Religion and women.

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    You have decided ("pre-judged") that man "naturally heads over his wife" and that women are better relegated to childrearing than leading or providing. And that women naturally understand their place is beneath the man because of their role.

    Deciding that women are better in a subordinate role is pretty much the definition of sexism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,968
    No. I literally said this...
    “. But it doesn’t mean men are superior human beings to women, or vice versa.”
    Do you have trouble comprehending what I write?
    I didn’t say that.
    I said men cannot grow babies inside their stomach, and women make better mothers.
    Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop, is not essentially saying anything of the sort. It says what it says. Can you deal with what it actually says?
    You have yet to show where I have hatred for women, prejudiced against women, or sexist.
    “other words” aren’t necessary, just my words.
    So far you have have failed miserably to to show that I am misogynistic, or sexist.
    Good. So we can discount the Bible as a cause for either good, or bad men.
    That record is false.
    Only I know what my intention was.
    So unless you can show that my intention was to be a misogynist, or sexist. You’re point is null and void.
    I’m beginning to think you’re sexist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Huh???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Perhaps her, yourself, and all the others on here should refrain from bullying me.
    I don’t recall belittling her, but calling me a misogynist (literal), and a sexist, for no reason that anyone (including her) can factually explain, I find belittling. Does it matter that she did that?

    As for calling out her emotional, and irrational responses, I gave good explanations as to why, numerous times in this thread. And I used her own, actual comments and quotes to do it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    How do you know that?
    She didn’t falsely accuse them of misogyny, or sexism.
    I dare say they might not have been so on side if she had.
    She was being emotional and irrational. If she disagreed with my analysis she could have. She falsely accused me of misogyny, then left the building, only occasionally adding more tidbit fuel to the fire of attacks, insults, and downright rudeness that ensued. Should I just lay back and accept that utter foolishness, or should I defend myself. What would you do?
    I think you’ll find that I’ve Done pretty good job responding to a lot of posts. given that I am currently a busy person. But at that point , I did focus on her because she made the false accusation of calling me a misogynist. I happen to think that was a bad thing to do unless she had real evidence. And like all of you, she has nothing.
    Only an analysis of “IOW”. Her own words, not mine.
    Perhaps you don’t know what I feel, especially as you have to use other words to interpret what I say.
    I’m not suggesting anything.
    I’ve said what I said.
    You seem to have a problem with what I say and find the need to interpret it. Why is that?
    That is a lie. Nothing I’ve written remotely suggest that. If you think it does use my words, not some made up ones, to show why. Otherwise this one sided conversation.
    Because nothing I’ve said has been explained at all, that verify that nasty false accusation.

    wegs herself based her conclusion on “IOW”
    It seems like none of you can deal with the actual words
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Here are the actual words that demonstrate your misogyny:
    "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."

    I can repost them as often as you like.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,968
    It’s not nice to be falsely accused of being misogynist. But I’m not angry. I’m curious as to how you people are going to actually show that I am one.
    Nothing as been shown, only accusations.
    So let’s see what you Have to offer.
    No it doesn’t, especially as it isn’t even an opinion, but a natural occurrence. All species of life have natural roles to play when it comes to mating. Humans are no different. Next.
    You don’t know that?
    I could just be mistaken.
    To be racist I would have to actually be racist.
    To be labelled as one on the basis of that mistake, could well be false accusation.
    No it’s not. It is a lie.
    You have yet to show that I am a misogynist.
    My version of man and woman natural roles as wife and husband after the wife becomes pregnant, is not sexist or misogynistic, as it is written. You have to show why it is. So far you’ve all done a really bad job. All the numerous, dozens, or whatever times it has been shown to me, they are all wrong, not to mention virtually the same.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So bring the explanations, I want to see them!!!
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    That’s rubbish.
    There’s nothing in my male and female roles that suggest that women are subordinate to men, or vice verses. It suggests they have a role to play, and for the most part that role is played out naturally, and plenty of couples are happy with their family structures. So once again tell me why I am a misogynist, or tell me why I’m sexist. Bare in mind you only have my posts to go on so make sure you quote me properly, and they do not need interpreting.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I agree!
    Believe it or not - we are not like animals. We have a conscience. And that means we do NOT have to take what nature gave us. We do not have to just let our loved ones die when they get sick - we can treat their illness. We do not have to kill the people who wrong us - we have a legal system to redress that. We do not have to rape women we are attracted to if they say no - we have evolved ethics and morality, and have learned to live peacefully with the opposite sex (usually.)

    Justifying murder by saying "but he stole from me and I was ANGRY! And in nature that's how thieves are treated!" doesn't fly. Justifying rape by saying "but she wanted it, and in nature, a man would find her and have his way with her!" doesn't fly. Justifying misogyny by saying "but it's NATURAL for men to be above women!" doesn't fly either.
    Correct. And if you said "it is natural for whites to be above blacks, because whites are smarter on average and blacks are more suited to menial labor" you would be a racist, too.
    Showing prejudice against women is a form of misogyny.
    Deciding "women should be in a role I consider natural" is prejudice. It is literally pre-judging where women should be.
    So far two women and half a dozen men have shown you the evidence of your misogyny. You are in denial.
    Your own words: "Man naturally heads over his wife "
    Case closed.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Really?
    So we don’t eat, sleep, reproduce, etc...?
    Just calling something misogynistic does not make it misogyny. You need to explain why you think it is misogyny.
    What if it isn’t misogyny?
    You see, I can ask that question because you have not given a sufficient reason as to why it is.
    I don’t regard smarter as being above or below.
    But I would say you employ a person based on their individual ability, and not the colour of their skin. It’s the intelligent thing to do. Just like getting married and adopting natural roles for the well being of you wife, family, and wider community, is the most intelligent for that purpose.
    Show me the actual prejudice against women?
    What is her husband doing to her, why you say that is misogynistic?
    No you haven’t.
    You haven’t even addressed my points.
    You all assume I am a misogynist becaus I am a misogynist.
    You’re not thinking logically.
    You have to breakdown what I actually say by showing how that is, or can be, harmful to the wife.
    Your opinion will not cut it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    So where’s the harm to the woman if it’s natural?
     
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Is it morally OK to like penis?

    I mean like lots. Like lots and lots of penis. Is there somehow I can re-virgin myself if I need that to be a better Christian?
     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Are you alright there.
    I’m sorry but I can’t really take you seriously.
    You seem so angry all the time.
    What’s up
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Where's the harm of gluttony if it's natural? What is the harm of rape if it's natural? What is the harm of killing and eating someone if it's natural?
     
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    None of these are natural to humans. They are all harmful. Getting married, and raising a family is natural, and beneficial to humans. How is that prejudice against women?
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    ?? Gluttony is entirely natural. It is natural to eat as much as we can to 'store up' for hard times. It is also harmful to many people. Why should people go against nature and diet? (by your argument) It's UNNATURAL!

    You have pre-judged that a woman being "under" a man and raising a family is best. That is not true for a great many women. But you are oblivious to that, and seek to impose your values on them. That is prejudice.
     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I'm too dumb for politics.

    I would, however, like to see a picture of your penis. I'm sure other members would as well. That's just an assumption cause I myself really really like penis.
     
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Not to the detriment of yourself.
    That’s not my argument at all.
    That’s you try to shift goalposts.
    Where have I pre-judged the woman?
    I said the assumed roles are natural. No need of any judgment.
    One doesn’t have to learn that. Plus it involves the cooperation of both parties, for it to work successfully.
    That’s what I’m describing.
    How is that misogyny?
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    But he is just ''naturally' the head of the wife'.. That is what is sexist.

    Except when she is a single mother, particularly a black mother and then all your prattle goes out the window..

    Not to mention the fact that you are stereotyping women.. No, not all women make better mothers. Not all women are maternal. Not all women feel the need or urge to have babies or care for them. A lot of women return to work and their partner/spouse or the child's father is the stay at home parent.

    Your comment is sexist because it forces a specific stereotype and set of behaviour and expectation that is more often than not, not applicable or even practical or desired.

    I am dealing with what you are saying and I am telling you (as is everyone else) that it is explicitly sexist, not to mention harmful as such beliefs often leads to abuse and as a whole, not applicable.

    It's only applicable if you do not think the wife or woman is of equal value.

    I believe I (and everyone else participating in this thread) have done so. Repeatedly.

    Just because you refuse to accept it is not my problem. Your constant demands that we tell or show you, despite our having done so, is.

    But I'll tell you again. Your belief that the wife is subservient to the husband - which probably stems from your belief that is the role of women (God created Eve to serve Adam was how you put it) is to be below that of the man, so much so that he has to be in charge and she should follow - means you value women less. She cannot be equal and you have reiterated this throughout this thread. That is why you are a misogynist. You love women or 'her', so in your opinion, you are not a misogynist. You simply cannot comprehend that it has everything to do with how you view women in general.. To wit, she's not equal but less than. That is why you are viewed as a misogynist.

    Well I and others have.

    Your trolling and demanding more and more just makes you a troll who happens to be a sexist and misogynistic troll.

    Only if you have are a dishonest hack who deliberately misrepresents what has been said..

    Which you are. So you aren't exactly behaving a way that is unusual for you.

    The record is false?

    Was someone in control of your account? Those aren't your words?

    The record, Jan, are your own words. We can only go by what you say on this site.

    Perhaps if you do not wish to be seen as a sexist misogynist troll, don't behave like a sexist misogynist troll.

    Your gaslighting attempts don't work on me.

    But C for effort!

    A tragedy..

    William is now turning over in his grave..

    You told her she was being emotional repeatedly, advised she was illogical and irrational.

    You bullied her by pestering her and only her. More often than not, ignoring everyone else.

    She told you why she thought you were sexist and a misogynist. Repeatedly. You ignored what she was saying and instead kept niggling at her, demanding what she had already provided while telling her that the reason she isn't seeing things you way has to be because she is a emotional (while prattling on about how women are more emotional and men who are emotional are like women and thus irrational).. Repeatedly. That is bullying behaviour.

    You don't treat the others in this thread that way. Because they are male. But Wegs? You do. Now, Wegs is a woman, she's nice and sweet and most importantly for you in the context of this thread, she believes in a higher entity. So she becomes your target and your attempts to manipulate her into being what you expect and want women to be. Do you know what makes it stand out?

    You were only truly offended when she called you a misogynist. You keep referring to her calling you that. Not the others in this thread referring to you as a misogynist.

    Because it was clear in her post.

    Plus she also kept telling you that she was not being emotional or irrational. Her posts were well thought out and clearly expressed what she thought about your behaviour.

    She wasn't the one accusing others of being the Gestapo.

    If I am in a conversation with numerous people and they all tell me that I am being sexist, I would pause and consider what I had been saying.. Instead of doing that, you double down and persist with the same problematic behaviour.

    The reason she did not accuse them of misogyny or sexism is because they were not being sexist, nor were they being a misogynist.

    You, on the other hand, were and continue to be.

    The only person who is accusing her of being emotional and irrational is you.. Doesn't that tell you anything?


    Most interestingly, you don't seem to bothered that the others are referring to you as a misogynist or sexist. Just Wegs. What's the matter? Does it upset you that a Christian woman is not simply adhering to your stereotypes and is instead calling you out for your behaviour?

    We can only go by the words you post on this site. And they paint you as being sexist and a misogynist.

    That's not on us. That's on you!

    We are taking your words at face value and your words and arguments in this thread have been sexist and misogynistic.

    Literally so.

    You have repeatedly said that she is superior at having babies and that's basically it. All your other comments have been to say that women are emotional, inferred she is irrational and illogical while arguing that her husband is the "head of the wife"..

    These are your words. Not ours.

    I think your real problem is that we are dealing with your actual words and taking them at face value.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Mod Note

    Whatever Jan is posting, responses like this is not appropriate or acceptable.

    It is sexual harassment.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

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

    The question of "What have I said that's sexist?" has been answered many times during the course of this thread, in regards to Jan. The matter has been explained clearly to him. To ignore the substance of those responses and simply repeat the question is the behaviour of a troll.

    Due to accumulated warning points, Jan will be taking a one day break from sciforums at this time.
     
    wegs likes this.
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Even if I didn't expect, say, a picture of a penis, your "Mod Note" could make him feel at liberty to ignore my question. As he has to some of my other (potentially audacious) questions.

    My aim was to cut through the political and religious barf and get it to a primal level - sexuality. Still, not knowing where it would lead, but that's the fun of it. If there's an underlying reason behind all the clap trap noise, I was looking for it.

    :EDIT:

    I could also wonder if people having a traumatic birth are more disposed to being firm believers in life after death, but that would manifest into a religious issue and not necessarily a sexual one.

    That was a footnote in Sigmund Freud's interpretation of dreams. And when I read it, it seemed way weird on more than one level.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2021
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    AH! Thank you! So your "man above woman" belief should be ignored if it is to the detriment of women - which 99% of the US does ignore, at least.
    Gluttony is natural. You have already admitted that that has downsides so we ignore that natural desire, even if ignoring it is unnatural.

    Let's try it this way.

    You go to a job interview for a high level job you are qualified for. The interview goes fine. You then meet with the hiring manager. He says:

    "Well, Mr. Ardena, you look great on paper, and your interview went fine. But when I did some background checks, I found out you were a devout Christian. And we find it's better for Christians to be in subservient roles - waiters, secretaries, things like that. It's natural for Christians to want to obey someone else, since they obey a supernatural God. And because of that 'supernatural' thing, we find that it's better if rationality-based people are put over them, to direct them. Just to be clear, we support people like you 100%, and if you want to re-apply to be a secretary, I can put a good word in for you."

    You going to be fine with that, because it's natural?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page