Religion and women.

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    No.
    I think some women may not like what I say, but that does not mean I’m being misogynistic. If I were being misogynistic, it would have been pointed out ages ago.
    Because having a prejudice against a person can be rational, without hate, or ill intent. A misogynist hate the very fundamental aspect of women. It doesn’t matter whether they are good or bad people, young or old.
    I am being accused of being prejudice (I’ll use the nice term) against all women and girls, and the evidence is “dripping” through every single word I type. I am allegedly acting like a misogynist whether I think so or not. I would like a proper verification of the accusations. Is that too much to ask?
    All I’m asking my accuser is to be more detailed in her responses regarding those accusations, so I can at least defend myself. It seems she is reluctant, and now has people defending her accusations.
    I request it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,968
    It means what it says Sarkus, and I have posted the meaning a good few times.
    She said my posts are “dripping with misogyny”.
    Not my words.
    You can’t call someone a psychopath simply because they don’t show remorse over road kill.
    If I am being “prejudice” then my prejudice is a due to my misogyny, because I have been labelled a misogynist. She can’t get around this one.
    She already used “sexist”, so I assume she chose her words.
    But why not admit she made an error (if that’s what it was) and apologise.
    Or show, within the comments, where she has grounds for those accusations.
    Regarding your link. If a white person writes a poem, and in that poem he refers to using the “N” word with an “a”, not an “er” at the end. Do you think that person would be considered racist or not.
    How do you know it was intended as the bs watered-down version?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Not necessarily, unless you stick to your narrow definition. According to almost every other person and dictionary the definition of misogyny is wider than hatred, and encompasses mere prejudice. That you don't want to accept that, and discuss the accusation as intended rather than as you would prefer to interpret it is nothing but trolling.
    Now that you're (hopefully) starting to accept the "nice term", and thus stop asking them to provide examples of hatred in your posts, you may get somewhere. But until now you've simply deflected the accusation by refusing to even acknowledge the meaning intended, and instead only considered the unintended meaning. And you wonder why people consider you a troll?
    That should surely give you pause for thought, if others are willing to defend the accusation, that your posts have indeed displayed prejudice.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Yes, you have, but you refuse to accept the meaning that is "prejudice against women" etc. You only want to consider the meaning that suggests hatred.
    Yes, she did. And the intended meaning is "prejudice against women".
    Your prejudice is against women (that at least is the accusation) and prejudice against women is a definition of misogyny.
    Your prejudice is not because of your misogyny, rather your prejudice IS misogyny because it is directed at women (for being women).
    Similarly one's prejudice is not due to racism, but rather one's prejudice IS racism when directed at people of other races (for being other races).

    Your claim here (that your prejudice would be due to misogyny) would be like saying that one is obese because one is significantly overweight, when there is no cause/effect relationship but rather simply the same condition using different words. Similarly, when prejudice is against women, that can be labelled misogyny. No cause/effect relationship.

    I assume so. Like we all choose our words. Or do you have someone else choosing yours for you?
    Because she didn't, at least not in using a word that fits what she was accusing you of. She thinks you are prejudice against women. The term "misogyny" fits that description, as has been explained to you repeatedly.
    That's for her and those making/supporting the accusation to do. But if they are accusing you of something, and explain the definition they have intended by use of the word, you can't reject that accusation simply by claiming that the other definitions of the term don't apply to you. Do you not see how that is simply a red-herring on your part, and you constantly pushing it is tantamount to - if not well over the line of - trolling?
    Show me the poem, the intention of the author, etc.
    Perhaps because that was explained to be the case by the person who used the term. E.g. post #674:
    "You put women down in this thread, dismiss our comments because we’re women and gaslight. That looks like you have issues with women - you don’t know how to interact on a level of equity with women because you categorize responses from women as emotional ...discarding them.

    That looks like prejudice to me. That’s what misogyny also is - a prejudice towards women therefore you treat them with disregard right out of the gate.
    "
     
  8. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    If you don’t like being thought of as a misogynist, don’t post prejudicial comments about women. See? Easy. You’re welcome.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    billvon likes this.
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    *sigh*
    My metaphor about the psychopath stands.
    The prejudice described in the definition is based on hatred, aversion, and discrimination against women, because they are women.
    You can’t shift the goalposts because it suits you.
    In a misogynistic way.
    Hence the term “misogynist”.
    That is a pathological hatred of women because they are women.
    What other reason could there be for being prejudice against “women”?
    Hold on let me get my banjo to accompany this buck dancing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I don’t think I’m being prejudiced against women for being women, and I have stated that. I’ve also asked wegs to be more specific in her responses to my a request. If I am prejudiced against women, just for being women, I consider that a pathological hatred of women, as opposed to a light-hearted poke.
    A pointless remark Sarkus.
    “Misogynist”
    And has been explained to you and everyone else repeatedly, “misogyny” literally means Hatred of women and girls. So if I am prejudiced against women and girls, simply because they are women and girls, that is a pathological, irrational, hatred of women and girls, purely for being women and girls. You can’t get around it, no matter how you try to shift the goalposts.
    She used the word. I’m not implying that’s what she meant. She should be accountable if requested, to explain why she used it.
    Why are you defending her, if you are neutral (your implication)? She should stand on her own two feet and defend her accusations by pointing out the offending comments. Not just put up every quote I made, and then remark that they are “dripping in misogyny”
    That alone shows her intended use of the word in its literal sense.
    If that was the other way round, I would be hounded to show the evidence, and would probably get a ban for inciting hate speech. Now the shoe is on the other foot, it’s okay to call someone a misogynist because current society has watered its meaning.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Good point.
    I’m asking the same thing
    Ok. That’s the accusation.
    Now verify that accusation by showing how I put women down in this thread.
    You seem to think that it is okay to use an accusation of misogyny, as an explanation of the accusation. Weird.

    What about this accusation:

    Anyway, it is what it is. You’re likely a product of a patriarchal upbringing where your dad put your mom down - maybe overtly, maybe subtly. Misogyny and sexism are learned behaviors.

    Patriarchal upbringing equates to mom being put down by dad, and I’m a misogynist because I learned it off dad, who learned off grandad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The hypocrisy is off the charts in place.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You’re original description was misogynist.
    Now that it has been explained to you that misogynistic prejudice is the result of a pathological hatred toward women, hence the term “misogyny”, are you going to verify your claim, or apologise for making a false accusation?
     
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Perhaps my rephrasing will help, not sure. But, per your many posts on this topic, you seem to justify your misogynistic opinions. If you don’t believe they’re designed to insult women and categorize women as inferior to men, that doesn’t mean that your posts aren’t insulting. You simply see your point of view as correct, and use the Bible to justify it. As though insulting women is somehow “God’s will.”

    I’m concerned that you may have such engrained beliefs about women that you’re not able to objectively see what we’re pointing out to you. Idk, would that be considered pathological?
     
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    • Please do not insult other members.
    wegs, don't give two fucks what Jan says. He's a moron.

    I may get a warning or something for this, but it's the truth.
     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You are assuming I am being misogynistic, and basing your judgement on those assumptions as far as I can tell. You have yet to show that my intention, because you don’t seem able to show a “prejudiced” comment, was misogynistic, simply by showing parts of my comments that reflect this. Otherwise your accusation is based on what you feel, not in fact, or explanation.
    I still don’t know what you are specifically referring to. The model I think is the best model for raising a functional family, is not an intentional insult to anyone. If you take offence to it, then you need to show why, or any other part of what I said. You seem to have the idea that it is just universally accepted that the biblical view is misogynistic by design, so there’s no need to go down that road. But that is not the case.
    I don’t know what this even means or how it pertains to this discussion. You’re making vast assumptions which are now spiralling as you try to justify your baseless accusations.
    But you’re not concerned enough to have a discussion, to see if your concerns are warranted?
    You will simply believe your assumptions because you are right, even if you’re wrong.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Let’s see!
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    What has already be shown elsewhere countless times?

    How daft are you?
     
    wegs likes this.
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    What has been shown countless times is not what I’m asking for
     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    First, you can start by apologizing for being a moron.
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    No, the prejudice is not necessarily based on hatred. Maybe the original definition of misogynist was all about hatred of women, but that is no longer the case. Definitions do shift, do change to encapsulate new meanings. Misogynst has come to also be regarded more synonymous with sexist, and chauvinist, as well as meaning hatred toward women.
    Misogynst as in "prejudice against women", no hatred necessary, just prejudice against women.

    But still, despite showing you that you are fallaciously arguing against what you think the definition to be rather than what the intended meaning was, you continue that approach. For Pete's sake, just accept the intended use of the word and deal with that usage. Can you do that? Are you capable?
    Why do you need to put "women" in quotes?
    Has anyone said that you have a pathological hatred of women? Some prejudices are simply ingrained in us due to insitutional sexism, upbringing, and a whole raft of other causes, many of which we may not even be aware of. And a prejudice against women is, these days, often described as misogyny. No hatred required.
    Most of your comments in this regard have been to ask where you are displaying a hatred of women, not simply prejudice. And when you continue to do that you are simply trolling, for reasons given.
    Then that is your misunderstanding of how prejudice can arise, and what it means for something to be pathological.
    Not surprising given that it was in response to your pointless comment that you assumed she chose her words. If I have helped highlight the pointless nature of your comment, then my work is done in this respect.
    That is indeed the word she used. It is a valid word to use these days to describe someone who is prejudice against women.

    Look, if you want to continue to dispute the intended meaning of the word, perhaps take that to the Linguistics thread. Otherwise, just deal with the intended meaning (not the meaning you want to have been intended) and stop trolling.
    So now you're going down the fallacious argument of looking at etymology again, rather than actual common usage? It's called the etymological fallacy. You should look it up and try to stop doing it, as this is not the first example of you wasting people's time with it.
    There is so much wrong with this I honestly don't know where to start.

    1. Noone is prejudice against anything (X) simply because that thing is what it is. There is always going to be underlying reasoning for it, whether due to ignorance, experience, both etc. Or do you really think someone can wake up one day and find themselves prejudice against X with no other reason whatsoever??
    2. Noone is claiming you are prejudice against women simply because they are women. Those who have accused you have probably asked you why you are.
    3. You again slip in the word hatred when prejudice need not involve hatred at all. Even if there was no reason for prejudice, hatred might simply not come into it.
    4. It's ironic that you don't want others to use possible definitions that don't suit your case, that you want to use literal meanings, and then you describe something as "pathological" while not using its literal meaning ("relating to disease"). So you think misogyny is a disease?

    She did. Hence the post of hers I've already quoted previously. That quite clearly sets out what she meant by it (and that is an increasingly common usage). So you no longer have to imply anything about what she meant: she has explicitly detailed what she meant. Deal with it. As said, if you want to dispute the meaning of the word she used, prehaps take it to the Linguistics thread rather than continue to troll by deliberately using a meaning you know was not intended.
    I am defending her use of the term, not the accusation itself.
    She should, as should everyone else who is accusing you. And they're doing it. Only you're refusing to engage because you are trolling about a different meaning to the one intended.
    No, it really doesn't.
    Try it and find out instead of bitching. The fact that a number of people consider your comments to show prejudice toward women, perhaps engage with them on that rather than trying to argue against a meaning of the word that wasn't intended? Ask them why they think the passage they quote shows what they think it does, don't just say words to the effect of "there's no hatred there, so it can't be misogyny" when there was no accusation of hatred, just of prejudice.
    Nothing to do with the shoe being on the other foot: society moves on and in this day and age the word has come to mean prejudice against women, rather than necessarily hatred toward.
    If you're asking for intention of the word as used in the accusation - that has been provided to you, as already shown.
    Don't be dishonest, Jan. This post from wegs was posted to show how she had explained her usage of the word misogynist. i.e. she was equating misogyny with the prejudice toward women she thinks you have shown. At no point was this quoted as an example of evidence of that misogynt. So please don't be dishonest.
    Not really an accusation, more a theory. But how is the quote an example of hyporcisy?
     
    wegs likes this.
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Thanks, Sarkus - well said.

    I think it’s obvious at least to me at this point, that Jan doesn’t understand his misogyny. To him, his statement that “men who are emotional are like women,” is normal. Dismissing women’s comments as emotional therefore irrational, is normal. He sees nothing wrong with his comments which could be why he keeps asking for proof. But the proof is obvious to all of us who don’t generalize and marginalize people based on gender.

    He is not capable of self-reflecting because he sees nothing wrong with his tone, or attitudes towards women. He claims that no one has ever called him a misogynist which is likely true, if they too have been brainwashed into believing that men are innately logical and women simply display too much emotion to be decent leaders.

    Harvey Weinstein is incarcerated as we speak, likely still denying that he did anything wrong. I don’t liken Jan to him but neither guy is capable of self-reflection because they see nothing wrong with their attitudes towards women. Weinstein is a sociopath though whereas Jan (imo) is simply willfully ignorant.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Moderator note: Jan Ardena has been warned for trolling.

    Clearly, a number of different posters have provided the "evidence" Jan asks for over and over again, along with careful explanations and definitions. This has been done by the following people, at least: wegs, Bells, James R, Sarkus.

    To ignore the substance of so many responses, only to repeat the same inane question over and over, is the act of a troll.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Good advice.

    Unfortunately, that isn't the case. He's a dishonest troll, not a moron.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Of course. No one has claimed that you are intentionally insulting anyone. You have merely stated your belief that men and women should have different roles - men should be the providers, women should be the caregivers. You really believe that. That is also prejudice against women. (And men, if you like.) It doesn't mean you are being intentionally insulting, it just means you are being misogynistic.
    If the Biblical view assigns men and women to specific roles per your claims, then yes, it is misogynistic. (Many people do not believe that, of course. But you do.)
    It's not her assumptions that demonstrate she is right. It is your own words. You have tried to "walk them back" several times now, but they are right there in black and white.

    If, instead of trying to weasel out of what you said, you were able to say "OK maybe I was wrong" that would go a long way to demonstrating that you're able to overcome that trait. But I don't think your ego would allow you to do that. Which is too bad.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    wegs:

    I think you're being far too generous.

    Jan understands his misogyny very well. He's not a moron. His sexist views have been highlighted by many different people in this thread, who have been kind enough to walk him through what sexism is in exquisite detail. Personally, I think he already knew what sexism was and he knows that misogyny and sexism are in many respects synonymous, both motivated by the same kinds of beliefs.

    Jan can't honestly claim that he doesn't understand why his opinions regarding women are sexist. He knows that. That is why he is employing a standard tactic of his, trying to divert the discussion away from the content of his views and the reasons he holds them (this thread is about "Religion and women", remember) to a pointless time-waster discussion in which he tries to redefine words to suit himself.

    Ultimately, it again comes back to a lack of courage on Jan's part. When he found out that he was badly out of step with enlightened modern society in terms of his views on women, he ceased trying to stand up for the views themselves. Instead, he cast around for a way to try to weasel out of owning his own opinions, and trying to divert attention onto somebody else (you) whom he tried to paint as not knowing the "correct" meaning of a word. (For Jan, the "correct" meaning is always the one that best suits his purposes at the time.)

    I'm inclined to agree. It's been years since I first asked him to try to work out for himself how he can just "magically know" that things are true, but there's no evidence he has ever put any thought into that. That is possibly one reason why his views on women are so screwed up. He probably thinks he "just knows" the "proper" place for women, and all that sexist rubbish.

    You're completely right that, whatever the reasons, Jan sees nothing wrong in his attitudes to women. On the matter of tone, Jan is acutely aware of his tone at all times. It is calculated, deliberate, always. He is a troll, first and foremost.

    I think it is very likely that Jan is socially isolated from the mainstream community. It seems he is part of a cult, effectively, or at least used to be. His misogynist attitudes might very well be commonplace among his male associates.
    I agree, with emphasis on "willfully". Jan puts a lot of time and effort into being ignorant, or at least into appearing ignorant, when it is convenient for him.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page