Religion and women.

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

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

    Jan Ardena:

    I notice that you're ignoring all my posts, dishonest hack that you are. It doesn't much matter, because there are plenty of other people who will read this, note your lack of response, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

    Right. What makes you sexist is your attitudes to women, not their not liking what you say. That was pointed out ages ago, as you know.
    You haven't given any example to try to make your case for that. Prejudice means literally that you "pre-judge", before you have appropriate data.

    That would be sufficient, but it isn't necessary, to make somebody a misogynist. This has been explained to you in detail many times now.

    Your constant attempts to mansplain to the women here, and your attempts to exert control over them, are sexist too. Just so you know.

    You ought to learn to stop trying to talk over women. Try listening to them.

    Are you apologising for being a psychopath now, Jan? You know nobody has accused you of that, right?
    Your sexist attitudes might be due to a deep-seated hatred of women, or they might just be attitudes indoctrinated into you in your upbringing or by your religion, or they might be a choice you make for other reasons.

    While it might be interesting to explore the reasons for your sexist opinions, they won't change the fact of your sexism itself.
    Why are you so keen to explore ways in which you might be able to push against boundaries of social approbation without crossing them?

    If you're a white person, Jan, the best advice is: don't use the "N" word. Is that so hard?
    I've suggested a few other reasons just above.

    You need to realise, however, that hatred of women is there in the background, in all those other cases, too.

    For instance, if your religion holds that women are "less" than men, and it promotes the oppression of women (e.g. by restricting them to certain prescribed roles, such as "rearing progeny"), then behind that there is sure to be a male writer (or writers) who hated women, I assure you.

    If you think women should be oppressed because your religion demands it, then you're buying into a kind of hatred-by-proxy. Understand?
    Of course you are prejudiced against women for being women, Jan. Don't be silly! That's what sexism is.

    You're not saying "Anybody can head the family". You're saying "Only men can head the family, because women are too emotional to do it." In other words, you're prejudiced against women "heading" families because they are women.

    You can't honestly fail to recognise your own prejudice. Not this far into this thread.

    Stop being a dishonest hack, Jan! It really is such a bad look, and a terrible advertisement for your religion as well, I might mention.

    Ask yourself: Is this what Krishna wants you to do?
    Sexism is rooted in hatred of women. Understand: you can't believe women are less than men without being hateful.

    Did somebody hit a nerve there, Jan? On the right track? I see you added your nervous tic, which is always a giveaway.

    Tell us what your Dad taught you about women, Jan. Let's see if we can get to the root of your problems.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    My prediction:

    Jan will not reply to the rest of this post, only that paragraph. And he will say "I never wrote those exact words! YOU ARE LYING!"
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Just a reminder from our site rules. It pays to re-read them every now and then.

    Our site rules say "Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty."

    We have specific rules regarding trolling. Here are some typical behaviours of trolls:
    • Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
    • Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
    • Never attempting to justify their position.
    • Demanding evidence from others while offering none in return.
    • Vanishing when their bluff is called, only to reappear in a different thread arguing the same point.
    • Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I don't think he'll reply to any of it.

    I think he'll complain that I'm out to ban him, and use that an excuse to withdraw from this thread. Then, after a break, he'll be up to his old tricks in some other thread.

    Jan always avoids directly addressing all difficult questions. He ticks off every one of the items on the troll checklist above, in almost every thread he participates in.

    Maybe he used to be better than this, or maybe it just took me a while to catch onto his tricks. When he first came here, he seemed a little more honest, willing to exchange ideas and respond to counter-arguments. Over time, though, I think he found that atheist ideas were a little too confronting for him; truth be told I think he might have felt they were undermining his faith-based belief system. But his religious indoctrination kicked in and he stopped honestly engaging with the content of arguments put to him. Instead, he developed a go-to set of reflexive, pedantic ego-protection mechanisms we've seen in their mature form on display in this thread. These days, his answer to all arguments that don't suit him is essentially that nobody can know God like Jan knows him, so nobody can have anything useful to teach him. Since that isn't a very compelling argument for anybody else, Jan mostly only pulls it out these days when he feels he needs to assert his authority. The rest of the time, he just trolls. Anti-atheism has become a kind of part-time hobby crusade for him, too, even though he hasn't come up with any new arguments against atheism for years, now.
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Had Jan on Iggy since his god IS days

    What happened to that Jan?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    That was late-phase Jan. He hasn't changed since then.
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    It is if you are prejudiced against women for being women.
    There is only one type of definition. Look it up in the dictionary.
    But that’s not what it means.
    1 A sexists or chauvinist does not discriminate against all women because they are women.
    2 She didn’t say I was sexist or chauvinist. She said I was a misogynist.
    I know what the definition is, and so do you.
    There is no intended meaning.
    If she used it incorrectly, that is for her to put right, not for you to assume she meant it in an incorrect way.
    So you get the difference between ‘ woman’ ‘some women’, and ‘all women for being women’
    Yes. I have been called a misogynist, where it states hatred, aversion, and discrimination against all women for being women.
    What now?
    I disagree. I think hatred is required to discriminate against “all women and girls, for being women and girls” That is the description of a “misogynist”.
    She has also called me “sexist” so I take it she knows the difference.
    In the case of a misogynist the reason is hatred.
    There is no other reason to discriminate against women and girls for being women and girls.
    Again, a misogynist is a person is prejudice against all women and girls, simple for being women and girls. You can’t get around that, no matter how you shift the goalposts.
    It does if it involves “all women and girls, for being women and girls”. Hatred is at the root of it.
    There are no other definitions. Just because some may regard it as something light by comparison, doesn’t change the definition.
    Plus she’s already called me sexist. So “misogynist” is another description, not the same one.
    Prejudice against “women”, later to be called a misogynist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You’re fighting a losing battle Sarkus.
    Common usage doesn’t cut it.
    She used the term.
    I asked her to show where I am being a misogynist, and she says my posts are “dripping in misogyny”. That means I am misogynistic at the core element of my being.
    No they’re not.
    Wegs is assuming that I am misogynistic, in her explanations. She’s not showing why she think my comment are that. Earlier she made one point as to why she thought that, I explained to her what I actually meant, that no sexism was involved. She still assumes I’m a misogynist.
    Yes it really does.
    It assumes everything I say is misogynistic, and no matter if explain the misunderstanding.
    It shows that she doesn’t have to offer an explanation or apology, because I am misogynistic at the core.
    I don’t know about you, but I’m having a hoot of time. Don’t know about bitching, it’s not something I partake it. Do you?
    The meaning was intended, which is why she used it. Feel free to prove otherwise, but you’re facing an uphill battle. She used the word, as well as “sexist”, so one can inly assume she meant the word in the literal sense.
    I have asked the offender on numerous occasions to show where my “misogyny is expressed.
    The response was “your posts are dripping in misogyny”. Her words, not mine.
    Prejudice against women as a misogynist.
    Like I said no remorse in psychopath is not the same as no remorse from a non psychopath.
    All that has been provided are my own quotes without explanation of them. That is not an explanation of the accusation. Even if it could be shown that she used “misogyny” in the same light as sexism (which she didn’t), she still hasn’t given an explanation.
    Discriminating against women as a misogynist, hence calling me a “misogynist”
    Who said it was an example of hypocrisy?
    Or was that a bait and switch ruse?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Aside from the fact that she said “misogyny and sexism are learned behaviours” proving she is not using “misogyny” as a placeholder for “sexism”. She assumed that patriarchal systems are abusive, and my posts reflect this. Which is why she has no need to explain anything to me.
    IOW I am a misogynist without even knowing it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wow that’s some heavy stuff wegs.
    I hope you do explain yourself and stop relying on these men to defend you. You do say you do not require special treatment, or walk on eggshells around you. Let’s see what you’re made of.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    It’s still good
    Thanks for asking
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    We’re talking about “misogyny”
    Try and keep up.
    Hatred is the root if “misogyny”.
    This has been explained to all numerous times in detail.
    I don’t have to.
    I’m the one who is being falsely accused
    Yes it is.
    This has been explained to all in detail many times now.
    Another baseless accusation.
    Bring up the posts or the quotes
    And you wonder why I can’t be arsed most of the time, to respond to your posts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A hatred of women equates to misogyny.
    Why don’t you answer the question?
    How do you know?
    Who writes religions James?
    If you’re talking about the Bible then say so.
    There is no hatred of women in the Bible. If you think there is point it out, instead of pussyfooting around.
    She called me a sexist and a misogynist.
    That means I have a pathological hatred of women purely because they’re women. That goes way beyond staring at a woman’s chest while she’s trying to have a conversation with you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No. Can you elaborate?
    No. That’s misogyny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just because you want to change the definition of the word, doesn’t mean it changed.
    She used “misogyny” because that what she meant. Stop sticking up for her. Let her fight her own battles,
    Don’t you mean “misogyny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I did, and you have: the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.
    There is no necessity for that prejudice in the last part of the definition to be fuelled by hatred or contempt.
    If you are prejudice against women it is because they are women, not because they are of a certain age, not because of their hair-colour, or the clothes they wear, or any other reason. That is what it means to be prejudice against women. Your effort to introduce the distinction of "because they are women" is dishonest. It is an unneccesary tautology. All prejudice against X is because it is X. All prejudice against KIA cars are because they are KIA cars.

    Further, the words, when misogyny is used as referring to prejudice against women, are pretty much synonymous. I'm sorry that you are having difficulty accepting that. But once again you are also still arguing against the word used rather than the intended meaning that has been spelled out to you. That is trolling on your part.
    Correct. The definition has multiple possible meanings, one of which is "prejudice against women or girls".
    Of course there is. When a word has multiple possible meanings, subtly different or otherwise, the intended meaning is important. You, for whatever reason, are refusing to acknowledge the intended meaning, and are fixated on the meaning you think the word has. It is trolling on your part, given that you have been repeatedly told the intended meaning.
    She has TOLD you the intended meaning. I have even quoted a post of hers where she detailed her intended meaning. Your refusal to acknowledge that, and to continue to argue against another meaning, is trolling on your part.
    No, it states hatred, aversion, or descrimination / prejudice against women. Even you accepted as much in post #671.
    And, as stated, if you have a prejudice against women it is because they are women. So your "for being women" is an unnecessary tautology.
    Please show a definition that says "all women and girls, for being women and girls". You won't find any, because that is what prejudice is: prejudice against X because it is X. So stop dishonestly trying to introduce a false precision.
    I'll just label any argument that tries to use this approach with the label "dishonest trolling" from now, as it will save time.
    I can use multiple words to cover the same meaning if I desire... or if I like... oh, look, I've just done it.
    There you go again with your dishonesty, using a tautology as a false level of distinction. Well, either it is dishonest or you are simply ignorant, but I'm choosing the dishonest accusation, because it is a distinction you have slowly and deliberately tried to introduce.
    Dishonest trolling.
    Dishonest trolling.
    Etymological fallacy, as explained. That you haven't kept up, or aren't willing to keep up, with the subtle shift in meaning of the word over time, is your issue to address.
    Further, you continue to argue what you think the meaning is rather than the meaning that has been explained to you. So guess what - you're continuing to troll.
    Sure, it is another description - that can describe the same thing. You are aware that there can be multiple words that have the same meaning, and many others that can overlap in meaning? Do you not believe that synonyms exist?
    If you can't accept the intended usage, now that it has been explained to you, but instead continue as though it is meant in the manner you want it to be meant, that is simply trolling on your part.
    That's for you to take up with her.
    Since there are a few things you have posted that you need to take up with her (or those who are accusing you of such) I'll simply snip them from what I respond to.
    That's for you to take up with her.
    That's for you to take up with her.
    You're like a little boy with his hand in a cookie jar claiming that they know nothing about the Phantom Cookie Stealer.
    And she explained her intended meaning. You may believe that the intended meaning does not match the word she used. That's fine, and such a discussion really is better suited to the Linguistics thread. But since it has been explained to you you have continued to ignore the intended meaning and only gone with the one you want it to be. That is trolling on your part.
    That is for you to take up with her.
    That is your assumption of the intended meaning, not the explanation of the intended meaning given by the person who used the term. Your failure to address the comments as intended (whether the correct term or not was used) but rather with the intention you assume is trolling on your part.
    That is for you to take up with her (or those that accuse you of such).
    Again with the false distinctions, again with failure to address the intention and instead focus on what you believe the meaning of the word to be. That is fallacious on your part. And your continuation of it is trolling.
    To remind you of what you posted:
    To what were you referring to when you said "The hypocrisy is off the charts in place" if not the lines you posted above that as an example???
    That is no proof at all. Again you fail to comprehend that words can overlap in meaning. Imagine a Venn Diagram, with Sexism and Misogyny overlapping. If you want to cover all aspects of both, you need to state both. But that does not mean that, for the behaviour in the middle, you can not use either for the same intended meaning.
    Why one might use misogyny rather than sexism for that overlapping behaviour is that these days it evokes a stronger response. People are more likely to take notice of that term than "sexism" which may unfortunately have lost impact due to widespread use. But that doesn't mean that it is wrong to use the stronger word when describing the overlapping behaviour.
    That is something for you to take up with her. But it may well be that many misogynists do not know that they are, as they surround themselves with people who perhaps unwittingly reinforce that behaviour/attitude.

    TL;DR - stop being dishonest, and please stop trolling.
    wegs likes this.
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Certainly if you hate women you are a misogynist. But then if you are an elephant you have four legs. That doesn't mean that if you have four legs you are an elephant.
    You need to accept that misogyny is these days also used for prejudice against women, and this has been explained to you repeatedly. If you have issue with that, take it to the Linguistics thread. You have been told what the term meant as used in this thread - whether you think the word should be used for the intended meaning or not - so FFS deal with it here with that meaning.
    To do otherwise is nothing but trolling on your part.
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    “...against women or girls”. Keep that in mind.

    Prejudice - an unreasonable dislike of a particular group of people or things, or a preference for one group of people or things over another.
    See the difference.
    Not to mention she already used the word sexist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hope you’re not going to overlook that point.
    If I am prejudiced against women for being women, it means I have an intense dislike, which translates to hate. You can’t reasonably be prejudiced against “women” (meaning all women and girls).
    You’re not getting it Sarkus.
    Read above and take it in.
    No it does not.
    That means a woman can label a man a misogynist for looking at her on display boobs while trying to have a conversation with him.
    What other reason could a misogynist discriminate against women and girls, apart from the fact they are women and girls.
    You do like me to keep posting the word, and what the words mean because it interferes with your goalpost shifting. Face the reality. She called me a misogynist in full knowledge of what it means.
    We’re not talking about you.
    Why are you defending the accuser?
    Why do you think you know what she meant, despite what she said?
    That has nothing to do with the discussion.
    If she used it in that way, then she should show that not you. Let her take responsibility for herself.
    That is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
    Apart from that I have repeatedly shown that she meant it in its literal form.
    1 you do not know what the intended usage was, other than what was written.
    2 what was written was an accusation of me being a misogynist on top of being a sexist.
    3 if I am prejudiced “against women”, that means I am prejudiced against all women and girls. That would be an intense dislike of all women and girls, which is another of saying hatred of all women and girls, which is the precise definition of a misogynist.
    4 again, why are you trying to defend her
    She’s avoiding discussion.
    I’ve asked her numerous times.
    How convenient!
    It’s okay to label people as misogynist as long as those people are undesirables. We’ll just put it down to simple sexism or chauvinism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Showing the post doesn’t answer the question.
    This is the same tactic wegs used.
    How about answering the question.
    I did say hypocrisy is rife in this thead, but...
    Who said it was an example of hypocrisy?
    No. That’s an example of someone who has a problem with men being men.
    That’s crap Sarkus.
    I’m reading what she wrote.
    If she is using them as you say, the that’s for her to show, not for you to assume.
    You’re just making excuses.
    The dialogue already exists, no need for this type of namby-pamby analysis. We have all the evidence we need, and the people involved to come to a conclusion.
    Only if you stop beating your wife.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    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!

    I know what misogyny means whether it was yesterday, today, or tomorrow.
    The correct meaning of the word has been explained to you.
    I have no issue with it. That’s what dictionaries are for. I don’t recognise her speech as being part of any current trend, or groovy new takes on the word. She knew exactly what she was referring to, and it comes across as that.
    It is up to her, not you to decide, or to explain the hidden meaning behind her posts. If there was one. This has already been explained to you on numerous occasions
    So thank for you offer, but I will decline.
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Jan (I'm guessing Jan) does not live on earth because earth is dirt in the garden and also he does not eat it to live

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Difference between what? You've told me to keep in mind that misogyny is a prejudice "against women or girls" and then you have provided a definition of what prejudice is (which I would dispute only in as much as the preference for one group of people or things over another would also be considered unreasonable. Whether this is what is meant in the definition you provide is ambiguous). So what, exactly, am i supposed to be comparing?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I have no need to. One characteristic can be described as both misogynistic AND sexist. Either description will suffice for that characteristic. But now you seem to be taking issue with the use of both.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Even by your own definition above you are wrong. It may mean you have an intense dislike, but per your own definition above, it may also be that you simply have an (unreasonable) "preference for one group of people or things over another"
    Not necessarily, taking your definition of prejudice above. It's not rocket science, Jan. You are simply taking the most extreme option among the alternatives within the definition and not considering the less extreme.
    Some would argue that all prejudice is irrational, and should be part of the definition, to differentiate it from when there is reason to differentiate. But, again, this is a linguistics matter.
    But I would agree, one can not reasonably be prejudiced against women. What is your point? You think this means that anyone who is prejudice against women must be so because of hatred? That's unfortunately a leap you have yet to justify, other than through simple assertion (as in your comment above). People can be prejudice against women for any number of igorant reasons utterly devoid of hatred. Ignorance being the most common.
    Yes it does, as you have been shown.
    How is that a display of prejudice? That could be no different than someone gazing at anything else they find attractive. There is certainly the issue of the attention being unwelcome, being impolite, and the man not being respectful to the woman. But how do you think it is a show of prejudice?
    What other reason could ANYONE discriminate against ANYTHING, apart from the fact that the ANYTHING is what it is? Answer that, Jan, before you once again simply reassert your position.
    Despite explaining to you how she intended the word. Fair enough, troll.
    You displayed an ignorance to the idea that different words can mean the same thing: I gave an example that might hopefully dispel you of that ignorance.
    I'm not defending the accuser but addressing your sad, pathetic, dishonest trolling as you try to avoid the accusation she made.
    Because of what she said - i.e. explaining to you how she meant it to be taken.
    SHE DID!!!! She laid it out to you in post #674. I then reminded you that she had posted it when I referenced it in post #764. And to repeat her words for you:
    "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.
    " - wegs, post #674

    Any failure of you to accept this, to comprehend prejudice to be her intended meaning, is simply blatant dishonesty and trolling on your part.
    It's germaine to identifying your dishonesty.
    You mean other than where she writes quite clearly what she meant: "That’s what misogyny also is - a prejudice towards women..." - wegs, post #674
    Correct. So let's go with what was written: "That’s what misogyny also is - a prejudice towards women..." - wegs, post #674
    Correct. You steretype women: sexist. You are prejudice against women: misogynist. That is one possible explanation.
    And as has been shown above, your reasoning here is simply rubbish.
    Again, I'm not defending the accusation: that is for you to take up with her. I am addressing your dishonest approach, and your trolling.
    Perhaps because she knows you're dishonest and a troll, and has opted not to engage with such. (Unfortunately I tend to feed the animals when I probably shouldn't.) Perhaps if you address the accusation as intended, rather than address an accusation she didn't intend, she might engage again.
    What a bizarrely irrational comment that in no way addresses the comment to which you have attributed it.
    The post quite clearly DOES answer the question. You ask how we know what wegs intended: "That’s what misogyny also is - a prejudice towards women..." - wegs, post #674
    She did show. Post #674. I have now repeated the salient part for you numerous times in this post as well. There is simply no more excuses you can make.
    No, I am providing you an explanation - as already provided in a link that I attached to an article explaining the shifting meaning of the term. Your failure to deal with the meaning that you don't want it to be is simply your dishonesty, and your continued argument on the matter of its meaning is simply you trolling.
    So analysis that speaks to the issue you're not willing to address, at the heart of your trolling and dishonesty, is "namby-pamby analysis"?
    Yes, people do need to come to a conclusion - most notably about your continued trolling and dishonesty.
    Given that the evidence of your dishonesty and trolling is writ large in your posts...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You know the more common meaning, but seemingly not a more recent meaning, a meaning that has been explained to you, and you have been unwilling to respond to the accusation in that light. Because you are dishonest and a troll.
    The intended, and also correct, meaning has been explained to you. Repeatedly.
    And that is your ignorance speaking. But since you have been provided with at least one link discussing it as a recent trend, your failure to recognise it now as such is deliberate blindness on your part. It is dishonest on your part.
    You mean when she says: That’s what misogyny also is - a prejudice towards women..." - wegs, post #674
    You mean when she says: That’s what misogyny also is - a prejudice towards women..." - wegs, post #674

    You are a troll, Jan. And you are pathetically dishonest.
  19. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    The hope that I have is that the good in the world outweighs the misogyny, racism, sexism etc. And it always will.

    So Jan not being able to admit that his ideas are sexist, is not going to make me forget this truth.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Ha! I asked if you needed a definition of prejudice - and you do! Fortunately you have already posted it.
    Nope. You merely have a preference for men as head of families over women. Which is the definition of prejudice. You have literally "pre-judged" that women do not make good heads of family.
    Why yes yes they are! Glad you are beginning to use them. Does this mean that you will no longer intentionally misunderstand words to troll people? If so great!
    Well, no, you used to think it meant "someone who hates women." So you have . . . evolved in your understanding I guess. (I mean what really happened is you made a mistake, but I know your ego prevents you from admitting that.)
    Anyone can say anything. If that man stares at women's breasts all the time rather than listening to them, but listens to men, then absolutely he is a misogynist. He is treating women differently than men, and deciding that he'd rather stare at their breasts than listen to them.
    wegs likes this.
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Done and done and done--countless times, by every poster within this thread and over the past 40 pages.

    This --
    -- is ridiculous. I know that you are anti-education, but still, I assume that you know better than to think that a simple dictionary definition adequately conveys the comprehensive meaning of a term. Or do you believe that by being able to recite a dictionary definition of, say, "automobile," one thereby possesses a full understanding of what an automobile is, sufficient to qualify one as an automobile mechanic even?

    Regardless, even simplistic and insufficient dictionary definitions of "misogyny" adequately describe you, but why not consider, at least, a slightly more fleshed-out conveyance of the concept--or would that be in violation of your anti-education stance?

    From wiki:
    I've highlighted the aspects that are very much essential to your being, for your convenience--well, the ones you've displayed within this thread, at least.

    And again, stop asking for "proof": an abundance of evidence, supporting the contention that you are a misogynist, has been provided by every single poster within this thread, over 40 pages worth of evidence.
    wegs likes this.
  22. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    The reason you have continued this rant asking for more proof when you’ve been given ample proof, is all part of your misogyny. You simply see nothing wrong with anything you’ve posted so there will never be proof that satisfies you.

    If I were a guy, you wouldn’t have dismissed my comments in the thread as easily as you have. You dubbed me emotional without any rationale behind it - so the conclusion would be that you don’t take my points seriously because I’m a woman. Hence, my labeling your posts as “dripping with misogyny.”

    I feel like I’m on a tilt-a-whirl at an amusement park...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Jan is not the one you are looking for to help you off

    Step away from the misogynist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page