Religion and women.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 12, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Why would anyone think that women working is detrimental to society?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In the Bible, women often sold goods in the market and they were wives/mothers. This notion that women shouldn’t work outside of the home, is a man made philosophy. Of course, men and women should be in agreement in relationships but men who are insecure are usually against women working “outside the home”.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    That figures.
    The summer of love 2020...
    “Give in to our demands or America will burn”

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    why are women not allowed to have their own religion ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    a las poor wegs
    if only that were the last in the trail of body parts & blood spatters ...

    women who control social networks of women with no jobs do not wish women to get jobs

    the ego of those women starts to eat away at their inner broken self & they define "something just not natural" about women having jobs or leadership roles
    even though they claim to not care about it & suggest its a free choice of women.
    they directly psychologically undermine other women & children & support networks by "not natural" defamation process in their broken inner self seeking to maintain its lack of power, authority & a mad grasp on what power they think they have currently in their toxic abusive slave like feudal relationship & family & friends networks.

    just socialize in a baptist church womens group & you will live it like swimming in a sewer pond

    that is one of south koreas biggest problems
    conservatist Christianity controlling their culture making subcultures.
    not an easy problem to solve, more so if your lusting after the American model of the same psychosis.

    Period power hour
    ...
    high school debates of teenage menstrual rights . . .
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    That women should decide for themselves what is best for them and their family? That's something you can't seem to understand.

    Let's do a concrete example. A family we are friends with has both parents working. He works as an opthamologist, saving people's sight. I am sure you will agree that is good for society. She works at home as a structural engineer, designing retrofits for large buildings (like apartment buildings and hospitals) to make them more earthquake proof. I am sure you will also agree that that is good for society.

    She travels a fair amount, and when she does he stays home with their three kids (he works three days a week.) There's always someone home with them.

    Are you going to claim that that situation is "detrimental to their children and society at large?" This should be fun.
    You got the date wrong - that was Jan 6 2021.
     
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    you are engaging in a fake argument
    the real argument is the conservatives sexual problems

    they believe men should not be touching female children
    because they have psychologically normalized males as sexual predators as a form of cultural control.

    they use this to support their cult of making men the leader.

    so your debating in a cult debate of core cult beliefs

    but its being run as proxy through empathy used as a psychological imperative for childrens development

    its terribly deceitful, & toxic, & breeds toxic masculinity
    & normalises developmental sexual abuse of women as a power system in the sexual development of teenagers & tweens, but is heavily rooted in gender control dogma[indoctrination & programming] loaded onto small children.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    What year was that?

    It sounds like equality of the sexes was a new idea at the time.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    No. They believe that "women's place is in the home", and that looking after children is "women's work". It's a patriarchal form of control by men over women.
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This screen shot puts it April 30 2013

    Date performed, date added to YouTube, who knows?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    2013 is the date it was added to youtube.

    It looks like part of one of Dave Allen's TV programmes. One of them aired in the 1960s, and another aired between 1971 and 1979. He did another show in the 1980s, up to about 1986, and some "specials" into the early 1990s. He died in 2005.

    If I had to guess, I'd say that clip most likely dates from the early 1980s, perhaps late 1970s. Clearly, at that time, some men were struggling with ideas of "women's liberation", as it was called at that time.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    • Please do not tell lies knowingly. In this case, you have been clearly told why people believe your views are sexist.
    You can warn and ban me all you like, you still haven’t shown why I deserve to be called a woman hater, or why I’m being sexist.
    We’ll pick this back up when you can learn to respond to my actual posts. Be rational. Don’t be emotional.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It could be that you were witness to sexual abuse as a kid, and as a result you wrongly accuse every man, unless he keeps his mouth shut on these issues, as a sexual predator, who hates women.
    See! I can do analysis too.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Of course it’s what she’s suggesting.
    She probably doesn’t mean it.
    Maybe that’s where you misunderstand.
    The points I make have nothing to do with time.
    They are fundamental points.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You said I’m a misogynist, that’s why I think that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But it would be great if you responded like me, because you would explain your view, instead of running like a coward, and joining forces with the godless

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    No I didn’t state that. Go back to p82, and read what I actually wrote, then if you like, comment on what I actually wrote. If you believe your interpretation of my post is correct, then state why so I can respond.
    That way we can progress.
    I don’t care whether or not you’re being “mean-spirited. I care that you interpret my posts instead of discussing them.

    What is “gender equality”?
    Why is the natural order of roles, as explained in the Bible, misogynistic?
    You claim a belief in God, yet you question God’s creative abilities, and the logic that accompany it.
    Regarding the Samaritan women Jesus spoke with. You seem to believe that Jesus was a kind of woke liberal, or something. That he was about “gender equality”, or something similar.

    The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

    Then she went back to the village to tell everyone about this man she met. Has nothing whatsoever to do with “woke liberalism” like you mistakenly think.

    God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
    25 ¶ The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
    26 ¶ Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he
    .

    Notice she didn’t need to talk woke liberal stuff.
    She actually believed in God, before she met Jesus.

    You probably would have thought him a misogynist for demanding water from you out without saying please, just because you’re a woman.

    The water that Jesus gave her, was beneficial to soul, not the body.
    Jesus didn’t talk to her like she was a Pharisee, because she, as an individual descendant of Abraham. Why?
    Because recognised him.
    It’s not about the body, as you mistakenly assume.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Moderator note: Jan Ardena has been warned for knowingly telling lies.

    Many posters here have explained clearly why they believe Jan's opinions regarding the family roles he prescribes for men and women are sexist. He cannot honestly claim that "you still haven't shown ... why I'm being sexist".

    Due to accumulated warning points, Jan will be taking a further 1 week break from sciforums.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It is a self-limiting process. If you reach 100 active warning points, you will be automatically and permanently banned, in accordance with our published policies.

    I have not argued that you deserve to be called a woman hater. It is not clear to me that you hate women, though there is certainly sufficient evidence to conclude that you do not regard women as your equals.

    I have, on the other hand, clearly explained what is sexist about your attitudes to women, a number of times. In response, you have mostly ignored my posts, or at least failed to respond to the substance.

    Moreover, as you are aware, a number of other posters in this thread have also clearly explained why they believe your views are sexist and/or misogynistic.

    You ask me to explain "why I'm being sexist". Of course, I don't know why you're being sexist. What it is that motivates you to be sexist is currently unknown to me. I speculate that it is very likely a combination of early influences in your life, the influence of your religious indoctrination, possibly role-modelling by older relatives (such as your parents, perhaps), the influence of others' opinions in your social circles (friends, co-religionists, ethnic community, work colleagues), political opinions you have adopted as your own from various sources, and other things besides.

    You don't seem to be very good at introspection, so it is possible that your own motivations might be opaque to you in this regard.

    Whatever the reasons are for why you're being sexist, the only really relevant fact here is that you are expressing views that show that you're being sexist, for reasons that have been explained to you in some detail by myself and other members of this forum.

    You have a full week off to consider. I urge you to devote some of your down time to self-examination. Ask yourself: why am I being sexist? When you come back, I'd be happy to pick up that strand of the discussion if you like. It can often help to have an unbiased sounding board.

    As you know, in terms of responding to you in this thread, I have responded to your actual posts. What else would I respond to? Indeed, I have actually quoted your own words, to make it clear what it is, exactly, that I am responding to, where appropriate. I'm willing to learn how to do that better, of course, but I believe I have more than mastered the basics of responding to your posts. Maybe when you get back you can be more specific about your concerns regarding my responses.

    It would be helpful if you could actually address my responses, too. You know, the actual content. Try not to skip or ignore parts you find difficult or inconvenient. That's a bad habit you've fallen into.

    Emotions aren't bad, Jan. You're impoverishing yourself as a man if you deny your own emotions. It's not healthy. Lots of emotions are quite legitimate. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. Having emotions doesn't make you less than a "real man". That kind of bullshit stereotype has already harmed generations of emotionally-stunted men. You don't have to perpetuate it just because your religion, or your parents, or whoever, tells you that's how it should be.

    Cold, hard rationality is no less emotional than warm-hearted, well-intentioned rationality, Jan.

    Don't fall for the false dichotomy that rationality and emotionality are mutually exclusive. That's another line you don't need to buy, Jan.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    There are all sorts of issues with that statement Jan, and you're already skating on thin ice. You don't know what wegs might have witnessed, and you haven't bothered to ask her. You don't know if you are causing harm. You shouldn't be oblivious to that. Try to remember there's another human being on the other end of your computer screen.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    How could you hope to participate in a discussion about appropriate roles for men and women if you didn't know what gender equality means?

    If you were serious, then you'd be in a position where you don't even understand what you're arguing against. Which would make your insistence on your position ludicrous.

    If you were for real, you'd want to learn something new, rather than repetitively preaching to all and sundry how you think things ought to be (or, more accurately, passing the buck to your God and failing to take responsibility for your own views).

    I don't believe for a moment you're for real on claiming not to understand the notion of gender equality. I think you're trolling. And you have quite a record that tends to support that conclusion.
    You shouldn't use the word "natural order" in that context, for reasons I explained previously.

    A patriarchal rulebook written by sexist men is not, by any means, guaranteed to accurately reflect any semblance of a "natural order".

    Previously, you were provided with specific information on how the modern "nuclear family" is not "natural", in terms of being the typical environment in which children human children have been raised for hundreds of thousands of years. You didn't respond to any of that.

    Having dispensed with your errors about "natural orders" and the like, your question boils down to "Why are gender roles that are prescribed by the Bible misogynistic?" The answer to that question has already been given to you, insofar as your own opinions about appropriate gender roles for men and women reflect the ones prescribed in the bible. In a nutshell, the bible's prescription that men should rule over women and control them and limit their opportunities, is misogynistic.
     
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I wasn’t a witness to sexual abuse and I don’t accuse every man. Just you Jan, and others who view women’s place in society as you do.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page