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
    It seems like you want to behave like a misogynist without being called one.
     
    billvon likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    "Words mean things" is an unverified claim? Wow!
    So since you have a history of dishonesty I did just that. This is the page that is returned when you look up "misogyny" on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

    And this is the definition on that page:

    "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women"

    Did you think that no one would check, and you'd get away with that lie?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,968
    I put that in italics to show the difference.
    Prejudice against women, not against a woman.
    One can be reasonably prejudiced against a woman, but not against all women. That is more of a pathological aversion. So even if she downplays it to “prejudice” within the misogynistic sense, it still implies an irrational hatred of women, simply because they are women. Where is the evidence of that?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,968
    Another unverified claim wegs.
    I’m trying to strike up an interesting discussion, or debate.
    What else are we here for?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Your posts are the verification. What’s funny about this “debate,” is that you consider your responses ...”logical.”
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Why shouldn’t I?
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Why are they?
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    mi·sog·y·ny

    nound

    dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

    "she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"

    Definitions from Oxford Languages

    Not that you really need but here another dictionary definition. I added the 2 highlights

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I'm gonna take a page out of James' book ...you're trolling.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Again, no. No one accused you of hating women (or a woman.) Your posts simply indicate that you hold a prejudice* against them. Hence the misogyny.

    (* - let me know if you need a definition of that as well.)
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    wegs:

    I was almost finished writing this yesterday, but had to go off and do other things. So here it is, a day later.
    Jan has always tried to present as small a target as possible on this forum. He won't ever come straight out and say what his religious background is, or what its fundamental beliefs are, or which parts of it he accepts and which parts he rejects. It is a standard ploy with him to post something provocative from a "scripture" or elsewhere, then gradually back away from it as the idea comes under fire, claiming that he didn't really mean what he wrote, or that his words don't really mean what they obviously mean, or that he doesn't really support the whole of the scripture, or - the most common one - that nobody else him is able to understand what God really wants. Moreover, Jan asserts that he has magical knowledge of God and what God wants - knowledge that comes from no discernable source but makes it so that Jan "just knows" things, which he dishonestly refers to as "natural" things. His whole nuclear family with father as the patriarch schtick in this thread is justified by him, at the lowest level, as something he "just knows" is right and good, because it is his God's "natural" way.

    Humanism doesn't have a dogma, as such. It just argues logically for how humans ought to act once we have decided that things like human wellbeing are valuable. There are various writings that many humanists often reference, but there's no defined "canon" of humanism, with certain texts judged as being "definitive" of it. Personally, I even have some disagreements with the various versions of the "Humanism manifesto" which, when it comes down to it, is just one more attempt to try to codify its tenets.

    Maybe. I think we'd need to delve into some specifics before I'd be able to either agree or disagree with you.

    It's not uncommon for non-atheists to think that Dawkins is some kind of guru of atheism, or similar. Personally speaking, again, I agree with a lot of things Dawkins has said and written, but I also think he has said and written some stupid things from time to time. And I've met the man.

    There's no priesthood of atheism. There is no Pope of atheism. Ideas stand or fall on their merits, ultimately, although personalities are often persuasive, too. Atheists are human beings, after all.

    Yes, I've read it, cover to cover - something I only got around to after I became an atheist. Few Christians ever read the bible in full.

    It has been a while since I read it. Probably the impression of it that sticks with me the most is the sheer repetitiveness of it. The main message of the bible, if it has one is: make sure you worship the correct God (Yahweh). Don't ever let anybody lead you astray by telling you about other gods, or Yahweh will get very mad indeed. Just do what Yahweh says and everything will be just fine.

    Another strong impression I got was that a lot of effort was been put into the New Testament to make sure that the Jesus story "matched" with the various prophecies and family trees in the Old Testament. I guess the aim there was to legitimise Jesus as a true descendent of David, and hence of all the other Jewish patriarchs, stretching back to Adam and Eve, Abraham and so on, which would give his words more authority among the Jews.

    The bible is also really repetitive in that later books just take whole slabs from earlier books and copy them, almost verbatim in places, never clearly distinguishing between the "new" parts that were added in by later authors and the older parts copied across from older traditional texts. As a scholarly work, the bible really shows its age. It has no clear referencing or attribution. It's sort of cobbled together. One would expect it to be more coherent, given than its contents are a carefully curated selection from many available sources. I guess the compilers wanted to make sure they hammered home some messages, even at the expense of contradiction and lack of coherency in other messages.

    One thing is certain when you read the bible: it is a thoroughly human work, not the work of any god. The full set of human foibles is on display in it. It is also, in retrospect, very much a book of its time. Its preoccupations and assumptions are entirely rooted in the world of ancient Israel.

    Thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure how deserving I am of it. I'm always second-guessing myself when it comes to trying to analyse people, but I'm also very well aware that some aspects of people are highly resistant to "logical" analysis. Everybody has an inner life that is only visible to other people in part. We are all very much products of our upbringing and our experience (though biology is also much more important that it is usually given credit for). Nevertheless, there is a lot we can learn about people just from watching what they say and what they do. If you know somebody long enough and pay attention you can learn what motivates them, what is the core of their identity, and more.

    All that said, I wouldn't consider myself any sort of expert in people analysis (or in people skills). I have been around long enough to learn a few things, but I generally muddle along like the rest of us do.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    There have been no hissy fits from me, as you know.

    I'm merely holding you to account. You cannot honestly pretend that the sexist nature of your views has not been explained to you, with examples and carefully explained justifications. So, I am calling out your dishonesty and your evasion.

    And might I say, Jan, you're sounding a bit ... emotional. Better watch out, or you might turn into a lady man! Ooh err.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Are you saying your sexism - or misogyny, if that's what you want to call it - comes from the bible? How interesting.

    I think you're right, though. If the bible is sexist/misogynist, then that would make God Sexist/Misogynist-in-Chief, I guess. Assuming that the bible is the Word of God, of course.

    Is that a mea culpa, Jan?

    Are you telling us that your prejudice regarding women doesn't amount to hatred of women, but is a milder form of sexism?

    Does that excuse you, then?

    Yes. You gave the example of a woman asking "Does my bum look big in this dress?", then getting upset regardless of whether the answer is "yes" or "no".

    Your implication was that no man would ever ask that kind of question, by which you mean that no man would ever "emotionally blackmail" a woman (or another man).

    Of course, you're wrong. That kind of thing happens all the time.

    Ergo, your "example" that is supposed to show that women are "more emotional" than men is shit. And the beliefs that underpin that whole debarcle are sexist.

    Are you ready to own your sexism yet, Jan?
    Standard practice with you.

    You do not "say" it directly, but everything in what you do "say" implies it.

    Is it "rational" to ask "Does my bum look big in this dress?" if you're planning on getting upset no matter what answer comes back?

    Woah! Hold the horses. Let's think before we answer. Let's suppose that the desire is for an accurate answer to the question. In that case, would it be rational if you got upset about an objective answer that you asked for? On the other hand, let's suppose that the desire is to start an argument. Or let's suppose that the desire is to confirm one's own judgment (to confirm that "I'm too fat" or "My boyfriend can't be trusted"). Is it rational then?

    As we can see, the mere presence of emotion in a scenario does nothing to tell us whether it is rational or irrational, on its own. To think otherwise is to make a mistake. Similarly, it is a mistake to assume that emotions are "bad" and must necessarily motivate irrational action.

    But the sexist part is to assume that only women have this "fault", and to hold onto the fantasy that men are somehow perfectly rational beings that lack it.
    Repeating your sexist tropes doesn't make them any more persuasive.

    Which? The men or the women?

    There aren't "good people on both sides" of sexism, Jan.

    No. You received warnings for trolling and for knowingly telling lies.

    Don't knowingly tell lies, Jan!
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan is telling lies again.

    Jan knows that I used to be a Christian - a believer in God. As such, I comprehended as much about God as Jan thinks he does in his current state.

    These days, of course, I comprehend far more about God than I ever did when I was a young Christian. That's why I'm an atheist now.
    How strange.

    What are you looking for in the reading, Jan? An .... emotional account, rather than an intellectual one? Heaven forbid! You'd be a girly man!
    No. I worked it out. It's all good.

    Fact is, though, I'm right: you don't have the guts to own your own religion.
    Integrity and honesty are always personal.
    Maybe. Maybe not. Does it make any meaningful difference?

    It doesn't matter to anything you post here what your religion is, or whether I have it right or wrong, according to what you just wrote.

    Are you one of the guys that hangs around railway stations chanting "Hare Krishna. Hare. Hare", handing out pamphlets? Did you used to be?

    Of course you think the Christians have it wrong about God. All religionists believe the other religions are mistaken!
    Don't tell lies, Jan!

    What Jan is saying here is that his God's rules are not rational.

    Rational people - even (ooh err) atheists - can comprehend reasons that are rational, regardless of any faith-based beliefs they might also hold.

    If there really are beliefs that nobody can comprehend unless they also hold a particular faith-based position, then those beliefs are necessarily irrational and subjective.

    To summarise, Jan is essentially making the the argument that theists who agree with his sexist views are irrational.

    (Hang on, he may have a point!)
    If you do that, you'll realise that rape is okay as long as the rapist pays the dowry and marries his victim.

    Atheists have the annoying habit of reading the words that have been written and assuming they were intended to have more or less the meaning they appear to have. That's what gets Jan all riled up.

    It is almost comical that Jan mentions context. If we look at, say, Exodus chapter 21 in the bible, Jan is urging us to look at that chapter in the context of the rest of Exodus, and presumably we are also to look at Exodus in the context of the rest of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament in the context of the bible overall, and so on. When we do any of those things, it simply shows that Exodus 21 is part of a larger set of works that contain much that is sexist, racist, homophobic, discriminatory, xenophobic, bigoted, etc. etc., along with some other stuff which is unremarkable, and some other stuff that is admirable.

    The bible has been thoroughly studied "in context" both by atheists and theists. Honest scholars, by the way, tend to reach the same kinds of conclusions about it and its "context", regardless of whether they are atheist or theist. By and large, they also tend to agree on the best translation and the intended meaning of the text.

    If the bible is God's book, then God certainly condones slavery, rape and murder, at least in some documented situations (slavery is generally tolerated and accepted as par for the course by this God).

    Clearly, not all those who believe in God follow the bible, or even necessarily believe the bible is God's Word.

    In my experience, though, there are a lot of Christians out there - many of whom haven't read the bible - who say they believe it all to be God's Word, and that God's rules (even the Old Testament ones) should be followed. I've heard some of them make extravagant arguments in defense of slavery in the bible, for instance. Some of them argue that slavery was justifiable in the historical context of the bible. Some of them go further and claim that biblical slavery is still justifiable today. Some, but not all, make elaborate (and unsustainable) arguments that the bible isn't even talking about slavery (i.e. owning people as property), but some kind of "voluntary" servitude.

    The thing is, some Christians think that they are obliged to try to defend slavery in the bible, because they believe their God and their religion requires them to do that. Those people have some problems.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Sweet Joseph, Mary, Jesus..

    This is like watching a bar crash in slow motion..

    If you want a prime example of why you come across like a misogynist, this post is a prime example.

    Misogyny encompasses various forms of behaviour and beliefs and acts, I might add.

    The abject sexism you display fits the bill.

    You have set expectations of the roles of men and women in society. Women are prone to emotional displays, whereas men have only set periods in their lives where they may show emotion, otherwise, they have to be something that you haven't even defined yet.. Just, I presume, not act like women by showing their emotions perhaps...?

    Ironically, this push for masculinity, this expectation of how men should behave, should not show their emotions, should not be "emotional", is a factor of increased male suicide.

    The traditional male gender-role, as defined and reinforced within the public realm, is characterised by attributes such as striving for power and dominance, aggressiveness, courage, independency, efficiency, rationality, competitiveness, success, activity, control and invulnerability. The male gender-role in Western cultures implies not perceiving or admitting anxiety, problems and burdens which might develop under the conditions of danger, difficulties and threats. Traditionally, anger, aggressiveness and hostility are socially accepted as the male code of expressiveness. (p. 3)

    These characteristics can lead to a constant fear of failure, pressure to meet expectations, and suppression of stress (Moller-Leimkuhler, 2003). Men may also feel inhibited from seeking help, as this is associated with a loss of control and status (Moller-Leimkuhler, 2003). Indeed, emotional disclosure may be perceived to be a feminine/ homosexual type of behaviour (Cleary, 2005). An Irish study, where 52 men aged 18 to 30 years were interviewed after a suicide attempt, revealed non-disclosure to be the key issue in examining the pathways towards male suicidal action (Cleary, 2005). More than two-thirds of these participants never disclosed emotional matters and coped with their distress by frequently consuming alcohol and other drugs. However, these behaviours seemed to increase their fear and anxiety which widened the gap between their projected and actual selves. In addition, a few Australian papers have indicated the terminal effects of hegemonic masculinity (which indicates the men’s dominance), especially in the context of rural male suicides (Alston, 2012; Bourke, 2003; River and Fisher, 2010).

    Your beliefs, pre-conceived notions, stereotypes and ideology, is harmful.

    Not just to women. But to men as well.

    You accuse Wegs of somehow or other turning to "attack mode".. Meanwhile you have made offensively disparaging and dismissive comments about and to others in this thread. Wegs hasn't attacked you. You, on the other hand, attacked her by persisting in asking her the same questions over and over again, while ignoring each and every single one of her answers while telling her that she's just being emotional.

    She is not.

    You keep asking this question in various forms:

    A person who does not "hate women and girls" would not come out with comments like this:

    I believe women tend to be more emotional than men, and I gave an example of what I mean. I did not say that women are emotion and therefore irrational, as you imply.
    When men act emotional, they act like women, not like men, and I’m not talking about vulnerability, or crying. I’m talking about what it does their logic.

    A person who does not see women as their equal, who views women so differently and so negatively, who has these pre-conceived notions of how women should behave and be, who values women based on their purity (for their progeny - of all things), who reminds us that God put the first woman on earth to serve Adam, and so on and so forth, would come out with sexist drivel like what I just quoted from you. So what does that tell you, Jan?

    You love women, but you dismiss and disrespect us by your stereotyping.. Is that how you show like and love and appreciation?

    And if you want a prime example of someone being overly emotional and irrational, here is one:

     
  19. 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!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    And this tactic, of deliberately selecting a different meaning to the one intended by the one who used the word, is not new with Jan. Some may recall that he spent page after page of at least one other thread trying to convince people that the meaning of the word "atheist", when used by others, was as he wanted it to be, rather than the intended meaning of the word.
    So despite being told what meaning was intended, you simply revert to claiming it means what you thinks it means, and argue against that meaning instead of the meaning that you have been told was intended? Having been told that it is being used as meaning "prejudice" you don't look to counter the accusation that you are prejudice, but instead continue to raise dispute an accusation that noone has made against you?

    And just to clarify: misogynist these days can mean simply prejudice against, and not necessarily hatred of, women. The term misogyny has become, in many cases, synonymous with sexism and chauvinism.

    "Some dictionaries have taken note. William Safire, the New York Times columnist who wrote for decades about the texture of our language, noted in 2008 that the Oxford English Dictionary had expanded its definition by 2002 to include “prejudice against women.” “Sexist and misogynist are now in some respects synonymous,” he wrote. “Because sexist has been so widely used, apparently misogynist — in the same sense of ‘prejudice’ rather than ‘hatred’ — now carries more force with those who are familiar with the word.”" - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/style/misogyny-women-history-photographs.html

    So, Jan, I suggest you deal with the meaning of the word as intended. You have been told repeatedly how it was intended. To continue arguing the other meaning is nothing but trolling.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    What is not even in the same ball park? You don't think your attitude toward women fits the description of being prejudice? Why do you think it is "not even in the same ball park"? Because it is not a matter of race or ethnicity? Because you don't feel you have a negative attitude toward women?
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    The magniloquence is lacking in this one

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Don't explain its meaning, he will try to change it

    Do not attempt to change his numptyness

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    • Do not troll. The question has already been answered many times by many different people.
    A page?
    Do asking to verify your insulting accusation is “trolling”?
    I am requesting you to show precisely where I have shown myself to be a misogynist, a person who has hatred, aversion, prejudice, against women, because they are women. Or please apologise.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page