Religion and women.

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

  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    That was pure sarcasm to show Alex that men and women aren’t equal.
    Obviously I don’t agree that men and women should compete in boxing. But if men and women were “equal” then that would be the case. But it doesn’t mean men are superior human beings to women, or vice versa.
    Jss as mes asked if I can think of any area where a woman is superior to a man. I happen to think that is superior, as men cannot grow babies, and tend not to make good mothers. I hardly see how that equates to hatred of women, or prejudice towards them.
    You say: “and you deemed her role to be a mere incubator “
    But this what I actually wrote: Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop.
    In my own experience, and the experience of every couple I know. Those are the roles that naturally take place, unless the circumstances are different, and they have to improvise. I understand that you may not like those roles, but to say it is misogynistic or sexist is real stretch of the imagination imo.
    I don’t know about religion having a problem with women. That would be based on a particular practice of a religion. You could find that men whose religion states that women must obey your husbands every whim because he is the head of you, it says so in the Bible, will probably abuse his wife. But ask yourself, is he abusing her because he thinks the Bible approves, or is he an s as abusive person, and would find any excuse to do so.
    But what of the man that loves his wife, and would not seek to harm even a hair on her head, because he thinks the Bible approves.
    So if you’re going to blame the Bible on one act, you blame the Bible in all acts.

    Personally I don’t think either performed action is based on the Bible. I think there are people who have love, and love the truth, and there are people who are devoid of love, and despise the truth.When a man is devoid of love he will either abuse himself, or others. Abuse must happen with such people.
    I explained numerous time on why I thought that quote she made was an emotional one.
    She accused me implying that women were emotional and irrational, and anything I say regarding women would be based on that. But when asked to show why she thought that, she said I dismissed comments made by women because they are emotional and irrational.
    I didn’t say that, or even imply it. Her unwillingness to give me the opportunity to further explain her misunderstanding, showed that it was an irrational accusation. From then on her explanation of proof, assumes that I’m irrational, which is entirely circular.
    I assume we all agree that men and women are different. I believe as you know that women tend to be more emotional, which is an observation.
    To be honest I like that about women. I think it adds to the relationship. But that takes nothing away from women. That response I got from wegs was a totally the kind of response I would get from my wife or daughters. It was not a surprise at all. So it’s not a bad thing. Even the way she is acting now, is totally understandable. We used to call it ‘a woman’s prerogative’. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with women who act in that way.
    I just think of a man takes on a woman’s character, it is nearly always OTT. Things get dark very quickly, and all war soon ensues if control is not in order. Nothing gets done, because we have to be careful of what we say, in case it upsets him and he goes off on one.
    A women bounces back a lot easier than men in most cases. Emotional men drag it on.
    Again this is observable over time.
    I have never known an emotional man to have stable relationships, because they always overreact, and I’m not talking about vulnerability, or crying. Those are out of our control.
    So again, I’m not saying or implying that emotional men are irrational when they act like women, therefore women are emotional and irrational. I’m saying when men act emotional, they are acting like women, thus they are irrational (for doing that)
    I don’t know why you accuse me of gaslighting.
    I can only assumed you mean when I referred to her as a person of truth. The rest of the post was an attempt of mine to show that I didn’t regard being emotional as something derogatory to a woman. That was one of a few attempts to show my intention, which was not to put women down.
    I was being honest. By that point I did think she was emotional and irrational, for reasons I laid out time and again. But I am prepared to give a full explanation of what I mean. That’s what I thought these forums were for.
    In the past we would have discussed this rather than the display we have here. What happened?
    Now you can’t be honest for fear of offending someone’s feelings . Now you get attacked and insulted. For what? We’re having a discussion. No need for war.
    Well thank you for that. Maybe it won’t change any minds, but at least you offered me the opportunity to express myself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Thank you your Highness.
    I’ll even try not to hit myself with door on the way out
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    You mean Jan's "definition" that is -- somehow -- becoming even more incomprehensible by the minute?

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Lmao! Why are you being dishonest, Jan? I’m not imagining that you believe my responses have been emotional - you stated it. Quite a few members here pointed out where and what posts, as I have done. Like I said, you’re bullying and taunting now - you’re asking why people think you’re sexist etc ...they give examples and you deny seeing the examples? You deny that they’ve posted examples? Do you think you sound rational right now?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    I’m using my iPhone these days.
    That would depend on whether you agreed with his premise.
    Supposing his premise was that women are there for the pleasure of men? How could you prove that he is being irrational?
    I would just like to say for the record that, such a premix is completely wrong, but for the purpose of argument...
    Stop with the name calling. If you do want to discuss, don’t. But please stop as it is not necessary. I’m here to discuss, not get all cliquey and emotional.
    I am using the word as it is intended.
    Too many complicated contrasting variables to start using the trendy version.
    Ignorance of what?
    The new trendy variations on the word?
    Or perhaps the most likely explanation. She meant both.
    Stop trolling!
    It makes no difference, as it does not override what she originally said. P 674 came after that
    Deal with what she actually said.
    Oh! You can’t because it’s the truth.
    You despise the truth Sarkus, for this wishy-washy emotional clap-trap.
    Be honest and objective.
    Has wegs conduct been right towards (not against) me in this thread?
    Don’t you get tired of typing this garbage?
    You’ve been doing it for years.
    Lively up yourself man!
    See it from both sides
    I was asking you.
    Can’t you offer an opinion or something?
    Wegs is set in her ways. She now regards me as a bully, on top of being a misogynist, and sexist, and the result of a patriarchal system where I saw my mother systematically get beat by my father as a matter of principle, and my sexism, and misogyny, which I express in this thread, just by being here, were learned behaviours making me a master in the art.
    Gosh no wonder she thinks I’m a bully.
    I’m afraid of me let alone her

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So let’s move in from that, and talk about the difference between misogyny and sexism. And why it is a dangerous idea to conflate them

    Whaddya say!
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Does education require you to have...
    Intelligence, common sense and observational skills?

    Does intelligence, common sense and observational skills require you to have an education?

    How is it that you know I am anti- education?

    Aside from one post, they are all attacks and baseless assumptions made by angry people who can’t control their emotions.
    You should be embarrassed saying the things you say to me. We’ve never met. You don’t know me. Yet here you are spewing crap. You're problem is you’re weak, and have no substance, love, or wisdom.
    You are unable to be rational and objective.
    I could care less about you academic qualifications if you have any, because the content of you character is flimsy and superficial.
    How about that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    But what if Jesus was really drunk, like water into wine can potentially get out of hand, and he didn't like that I kept rejecting his advances but he still wouldn't stop!!!

    OK, you want prejudice?! This is entirely what I think about men.

    Michael 345 likes this.
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Of course I sound rational.
    I making I’m of the situation seeing as it cannot be resolved.
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    That doesn’t mean anything.
    How do you think that could ever be possible?
    Whose they?
    I am not bullying her. Crikey!!!
    Why are you so easily manipulated?
    I am beginning to realise that the truth is not welcomed here
    Why do you have to do this?
    It really is mind-boggling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I don’t have a problem.
    I find this lefty, wishy-washy ideology fascinating.
    All I know is, I deal with the truth of a situation.
    Here it is all about taking sides.
    I think people are prejudiced against theists and theism. We don’t stand for this weakness.
    We don’t get emotional and start hurling abuse because you said something we didn’t like. We simply ask “why did you say that”, “let’s see where you’re coming from”.
    We don’t have to change original meanings of words like they do today.
    Misogyny although a word like any other, has a sinister connotation to it. We understand that connotation. We don’t take it it lightly, hence we don’t just casually accuse people with it.
    It is funny how you just ignore things because they don’t suit you.
    You lack substance.
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    No, it wouldn't. If an argument is sound, it is - by definition - true (an argument is sound if the premises are true and the reasoning valid). My agreement with his premises make no difference to that, and would only serve - should I disagree with the premise of a sound argument - to show my ignorance of the truth of the matter. I suggest you comprehend the words you use before you use them.
    The rationality of an argument at the time it is made is based upon the knowledge available to the one making the argument. To show that the argument is irrational, given the knowledge available to the one makingthe argument, one would need to know what knowledge they have, and the logic of the argument.
    However, should that information be false, should the premise upon which the argument is based be shown to be false, then it is a simple matter to show that adhering to the false premise and believing the subsequent conclusion (and rational in support of) to be true is irrational, irrespective of the validity of the subsequent argument from such false premise.
    Then stop with the activity that is described by said name. Simples.
    I'm not here to discuss, Jan. I am here to point out your dishonesty in the way you have approached your counter of the accusation of misogyny (as opposed to being here to discuss that accusation per se). With regard to your dishonesty, there simply is no discussion to be had, because you have been dishonest. And your dishonesty has manifested in your trollish behaviour.
    It is necessary to call you dishonest, and a troll, because that is what you are. Should you not wish to be painted with such a brush, perhaps you should start to be honest in your responses, and not act a troll.
    No, you are using it as you believe it was intended, despite being shown numerous times, by numerous people, what the actual intention was. Despite this, you continue to argue your case using the word as you believe it was intended. This is both dishonest of you, and trollish behaviour.
    Your aversion to using what you label the "trendy version" is irrelevant. Your dislike of the intended meaning is irrelevant. You have been informed of the intended meaning. Your failure to respond in light of that meaning is dishonest, and trollish.
    ??? How would ignorance of that be a "reason why someone could be prejudice against all women, as long as women and girls exist"?
    Sure: misogynst (accusation of prejudice against women) and sexist (accusation of stereotyping women).
    There is no trolling on my part. At worse I am guilty of feeding the troll. However, my comments were entirely relevant. You do, demonstrably, have issues with nuances of the English language and are fixated, almost as if on the autistic spectrum, to literal meanings of words despite more common or recent adaptations to meaning.
    And it was posted by way of clarification, so is entirely relevant. Your choice to ignore it is dishonest, and your continued rejection is trollish.
    Which includes the subsequent clarification which you are ignoring.
    I can, and I have. I just took the clarification for what it was: clarification of intended meaning of the term used in the accusation.
    I favour the truth always: and I find the truth to be that you have been acting dishonestly and in a trollish manner.
    I am being, as far as I am able to discern: and I conclude that you are acting dishonestly, and in a trollish manner.
    That is for you to take up with wegs. I have simply been pointing out your blatantly dishonest and trollish behaviour in trying to avoid and discount the accusations of misogyny and sexism.
    I do see it from both sides, which is why I can recognise your dishonest and trollish behaviour for what it is.
    I can offer an opinion: you are acting in a dishonest and trollish manner.
    On the matter of the accusations of you being a misogynist, being sexist etc: I leave that for you to discuss with those who have directly accused you of such.
    Feel free to take that up with wegs.
    I say: take it to the Linguistics forum. You know, the forum specifically for matters of language.

    TL; DR
    Jan, there are two issues in this thread at present:
    1. the accusation of you being sexist and a misogynist.
    2. the manner in which you have tried to avoid/negate those accusations.

    I have addressed the second, not the first.
    To the first: discuss it with those who have accused you.
    To the second: I find your manner to be, as exampled repeatedly, dishonest and that of a troll.
  13. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    This is how you show your dishonesty, Jan - I never stated that I think your dad beat your mom. What I did state is that is where misogyny often stems from - childhood. I stated that you may have learned it watching how your dad treated your mother when you were growing up - overtly or covertly.

    You have demonstrated bullying, sexist and misogynistic behavior in this thread, though. If a racist acts racist...should he/she be angry when people view him/her as such?
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I’m not being dishonest.
    You are prejudiced which makes unable to see both sides. Stop the name calling and the arrogance, and accept me for who I am and the way i think, as i accept you.
    No it’s not what I am. I just a person who has different world view to you, who like a good discussion.
    I meant intended for what it actually means.
    And wegs used it in its literal sense. We’ll have to agree to disagree, and let that one go by the wayside.
    It doesn’t matter anyway. I dare say as time goes on there’ll more twists and trends on words. I don’t care.
    It was a real long shot.
    I was trying think what such a person could be ignorant of, that would make him hate women and girls because they’re women and girls.

    You said the “ truth”.
    What is the truth that he is ignorant of?
    Or what if that is the truth, according to him?
    Wouldn’t you both be in exactly the same position, although you would be opposed?
    How would you convince him your truth was “the” truth, and his false?
    If I was a misogynist in the literal sense, I would love that new trend.
    Do you live at your moms house?
    I say it was there to cover her tracks.
    She believes in God. She knows it’s not good to accuse somebody of something like that.
    So there absolutely no chance she could have put it because she realised it wrong to falsely accuse someone of something you have no evidence for?

    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!

    She’s accusing me of bullying her now.
    I’m going to try and not respond to her.
    Then it’s clear that either you’re have prejudice towards me, or you don’t comprehend where I’m coming from. Or a combination of both.
    But you would have a better time discussing with me if you cut out the name calling and insults.
    There really is no need.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Because people like you take the definitions of marriage in the Bible 100% literally.

    If you are now saying you do NOT take the Bible seriously in that aspect - congratulations! You are on the road to awareness.
    Coming from a serial liar - that's pretty funny! You lie regularly. You even lie about what you just posted, something that is trivially easy to check.

    Your big problem with this forum is that lies are not welcome. From the looks of things, if you could get away with your lies, you'd be a lot happier. Sorry charlie!
    Call out misogyny when I see it? Because without calling out misogynists they have no reason to ever change their ways. In their minds, they are 100% justified in everything they do, because no one has ever shown them that it's wrong.
    Again, you are one of the most dishonest people here - so I have to laugh at that. That's like saying that FatFreddy deals only with physics.
    On this page alone:
    You lack substance.
    Why are you so easily manipulated?
    You should be embarrassed . . .
    You are spewing crap.
    You're problem is you’re weak, and have no substance, love, or wisdom.
    You are unable to be rational and objective.

    Again with the lies. You're a funny guy, although you really should deal with your anger issues.
    Sarkus likes this.
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    The italics is true about you and others.
    You’re still accusing me of being a misogynist, when you have no reason to. Nothing I have said could be taken to mean I am a misogynist, and I shown that earlier.
    Your prejudice and your emotion has blocked your intelligence.
    All you do is attack and insult when there really isn’t any need.
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    That doesn't address me, and I can be really really dumb.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    You respond with more sexism..

    Because women are only superior when she's popping out the man's babies.

    I shouldn't have to say this, but your comment further cements your sexism.

    You just made my point for me. Sexist belief that the woman's role is simply to have children and that the man is "naturally" has dominance over her.. "naturally heads over his wife and family" is essentially saying that he is the leader and his wife is subservient to him.

    This belief of yours is further supported by your earlier comments that Eve was created to serve Adam.

    In other words, you believe that in a marriage, the woman is there to serve her husband. Instead of being his equal, she is there to serve him.

    This is sexist.

    Your view that women are subservient and not equal to men is misogynistic.

    The issue that you fail to notice is that the Bible caters to both types of men. Both men can find justification in their religious text for how they treat women.

    Your intention was clear and you were sexist.

    This is already established on record.

    Oh hey, look. You respond to accusations of sexism with more sexism!

    Trying to explain your sexism just makes you look more sexist as you are attempting to defend your beliefs, ideology and behaviour.

    And you used it to make more sexist comments.

    In other words, you are making my point for me. So thank you for that! "

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Wait a minute..

    Et tu Brute..?

    Perhaps you should refrain from bullying her, belittling her by making repeated comments about her emotions or telling her she's being emotional and irrational:
    When she wasn't being emotional and irrational.

    The manner in which you speak to her compared to the men posting in this thread is vastly different - ie - you keep making references to her emotions and her emotional state and inferring she is being irrational and illogical.. Most concerning is the manner in which you focused on her more than anyone else in your responses.. Often times ignoring everyone else to focus just on her and this incessant push to get her and only her to see things your way and when she does not, you tell her she's simply being emotional. It's manipulative. If you behave this way towards your spouse or partner, you would be considered abusive - as it is a form of psychological abuse.. Keep at her and at her and when she rebels, make her question her sanity.. It's what abusive men do. Perhaps you feel she is a soft target? So, of course you rebel and crack it when she calls out your behaviour. Poor you, called out for being a sexist bully who spouts an unhealthy dose of misogyny.

    The truth of the matter is that we see men like you all the time. You aren't the first nor will you be the last to pull this sort of rubbish.
    James R and Sarkus like this.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. They are your attacks on others due to your anger at them, because you are furious that you are being called a misogynist. Your emotions are getting the best of you.
    It has been shown to you over a dozen times. Again here is one, which you will once again ignore:

    "Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop. It is better if the man provides for his family, so that his wife can be a full time mother, for the sake of the child, and the structure in which the child is to develop."

    Your own words. If you say it's better for men to provide, and women to be mothers, that shows a prejudice against women. That is the definition of misogyny - even if you believe your statement to be true.

    As a parallel example, if you say "it is better for blacks to be in menial jobs, because they are physically more suited to labor" you are a racist. It doesn't matter if you really, honestly believe that blacks really ARE better suited for menial jobs. Once you say that that's better, it makes you a racist.
    I have not attacked you. I have stated that your posts are misogynist. That is factually true. If it makes you angry - good! Do something about your approach to women. See them as equals. Don't try to claim that they are irrational, or that "it is better" if men provide for the family and women raise the kids.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
  20. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    • Do not troll. The question has already been answered many times by many different people.
    Show me where that is misogynistic or sexist.
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    You are. Demonstrably so, as highlighted in the many posts I, and others, have made.
    There is no preconception that you will be dishonest: your posts simply show that you are.
    If your way of thinking continues to be demonstrably dishonest, then you shouldn't be suprised if that is how you are viewed. And noone has to accept someone whose way of thinking is dishonest.
    Your worldview is irrelevant to the way you discuss: you discuss in a dishonest and trollish manner. That is what I have been highlighting to you repeatedly. Your worldview on the matter of women, and whether you are or are not a misogynist and/or sexist, I will leave to you to discuss with others.
    What it actually means these days includes "prejudice against women".
    And wegs used it in its literal sense. We’ll have to agree to disagree, and let that one go by the wayside.[/quote]No, wegs meant in the sense of "prejudice against women" - as explained by her to you. Your unwilling to accept that, and to continue to try to refute the accusation based on the literal meaning, is simply an ongoing demonstration of your dishonesty.
    Your lack of caring is yet more demonstration of your dishonesty. For someone who doesn't want to be called that, you're not doing very well.
    Ignorance does not equate to hate. One can be prejudice because of hatred, or simply ignorance. If one is bought up in a patriarchal but loving environment, one may have no hatred toward women at all yet treat men superior. No hatred, just ignorance leading to prejudice. And that prejudice would be against women for the tautological reason "because they are women" that you keep wanting to add.
    That depends on what the ignorance is that is driving the prejudice, but in a general sense: education often goes a long way to dispelling ignorance.
    Why? Because you feel you could now claim that you are merely prejudice and don't actually hate women? Unfortunately that wouldn't change your behaviour. A misogynist (in the literal sense) would still hate women.
    My mother is dead.
    Irrelevant. Since she has clarified her intended meaning, the honest thing to do would be to accept that that is what was intended, and then, if you disagree with the accusation, do so with that intended meaning. Unfortunately you are not honest in this regard.
    She has clarified the intended meaning. Deal with the accusation with that intended meaning. You believe in God, so why are you behaving so dishonestly?
    Since she has clarified, and since the meaning she has clarified is an albeit recent but valid addition, you should accept that that is the intended meaning, and the conversation on the matter should continue on that basis. To anchor, as you are doing, to the unintended meaning, is dishonest.
    Feel free to take that up with her.
    That is your prerogative.
    I am simply highlighting your dishonesty. I don't need to know where you are coming from, as it is the manner of your argument, not the substance (of whether you are or are not a misogynist and/or sexist), that I am focussing on. And your manner is demonstrably dishonest. No prejudice is required or held to come to that conclusion. Your posts alone are sufficient evidence.
    You are demonstrably dishonest. There is no name-calling in that, any more than calling a spade a spade is name-calling.
    Your continued dishonesty, even when pointed out to you repeatedly, leads to the conclusion of you being a troll. Again, calling a spade a spade can hardly be considered name-calling. If you'd prefer a different term, let me know.
    And if you are seriously interested in discussion, with me or anyone, then it behooves you to cut out the dishonesty, and to stop being a troll - both being behaviours you have amply demonstrated in this thread.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Because you are suggesting and basically saying in many regards, that the woman is less than the man and subservient to him.

    That she's not his equal, but less than him and that the only thing where she will be superior is one based her ability to be pregnant.

    This has been explained numerous times.

    Why do you still keep asking?

Share This Page