Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Women Under the Spell

quadrant.org.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Women Under the Spell

#21

Post by xupybd »

gatherhunterer wrote: post #20
xupybd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God? While I think you're correct the authors opinions do appear to shine through in that last paragraph, it seems that efforts have been made to show this history without framing. Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing? Many modern western values align closely with Satanism. Satanism in its modern form was a…

> Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian. So is the author. You can't recognize a bias that you share. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

Sorry I thought I acknowledged the author had a bias? Simply that they’d made an effort to write something other than an opinion piece.

I’m trying to challenge the notion that this article sheds a negative light on feminism. That the opposition between feminism and Chrisitanity, especially Christianity at that time should be obvious.

I would like to raise the question; is that opposition a problem for non Christians and if so why?

Re: Women Under the Spell

#22

Post by joveian »

xupybd wrote: post #21
gatherhunterer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian. So is the author. You can't recognize a bias that you share. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

Sorry I thought I acknowledged the author had a bias? Simply that they’d made an effort to write something other than an opinion piece. I’m trying to challenge the notion that this article sheds a negative light on feminism. That the opposition between feminism and Chrisitanity, especially Christianity at that time should be obvious. I would like to raise the question; is that opposition a problem for non Christians…

As a non-Christian I find it interesting and not at all a problem if true. I think the same basic thing is common in some punk circles today (partly due to some racist Sweedish metal bands, but that is a different topic, although maybe not coincidence that it looks like the author of the book in question is Sweedish). I don't know anything about the author and maybe it is a interesting book, maybe not.

However, I did quickly get the feel that this article was not what it appeared to be (e.g. "nobody dared to do", which seems an unlikely phrase for actual historians) and after very quickly scanning and reading the last paragraph I didn't read it. I would be interested in a historical look at this topic, but not something written to whip up bigots. IMO this particular article should not be on HN.

Re: Women Under the Spell

#23

Post by angry_octet »

strken wrote: post #14
elliekelly wrote: post #5

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/

Quadrant is biased in the same way that Jacobin is biased. It should extremely obvious to everyone who reads it that it takes liberties when picking and choosing sources, that most of the authors have an axe to grind, and that it's exactly the kind of rag that would publish climate change denial just to be contrarian. It also has a reasonably high standard of writing, cites sources, and digs up some fascinating thing…

I think it is a mistake to give more credit to sites just because they can engage in sophisticated sophistry, have MAs from reputable old universities, and have their citations done neatly.

Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring. Breitbart at least has joie de vivre.

I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't add to any meaningful debate in society in general or the tech sphere.

Re: Women Under the Spell

#25

Post by angry_octet »

briandear wrote: post #9
elliekelly wrote: post #5

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/

Should we post “left bias” from The NY Times, Washington Post, Citylab, et al? This is exactly what’s wrong with society, especially among the so-called smart people. What’s wrong with a right bias? Doesn’t that enlighten the conversation? Is it possible that there a lot of good ideas from another side of the spectrum of ideas? Why do we call out “right bias?” Why not just let people think for themselves. Apparently…

It's possible to have a right wing bias piece without it being claptrap, which this clearly is.

There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.

Re: Women Under the Spell

#26

Post by shkkmo »

angry_octet wrote: post #25
briandear wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we post “left bias” from The NY Times, Washington Post, Citylab, et al? This is exactly what’s wrong with society, especially among the so-called smart people. What’s wrong with a right bias? Doesn’t that enlighten the conversation? Is it possible that there a lot of good ideas from another side of the spectrum of ideas? Why do we call out “right bias?” Why not just let people think for themselves. Apparently…

It's possible to have a right wing bias piece without it being claptrap, which this clearly is. There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.

What claptrap? Satanism and occultism on particular is intricately interleaved with many of the greatest thinkers from that time period. These influences are generally understated and coming to understand this relationship has done a great deal to improve my regard for the value imparted by both both of these ideologies.

If you take a minute to step outside your kneejerk reactions, you might learn something here, regardless of any bias by this particular author.

Re: Women Under the Spell

#28

Post by angry_octet »

shkkmo wrote: post #26
angry_octet wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to have a right wing bias piece without it being claptrap, which this clearly is. There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.

What claptrap? Satanism and occultism on particular is intricately interleaved with many of the greatest thinkers from that time period. These influences are generally understated and coming to understand this relationship has done a great deal to improve my regard for the value imparted by both both of these ideologies. If you take a minute to step outside your kneejerk reactions, you might learn something here, reg…

If you think this article (or the book) is a serious exploration of the clash of ideology inherent in feminism in a time of deep religious oppression, well bless your heart.

Re: Women Under the Spell

#29

Post by strken »

angry_octet wrote: post #23
strken wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quadrant is biased in the same way that Jacobin is biased. It should extremely obvious to everyone who reads it that it takes liberties when picking and choosing sources, that most of the authors have an axe to grind, and that it's exactly the kind of rag that would publish climate change denial just to be contrarian. It also has a reasonably high standard of writing, cites sources, and digs up some fascinating thing…

I think it is a mistake to give more credit to sites just because they can engage in sophisticated sophistry, have MAs from reputable old universities, and have their citations done neatly. Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring . Breitbart at least has joie de vivre. I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't…

It sent me down a rabbithole of wikipedia articles about theosophy and satanism, so I like it. The framing of satan as representative of rebellion, personal agency, and freedom in the face of established order interests me, regardless of how much mileage Quadrant can get out of it.

You can find it boring, and that's fine, but you can't make me find it boring.

Re: Women Under the Spell

#30

Post by angry_octet »

strken wrote: post #29
angry_octet wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a mistake to give more credit to sites just because they can engage in sophisticated sophistry, have MAs from reputable old universities, and have their citations done neatly. Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring . Breitbart at least has joie de vivre. I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't…

It sent me down a rabbithole of wikipedia articles about theosophy and satanism, so I like it. The framing of satan as representative of rebellion, personal agency, and freedom in the face of established order interests me, regardless of how much mileage Quadrant can get out of it. You can find it boring, and that's fine, but you can't make me find it boring.

I said that their polemics are boring, not the topic of feminist struggle. It's so tired that they love the idea of feminists being seduced by Satan and lesbianism, but it is also harassment of women, and no doubt offensive to Christian feminists.

Some actual feminist satanists, and how misogynistic the Church of Satan is: https://thefront.tv/read/holy-hell-jex-blackmores-satanic-fe...

Not even the Church of Satan is safe from #MeToo!

Post reply on HN