Religion and women.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
- Status
You'd probably think so. But on environmental boards I am called a right winger for my support of nuclear power. Here I am called a Trump enabler by some of the farther right wing people. In reality I am registered as an independent and vote for both democrats and republicans.
Congrats on a perfectly rorschach post.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
So no comments upon my posts and links nor upon Micks...says everything really.
Goodbye..again.
alex
Goodbye..again.
alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Many a true word made in jest
Are you saying that man oppressed and enslaved women due to the fact that they are able to grow babies? Do you have any idea how silly, prejudice incomplete that sounds?
I doubt that you will obtain any meaningful information in that spoonfed way. You have to listen to what people say.
I assume you know if you are a racist or not. So if someone is branding you a racist because you accept the truth of a situation, then either that person is ignorant, or devisive.
Abuse of all types is rampant in the black community, but it does not mean that black people are abusive.
You should also use you your intelligence to understand that you are basing your own devisiveness with the same lack of rationality.
A person, as far as you know, is a Christian because they say they are Christian. In 30 seconds time I shall become a Christian..
...28...29...I am now a Christian, because I have said it. In 30 seconds time I am going to cease being a Christian...
28... 29...I am no longer a Christian.
I think I may give Islam a try for 3.42mins tomorrow, as it could be argued that I didn’t give Christianity enough time.
Meaning if you attempt to tell the truth, you will be chastised. That mindset is averse to he truth, as it illuminates there true intentions.
Now because if Donald Trump, their hand has been forced, and we can see their intention.
You are trying to give the impression that Christianity is responsible for those professed Christians who abuse their wives.
And then point to biblical verses to try and back up that claim, therefore Christianity is evil, therefore those who are Christians are evil. That’s very naughty of you.
You are mistaken. They are constantly thinking. For one, they have to constantly cover up their lies and intentions. It is the conservatives who lack thinking. A lot of them are now wondering, what’s happening. It didn’t occur to them that fellow Americans could be so evil. “After all we are all bound by a constitution”, and God is in charge of these here US of A. Now they are Hoping God and Jesus will come and save them.
But if you can see the evil, and the hypocrisy. Why do you indulge in their mindset of demonisation? Don’t you think, in your new woke from political evil self, you would look at all the other aspects of your worldview that was shielded from your intelligence, such as what you are peddling now?
A lot of pedofiles take jobs as teachers. Does that mean “teachers” are bad? I will assume you don’t.
So why accept that misogyny is a Christian, or religious problem? Can you not see that you victimise Christian men who love their wives, and would never harm even a hair on her head, because of Christianity.
I would give you more respect if you were being honest. But you’re being just like those you despise.
Hope you can get out and about soon mate.
I’m quite into Virtual Reality via headset (oculus).
Maybe you should invest. You can set up events and give conferences on your photography as an example. Look into it, it inexpensive, but allows a certain amount of freedom and mobility, albeit virtual.
I could actually meet up with you, and we could hangout, while you are confined in the other virtual world we call reality
Wegs, as a woman do you think you would accept a man who acted as though men and women were equal?
What do you mean by "equal" in this question?
Equal as in: everything a man can physically do a woman can also do just as well, and vice versa?
Or equal as in: enjoy the same rights, resources, opportunities, and protections?
Or something else?
As in no distinction, despite bodily ones
Equal meaning that men and women have equal, intrinsic value as human beings? Then, yes.
Equal doesn’t mean identical in traits and characteristics. Equal doesn’t mean mirrored images of one another. No two people, regardless of gender, have identical capabilities and interests. That doesn’t mean one or the other is inferior, in terms of human worth. It just means they’re different.
And those differences and capabilities don’t diminish or exalt an individual’s intrinsic value. You don’t have more value than me in society because you’re a man, iow.
Last edited:
A Ford Focus has the same “instrinsic value” as a Bentley as they are “cars”. But they are not equal (not that I am comparing humans to cars).
Do you believe that there are different roles naturally prescribed to men, and the same for women? Or do you think “men’s role” is merely a human construct, and in reality, there are no designated roles?
Would you prefer your husband, or boyfriend not to view you in anyway, at any time as a sex object, because you feel it undermines your personhood?
Men don’t grow babies (in the natural way), so women have more value in that sense.
But I am talking from a natural perspective, not a societal one.
Do you think it is okay for men to be emotional (like women)?
So, what are you comparing in this analogy?
I’ll come back to this later.
Is that how you see a woman’s “role” in a relationship? To be a “sex object?” Isn’t sex to be enjoyed and shared as a partnership?
Not at all. Where did you get that idea?
If the purpose of the car is to get someone to and from work economically, a Ford Focus is an excellent car and a Bentley is a terrible one for the task. In that instance the Focus has far more intrinsic value.
Of course. Childbirth is purely the province of women; generation of male gametes is purely the province of men. For everything else, though, they choose their own roles.
Sex is biological; gender and gender roles are artificial constructs created by society.
Jan, what is the point you're trying to make?
What is it that you believe in this regard?
Yes, there are there physical differences between the sexes (including reproductive), so in that regard they are not physically equal: men naturally tend toward being stronger, and faster, for example.
So what do such differences lead you to conclude?
Do you believe, for example, that, other than roles specific to reproduction, there are natural roles for men, and natural roles for women?
Do you also believe, for example, that it is not okay "for men to be emotional (like women)".
What is it that you believe in this regard?
Yes, there are there physical differences between the sexes (including reproductive), so in that regard they are not physically equal: men naturally tend toward being stronger, and faster, for example.
So what do such differences lead you to conclude?
Do you believe, for example, that, other than roles specific to reproduction, there are natural roles for men, and natural roles for women?
Do you also believe, for example, that it is not okay "for men to be emotional (like women)".
But, men are just as needed in helping to ''create'' life, as women. Yes, a woman's body is responsible for pregnancy, but I don't see her value as above a man, based on this biological trait. I see their value as equal, albeit their biological functions are different.
Emotional ups and downs can be derived from hormonal differences, but men can be every bit as emotional as women, in different ways perhaps. Regardless of what *I* think, the idea that only women get ''emotional'' is largely a social construct, similarly to ''real men shouldn't cry.'' If you're at a funeral, aching over the loss of a loved one, would you exhibit emotion? Would you cry? Or would you feel ''less than'' a man for doing so?
Sexism in our society (imo) stems from men who pigeon-hole women into certain roles, because they feel threatened as men, if women desire to follow pursuits that have traditionally been male dominated roles. I do think there are differences between masculinity and femininity, but those differences shouldn't define contributions to society, between genders. Having said that, I don't (personally) believe that one's contributions to society determine his/her worth. That too is a societal construct. Example being, Jeff Bezos is a billionaire and Founder of Amazon - does he have more worth than say a man who is a ''starving artist''? Value isn't something we gain through the roles we perform, it's who we are. If that weren't the case, where would the striving end? (Not that we shouldn't strive in life to pursue dreams, etc but hopefully, you know what I mean.)
What are your thoughts?
Yes.
- Status