I also tried naturist and nudist although I was pretty sure that they were incorrect due to the reason given by Cardinal above. However, I would argue that an exhibitionist is someone who behaves in a way to attract attention, which would not necessarily mean exposing themselves
I’m not sure this is right. An ophthalmologist is allowed to write prescriptions for eyeglasses, but generally speaking, they don’t. They’re medical doctors who specialise in diseases of the eye, which can be anything from cataracts to ocular oncology. Optometrists may be Doctors of Optometry, but they’re not medical doctors. They tend to provide most primary and optical eye care and would usually be the ones to prescribe and dispense glasses (and detect other issues), whilst an ophthalmologist would mainly provide medical and surgical care. If you did get a prescription for glasses from the latter, it would likely be ridiculously expensive, I would think.
I think Literalist might be the only correct answer here? Hindus, for example are creationist, whereas ‘Bible Literalist’ is specific to Christianity and The Bible.
Although, I will have to ‘fess up, I did type ‘creationists.’ I’m keeping the 5 points tho!
I believe it's the better answer too. My optometrist never "prescribed" me corrective eyewear. I only had seeing tests and the result was I needed glasses or new lenses for them but there was never an actual prescription involved.
There will have been a prescription, it’s just that you don’t get handed it, in the same way as you might if it was for drugs. The optometrist prescribes a type of lens, with particular specifications (thickness, convexity etc), which then goes to the person actually making the glasses. In a smaller optometrist’s business, the person prescribing may well be the person making them. Or they’ll be made by someone else, but within the same premises. So they don’t need to give you a script to take elsewhere (like a pharmacy), which means in all likelihood, they don’t bother printing one.
At least optometrist is the name given to the "doctor" that prescribes corrective eyeware here in the US. Is it possible that Carry is from another country and the terms are different there?
Fundamentalist would work if the clue was referring to the bible in general, but the clue specifically calls out the biblical account of creation. I see your point though.
Not sure about typist; I mean, sure, while it's probably not as relevant today, surely someone who uses typewriter is also a typist? In fact, aren't they the original typists?
Even more unfortunately, it's not really a misconception at all. Google a bit. You can start with Valerie Solanas in the 1960s but the ideas have become much more pervasive and common these days with the Marxist-inspired Intersectional Feminism movement. There are all sorts of prominent, popular, well-respected self-proclaimed feminists that you can find today calling for male genocide or white genocide or at the very least saying that white men, in order to balance the privilege they have so long enjoyed at everyone else's expense, need to avoid talking too much or working too much or being seen or heard or really doing anything. This is not a paranoid fantasy look it up. These ideas are more and more mainstream even if sometimes they try to disguise them with less obvious sounding arguments.
I have to agree with kal on this one. Feminism probably was initially intended to be specific to women who fought for equality. But it unfortunately has evolved into something else. Sometimes it is overt, like in the example that kal gave about male genocide. Other times it is more subtle, like the way many sitcom shows on TV have the dad in the family portrayed as the bumbling idiot, and hardly more mature than the children. Or how we see sequels to popular movies being made, only with the strong male lead swapped out for a strong female lead. It isn't enough to attain equality moving forward, they wish to go back and right every wrong from the past.
It's like anything else in life. People who fight for equality, and eventually get it (or at least come close) begin to find ways to keep the cause alive as they see it starting to wane. In these situations, sometimes the oppressed end up becoming the oppressors.
Many people believe the earth is flat, but that does not make it so! However, I would definitely advocate for a more updated definition of feminist, such as "Advocates for equality among the sexes". I can imagine that some more formal feminists may find the current hint problematically quaint.
There are all sorts of different people who call themselves feminists and many different ideas about what it means to be one (which is a problem with any big decentralized movement). Many feminists certainly do not preach equality and many promote ideas that are explicitly bigoted, sexist, or discriminatory. I'd call someone who believes in equality to be an egalitarian or perhaps a humanist. I'd call someone who advocates advancing the interests of women a feminist. Though like I said... lots of different conflicting definitions out there. Part of the problem with saying that feminism means working toward sexual equality is that there are still feminists in Western Civilization where sexual equality has already been achieved.
Kalbahamut, there is not a country in the world in which such equality has been truly achieved. There are many which are legally equal, but at a more personal and societal level every single country still has an imbalance. The problem now is that much of the remaining imbalance occurs due to subconscious thought processes and so people don't realise or believe that they hold any sort of prejudice, or they even believe that men are actually discriminated against as they don't understand that many problems that men face are rooted in sexism against women (e.g. women win custody of children more as people still lean towards childcare being a job for women)
I have to agree with kalbahamut on this one. Most feminists don't truly fight for equality. They fight for an advantage over men which is NOT equality.
^ I didn't say most. I said some. I don't know the exact percentage.
Olober: Full legal equality has been achieved for decades and that's what is important. You can't police people's thoughts or attitudes and the fact that men and women are genetically different from one another is... well.. a fact. You can't change that. That's not a sign of inequality or sexism; it's just reality. You're right that men are commonly disfavored in the legal system these days, and that's a problem. Where we can see injustice being done in systems like the courts we should try to correct this, if possible. If anything women in Western countries are substantially more privileged than men at this point, in every metric that actually matters. (though, some forces are trying to take us backward; see: recent USSC decision on Roe v Wade) Full and absolute parity to the point where we no longer see men and women as different should not be the goal. Equality of opportunity and before the law should be.
IMO they ought to have legal proceedings where the plaintiff/defendant or anyone else affected by the outcome is not present in the courtroom, the case is laid out, using language that is gender-neutral, "race"-neutral, and a decision rendered impartially based on the facts. It's absurd that something like wearing a nice suit to court can have an effect on the outcome, but it does. Or appearing to be emotional or contrite to the judges or jurists who are not experts on reading human emotion anyway. And while, yes, the law as written might be color blind, and gender blind... judges obviously are not. This doesn't mean that the system itself is inherently racist or sexist, but individual people often are and it's hard to get around that. As bad as it is for your sentencing to be seen as "black" instead of "white" in the US... and it is... it's actually about 10x worse to be male instead of female.
@kal - Equality of opportunity is a commonly stated goal, but it is an impossible standard. Opportunity is deeply intertwined with circumstances that simply cannot be made equal. Hypothetically, imagine two identical children with identical homes and families, one block apart from each other. They attend different public elementary schools because of where the school dividing line is. The schools are in the same district and have equally good teachers, but one is in an older building where the playground soil is laced with lead from years earlier. Lead is known to have a negative effect on impulse control and as a result, the child that went there gets into trouble when the two kids later attend the same high school. Their respective brains no longer work the same way and the domino effect follows - college, jobs, social connections, drug/alcohol use etc. So did the two kids truly have the same opportunity?
That's just one tiny potential variable among an unknowable number of others.
The feminists themselves in all of their goals have revealed that the ideology is NOT for equality. They have always had goals to get MORE for women. Some of these demands have been just and right. Many of the later ones are greedy and poorly thought out or not at all, in regards of consequences. It all has only grown like the gamblers hunger as long as you're 'having a streak', and just recently a respected British feminist and a supporter of the 2nd wave stated "3rd wave killed feminism". There's more on the issue, but any person with half a brain and a search engine at hand can easily see the reality.
Sure, there are some individual layman(-wymin?) feminists who are not really up to speed and who believe it's 'for equality'. It's not. If it were, they'd have men in their clubs making decisions, too. If it were, they'd quit spitting acid on all men and boys. If it were, they'd build bridges, not divide and cause havoc. Etc.
Ecologists study the relationships that organisms have with each other and with their environments, and environmentalists don't technically study anything- They are simply in favour of environmental improvement and protection. Geologists are specifically defined as ones who study the physical constituents of the Earth
The Bible does not say that the earth was created in a handful of 24-hour days. Creationists say that the Bible says that, but it, in fact, does not. The Bible uses the word "day" in numerous different ways, only one of which specifically means a 24-hour time period. It has been understood by many scholars for more than a century that the Genesis account allows for each Creative Day being an indeterminate time period that could actually span centuries or millennia.
Then why not translate day as "eon" or "epoch", or something similar? I don't know the original Hebrew but, in English, the word day has a specific meaning.
This view of the matter is usually taken from the verses in Second Peter which day that to God "a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years," to show that time is not the same for God. Many numbers and time frames in the Bible are symbolic (like the repeated use of the number 40) and probably can't be taken literally in every case. I tend to think the days are not literal 24 hour days.
Anyone who thinks this is literally true if you just ignore a few words is fooling themselves. The order is totally wrong, the whole story is self-contradictory and frankly it is bizarre. Scholars who try to say it is, in really any sense of the word, true, are included in this assessment.
Although, I will have to ‘fess up, I did type ‘creationists.’ I’m keeping the 5 points tho!
It's like anything else in life. People who fight for equality, and eventually get it (or at least come close) begin to find ways to keep the cause alive as they see it starting to wane. In these situations, sometimes the oppressed end up becoming the oppressors.
Olober: Full legal equality has been achieved for decades and that's what is important. You can't police people's thoughts or attitudes and the fact that men and women are genetically different from one another is... well.. a fact. You can't change that. That's not a sign of inequality or sexism; it's just reality. You're right that men are commonly disfavored in the legal system these days, and that's a problem. Where we can see injustice being done in systems like the courts we should try to correct this, if possible. If anything women in Western countries are substantially more privileged than men at this point, in every metric that actually matters. (though, some forces are trying to take us backward; see: recent USSC decision on Roe v Wade) Full and absolute parity to the point where we no longer see men and women as different should not be the goal. Equality of opportunity and before the law should be.
That's just one tiny potential variable among an unknowable number of others.
The feminists themselves in all of their goals have revealed that the ideology is NOT for equality. They have always had goals to get MORE for women. Some of these demands have been just and right. Many of the later ones are greedy and poorly thought out or not at all, in regards of consequences. It all has only grown like the gamblers hunger as long as you're 'having a streak', and just recently a respected British feminist and a supporter of the 2nd wave stated "3rd wave killed feminism". There's more on the issue, but any person with half a brain and a search engine at hand can easily see the reality.
Sure, there are some individual layman(-wymin?) feminists who are not really up to speed and who believe it's 'for equality'. It's not. If it were, they'd have men in their clubs making decisions, too. If it were, they'd quit spitting acid on all men and boys. If it were, they'd build bridges, not divide and cause havoc. Etc.
God creates "the heaven and the earth".
God creates light.
God creates the sky, which apparently is a "firmament", although I wasn't aware it was hard.
God creates plants.
God creates the sun, the moon and the stars (although quite how all the plants have been photosynthesising without the sun I'm not sure).
God creates fish and whales.
God creates birds and the other flying stuff.
God creates land animals (maybe he was doing a trial run of the mammals with whales, dolphins and bats?).
God creates humans (make and female).
God has a rest, and then makes it rain.
After his rest, God forgets that he has already created humans and proceeds to create them again, this time creating a man first of all.
God makes the Garden of Eden and tells Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
God makes some more animals and birds for Adam to eat.
Anyone who thinks this is literally true if you just ignore a few words is fooling themselves. The order is totally wrong, the whole story is self-contradictory and frankly it is bizarre. Scholars who try to say it is, in really any sense of the word, true, are included in this assessment.
Actually, I am a Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist.
Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist.
Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist.
Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist.
Are you triggered?
Let's cancel Jetpunk!
Is this techincally correct or is trance the wrong word for anaesthesia?