Equality for All Men --- oh yeah, and Women

DeletedUser

This is a response to a tangential statement made by WillyPete in another thread, when he was defending his faith-based superiority over women ---
Willy said:
In the confines of marriage men take the lead as it is in the Christian congregation. This is order not disrespect.
I find this comment to be most informative of your mindset Willy. It indicates you take it for granted that men should be the lead, and therefore women should follow. Regardless of leadership skills or personal choice, your view is that Christianity (at least your congregation) dictates women cede authority to men.

Frankly, I find that barbaric. Would you care to try and further defend this stance or do you want me to rip it to shreds right now?
 

DeletedUser

Yes it's wrong. It's not only religion imposes such thing. It also met in that certain cultures. Gipsies for example. Men are very possesive, proud and gelous. They are the alpha-male in the family and if you don't like it you are disgraced wife. Letting you're wife run your house is a sight of weekness in their opinion.
Personaly I could never in such a family.
 

DeletedUser16008

Sure its barbaric

Show me one, just one mainstream system that at its core does not declare men are superior and women must follow and know their place ?

Every single one of them when you get right down to the core of its origins has any sexual equality at all, not even Buddhism and thats not even a religion but sure enough the male domination is a huge part of it.

Now if you want to alter this teaching of a religious book to include the fairer sex as equal then you may as well go ahead and make up your own new religion because updating them to include women now out of convenience is pretty pathetic.... its like saying .. "oh excuse me but Mohammed or Mark or Luke or Moses or Abraham... whoever wrote this stuff was actually wrong and women arnt actually objects of ownership at all they were all sexists and God too at the time or he'd have said something about it... well blow me down with a feather , seems like either god has finally had an epiphany or porky pies were being told from the very beginning... hmmmm now i wonder would they do that ?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

The lead of what? Seriously, can you elaborate on that Willy? I am a Christian and cannot understand what you are trying to say. Christianity has nothing to do with what you do with your life partner. Christians do not have a type of "Sharia" like Islam does and I didn't find any quote in the Bible saying that "the man takes the lead".
If what you are trying to say is that usually the burden of providing falls on the man's shoulder, then you are right, but that is caused by society not Christianity. If you are trying to say that women are inferior to men in the institution of marriage, then you are oh so wrong. Women of any religion call that sexism, bigotry and many of them do not condone it or put up with it, no matter the religion. ;)
Small pointer from a married woman: with that attitude you will never be able to have a healthy marriage, you deny yourself and your partner the right to be happy.
 

DeletedUser

I've always believed that men are superior to women, but after reading WillyPete's posts, I'm no longer so sure.
 

DeletedUser16008

I didn't find any quote in the Bible saying that "the man takes the lead".
If what you are trying to say is that usually the burden of providing falls on the man's shoulder, then you are right, but that is caused by society not Christianity. If you are trying to say that women are inferior to men in the institution of marriage, then you are oh so wrong.

1 Corinthians 11:3 *

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

(Head of every woman is the man)

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*

34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

(Woman to be silent in church. A woman is not to speak in church)

Ephesians 5:22 - 24*

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

(Wives must submit themselves to their husband, afterall he is the head of the wife)

Colossians 3:18 *

18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Wives submit to their husband -- the Lord expects it)

1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

(Women not to wear braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly array.
Women must learn in silence. Women are not to teach and not have
authority over men. Women must be silent. Adam was created first,
then Eve. A woman was deceived, but Adam was not deceived)


Romans 7:2

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

(woman bound to her husband for life)

Titus 2:3 - 5*

3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

(Women to obey their own husbands)

1 Peter 3:1 -3

1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1 Peter 3:5 -7*

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Genesis 3:16*

16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(Women will be ruled by men)

Leviticus 12:2 *

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Leviticus 12:5

5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

(Woman unclean for 7 days if she gives birth to a man child.
She is unclean for 14 days to 66 days if she gives birth to woman child)


Esther 1:22

22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.
Job 25:4 *

4 How then can man be justified with God? or , how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?

(Any man born of a woman is unclean)

God is definitely sexist unless that rubbish was of course written ( consider the possibility ) by men and not actually by god at all.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

In any successful partnership someone has to be responsible for final decisions. If you show a relationship where a woman takes the authority in the relationship, I'll show you a woman who has no respect for the man and a man who resents her for it.

"When a woman see’s that she can modify her man’s behavior she might perceive him as not being as strong. She will see him as someone that gives up his interests, runs around trying to make her happy. He has stopped being his authentic self and started being what she wants him to be. At some level she perceives him as no longer being his own man. She could perceive him as having weak character and could lose respect for him. More importantly she will not feel safe with a man she sees as having a weak character. Some women will conclude that if they can influence or control their man then other women will also be able to control and influence him as well. All of this adds up to losing respect and trust in the man.

One assumption sometimes deep in the mind is that the stronger person controls the weaker person. If she can direct him then he must be weaker than her. This image of weakness is amplified if the woman already considers her self as weak to begin with. The loss of trust in her man’s strength may not be conscious to her, but at some level it affects her feeling of safety with him.

On the one hand the woman has driven her man to be near her so that she can feel secure in the relationship. On the other hand because she now perceives her man to be controlled by her emotional reactions she no longer sees him as a solid foundation of strength."
-http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com/relationship_safety.htm

A woman manipulating a man is self-destructive; however A man has to use his authority in the best interest of the family unit not in his own selfish desires.

Ephesians 5:28

New International Version (©1984)
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Ephesians 5:33

New International Version (©1984)
However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

If a husband is using his authority to fulfill his own selfish desires then this is an abuse of authority and self-destructive.
 

DeletedUser

First of all it is not a sign of weakness to allow someone else to have equal power and responsibility for decision making in a relationship - it is a sign of strength, trust and respect. People who need to control others work from fear and insecurity. I could never have respect for a man who felt the need to try to control me. I would perceive that man to be weak and afraid...

The whole point behind any forms of segregation and the holding down of any group by another group is based on fear. The fear is that you don't stack up yourself. You can't really compete so you try to squash the competition before it has a chance to get up on its feet. The same applies to bullying. The idea is to put someone down so that you appear to be larger by comparison.

It takes a big person to deal with other people while still allowing them to keep an equal footing. Only cowards always have to keep the odds in their favor, and disadvantage other people they deal with.
 

DeletedUser17143

It honestly baffles me how people are still following rules of story book that was written before the memory of properly recorded history. Using a ridiculous books writings as a way to live your life is ridiculous. Especially when it is telling you to have a wife, and present her almost as a trophy of how spectacular you are as a man. It's teachings are outdated and completely ridiculous in every way. And that can be applied to all holy books. Not just the bible. If you want to have faith in something, then have faith in it. But don't let it control who you are or the decisions you make. The bible to me seems to be a tool for draining the individuality out of any who follow it and making them puppets to the will of a god you can't even prove exists. And not just draining them of free will. But then providing them with a reason to commit atrocities against those who are not brainwashed into believing the same beliefs as them.

What sort of person would follow writings that tell you that you are all equal and then goes on to establish a hierarchy for everyone to fall into.

I don't think religion is a bad thing if you use it to make you a better person. But using it as a tool to place yourself above others is completely wrong. Especially if they are guilty of nothing other than being a woman, or gay. Or anything else that the precious book brainwashes you into believing is wrong.
 

DeletedUser

lol Willy, I can't believe you quoted Gary van Warmerdam, a self-professed "happiness" guru with no professional background (unless you consider a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering as qualified to provide relationship counseling).

This comment right here, "When a woman see’s that she can modify her man’s behavior she might perceive him as not being as strong" amply demonstrates this guy knows nothing about relationships, or women for that matter. If a woman cannot modify a man's behavior, she perceives him as thickheaded and that does not result in a better relationship. Any relationship is about compromise, which means both parties modify their behaviors to accommodate each other.

But, anyway Willy, thank you for demonstrating that you indeed cater to your "true" Christian notion of disrespecting women, of treating them as inferior and incapable of rational thought. And you still claim you're not a bible-toting bigot?
 

DeletedUser

This comment right here, "When a woman see’s that she can modify her man’s behavior she might perceive him as not being as strong" amply demonstrates this guy knows nothing about relationships, or women for that matter. If a woman cannot modify a man's behavior, she perceives him as thickheaded and that does not result in a better relationship. Any relationship is about compromise, which means both parties modify their behaviors to accommodate each other.
So you took one comment out of the entire quote and that to you disqualifies the whole? "modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy."-http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil
The major problem with this feminist line of reasoning is someone in the relationship will dominate. Either it will be the woman or the man. The fact remains that in the relationship a controlling woman will have no respect for the man and the man will grow to resent her.
 

DeletedUser

I don't think a relationship has to be based on one person "being in charge" over another person. As I said before this is more about the way people treat each other in general. It isn't just about men and women. Please don't throw feminism in here. We are talking about people. So it doesn't matter if they are men or women, or if there are differences in race or religion. Oppression is oppression in any form and it is rooted in cowardice and fear.
 

DeletedUser16008

I don't think a relationship has to be based on one person "being in charge" over another person. As I said before this is more about the way people treat each other in general. It isn't just about men and women. Please don't throw feminism in here. We are talking about people. So it doesn't matter if they are men or women, or if there are differences in race or religion. Oppression is oppression in any form and it is rooted in cowardice and fear.

And lust for power, don't forget the little word power in there.;)
 

DeletedUser

So you took one comment out of the entire quote and that to you disqualifies the whole? "modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy."-http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil
The major problem with this feminist line of reasoning is someone in the relationship will dominate. Either it will be the woman or the man. The fact remains that in the relationship a controlling woman will have no respect for the man and the man will grow to resent her.
Wow, you really know how to pick 'em, aye Willy? Now you're quoting a blog entry written in a non-peer reviewed online magazine by a thoroughly tarnished lecturer. Satoshi Kanazawa, born in Japan, was dismissed from writing in Psychology Today (no longer allowed to access his Psychology Today blog or provide articles) and is banned, by his employer (London School of Economics), from publishing in non-peer reviewed magazines due to his sexist and racist articles and blog posts, which have repeatedly been demonstrated to be rife with statistical misrepresentations and bigoted/sexist opinions veiled as professional objectivity.


So Willy, which one works better for you, sexist or bigot?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

First of all it is not a sign of weakness to allow someone else to have equal power and responsibility for decision making in a relationship - it is a sign of strength, trust and respect. People who need to control others work from fear and insecurity. I could never have respect for a man who felt the need to try to control me. I would perceive that man to be weak and afraid...

The whole point behind any forms of segregation and the holding down of any group by another group is based on fear. The fear is that you don't stack up yourself. You can't really compete so you try to squash the competition before it has a chance to get up on its feet. The same applies to bullying. The idea is to put someone down so that you appear to be larger by comparison.

It takes a big person to deal with other people while still allowing them to keep an equal footing. Only cowards always have to keep the odds in their favor, and disadvantage other people they deal with.


yes I agree. This is what I posted the first time, and I would happily add power issues to it. The main point being that the need to oppress others comes from a position of weakness not strength.
 

DeletedUser16008

The main point being that the need to oppress others comes from a position of weakness not strength.

I understand what your saying Lasa, im not so sure it always comes from weakness though, rather it seems to be a general human wish to subject others to their own will. Animalistic tendencies maybe or a genetic leftover for past survival, I don't know. I do know with intelligent thought and reason this kind of thing should be far easier to work out and discard than some even nowadays seem to find.
 

DeletedUser

I don't think a relationship has to be based on one person "being in charge" over another person. As I said before this is more about the way people treat each other in general. It isn't just about men and women. Please don't throw feminism in here. We are talking about people. So it doesn't matter if they are men or women, or if there are differences in race or religion. Oppression is oppression in any form and it is rooted in cowardice and fear.
The idea that there wont be a dominating partner is just fantasy. In any successful partnership there is always a decision maker. This is just as true running a business as in a relationship. If both partners have complete equal say, what happens when they completely disagree. The partnership fails. Life is not always about 100% fair and equal, and any views to the contrary are unrealistic.

Here is a few facts for you to consider. You are not equal to every one ells. Not everyone can grow up to be president. People don't actually have equal rights. Money and power give others very real advantages over you, even in the eyes of the law. The government officials are not always subjected to the same laws and rules you are. The Rich, powerful and celebrities actually do receive preferential treatment. Life is not fair.
 

DeletedUser

Just to continue raging against Satoshi Kanazawa, the latest source for Willy's posturing, a blogger responded very well:

"Rush Limbaugh and the Quiverfull bunch must be thrilled with evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa. (Wait, is that the dude who changed my life with Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, you ask? It is!) His blog entry on the magazine's website argues that feminists don't understand history, their own brains, or the power of a nice set of tits. Mostly, his argument (if you can call wanky posturing an "argument") boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of everything to do with feminism." ~ Andrea Grimes (click here)​

Andrea brings to point the failed premise to his blog post, which is that although feminism (and the associated movements) is about equal rights, Satoshi incorrectly asserts feminism as about claiming men and women are identical. Satoshi further asserts that being barefoot and pregnant is "better off" and then later confuses societal adaption with evolutionary adaption, equating some women's use of their sexuality as a means to obtain some degree of control or power over some men in male-governed cultures.

I reviewed many of his articles (click here to review them yourself) and while not all are bigot/sexist-based, he sure does go out of his way to scientifically justify his bigotry/sexism and repeatedly demonstrated (through peer-reviewed responses and a common-sense review of his work) that he fails to be objective, fails to properly represent studies, and fails to examine alternative causations, instead locking down on his opinion and asserting it through presentation of data and unsubstantiated conclusions. This is unethical and the reason he's on a spanky list at the university where he lectures.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201105/apology-psychology-today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14945110
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research
http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/evolutionary_psychology_denny.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-barry-kaufman/satoshi-kanazawa-does-not_b_863359.html

The idea that there wont be a dominating partner is just fantasy. In any successful partnership there is always a decision maker. This is just as true running a business as in a relationship. If both partners have complete equal say, what happens when they completely disagree. The partnership fails. Life is not always about 100% fair and equal, and any views to the contrary are unrealistic.
I guess you're single, aye?

Look, a human partner in life is not an appendage that opens your zipper and plays musical notes on your instrument upon command. In healthy relationships where equality is the mainstay, each partner takes responsibility for the tasks that they are more qualified at and more willing to manage. Domination is the error in your assertions. You assume that one must dominate, that one must dictate to the other in order for both to be happy. Not only is this just plain obtuse, it demonstrates that you really never had a long-lasting relationship.

Here is a few facts for you to consider. You are not equal to every one ells. Not everyone can grow up to be president. People don't actually have equal rights. Money and power give others very real advantages over you, even in the eyes of the law. The government officials are not always subjected to the same laws and rules you are. The Rich, powerful and celebrities actually do receive preferential treatment. Life is not fair.
Interesting, so your argument now, your basis for claiming women should not be treated equally is that life is not fair, that we should all just bend over and obediently take it up the one-eyed Willy? I wonder, is that something you learned in Sunday school?
 

DeletedUser

I guess you're single, aye?

Look, a human partner in life is not an appendage that opens your zipper and plays musical notes on your instrument upon command. In healthy relationships where equality is the mainstay, each partner takes responsibility for the tasks that they are more qualified at and more willing to manage. Domination is the error in your assertions. You assume that one must dominate, that one must dictate to the other in order for both to be happy. Not only is this just plain obtuse, it demonstrates that you really never had a long-lasting relationship.
No actually I have been married for years.
Interesting, so your argument now, your basis for claiming women should not be treated equally is that life is not fair, that we should all just bend over and obediently take it up the one-eyed Willy? I wonder, is that something you learned in Sunday school?
Actually I was stating in life not everything is equal and stating otherwise is obtuse. I learned that in the Army.
 
Top