Thread: Why are women inferior?

  1. #341
    Christians tend to view non-Christians as pagans. I'm a non-Christian.

  2. #342
    no water, why don't you kick him in the nuts?

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by water
    You must first tell me that you love me, and tell me you respect me, and tell me how you see me as your sister and a child of God and such -- and then betray me, and say it is alright to do so, because I am a pagan.
    no water, why don't you kick him in the nuts?

  4. #344
    Really? Is this a recent change? Or was I under the wrong impression earlier?

  5. #345
    sorry just kidding. i think women are agress ive for whoever said that. can't ignore things though, sometimes

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by SnakeLord
    "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11

    I'd hardly call that equality.. but there you go.
    to to go off the topic, but to apply this anywhere other than that that specific culture and time is a mistake

    btw, a pagan is a person who has not been baptised

  7. #347
    but is it possible to have been baptised and return to paganism? We were all born pagans.

  8. #348
    you can do a big nono and get excomungated, then you are a pagan again

  9. #349
    (ex-communicated? ) Yeah, I'm just talking out my derriere.

  10. #350
    I'm a pagan.

  11. #351
    A pagan is someone who worships "false" gods....most likely polytheistic. Muslims aren't considered pagans are they? What about Hindus?

  12. #352
    According to Catholics, all non-Catholics are pagans.

  13. #353
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    146
    Seriously.

    Why do women, 51 percent of the population, make up 5 percent (at most) of the individuals who actually create anything?

    Don't tell me about the exceptions: I know about them, and don't say it was because women are an oppressed class: this might be true, but it begs the question. Why did women let themselves become "an oppressed class" if they did not in some way deserve to be one? The feminists of the 1900s met with much more resistance from women than they ever did from men: I don't deny that they were themselves exceptional, but the fact remains that the women of their time were hostile to the movement, which can only mean that the average woman of the 1900s knew that she was an inferior type of human and did not want her status to change.

    This is simply because women are uncreative, afraid of conflict and skeptical of change. Obviously they would not have suffered such low status throughout the centuries if they had not deserved to.

    So the question is why? Is it genetic? Is it learned? Is it metaphysical?
    The above is the original question to this thread.
    I find that for the most part these 18 pages were filled with opinions formulated from hackneyed boxed in "scientific" postulations and observations that have now been elevated to the realm of fact and truth.

    Where is the definition of the question and the words being discussed?
    I see emotional statements defending the own personal beliefs each of you hold. And you call this a science forum? Where is the objectivity of Science?

    I saw only a few intellectually challenging thoughts that pertained to the original question with any coherent scientific analysis. Because there were so many pages of dross, I am hard pressed to find the golden nuggets again..
    and there in I fail in objective support for my statements and speak my opinion and add my 2 cents worth of dross and dribble.

    What happened to the scientific rules of engagement and debate that all of us so proudly espouse and so poorly practice?

    First question asked in this original post: Why do women, 51 percent of the population, make up 5 percent (at most) of the individuals who actually create anything?

    Why should I assume that this is correct?

    Second question: Why did women let themselves become "an oppressed class" if they did not in some way deserve to be one?

    Why are you saying women let themselves?
    Why are you saying they were oppressed?
    Whyd are you saying they deserve it?

    Your conclusion:
    This is simply because women are uncreative, afraid of conflict and skeptical of change. Obviously they would not have suffered such low status throughout the centuries if they had not deserved to.

    I find that opinionated an speculative without substantiation.

    Third question:
    So the question is why? Is it genetic? Is it learned? Is it metaphysical?

    You question is ambiguous.. Why what?
    Why are they, deemed by you, not creative? Why are they, deemed by you, oppressed? Why have they, deemed by you, allowed their state of being?
    Why are they inferior as implied by your title but no where is substantiated in your post?

    Define your your scope of inquiry and its parameters with more precision.


    I digress from the original topic: Forgive my lapse in scientific reason by following the example of many of you and getting all emotional in my intellectual dribble.

    Bells:
    Now, I wonder, which would you rather be? The 'man' who spends his life smelling of.. well.. shit.. Or would you rather be the "woman" who pays him to smell like shit? Would the real man get the job done if there wasn't a "woman" to pay him?
    The answer is quite simple, dear.. The real man earns the money that his wife is paying the plumber. But don't let the plumber fool you. He charges an exorbitent amount of cash for 15 minutes of work knowing that you will pay him because you choose not to take the time to learn how to change out the toilet or use applied physics, physical science, or chemistry to unplug your drain.

    So in all practicality the real man gets the shaft twice and only has the illusion of being superior.

    Honestly, Jaybee, you are slipping. It must be your state of intoxication that dulled your superior mind.

    Heaven help us if women took the time and wanted to learn all those things that superior men know, then why would women need men in the first place???

    Water:
    Christians tend to view non-Christians as pagans. I'm a non-Christian.
    You are not a pagan, Water. You are a precious spirit of great value and worth that GOD loves very much. I am a Christian by the way. Please don't make generalizations about Christians and if you want to further discuss this please PM me or start another thread on it.
    Last edited by finewine; 02-23-06 at 11:39 PM.

  14. #354
    Originally posted by finewine
    You are not a pagan, Water. You are a precious spirit of great value and worth that GOD loves very much. I am a Christian by the way. Please don't make generalizations about Christians and if you want to further discuss this please PM me or start another thread on it.
    Christians do not have a monopoly on love. It can be known and experienced by everyone.

  15. #355
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    146
    I never said that Christians had a monopoly on love. In fact, some Christians can be real assholes and give Christianity a bad rep.
    There are many who claim the name but do not at all follow Christ's teachings.
    They still can be just as selfish as anyone unless they choose to be otherwise.

    God does however have the monopoly on love since HE is Perfect Love.

    It's off thread topic. PM me or start new thread, please..

  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by finewine
    You are not a pagan, Water. You are a precious spirit of
    great value and worth that GOD loves very much. I am a Christian by the way.
    Please don't make generalizations about Christians and if you want to
    further discuss this please PM me or start another thread on it.
    When I get told

    You are a precious spirit of great value and worth that GOD loves very much.

    there are three responses possible:
    -- agreement,
    -- disagreement
    and
    -- bewilderment.

    If I want to preserve my integrity, then my agreement or my disagreement need to be properly substantiated. Which is impossible in this case. I can neither prove nor disprove Christian claims, so I can neither agree nor disagree with them.

    Thus I am left with bewilderment, not understanding what I have been told, and having no way to understand -- other than potentially infinite years of study and relying on God's grace. I have invested many years in the study of Christianity, to no avail. And God didn't see fit to endow me with knowledge of Him; I could not say I know God.

    So the best thing for me is to withdraw from any further discussion about Christianity, and stay away from Christians who make claims I can respond to only with bewilderment.

  17. #357
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    6,585
    Finewine's religious belief that 'God is perfect love' is a dangerous belief

    itis an idealized conceptualized idea of 'love' and is virtually impossible for any human to follow-----gods, angels? who knows?....tese are ideas of humans aren't they?

    te orst kinds of peopl are ones who proclaim 'persfect love' and yet are te most pernicious, accusig, hardfaced pople on the planet. they pretend the are 'good' and go about missionizing, and 'helping' people who have'y even asked fo it!

    self-right-eous-ness

  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Xev
    Seriously.

    Why do women, 51 percent of the population, make up 5 percent (at most) of the individuals who actually create anything?

    Don't tell me about the exceptions: I know about them, and don't say it was because women are an oppressed class: this might be true, but it begs the question. Why did women let themselves become "an oppressed class" if they did not in some way deserve to be one? The feminists of the 1900s met with much more resistance from women than they ever did from men: I don't deny that they were themselves exceptional, but the fact remains that the women of their time were hostile to the movement, which can only mean that the average woman of the 1900s knew that she was an inferior type of human and did not want her status to change.
    This is simply because women are uncreative, afraid of conflict and skeptical of change. Obviously they would not have suffered such low status throughout the centuries if they had not deserved to.

    So the question is why? Is it genetic? Is it learned? Is it metaphysical?
    Have you never heard the saying:

    Behind every successful man is a woman?

    With any human machine, there are people with no names working the machine making things happen, acting behind the scenes, fulfilling an important yet unrecognised role.

    Behind every successful man is a girlfriend or wife, acting as the inspiration, the motivation, the justification and the reward for what the male is achieving and without the women in their lives they'd perhaps achieve very little.

    Beside this little anecdote, yes it is genetic, women and male brains are entirely diffrent, women can multi task and function on a level where many thought processes can occur at once, while clearly thus making women superior it does also mean they can not foucs solidly on a project with the same single mindness that a male brain can as male brains can ONLY focus on one thing at a time, this therofre makes the male brain more likely to carry through on a single idea and plan as nothing elses interferes with the thought process.

    Logical yes?

    kiss kiss from a clearly uncreative femme

  19. #359
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    6,585
    think tho yer wrong to say ALL men.
    i claim it isn't all men but a prticular MINDSETparticular to some men-elites

    goal oriented. its origins are proabably the mythical 'hero' motif where he rebals against cooperative interelation with body and Nature and seeks a 'way out'. from therer women/Nature becomes a trap for him. and he blames woman/Nature for keeping him prisoner, 'seductively', and even for birthin him!

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Roman
    I think it's... ironic? telling? that one of the few women participating in this thread respond only to the one liner bait from Xerxes, who is actually being facetious.
    u think I'm not being facetious? I didn't read the whole thread, my mind was busy on other things! You can focus I can't, I'm mere femme remember! lol

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •