in global atheism, part N"]. Discover magazine website.
*Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015). [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap "The atheism gap"]. ''BloombergView''.
*[http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/atheism-feminism/#sthash.0yIBbelF.dpuf Atheism and Feminism], ''Oxford University Press'' blog</ref>
<ref name="PZ">Myers, P.Z. (June 29, 2010). [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ "The woman problem"]. Pharyngula [blog].</ref> See: [[Atheism and women]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Writing on the [[Atheism and sexism|sexism within the atheist population]], atheist Victoria Bekiempis wrote in a ''Guardian'' article entitled ''Why the [[New Atheism]] is a boys' club'':
{{cquote|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]], who founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation with her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in 1978, sums it up succinctly: “One word — sexism.” Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who helms the organization along with her, is usually the one invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her numerous books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>}}

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

== Intersectionality==
As women attain a majority in society and a significant portion of the workforce, including leadership positions, the predicate of "disadvantage" was overtaken by competing "identity groups." In fact, many women identify with these other groups, and a theory was needed to sort out conflicting claims for social redress. For example, should the alleged social handicap of being a black deaf woman be addressed in terms of 1) race, 2) hearing impairment or 3) gender? Under the [[intersectionality]] theory, such people should receive accommodations from society for all of their identities and a hierarchy of identify groups governs how much claim each group has to social capital based upon identity. Without intersectionality, the comparative privilege held by women in Western societies would be overshadowed by and put into competition with the claims of other identity groups.

"Intersectionality" was coined by [[Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw]] in 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | title=Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later | accessd-date=9 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223111809/https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | archive-date=23 February 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |title=Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics |author=Kimberlé Krenshaw |publisher=University of Chicago Legal Forum |date=1989 |accessdate=7 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513141436/https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> Without intersectionality, feminism and its advocates would be regarded as out-of-date by social justice warriors.
== Femen ==

''See also:'' [[Femen]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women]]

[[Femen]] is a [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] radical feminist activist group which is now based in Paris. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Femen’s members consider [[atheism]] to be a fundamental tenet of the group’s ideology."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/12/meet-femen-naked-shock-troops-feminism-who-greeted-trump-with-topless-protest-paris/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb5ef3499053 Meet Femen, the ‘naked shock troops of feminism’ who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Erica Jong]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/f0wr6b/conservatives_find_unlikely_ally_in_fighting/ Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', February 8, 2020.

{{Communism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:26:50Z

LeonardRobinson:

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideology that fights for equal rights. Feminism downplays differences between men and women; feminists believe that women should be able to lead as full lines as men and not be unduly burdened by homemaking, child-rearing, They promote participation by women in the same pursuits as menpredominantly male. Most prominent modern feminists believe that women should have full control over their bodies, though they believe that education and freely available birthing control and aid for young mothers should be used to reduce the number of abortions now performed..

Feminist comment on the privileges of their male counterparts.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Eeminism care critical of marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominates universities, many large corporations, and women's team sports. Feminists want to make men and women equal but in reality.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are advocatese of [[lcensorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived, according to some conservative thinkers, from Communist doctrine, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most feminists:

* Want gender equality.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* Believe that there no major differences many areas between men and women (e.g., women and men equally in military combat), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).{{fact}}
* Oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* View traditional [[marriage]] as [[patriarchal]].
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [https://web.archive.org/web/20071204191342/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* rChoose not to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* Believe marriage can involve "female servitude" ratherbthan a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* Often condemn ther gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]] for the ancient Hebrews
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am references, please], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism was glamourized in the 1940s and 1950s by Hollywood film stars such as [[Joan Crawford]], attempting to portray a single mother as having a successful career and family without a husband. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. president.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017, were urged by the Iranian women's right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
While the Feminist movement may contribute to the [[Cultural Marxist]] undermining of [[family values]] , the main cause is [[divorce|marital breakdown]], and fathers who abandon their family, or fail to contribute to the raising of their children, Studies show that:
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
*90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
*Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/bowling-alone-how-washington-has-helped-destroy-american-civil-society-and-family-life/</ref>

== Feminism and population decline ==

The historian Martin van Creveld wrote in his book ''Equality: The Impossible Quest':
{{Cquote|In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy — not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous [[Islam]]ic variety—seems assured...

If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear.<ref>Martin van Creveld, ''Equality: The Impossible Quest'' (p. 165-166, 174). Castalia House. Kindle Edition</ref>}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women's rights]] and [[Atheism and women]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor's husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization's leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

Surveys throughout the world and other data indicate that women are less inclined to be [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010). [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ "Gene expression; Sex differences in global atheism, part N"]. Discover magazine website.
*Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015). [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap "The atheism gap"]. ''BloombergView''.
*[http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/atheism-feminism/#sthash.0yIBbelF.dpuf Atheism and Feminism], ''Oxford University Press'' blog</ref>
<ref name="PZ">Myers, P.Z. (June 29, 2010). [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ "The woman problem"]. Pharyngula [blog].</ref> See: [[Atheism and women]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Writing on the [[Atheism and sexism|sexism within the atheist population]], atheist Victoria Bekiempis wrote in a ''Guardian'' article entitled ''Why the [[New Atheism]] is a boys' club'':
{{cquote|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]], who founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation with her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in 1978, sums it up succinctly: “One word — sexism.” Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who helms the organization along with her, is usually the one invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her numerous books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>}}

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

== Intersectionality==
As women attain a majority in society and a significant portion of the workforce, including leadership positions, the predicate of "disadvantage" was overtaken by competing "identity groups." In fact, many women identify with these other groups, and a theory was needed to sort out conflicting claims for social redress. For example, should the alleged social handicap of being a black deaf woman be addressed in terms of 1) race, 2) hearing impairment or 3) gender? Under the [[intersectionality]] theory, such people should receive accommodations from society for all of their identities and a hierarchy of identify groups governs how much claim each group has to social capital based upon identity. Without intersectionality, the comparative privilege held by women in Western societies would be overshadowed by and put into competition with the claims of other identity groups.

"Intersectionality" was coined by [[Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw]] in 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | title=Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later | accessd-date=9 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223111809/https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | archive-date=23 February 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |title=Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics |author=Kimberlé Krenshaw |publisher=University of Chicago Legal Forum |date=1989 |accessdate=7 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513141436/https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> Without intersectionality, feminism and its advocates would be regarded as out-of-date by social justice warriors.
== Femen ==

''See also:'' [[Femen]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women]]

[[Femen]] is a [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] radical feminist activist group which is now based in Paris. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Femen’s members consider [[atheism]] to be a fundamental tenet of the group’s ideology."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/12/meet-femen-naked-shock-troops-feminism-who-greeted-trump-with-topless-protest-paris/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb5ef3499053 Meet Femen, the ‘naked shock troops of feminism’ who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Erica Jong]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/f0wr6b/conservatives_find_unlikely_ally_in_fighting/ Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', February 8, 2020.

{{Communism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:21:53Z

LeonardRobinson: Only extremist feminists

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideology that fights for equal rights. Feminism downplays differences between men and women; feminists believe that women should be able to lead as full lines as men and not be unduly burdened by homemaking, child-rearing, They promote participation by women in the same pursuits as menpredominantly male. Most prominent modern feminists believe that women should have full control over their bodies, though they believe that education and freely available birthing control and aid for young mothers should be used to reduce the number of abortions now performed..

Feminist comment on the privileges of their male counterparts.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Eeminism care critical of marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominates universities, many large corporations, and women's team sports. Feminists want to make men and women equal but in reality.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are advocatese of [[lcensorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived, according to some conservative thinkers, from Communist doctrine, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most feminists:

* Want gender equality.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* Believe that there no major differences many areas between men and women (e.g., women and men equally in military combat), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).{{fact}}
* Oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* View traditional [[marriage]] as [[patriarchal]].
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [https://web.archive.org/web/20071204191342/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* believe marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* often condemn the God-given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]].
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am references, please], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism was glamourized in the 1940s and 1950s by Hollywood film stars such as [[Joan Crawford]], attempting to portray a single mother as having a successful career and family without a husband. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. president.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017, were urged by the Iranian women's right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
While the Feminist movement may contribute to the [[Cultural Marxist]] undermining of [[family values]] , the main cause is [[divorce|marital breakdown]], and fathers who abandon their family, or fail to contribute to the raising of their children, Studies show that:
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
*90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
*Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/bowling-alone-how-washington-has-helped-destroy-american-civil-society-and-family-life/</ref>

== Feminism and population decline ==

The historian Martin van Creveld wrote in his book ''Equality: The Impossible Quest':
{{Cquote|In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy — not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous [[Islam]]ic variety—seems assured...

If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear.<ref>Martin van Creveld, ''Equality: The Impossible Quest'' (p. 165-166, 174). Castalia House. Kindle Edition</ref>}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women's rights]] and [[Atheism and women]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor's husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization's leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

Surveys throughout the world and other data indicate that women are less inclined to be [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010). [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ "Gene expression; Sex differences in global atheism, part N"]. Discover magazine website.
*Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015). [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap "The atheism gap"]. ''BloombergView''.
*[http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/atheism-feminism/#sthash.0yIBbelF.dpuf Atheism and Feminism], ''Oxford University Press'' blog</ref>
<ref name="PZ">Myers, P.Z. (June 29, 2010). [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ "The woman problem"]. Pharyngula [blog].</ref> See: [[Atheism and women]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Writing on the [[Atheism and sexism|sexism within the atheist population]], atheist Victoria Bekiempis wrote in a ''Guardian'' article entitled ''Why the [[New Atheism]] is a boys' club'':
{{cquote|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]], who founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation with her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in 1978, sums it up succinctly: “One word — sexism.” Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who helms the organization along with her, is usually the one invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her numerous books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>}}

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

== Intersectionality==
As women attain a majority in society and a significant portion of the workforce, including leadership positions, the predicate of "disadvantage" was overtaken by competing "identity groups." In fact, many women identify with these other groups, and a theory was needed to sort out conflicting claims for social redress. For example, should the alleged social handicap of being a black deaf woman be addressed in terms of 1) race, 2) hearing impairment or 3) gender? Under the [[intersectionality]] theory, such people should receive accommodations from society for all of their identities and a hierarchy of identify groups governs how much claim each group has to social capital based upon identity. Without intersectionality, the comparative privilege held by women in Western societies would be overshadowed by and put into competition with the claims of other identity groups.

"Intersectionality" was coined by [[Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw]] in 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | title=Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later | accessd-date=9 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223111809/https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | archive-date=23 February 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |title=Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics |author=Kimberlé Krenshaw |publisher=University of Chicago Legal Forum |date=1989 |accessdate=7 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513141436/https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> Without intersectionality, feminism and its advocates would be regarded as out-of-date by social justice warriors.
== Femen ==

''See also:'' [[Femen]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women]]

[[Femen]] is a [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] radical feminist activist group which is now based in Paris. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Femen’s members consider [[atheism]] to be a fundamental tenet of the group’s ideology."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/12/meet-femen-naked-shock-troops-feminism-who-greeted-trump-with-topless-protest-paris/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb5ef3499053 Meet Femen, the ‘naked shock troops of feminism’ who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Erica Jong]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/f0wr6b/conservatives_find_unlikely_ally_in_fighting/ Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', February 8, 2020.

{{Communism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:20:28Z

LeonardRobinson: The fashion for many years has been for women to wear trousers (now tights). The comment is from some old foggy. Also sweeping misogynistic generalization.

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideology that fights for equal rights. Feminism downplays differences between men and women; feminists believe that women should be able to lead as full lines as men and not be unduly burdened by homemaking, child-rearing, They promote participation by women in the same pursuits as menpredominantly male. Most prominent modern feminists believe that women should have full control over their bodies, though they believe that education and freely available birthing control and aid for young mothers should be used to reduce the number of abortions now performed..

Feminist comment on the privileges of their male counterparts.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Eeminism care critical of marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominates universities, many large corporations, and women's team sports. Feminists want to make men and women equal but in reality.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are advocatese of [[lcensorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived, according to some conservative thinkers, from Communist doctrine, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most feminists:

* Want gender equality.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* Believe that there no major differences many areas between men and women (e.g., women and men equally in military combat), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).{{fact}}
* Oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* View traditional [[marriage]] as [[patriarchal]].
* belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family<ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html Nightline Transcripts, "Making Hillary Clinton an Issue"], [[PBS]]</ref><ref>"Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"]</ref>
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [https://web.archive.org/web/20071204191342/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* believe marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* often condemn the God-given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]].
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am references, please], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism was glamourized in the 1940s and 1950s by Hollywood film stars such as [[Joan Crawford]], attempting to portray a single mother as having a successful career and family without a husband. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. president.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017, were urged by the Iranian women's right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
While the Feminist movement may contribute to the [[Cultural Marxist]] undermining of [[family values]] , the main cause is [[divorce|marital breakdown]], and fathers who abandon their family, or fail to contribute to the raising of their children, Studies show that:
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
*90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
*Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/bowling-alone-how-washington-has-helped-destroy-american-civil-society-and-family-life/</ref>

== Feminism and population decline ==

The historian Martin van Creveld wrote in his book ''Equality: The Impossible Quest':
{{Cquote|In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy — not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous [[Islam]]ic variety—seems assured...

If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear.<ref>Martin van Creveld, ''Equality: The Impossible Quest'' (p. 165-166, 174). Castalia House. Kindle Edition</ref>}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women's rights]] and [[Atheism and women]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor's husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization's leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

Surveys throughout the world and other data indicate that women are less inclined to be [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010). [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ "Gene expression; Sex differences in global atheism, part N"]. Discover magazine website.
*Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015). [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap "The atheism gap"]. ''BloombergView''.
*[http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/atheism-feminism/#sthash.0yIBbelF.dpuf Atheism and Feminism], ''Oxford University Press'' blog</ref>
<ref name="PZ">Myers, P.Z. (June 29, 2010). [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ "The woman problem"]. Pharyngula [blog].</ref> See: [[Atheism and women]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Writing on the [[Atheism and sexism|sexism within the atheist population]], atheist Victoria Bekiempis wrote in a ''Guardian'' article entitled ''Why the [[New Atheism]] is a boys' club'':
{{cquote|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]], who founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation with her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in 1978, sums it up succinctly: “One word — sexism.” Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who helms the organization along with her, is usually the one invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her numerous books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>}}

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

== Intersectionality==
As women attain a majority in society and a significant portion of the workforce, including leadership positions, the predicate of "disadvantage" was overtaken by competing "identity groups." In fact, many women identify with these other groups, and a theory was needed to sort out conflicting claims for social redress. For example, should the alleged social handicap of being a black deaf woman be addressed in terms of 1) race, 2) hearing impairment or 3) gender? Under the [[intersectionality]] theory, such people should receive accommodations from society for all of their identities and a hierarchy of identify groups governs how much claim each group has to social capital based upon identity. Without intersectionality, the comparative privilege held by women in Western societies would be overshadowed by and put into competition with the claims of other identity groups.

"Intersectionality" was coined by [[Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw]] in 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | title=Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later | accessd-date=9 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223111809/https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | archive-date=23 February 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |title=Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics |author=Kimberlé Krenshaw |publisher=University of Chicago Legal Forum |date=1989 |accessdate=7 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513141436/https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> Without intersectionality, feminism and its advocates would be regarded as out-of-date by social justice warriors.
== Femen ==

''See also:'' [[Femen]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women]]

[[Femen]] is a [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] radical feminist activist group which is now based in Paris. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Femen’s members consider [[atheism]] to be a fundamental tenet of the group’s ideology."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/12/meet-femen-naked-shock-troops-feminism-who-greeted-trump-with-topless-protest-paris/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb5ef3499053 Meet Femen, the ‘naked shock troops of feminism’ who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Erica Jong]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/f0wr6b/conservatives_find_unlikely_ally_in_fighting/ Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', February 8, 2020.

{{Communism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Feminism

2022-05-28T23:09:32Z

LeonardRobinson: Copy edit to remove misogynist bias

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideology that fights for equal rights. Feminism downplays differences between men and women; feminists believe that women should be able to lead as full lines as men and not be unduly burdened by homemaking, child-rearing, They promote participation by women in the same pursuits as menpredominantly male. Most prominent modern feminists believe that women should have full control over their bodies, though they believe that education and freely available birthing control and aid for young mothers should be used to reduce the number of abortions now performed..

Feminist comment on the privileges of their male counterparts.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Eeminism care critical of marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominates universities, many large corporations, and women's team sports. Feminists want to make men and women equal but in reality.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are advocatese of [[lcensorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived, according to some conservative thinkers, from Communist doctrine, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most feminists:

* want to remove significant distinctions between how men and women dress, such as preferring that women wear pantsuits rather than dresses,<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref> even though many feminists also want women to dress immodestly. In some cases, most infamously during the Miss America protests in 1968, feminists have even gone as far as to indicate that female products such as makeup, bras, and heels were "instruments of oppression."
* do not want gender equality; they want power for the female Left.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* in movies and television, portray the men, in particular, the white heterosexual men, as inherently evil, dumb or incompetent, and the women, in particular those that adhere to the feminist agenda, as inherently good, smart or competent (note that this conflicts with gender equality).
** on that note, some movies and television programs, in addition to depicting men as inherently evil, dumb, or incompetent, can sometimes depict women who adhere to more traditional femininity, including promoting traditional family values and traditional marriage (see below), as well as expressing more traditional gender roles and natures, in an extremely demeaning manner, usually implying that they are at best brainless bimbos and at worst gold-diggers (women who only marry someone for their wealth), often with the implication that traditional femininity is considered inherently bad (which goes against the concept of women having free choices regarding how to pursue their life).
* conveniently pretend that there are no meaningful differences between men and women when that advances [[liberal]] causes (e.g., women and men equally in military combat, to weaken the U.S. military), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* view traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably "patriarchal".
* belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family<ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html Nightline Transcripts, "Making Hillary Clinton an Issue"], [[PBS]]</ref><ref>"Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"]</ref>
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [https://web.archive.org/web/20071204191342/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* believe marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* often condemn the God-given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]].
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am references, please], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism was glamourized in the 1940s and 1950s by Hollywood film stars such as [[Joan Crawford]], attempting to portray a single mother as having a successful career and family without a husband. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. president.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017, were urged by the Iranian women's right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
While the Feminist movement may contribute to the [[Cultural Marxist]] undermining of [[family values]] , the main cause is [[divorce|marital breakdown]], and fathers who abandon their family, or fail to contribute to the raising of their children, Studies show that:
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
*90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
*Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/bowling-alone-how-washington-has-helped-destroy-american-civil-society-and-family-life/</ref>

== Feminism and population decline ==

The historian Martin van Creveld wrote in his book ''Equality: The Impossible Quest':
{{Cquote|In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy — not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous [[Islam]]ic variety—seems assured...

If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear.<ref>Martin van Creveld, ''Equality: The Impossible Quest'' (p. 165-166, 174). Castalia House. Kindle Edition</ref>}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women's rights]] and [[Atheism and women]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor's husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization's leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

Surveys throughout the world and other data indicate that women are less inclined to be [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010). [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ "Gene expression; Sex differences in global atheism, part N"]. Discover magazine website.
*Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015). [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap "The atheism gap"]. ''BloombergView''.
*[http://blog.oup.com/2014/09/atheism-feminism/#sthash.0yIBbelF.dpuf Atheism and Feminism], ''Oxford University Press'' blog</ref>
<ref name="PZ">Myers, P.Z. (June 29, 2010). [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ "The woman problem"]. Pharyngula [blog].</ref> See: [[Atheism and women]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Writing on the [[Atheism and sexism|sexism within the atheist population]], atheist Victoria Bekiempis wrote in a ''Guardian'' article entitled ''Why the [[New Atheism]] is a boys' club'':
{{cquote|[[Annie Laurie Gaylor]], who founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation with her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in 1978, sums it up succinctly: “One word — sexism.” Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who helms the organization along with her, is usually the one invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her numerous books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>}}

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

== Intersectionality==
As women attain a majority in society and a significant portion of the workforce, including leadership positions, the predicate of "disadvantage" was overtaken by competing "identity groups." In fact, many women identify with these other groups, and a theory was needed to sort out conflicting claims for social redress. For example, should the alleged social handicap of being a black deaf woman be addressed in terms of 1) race, 2) hearing impairment or 3) gender? Under the [[intersectionality]] theory, such people should receive accommodations from society for all of their identities and a hierarchy of identify groups governs how much claim each group has to social capital based upon identity. Without intersectionality, the comparative privilege held by women in Western societies would be overshadowed by and put into competition with the claims of other identity groups.

"Intersectionality" was coined by [[Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw]] in 1989.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | title=Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later | accessd-date=9 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223111809/https://www.law.columbia.edu/pt-br/news/2017/06/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality | archive-date=23 February 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |title=Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics |author=Kimberlé Krenshaw |publisher=University of Chicago Legal Forum |date=1989 |accessdate=7 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513141436/https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> Without intersectionality, feminism and its advocates would be regarded as out-of-date by social justice warriors.
== Femen ==

''See also:'' [[Femen]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Atheism and women]]

[[Femen]] is a [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] radical feminist activist group which is now based in Paris. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Femen’s members consider [[atheism]] to be a fundamental tenet of the group’s ideology."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/12/meet-femen-naked-shock-troops-feminism-who-greeted-trump-with-topless-protest-paris/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb5ef3499053 Meet Femen, the ‘naked shock troops of feminism’ who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Erica Jong]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/f0wr6b/conservatives_find_unlikely_ally_in_fighting/ Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', February 8, 2020.

{{Communism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Louise Glück

2022-05-28T22:40:49Z

LeonardRobinson: Created page with "'''Louise Glück''' is an American poet who won the 2020 Nobel Prize for literature."

'''Louise Glück''' is an American poet who won the 2020 [[Nobel Prize]] for literature.

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2022-05-28T21:32:28Z

LeonardRobinson: /* Key wiki metric */ new section

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.

2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no

3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.

4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?

5. I was 11 months old.

6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?

7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.

8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.

9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.

10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!

11. It is possible, yes.

12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.

13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.

14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::I just find it amusing that this is supposed to be an "open mindedness test," but the creator of the test is nowhere near open minded as evidenced by his statement that the statements following the phrase "resist admitting" are "undeniably true." An open mindedness test is not effective when made but someone who is not open minded.

==Gay marriage and the Olympic Games==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

You are absolutely right King, though the practice may be morally wrong. I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with the Olympics, many other countries don't have the same attitude about gay marriage as the U.S. does.

== Berlin Wall question ==
I think there should be an alternative question for those who weren't born yet, or weren't old enough to have any what it was/to care about it. Maybe add an alternative that addresses the same idea, but is more relevant to today? Such as 'Do you think it is impossible that Cuba will become a democracy?' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

: How about adding it as an alternative question on the same line, without erasing the original? The advantages of the original question is that it is historical, not speculative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::That is what I meant, wasn't as clear as it could've been, but that is what I meant. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::And another possibility - "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?" - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:06, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Objectivity ==
Wouldn't it be better to ask more objective questions ? For example by replacing
* Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
by
* Do you think that evolution '''or''' creation must have occurred? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]]

: The first question is meaningful, because if someone thinks that evolution '''''must''''' have occurred then he is closed-minded to what the evidence may show to the contrary. That question does address the degree of openmindedness. The second question doesn't seem to disclose any information: lots of closedminded and openminded people would answer "yes", and the question does not distinguish between the two mindsets.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Even if there is strong evidence to support [[Creation]], you can never be 100% sure and I believe it is a sign of open-mindedness to acknowledge the fact that there may be another answer, unlikely as this may be. --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:::I see your point, but the revised question does not differentiate between those who are closedminded in their belief in evolution, and those who are openminded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Then what about this: If there was an absolute proof that either [[evolution]] or [[creation]] is true, would you change your mind ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:42, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would suggest altering that to say "Is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of evolution, and is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of creation?" (With 1 yes and 1 no counting as yes for the essay)That way people can't go 'sure, I'd believe evolution if there was absolute proof. But it isn't so there can't be absolute proof' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 19:09, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Equivalent? ==
Many of the questions in the test can be rewritten in a reversed form. I am interested to hear people’s views on whether they believe these opposite questions could be substituted for the current ones without affecting the validity of the test. If you feel that these reversed questions would affect validity, then how can they be valid in their current form either? If you don't think it would affect validity, then why not make the test a mixture of conservative and liberal slanted questions?

Two examples
: 1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
:12. Do you think that evolution ''must not'' have occurred?

== Answers from a liberal Atheist ==
1. It depends on your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." But generally, any approach to education can be effective at some things and ineffective at others. So no. This question is a bit oddly phrased, though, as the words "resist admitting" assume that the following proposition is true and if someone believes the opposite, they are wrong.
 

2. Of course not. That would be stupid and annoying.
 

3. If something I accepted for over a decade was proven to be false, yes, I would drop it. Same as the first question.
 

4. That depends on what you mean by "Hollywood Values." However, generally, any value system can prove to be harmful. Yes, even the one pushed by this site. In real life, everything is not black and white. That is only in movies. And books.
 

5. Of course not. It could very well be the case. That is an objective fact, and therefore I can not have an opinion on it.
 

6. I am a bit to young for this question to understand what it is referring to, but obviously a wall can be torn down with applied force and lots of heavy machinery.
 

7. Again, to young to know what that is.
 

8. Nothing is impossible. It also depends on what you mean by "authentic." If you mean the claim that the shroud comes from the time it is claimed to have come from, than possibly. if you mean some sort of religious thing, than no, probably not. Nothing is impossible, but many things are improbable.
 

9. This is an odd question. It is also an objective fact, and I can not have an opinion on it. I am also not knowledgeable enough to answer it.
 

10. Not at all. Again objective fact, and again I'm not knowledgeable enough.
 

11. Not necessarily. But I'm not a fan of these types of tests. I don't actually believe the IQ test measures "intelligence" because that word can be used to indicate many things, not just how much information you've crammed into your brain.
 

12. "Evolution" must have occurred, yes, because it is occurring all the time. We've even made it occur. The evidence is to staggering not to believe it happened and continues to happen. You mean the "common descent" theory, however, and the beginning of life is an objective fact. I can not have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the "common descent" part.
 

13. I honestly have no idea what that is, and I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough for it.
 

14. Of course there are things taught in school that are completely false, but the teachers may not know that. I, myself, was taught in elementary school the George Washington story, about him cutting down the cherry tree. I went to a religious school also, so I was taught many myths from the Bible and I was taught that all of the evidence for evolution was fabricated in a big conspiracy. The teachers honestly believed these things. Thus, I do think that there are things taught in schools that are completely false, but I don't think the teachers know that, because they believe everything they teach.
 
15. That, of course, depends on what theories you are talking about. It also depends on what you mean by the "progress" of science. Is science trying to reach some goal? I was under the impression that science exists for the exploration of the world and how it works.
 

16. Socialism and same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. So this question makes no sense.
 

17. Just because someone is an "expert" does not mean they know everything about their topic. It just means that they know a lot more about their topic than the average person. So, of course, "experts" do not have all the answers. However, I would be inclined to go to one if I had a question about their particular field of study, because they would be more knowledgeable about their topic than I would. As for the "best of the public" idea, the idea is extremely vague. However, yes, of course, there are people who are knowledgeable about things that are not experts. Just because someone hasn't gone to school or doesn't have a degree, it doesn't make them not smart. However, I would trust an "expert" more than I would trust some random guy on the street because I assume they know more about their topic than any random person.
 

18. This question is vague and depends largely on what is meant by "read the Bible." It also depends on the definition of reading something. If you think that reading requires you to have read the entire text than no. If you think that reading something requires you to have read any part of the text than yes. However, there really isn't a reason to read the Bible "regularly," any more than there is a reason to read the Koran regularly or the Odyssey regularly.
 

19. This is an objective fact, so I can't have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer it.

So according to Conservapedia, this liberal atheist is open-minded. However, I would like to say that some of the questions are asked in such a way that they assume their proposition to be automatically true and every other proposition to be false. This is the case with phrases like: "Do you resist admitting" or "Do you deny." {{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow. Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit. Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::The qualifications are needed because many of these questions are to vague for a yes or no answer. My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.{{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:::Your first 5 out of the 19 questions would get full credit, but after that many of the answers would not. Your answers to 9 and 12, for example, would not get credit. Your answer to question 14 would not receive credit because of its statement that teachers in school "believe everything they teach." Surely some school teachers sometimes teach things they do not believe, such as aspects of evolution (only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::::Why not 9 and 12? Or many of the others? You are correct, and I was incorrect, that there are times when teachers teach things they don't believe to be true. However, I would say for the most part, they do teach things they believe to be true. What is your source for that last assertion -"only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school"-?

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==
Just for fun:
 
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
 
2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
 
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
 
4. Do you resist the possibility that conservative values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
 
5. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
 
6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was possible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
 
7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is possible?
 
8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is inauthentic?
 
9. Do you think that there must be a purely religious-based explanation (such as creationism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
 
10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have stayed the same in the past?
 
11. Do you think that it is possible to measure openmindedness?
 
12. Do you think that evolution must not have occurred?
 
13. Do you think that is possible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
 
14. Do you believe that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
 
15. Do you believe that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
 
16. Do you believe that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
 
17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may have the answers, and that the best of the public may not have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
 
18. Do you think that people should read the Bible regularly?
 
19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are not guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
 
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?

== Answers from an ex-creationist ==
'''Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?'''

''No, there are a number of approaches to education. Any of them could work, experimentation is key. However, I'm not sure the methods of education are necessarily conservative or liberal, different methods have different merits and some appeal more to certain ideologies certainly, but you can't really brand any system of education as being inherently conservative or liberal. ''

'''If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?'''

''No, no rational person, liberal or conservative, would. Though biologically we are programmed to resist change, I would hope I am open-minded enough to accept change. ''

'''Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?'''

''No, appeals to tradition are meaningless. ''

''' Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?'''

''Hollywood values by the definition presented are personal choices that people are free to make. I personally believe they are harmful, but I do not believe you can impose your will on someone else on the matter. ''

'''Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?'''

That's an incredibly vague question. Increased gun ownership leads to greater guns amongst criminals. I think that guns should come with training of the level required of military personel and police officers, and that they should be controlled so as to keep them in proper hands. Do I think its impossible? No, but it's not conducive.

''' When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?'''

'' Wasn't alive, can't comment''

'''Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?'''

''No, technology is developing at a rapid rate, it's just a matter of time. ''

'''Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?''

''Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely, the evidence against (fibers, design) is pretty damning''

'''Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?'''

''If by material-based you mean without God, then yes.''

'''Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?'''

''Most likely, yes. ''

'''Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?'''

''No, but this quiz almost certainly doesn't appear to be a good method.''

'''Do you think that evolution [2] must have occurred?'''

''It has happened, it is happened, it's a continual process that has happened since the beginning of life. ''

'''Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?'''

''I do not know enough about the situation to comment properly.''

'''Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?'''

''No, I admit that a lot of what I was taught about God and his existence and his role in the creation of the world. ''

'''Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?[3]'''

''Yes, the theory of evolution is a powerful tool and its role in describing biological processes is incredible.''

'''Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?'''

''Yes, such an imposition is preposterous.''

'''Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?'''

''Again a very vague and loaded question. Certainly the more perspectives on a subject, the more insight, but more often than not, credible experts have training and knowledge that the "best of the public" does not (for instance, Lisa Rudley and the autism and vaccine nonsense)''

'''Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?'''

''No, certainly it should be studied for its historical significance.''

'''Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years? '''

''No, there is no reason that other anomaly, such as another stronger body of gravity, altering the course of the bodies in question.'' [[User:Jacobsladder|Jacobsladder]] 15:41, 28 December 2011 (EST)

== New Question about Korea ==

I don't see how this question tests open-mindedness: "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:Given the current very unfriendly relationship between the two countries, it seems unlikely that the relationship will improve to a point where the two countries will reunite. Additionally, with North Korea slowly becoming more proficient with nuclear weapons, they are becoming more of a threat to the rest of the world, which makes it more likely that another country will have to take a forceful hand with their attitude towards North Korea. The point is, it is unlikely that they will reunite peacefully into a single country. And whether someone thinks that just because an event is unlikely doesn't make it impossible, is a test of openmindedness. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:18, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== A comment on #2 and problems with #20 ==

Firstly, with 2, using an argument you know to be flawed can, in certain situations, be useful. On the rare occasion, I have used it when my purpose is to teach them/make them think more. I would use the flawed argument, knowing the flaws in it, and try to help them find the flaws in the argument. However, in that case I was trying to make them think, rather than convince them I was right.

And with #20, firstly, possible grammar problem, you're comparing one person to two people, so can someone who knows the intricacies of grammar check to make sure it's right, caus it just sounds weird. But more importantly, that question is a test of closed-mindedness, not openmindedness. Firstly, by giving no additional information about any of them, it suggests that if you do not think that a woman who is: straight, a radical Muslim intent on destroying America, a serial killer and abuser of children... is a better mother than a woman who: is gay, attends Church every Sunday, volunteers at a homeless shelter, is charitable and treats everyone and all animals with kindness... then you are closedminded. This interpretation is perfectly allowable under the current form of the question.

Secondly, by effectively suggesting that ALL straight woman are better mothers than ALL gay woman, the question is a test of closedmindedness. Regardless of which you believe is more likely to be a better mother, it is closedminded to think that it is impossible for a gay woman to be a good mother. Openmindedness is about two things: accepting that what you believe, may be wrong, and being willing to change your mind about an issue. This question doesn't address the second (which is fine), however it rejects the first and suggests that if you don't agree with the statement, then you are wrong, because the statement is unquestionable and IS NOT WRONG.

I strongly suggest either changing the question to reflect a test of openmindedness, or removing it entirely. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:43, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== Does this test measure open-mindedness? ==

This questionnaire appears geared towards making "liberals" fail it rather than establishing relative levels of open-mindedness. Consider the first question,

"Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"

Equally, you could pose the question

"Do you resist admitting the possibility that a ''liberal'' approach to education is far more effective for students than a ''conservative'' one?"

and in both cases say that a 'yes' means closed-mindedness and an 'no' means open-mindedness.

If you had a set of questions like that second one (e.g. "Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership ''increases'' the rate of crime?" instead of decreases, "Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is ''fake''?" instead of authentic) you would have a questionnaire that does not find conservatives to be open-minded, but the reverse, that conservatives are closed-minded. --[[User:Thal|Thal]] 11:21, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

:The questions could be reversed, but most conservatives would pass it. For example, most conservatives would answer "no" to your question "Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is ''fake''?" while most liberals would answer "yes" to the reverse question, "Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:35, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

::How about if the questions were, "Do you think that it is impossible that there is no god?", "Do you think that evolution cannot be true?", "Do you think that it is impossible that the theory of relativity is true?", "Do you think that homosexuality cannot be allowed in society?" Wouldn't a conservative answer "yes" to them, and therefore be 'closed-minded'?

::If I am missing the point of all this (maybe a conservative would answer "no" to those questions?), then I'm happy to learn, but what this questionnaire seems to be is a list of things conservatives believe in, and if you do not agree it says you are closed-minded, rather than merely, "not a conservative". --[[User:Thal|Thal]] 11:54, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Extremely poor design ==

As someone who actually has training and education in research methodology, survey design, statistics, and data analysis I find this test of "quantifying" open-mindedness insulting to the profession. The author of this test obviously has little to no understanding of proper survey design. At best, I would say that if this test quantifies anything, it's the open-mindedness towards Conservative ideals of Conservapedia's regular visitors. Question #2 is the only question I would accept as a decent measure of actual open-mindedness.

(My use of the terms "error" and "bias" are used strictly in the statistical/research design sense)

Just a sample of the errors include:
A) Biased questions: This test, as another person has mentioned, is designed to make Conservatives appear more open-minded than liberals. If I were to develop a test in direct opposition to this test I would have questions such as, "Do you think it's impossible that Jesus never existed?" or "Do you resist accepting that God doesn't exist?" and so on.....using the same "yes/No" format we can assume that questions such as these would make "Liberals" appear more open-minded (as long as answers are honest).

B) The fact that the author has told us in advance what he considers to be the "correct answers" (I'll use this term since it's obvious that the measure of open-mindedness reflects only conservative ideals). This fact increases greatly the response bias....which means additional survey error to muddle through to find any truth in the analysis of the data.

C)Closed-ended questions that require respondents to provide answers as though they were responding to open-ended questions. Basically, the individual questions are so poorly designed, convoluted, and imbued with biased assumptions that the test becomes even less quantitative and more qualitative as respondents feel necessary to explain their yes/no answers which fail to address the questions sufficiently.

D)Even if the questions truly were quantitative in nature, the obvious sampling bias pretty much makes this test useless outside of Conservapedia.

E)The use of absolute terms such as "Impossible", despite attempts to define it, lead to even more error and bias. Even grade school children are taught to watch out for these types of terms on multiple choice exams ("always" and "never").

F) I'll finish with this although I could go on: This measurement does a very poor job of defining actual open-mindedness. IF you look at the questions and ask yourself, "Do these questions accurately reflect true open-mindedness in its most general sense?" the honest answer is no. Open-mindedness, in this test, reflects only an openness to specific conservative/literal creationist ideals.

Using some of the questions provided, a better design would include questions such as (and these are a bit off the cuff so I will not say these are perfect, perfecting questions like this requires trial and error):
#3) Do you find it difficult to admit when a long held belief is proven wrong? (which can replace a majority of the questions)
#14) Do you find it difficult to admit that what you are taught in school may not be accurate?
#17A) Do you find it difficult to question the validity of expert opinion on subjects you are not familiar with?
#17B) Do you find it difficult to accept the insights of non-experts/laymen on subjects you are not familiar with?

Towards the end of the following research are a set of questions which I feel do a far better job at measuring true open-mindedness. Notice the variation in how questions are asked, enabling a wider interpretation of what open-mindedness means. Also notice how much more sophisticated the statistical analysis is over the simplistic method used on the test provided by Conservapedia which relies on simply adding up yes and no answers without even the most basic weighting method.
http://www.psyc.jmu.edu/assessment/research/pdfs/APS_AOT_Final_Marsh&Pastor.pdf

[[User:Willingham|Willingham]] 10:33, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

== A response to the recent main page answers ==

This is in response to the answers posted by JerryD on the main page, and Andy's scoring of them.

1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?
:J - I’m not exactly sure what conservative and liberal approaches to education are, and if the rest of this site is any indication I’d suspect your definition of “liberal education” will be a combination of rather cherry-picked examples of the worst elements along with some strawmen. Besides that, I don’t know how I can resist admitting some ill-defined terms, but if the overall question is “is it possible that a conservative approach to education is better than a liberal one” I’d answer, possibly, sure, depending on the definitions.
:A - OK, one point of credit given.
:Me - Due to the uncertainty of what is meant by a liberal or conservative education, a score of 0/0.

2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
:J - No.
:A - Good. One more point.
:Me - One point.

3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
:J - I think everyone ‘’resists’’ changing their long held views. We wouldn’t hold them very strongly if we didn’t. Few people turn on a dime on things they’ve thought for years. If I were convinced about it, after studying the evidence, I would accept that the belief in question is false.
:A - Half-point credit, in light of the equivocation.
:Me - Full point. Resisting changing one's opinion is necessary to have opinions which last for more than 10 seconds. He does suggest that having held the opinion for 10 years wouldn't affect whether he changes his mind or not, the evidence would change his mind.

4. Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
:J - “Hollywood values” isn’t exactly well-defined either. If you’re going to define Hollywood by its worst aspects, such as drug use (which exists in every city in the country), then sure. We all know drugs can be quite harmful. Does that make watching a typical Hollywood blockbuster harmful? No. Although most are basically crummy movies these days, but that’s subjective and irrelevant.
:A - No credit here. Hollywood values is worse in many ways than what is typical in many cities.
:Me - Without Hollywood values defined, 0/0

5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
:J - It’s possible, and I believe there have been studies that have shown some evidence for this. There’s also evidence against it, if you look at foreign countries with less gun ownership and less crime. If I had to guess I’d say widespread gun ownership might lead to a modest decrease in things like muggings and robberies, but a modest increase in murder and accidental firearm deaths.
:A - Credit is given because you say it is possible. Note that the rate of accidential firearm deaths is very small.
:Me - Full point.

6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
:J - The wall was made of steel and cement, of course it could be torn down. No sane person could think otherwise. At some point in the future its demise was inevitable. Did Reagan cause the wall to be torn down? I’ve seen no evidence for it. Certainly not directly, anyway.
:A - Zero credit because the point of the question is whether it would be politically possible, not physically possible.
:Me - He seems to have missed the point of the question. No reason to penalise that. 0/0

7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?
:J - Again, there’s very little that is impossible. SDI was theoretically possible. Was it practical though? From what I know of it, probably not. It was never implemented for a reason.
:A - Zero credit. Lots of things are impossible. The question is not limited to what is "theoretically possible."
:Me - I see nothing wrong with his answer, however because I don't understand Andy's objection, will give 0/0 instead of 1/1.

8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
:J - Possible, but very unlikely.
:A - Half credit due to the "very unlikely" statement.
:Me - Full point. Nothing wrong with thinking something is possible but unlikely. Really, if he was asked to give a percentage of how likely it is to be authentic, any answer except 0% and 100% should be enough to grant a point.

9. Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
:J - I think it is by far the most likely scenario.
:A - Half credit.
:Me - Full point. Same reason as above.

10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
:J - My understanding of the laws of physics seems to indicate this is more or less impossible. It’s possible the laws are wrong, I suppose, and there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case. But, no, I guess it falls a bit short of impossible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.

11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
:J - It would be very difficult to in any real accurate and specific way. This test is quite biased. I think it can measured in a vague way.
:A - Half credit - "measured in a vague way"?? Either it can be measured, or it can't.
:Me - Half point. Stating that it would be very difficult to measure in any real accurate or specific way, and then saying that it can be measured in a vague way is enough for me to interpret it as saying it's impossible to measure in a quantitative way.

12. Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
:J - All evidence points to it, so I’d say it has occurred, but it’s not impossible it didn’t.
:A - Full credit because you say it is "not impossible."
:Me - Full point.

13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
:J - I have to admit I know nothing about this, and there is very little in the universe that is 100% impossible, so sure, it’s possible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.

14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
:J - No. I realize my teachers didn’t always get everything right. They’re human, like the rest of us.
:A - Zero credit. The question asks about teaching known falsehoods. That's not an issue of being "human, like the rest of us."
:Me - 0/0. Missed the point of the question

15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?
:J - I’d like to see evidence that they do before condemning them. Overall I’d say they do more good than harm, if that’s the question.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Although I'm not confident in my interpretation of his answer. Nothing wrong in wanting to see evidence before condemning a specific theory. I think he means that all theories do more good in progressing science than harm in progressing science.

16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
:J - I fail to see how they could. Given some evidence for this hypothesis I could conceivably change my mind, but there seems very little relation between the two subjects, so I can’t envision how one would measurably affect the other.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - Full point. Says he could change his mind if presented with evidence. Nothing wrong with not seeing how one would affect the other. He doesn't say it is impossible, just that he doesn't personally see how it is possible.

17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
:J - Oh not at all. Experts don’t always get everything right. They can’t, as different experts often have different views on the same subject, and they can’t both be right. A legitimate expert, however, will be in a better position to have the answer on a relevant subject than a non-expert. The best of the public is an intriguing idea that has merit, but deciding who “the best” of the public is is no easy task. I haven’t yet observed them on this site.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point. But with hesitation. He focuses on who is more likely to be right, rather than whether the best of the public can offer ideas or insights which are useful.

18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
:J - This seems more of a semantic argument than anything else. Are only people who’ve read the Bible cover to cover (including all the boring lists of laws and who begat whoms) able to really say they’ve read the Bible? The reason to read it regularly is if you want to, or you want a better knowledge of what it says. Those who want to have a reason to read it, those who don’t, don’t.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Suggests that wanting a better knowledge of what the Bible says is the only reason non-Christians read the Bible. The Bible can offer interesting and useful ideas or thoughts to non-Christians, which he seems to suggest is impossible. I may be reading more into his response than is reasonable though.

19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
:J - I don’t think the universe issues guarantees. I believe the laws of physics do indicate the relatively stable orbit, though not necessarily unchanging.
:A - Zero credit. Earth's orbit is unstable.
:Me - Full point. By using the word "relatively", he basically says that over extreme lengths of time, it may not be stable, but for time-scales of interest to us, it is stable. The question doesn't make the distinction between long-term, and short-term, stability.

Andy gave a score of 9.
I give a score of 11.5/13, which is 88%.
- [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 10:39, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

== my answers :) ==

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yeah probably at first, human nature isn't it? but once I realised that I was wrong I would accept that.

4. Not really sure what these are, but judging by the state of the lives of loads of people who work in Hollywood I would think that they do.

5. No I don't think it's impossible. Unlikely and rather counter-intuitive, but not impossible.

6. I wasn't born at the time, and as I grew up in an entirely different political landscape I don't think I could really know what I would have thought. Probably yes, but I don't know.

7. Too long ago, and I'm not from America. From the little I know about it I think that it may have been possible, but impractically expensive? I really don't know.

8. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

9. Not quite sure what is meant by 'purely material-based' here. I think there is a material explanation, but I don't see how that makes it less miraculous or impressive, especially seeing as how in many species the young birds on their first migration will leave slightly later by themselves, and make the journey relying entirely on instinct and some form of navigation.

10. I don't really know much about this one. I suppose it's possible.

11. I think it is possible to measure, though not in a very precise way. (I don't think this test is great though, too political).

12. No.

13. Don't know anything about this one.

14. I was home-schooled, so that's my mum you're talking about :) No I don't think that happens. Call me naive but I think that all the information taught in schools is believed by those responsible. (probably not true for all countries though.)

15. No not really. If evolution for instance turns out to be false then that will have impeded the progress of science i suppose.

16. Yes I do, I really can't see the connection.

17. No. On the whole I would go with the expert opinion though.

18. No. It's important to read the bible. (I don't think this question has much to do with open-mindedness though)

19. I wouldn't say guaranteed, no.

Of the sixteen that I knew anything about I answered 'no' 12 and a half times or maybe 12 times, and 'yes' about three times. I don't know how I would mark the ones I didn't know anything about. Interesting test, though I don't think all the questions are particularly relevant.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:01, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== More answers ==

Here are my (JudyJ) answers to this test. I have added a few new questions, and expanded on a few others. These changes are in italics. The numbering is the same as in the original.

*1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
*''1a. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[liberal]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[conservative]] one?''
::I don't accept either of these premises in their absolute form. Each side has something to contribute.
*2. If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
::Of course not.
*3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
::Of course not.
*4. Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
::Assuming that, by "Hollywood values", you mean drug use, scandalous behavior, and a belief that the rules apply only to other people, of course such things harm the individuals involved and other people. People in show business are often associated with these attitudes, but they can be found everywhere.
*5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
*''5a. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?''
*''5b. Do you think it is impossible that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and crime rates?''
::Crime rates depend on many many things, as a study of historical crime rate statistics shows. If have seen comparisons of crime rates and gun ownership rates for a number of countries, and there is no conclusion that one can draw in either direction.
*6. When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
::Given that this is an event that actually happened, it isn't a good test of openmindedness. See my new question about Korea at the end.
*7. Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
::It's really a question of whether it would have been feasible. It is possible, but may well not have been economically reasonable.
*8. Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
::I don't know.
*9. Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
::I don't know, though my scientific sensibilities suggest that a scientific explanation will be found. This question appears to by attempting to elicit a response similar to the "intelligent design" position that some people take on biological evolution. I don't take such a position.
*10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
::It could have been, but it's confounded by things like the expansion of the universe. Same meter sticks? Same clocks? What does that even mean? We do know, from spectral lines of distant stars, that the properties of the universe have not changed significantly in its "recent" (say, 10 billion years) history.
*11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
::I have no idea, really. I'm just going along with the hypothesis.
*12. Do you think that [[evolution]] ''must'' have occurred?
::Yes. To avoid filling this page with too much text, I have written an extensive essay on the subject on my [[User:JudyJ|user page]].
*13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
::This question is a little more complicated than meets the eye, since Newton's law was ''stated'' to be inverse square, so any deviation would not be Newton's law. Restating that as "would Newton's law, as modified to have an exponent of 2.00000001 (or whatever) better explain the universe? It would not. This theory was advanced by Asaph Hall and Simon Newcomb, with exponent 2.0000001574, in the late 19th century, to explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. ''It fails for the Moon and the other planets'', and was discarded shortly thereafter. I am not so openminded as to accept that it might nevertheless by correct.
*14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
::Absolutely not. I could tell you some doozies from my 2nd grade teacher, and from my 8th grade science teacher. I do not know whether those teachers actually believed what they were saying.
*15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
::It occasionally happens that some theories harm overall scientific knowledge. The Ptolemaic universe, "cold fusion", and various proposals relating to biology, medicine, genetics, and geology come to mind. But the problems seem to get straightened out by further study.
*16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
::I know of no reason to believe there could be any correlation.
*17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
::Of course not.
*18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
::This seems to be a question of how one interprets the semantic meaning of "have read ...", rather than one of openmindedness about any factual matter. I believe that saying that one "has read" something should mean that one has read it in its entirety, or nearly so. In that sense, I have not read the Bible, though I have read many parts of it, on my own and in various Bible study classes in college and in my church.
*19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
::Of course there are no guarantees; another star could totally disrupt the Solar system in then next few million years, but we have (at present) no way of predicting such things. I am aware that Young Earth Creationists sometime make exaggerated claims about the instability of the Earth's orbit, apparently in order to advance a claim that the orbit could not have been stable for more than a few thousand years. So I'll say that there is extremely good reason to believe that it has been stable for a few billion years, and will continue to be stable for a few billion more years. There is compelling geological and biological evidence that the Earth has been at roughly the same distance from a star with roughly the luminosity of the Sun for, say, 3 billion years. Also, extremely precise computer simulations<ref>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UasEK0r-uY8J:groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/keithw/Sussman-Wisdom.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESglombZ-xHvE-G9KSVHXBN-ZBdwKxZetIOnM5ATh6pL5QJsdj2ZfHrAYzrjVBr-6TPPKCfAazSBhixS04mA90GQ4e00385sQwu0U1qWCf26C4iKp515jvlSjPaa79fVF_pIKBI0&sig=AHIEtbTIS_9STbbpxZN5LDIIycucGuGKIw</ref> over a period of a few hundred million years into the future show that, while the Lyupanov time scale is only a few million years, the overall instability is quite small over that time frame.

''Here are a few questions that I have added. The one about Korea was added and discussed on the talk page, but was removed. I believe it is a better question than the one about the Berlin wall, because it refers to a situation whose outcome we do not know.''

*20. Do you deny the possibility that North and South Korea will someday be united, without a war?
::Absolutely not.
*21a. Do you deny the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?
::Absolutely not.
*21b. Do you deny the possibility that ''no'' intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe?
::Absolutely not.
*22a. Do you deny the possibility that special and general relativity are a substantially correct explanation for how the universe works at non-microscopic (not quantum scale) levels?
::Absolutely not.
*22b. Do you deny the possibility that relativity is ''not'' a correct explanation?
::I believe that future developments will eventually supplant the 20th century notion of special and general relativity. But I totally accept it as the correct scientific paradigm for its time, just as Newtonian mechanics was the correct scientific paradigm for its time.

== Key wiki metric ==

This is a dubious method for measuring open mindedness. Many blocked accounts are those of mindless vandals, that the aren't real editors. Also some administrators block an editor, if s/he's opinion is different from their's ( i.e. too liberal, like, for example, my choice of s/he here). --[[User:LeonardRobinson|LeonardRobinson]] ([[User talk:LeonardRobinson|talk]]) 17:32, May 28, 2022 (EDT)

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2022-05-28T20:43:02Z

LeonardRobinson: /* Test Your Open-mindedness - 21 Questions */ In some cases questions had a conservative bias. The question on gravity is very obscure. This may need further revision.

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" we mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. We do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness here means what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible we do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
__NOTOC__
== Test Your Open-mindedness - 21 Questions ==
# Do you deny the possibility of an occasional [[angel]], such as the unknown carpenter who built without modern tools the gravity-defying [[Loretto spiral staircase]] in [[Santa Fe]]? Conservatives substitute: Do you accept the view that angels are mythical beings?
# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one? If you are a conservative, substitute liberal for conservative and ''vice versa''.
# If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders? Conservatives substitute: Do you refuse to admit that Hollywood can produce works of high art
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime? If a conservative substitute: Do you believe that lax gun laws is a contributing cause of mass shootings
# When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic? For religious people substitute, is a forgery?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies? For Christians substitut: Do refuse to accept a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds, bees, and butterflies.
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
# Do you think that [[evolution]]<ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred? Conservatives: Do you believe that Genesis is a myth?
# Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
# Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material? Christians and other faiths: Do you believe that somethings taught by your Religion might be false?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>*[https://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]*[https://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[https://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[https://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[https://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[https://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[https://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[https://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutionists - Vox Day]</ref> For conservatives substitute: Do you refuse to accept the idea that all life has developed from primitive unicelled life forms?
# Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics? For conservatives substitute: that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation causes no harm
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind? For conservatives: Do you accept that experts are mostly correct?
# Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
# Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] might have been authored by Jesus? Conservatives substitute: may not have been authored by Jesus?
The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''

:a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

::i. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

::ii. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

:b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

::i. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

::ii. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::iii. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== Conservapedia has come up with a key wiki metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and groupthink of a wiki. ==

[[Conservapedia]] has come up with a key [[wiki]] metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and [[groupthink]] of a wiki.

Mathematically, the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki can be expressed as: Edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki = E % BE, where E is the number of edits to the wiki and BE equals the number of blocked editor accounts of the wiki.

The edits to blocked editor accounts ratio was partly inspired by [[Andrew Schlafly]]'s essay Quantifying Openmindedness.

Unlike Conservapedia, RationalWiki does not have a policy where members of the public are free to set up debate pages and engage in vigorous debate where the debate pages are lightly moderated (see: [https://conservapedia.com/Category:Conservapedia_Debates Conservapedia debates pages]). Conservapedia debate pages are lightly moderated and can be freely set up and/or participated in by members of the general public who behave in a civil manner (see: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]).

== Atheism and open-mindedness ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]

Research indicates that [[Atheism|atheists]] tend to be less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).

For more information, please see:

*[[Atheism and intolerance]]

*[[Atheism and dogmatism]]

*[[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]

*[[Atheism and groupthink]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Quantifying Perfection]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Quantifying Openmindedness}}