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

    Yeah. There are all sorts of odd people moderating forums out there (I do it myself and I'm pretty odd.) But I do find it surprising that there's an issue now all of a sudden. It's not like he's gotten worse.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    I don't really think this is how apologies work....

    As for the rest of your post.. I'd written a big post, addressing points directly, but deleted it. Because this is already a shit show. I don't need to pile that much more on it.

    But addressing the issue you keep holding over my head.. The request I once made that you delete a post - out of decency because that post had the potential to be hurtful and harmful and didn't really serve a purpose aside from being deliberately hurtful and had the potential to cause harm.. Look, you can keep holding that over my head with this 'I did this for you!' attitude, and frankly, it's a bit weird that this is still an issue that needs to be discussed years later, but here we are. There is nothing more to it than that, Tiassa. I asked you to pull a thread because it was hurtful and harmful and doing so was the right and decent thing to do. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Why do we still need to discuss this years later? Was the reason not enough? What more do you want?

    On the subject of white supremacy.. I don't think he's a white supremacist. Believe me, as a woman of colour, I can spot them a mile off.

    If I were to apply your exacting standards of definition based on behaviour or actions, then I could start calling you a misogynist for empowering a known misogynist and bigot to sexually harass me repeatedly and doing nothing about it, in the same manner and for the same reasons you keep calling James a white supremacist for his actions in the past. Not to mention for the vague insinuations and this gem:

    Seriously dude!

    Frankly, I am incredulous that we have gotten to this. The words 'for fuck's sake! is doing the rounds in my brain.

    It's ironic that you complain that you believe I am angry that you aren't responding in a particular manner when it comes to Jan, but you accuse me of not responding in a particular manner when it comes to James or absolved him from explaining. Your accusations seem to be a mirror of your own behaviour. Do you not see this?

    And I think you are so obsessed and so driven by this that you completely fail to see this. You have questioned and then dismissed our friendship because of it. That's the thing about being obsessed about something, Tiassa. It is destructive. You end up losing sight of what's important. I was always honest with you and sometimes clearly told you things you disagreed with. That's the measure of a friendship. Honesty even when you know your friend won't be happy with it. And I am sorry that you don't see that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Oh it's been like this for...whew, since I've been here. Which was, oh, 2005? When I was just starting high school. There's a reason I only rarely pop in, take a look, see that it's still the same lunatic asylum, and duck out.
    On top of which, my commentary is rarely acknowledged or frames any further discussion in the topics I do weigh in on. So, it's not like I impact much when I do more than lurk.
    Seattle likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    • Please do not tell lies or troll. You have previously been warned on several occasions about this, Jan.
    Being sadistic is not an attempt to show anything other than your own hang-ups and hatred. Guilty till proven innocent is not justice
    What views are those.
    Again. Accusations on their own have no merit.
    Like what?
    Perhaps Jan is waiting for a plausible explanation as to why he has been labelled a misogynist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You’re full of baseless accusations. You write all this crap, yet you still cannot give even a reasonable explanation. You’re the one who is angry. Not me.
    Why is it?
    You still haven’t explained why i hate women.
    I will continue to badger you on that until you give at least a reasonable explanation.
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    What have I said that’s not true?
    Your aversion to truth is your problem, not mine
    You would need to create a new thread so we could properly look into the idiocy, and lunacy of the woke . But a good example is in this thread. Accusations, and banning, because you can’t tolerate others views .
    This is such dumb statement.
    What does a “little bit of misogyny” look like?
    Does that mean you hate at the weekends?
    You’re on a slippery slope.
    You have an aversion to truth.
    Like what?
    So what?
    Talking to atheists about God and scripture, is like talking to wokety-wokes about racism, politics, religion, or general social concerns. It’s pointless because you have an aversion to truth.
    So stay in your position if atheist, it’s the only place for you.
    Again you have bypassed the quote and proceed to ask an unrelated question.
    There is no “less” wicked, just like there isn’t weekend/ less misogyny.
    The question couldn’t be anymore simple James.
    These are biblical times.
    On the contrary.
    I’m encouraging it.
    Unfortunately, no atheist on here has any backbone, or integrity to discuss anything that is contrary to their delusion.
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    In Chicago alone, just over the july4th weekend, 100 people were shot , 25 fatally. That’s just one city over a weekend.
    Murderers all over Wokeland are being released, and released back onto the streets within day, or a few days after being charged with murder, killing anyone who happens to be in their murderous path.
    Meanwhile idiots are calling to defund the police, in spite of ongoing defunding.

    At what point in time do you remember a situation like this, in any civilised society.

    Which do you think is more important?
    Listening to victims, family of victims, and residents who like in high crime places, when they say we need more police?
    Or defund the police , which is happening, and allow the murder/mass shooting rate to sky-rocket as it has been happening, every single day, across the US?

    Do you acknowledge that black people commit the most murder by far, in the US?
    Do you acknowledge that it is unprecidented?

    Or are you going to falsely accuse me of being racist because I speak what’s true?
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2021
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    The Tulsa massacre. The California genocide. September 11th. The Opelousas Massacre. Want any more?
    I love listening to the people who rioted in the Capitol, tried to beat cops to death with American flags, tried to gouge cop's eyes out, and are now clamoring to crucify the cop who shot a violent rioter - cry for more police.

    Perhaps you should have thought about that before the Jan 6th riots, eh?
    2013 crime stats from the FBI on murder:
    White offenders: 2698
    Black offenders: 2654
    No need to accuse you of racism or misogyny. You do an excellent job of that all by yourself.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: Jan Ardena has been warned for knowingly telling lies and trolling (again).

    Due to accumulated warning points, Jan has been temporarily banned for 1 month from sciforums.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Jan Ardena:

    Here's a memory jogger for you, Jan - some past posts from this thread. You cannot, without lying, continue to claim that neither I, nor anybody else, has explained to you why we believe you are sexist and possibly a misogynist. Such is the tactic of a dishonest troll.
    Post #336 (James R): "You're sexist, Jan, because you're publically advocating a patriarchal view of male and female relationships - especially in the family - and trying to assign women only certain prescribed roles which your religion presumably preaches are God's will, or something.

    Moreover, you're trying to make an argument that certain qualities are innately female, and therefore undesirable in men, because men have superior qualities. Specifically, you are trying to run the bizarre argument that all emotions are bad, and that women are bad because you think they are more emotional than men.

    That's the explanation of why we think you're sexist, Jan."

    Post #385 (Jan Ardena): "Women are needed to create progeny, and virgins are unadulterated by impure men. What’s wrong with that?"
    Post #538 (James R): "The whole second part is sexist. That's what's wrong with it. What's wrong with you?"

    Post #545 (James R): "If you use your religion to excuse men abusing women - or to excuse your own abuse or sexism towards women - then you're acting immorally, because abuse of women by men is morally wrong.

    It's not the atheists' fault if you, as a religious man, believe that your religion's allowance of or condoning of abuse makes it morally acceptable to you."

    Post #509 (Jan Ardena): "Because it is through women progeny is created. It doesn’t make sense to treat women in a harmful way.

    Women today aren’t valued for that anymore. People generally don’t care about progeny, they are more interested in immediate family. Hence folks are carted off to homes by families, when they get old. Abortion factories are set up to kill unwanted children, all because the mother wanted to have sex, and I’m not talking about those women who became pregnant because they were raped. Just women/girls giving their consent."
    Post #549 (James R): "Looking at the bigger picture here, your problem, Jan, is that you seem to regard women as objects. Their value, if they have any, is in their ability to produce "progeny" for men. As objects, they are to be regarded as a kind of property that men can possess. This is the biblical attitude to women, too, for the most part.

    Since women are the property of men, it follows that men can justifiably control women, including what they are and are not allowed to do with their own bodies. Thus follows the desire of men - especially, in the modern era, religious men - to control women's reproductive rights, because they can.

    Your wide-eyed innocent ploy, saying 'Nobody has shown why I'm a sexist man? (Poor little old me.)' is again exposed for the lie that it is. Your own words repeatedly condemn you."
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Post #617 (James R): "Here's a sexism primer for you, Jan, because clearly you sorely need one.

    First, take the quiz:

    Then read these:"

    Post #618 (James R): "
    Here are a few useful extracts from just one of the sources I linked, in case you're incapable of digesting anything that doesn't come in small chunks:

    Sexism can be a belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than another sex. It imposes limits on what men and boys can and should do and what women and girls can and should do.
    Sexism in a society is most commonly applied against women and girls. It functions to maintain patriarchy, or male domination, through ideological and material practices of individuals, collectives, and institutions that oppress women and girls on the basis of sex or gender. Such oppression usually takes the forms of economic exploitation and social domination. Sexist behaviours, conditions, and attitudes perpetuate stereotypes of social (gender) roles based on one’s biological sex. A common form of socialization that is based in sexist concepts teaches particular narratives about traditional gender roles for males and females. According to such a view, women and men are opposite, with widely different and complementary roles: women are the weaker sex and less capable than men, especially in the realm of logic and rational reasoning. Women are relegated to the domestic realm of nurturance and emotions and, therefore, according to that reasoning, cannot be good leaders in business, politics, and academia. Although women are seen as naturally fit for domestic work and are superb at being caretakers, their roles are devalued or not valued at all when compared with men’s work.​
    The description fits you like a glove, Jan.

    By the way:

    The extreme form of sexist ideology is misogyny, the hatred of women. A society in which misogyny is prevalent has high rates of brutality against women—for example, in the forms of domestic violence, rape, and the commodification of women and their bodies. Where they are seen as property or as second-class citizens, women are often mistreated at the individual as well as the institutional level.​

    And here's what feminism is about, in a nutshell:

    The feminist movement fought for the abolishment of sexism and the establishment of women’s rights as equal under the law. By the remediation of sexism in institutions and culture, women would gain equality in political representation, employment, education, domestic disputes, and reproductive rights.​
    And here's something about the "men's movement" backlash:

    In a cultural backlash, the term reverse sexism emerged to refocus on men and boys, especially on any disadvantages they might experience under affirmative action. Opponents of affirmative action argued that men and boys had become the ones discriminated against for jobs and school admission because of their sex. The appropriation of the term sexism was frustrating to many feminists, who stressed the systemic nature of women’s oppression through structural and historical inequalities. Proponents of men’s rights conjured the notion of misandry, or hatred of men, as they warned against a hypothesized approach of a female-dominated society.​

    Now, Jan. Do you want to double down and reveal yourself as a misogynist or a "men's rights" sympathiser, as well as a sexist man, or you do want to publically disavow your support of any of the three?"

    Post #619 (James R) is full of direct quotes from Jan Ardena's posts showing Jan's sexist views.

    Post #621 (James R): "The problem is your sexism: the idea that you value women primarily, if not almost exclusively, for their potential to produce "progeny". I assume that makes younger women of childbearing age valuable as property to you and your kind. You haven't told us what your view is on the value of a woman following menopause, if there is any.

    As a sexist man, you prefer your "property" to be as "pure" as possible. Thus, a woman's property value to you, as a male, increases if she is "pure". It is clear that you consider non-virgin women to be "adulterated" or "impure", which is most likely something your religion taught you. Biologically, your concern - and those of other sexist men like you - is that non-virgin women could potentially be pregnant with another man's child, thus reducing their property value to you as host for your own "progeny".

    It is only moderately interesting that you regard other men, who "steal" your woman's "purity", as themselves "impure". I guess you want to be the Alpha Male, and you expect the Beta males to maintain their own "purity" in order to maximise the value of your women to you.

    So, there you go, Jan. That's what's wrong with your outdated patriarchal religious view that women are your property, approximately.

    Does that help you to understand? Or do you need further education on why these things are wrong?"
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Post #627 (James R): "The idea that the man is 'naturally' the head of the household is a patriarchal view, as is the idea that the woman ought to be subservient to the man, as is the view that the woman's main value in the family structure is her biological role in 'providing progeny'."

    Post #645 (James R): "I understand. You value [women] as housekeepers, as vessels for your 'progeny' and so on. I understand exactly what you value about women. Even though they are hopelessly emotional, they are the ones you expect to provide you with kids and to maintain you in your household in the way that you are accustomed to under your 'headship'. You've been more than clear about all of that, in this thread.

    You didn't, of course, answer the questions I put to you in the part you pretend you're replying to. Your evasion, once again, is expected and typical of you. I think it's because you're deathly afraid that if you say what you really think, in full, you'll come out looking like the full-blown bigot you probably actually are.

    Your dishonesty is a particularly cowardly type of dishonesty. You are afraid to present your true self and to express your actual opinions in a straightforward, honest way. Instead, you constantly try to turn inquiry around on the inquirer. Every question is answered with a question rather than an answer, if you deign to answer it at all. I can only assume that, just below the facade you present here, you're deeply ashamed of the views you hold, while at the same time being so deeply invested in them that you're unable to let them go. So, you evade and distract and try to troll other posters, forever hoping the focus will shift away from what you are, forever hopeful that people won't see you for what you are."

    Post #662 (James R): "Sexism typically has a source. Whether in your case it is due to misogyny, or indoctrination by a sexist religion, or an attitude learned by example, or some combination of those, doesn't really matter.

    You appear to be proud of your sexist views and attitudes - at least proud enough to publish them and to try to defend them (weakly) on a public forum, albeit one in which you're safely anonymous.

    Instead of listening to the women who are telling you how your posts are coming across, your assumption is that they must be wrong. Moreover, you assume you can brush them off with accusations that they are being 'emotional', while claiming that you're supremely rational.

    Understand this, Jan: your empty words of self-defence do nothing to hide away the obvious conclusions that every reader takes away when they read your descriptions of your ideal model of human society, in which women are subordinated to the role of servants of men and carriers of "progeny", with men "heading" them, lording it over them like entitled little kings."

    Post #665 (James R): "You also said that an emotional man is 'like a woman', with the obvious contextual implication that a man being 'like a woman' is a bad thing. Moreover, following your reasoning, if emotion turns into irrationality, you're also saying that women are irrational. It is quite clear from the context of your posts in this thread that you think all your 'arguments' are rational (and therefore good), while all arguments you disagree with can be dismissed because they are 'emotional' (and therefore bad). Since women are emotional, they are, by nature, unable to make good arguments, and can be safely dismissed.

    That's such an arrogant, sexist view you have there, Jan. Your smug satisfaction with yourself in how you respond to women is equally repulsive.
    As noted previously, a real 'tell' with you is that, by and large, you haven't 'denied' any of the accusations made against you (maybe because your own words contradict any such denial). Instead, you merely require posters to prove it, in effect, which is just a time waster because you're already on the record."
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Jan Ardena:

    As you are well aware, I have previously given extensive reasonable explanations. I have even tried to help you, Jan. See just a small selection of my posts, above.
    Jan, you do not get to repeat that lie without consequences. Knowingly telling lies is a breach of our site rules, and you are a repeat offender.

    I have not claimed that you hate women, though you might, for all I know. That is totally beside the point. I have pointed out your sexism and how it is rooted in misogyny (not necessarily yours). That is the point. Your attempts to conflate the two things and to put words in my mouth are just further dishonesty from you.
    I have already given many reasonable explanations, as you are aware. See above. You will not continue to badger me, or continue to repeat your lie to anybody else here - not for much longer, anyway. If you want to leave us permanently because telling your lie (to others and perhaps to yourself as well) is that important to you, so be it. The choice is yours, of course, and always has been.
    What I wrote was "Observe the desperate gymnastics. This man will do anything to make excuses for his scriptures. Frankly, it's disturbing how religion makes reason fly out the window."

    Try responding to what I wrote, instead of responding to what you wish I'd written.
    I have no aversion to truth. Your silly ad hominems are just a poor attempt to get a rise out of me. How do you think that's going for you, Jan?
    Jan, you're seriously misunderstanding the crux of our current interactions.

    We're long past the point where this was about your sexist views. My capacity or lack thereof for tolerating your views is, at this point in our interaction, quite beside the point.

    What you're dealing with now is this: you're trying to test my capacity for tolerating your dishonest trolling on sciforums. Actually, it turns out that my tolerance for that is extraordinarily high, at least in comparison to my fellow moderators' capacity for the same. If it was up to any of them, you would have been permanently banned from this forum long ago.

    I'm an optimist, Jan, but also a realist. I hope for the best in people, but I don't expect it. I believe in the human capacity for redemption, but I understand that some people are not interested in seeking it.

    In your time here, I have tried in a gentle, understanding way to lead you towards examining some of your faulty assumptions about the world. Initially, it seemed to me that you were open to thinking about things and having civil discussions about them, but over time it has become clear to me that you are so heavily invested in an entrenched position that you are willing to evade, distract tell deliberate lies to try to convince others - and most likely yourself most of all - that you're inevitably on the side of the Right and Good in all discussions about God. I have tried to take the high road, while you have chosen the low road in our interactions (and in many of your interactions with other members here).

    The fact is, Jan, you've lost the respect of many members here. People see how you respond to questions (or, more often, deliberately fail to respond). People see through your evasions and distortions. To an extent, you're good at the game you're trying to play, but you make the mistake of assuming that you're usually the smartest person in the room.

    Our system of warnings here is very lenient. It is supposed to nudge you in the direction of appropriate ethical behaviour on sciforums, in accordance with our published posting guidelines. Realise this: my tolerance for your attempts to circumvent our rules is the same as it has always been. It is not me who has changed (not much, anyway); it is actually you. Your patience with my expectations has worn thin, so now, after several temporary bans, you're angry and resentful at me. You're less careful about disguising your evasions and lies, so now they are more blatant and easier for me to police. If you take this on board, at least two possible solutions suggest themselves. Solution 1 would be for you to blow up completely and try to exit in a self-deluded blaze of glory, thus leaving this forum forever. Solution 2 would be for you to continue the lies and evasions while attempting to dial them back just enough to try to avoid official warnings. Solution 3 would be for you to try being more honest on the forum. Obviously, this is not a comprehensive list. Let me suggest, however, that if you're considering option 2, it may not work for you, because I'm woke to your antics by now. Either of the other two solutions will "work", and there are other possibilities you might consider.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2021
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I was thinking about somebody hating women but trying to keep that hatred covert, I guess. The covert misogynist would, perhaps, restrain himself from giving outward indications of his hatred, and/or might restrict himself to relatively minor acts of overt sexism. As I said, it would be a mistake to imagine that this sort of covert misogyny is not a problem.
    The list of things that people believe without good reason is endless, Jan. I think you're just trying to make me jump through hoops pointlessly by pretending you can't think of any examples yourself. You're a grown man. If you really can't think of any examples, try asking around. Ask your wife, perhaps.
    So it's a bit hypocritical of your God to command his worshippers not to kill while at the same time commanding them to kill, and breaking that commandment himself? Don't you think?
    And yet, here you are, talking to an atheist about God and scripture. Why, Jan?
    So there are two types of people in your world, Jan: the wicked and the virtuous? And all atheists are necessarily in the "wicked" category? How binary of you.
    Nah. The bible was written and compiled 2000 years ago.

    Do you think the End Times are nigh, Jan? Is that what you're alluding to?
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any nation, relative to population. That suggests that your nation's problem is not related to how many murderers it releases, unless your argument is that the US is unusually lenient on the incarceration of murderers.

    If you are trying to blame civil unrest in the United States on "liberals", I suggest that you are probably ignoring the actual statistics concerning which groups tend more towards violent civil disobedience. You should perhaps turn off Fox News and research it more thoroughly, using reliable sources of information instead.

    Consider, also, that perhaps the United States has some entrenched inequalities that make certain groups angry at others. Rather than concentrating on the symptoms of that malaise, you might think about ways to address the issues at their source.
    I think that the people calling for defunding the police at present are doing so largely because they perceive the police to be corrupt and racist. Do you think they have a legitimate concern, or is this just an excuse?
    They don't. However, proportional to population, the homicide rate is much higher among black people.

    According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known. Among homicide victims in 2019 where the race was known, 54.7% were black or African-American, 42.3% were white, and 3.1% were of other races. The per-capita offending rate for African-Americans was roughly six times higher than that of whites, and the victim rate is a similar figure. Most homicides were intraracial; where the perpetrator's race was known, 81% of white victims were killed by whites and 91% of black or African-American victims were killed by African-Americans.

    Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

    The same article suggests some reasons:

    Academic research indicates that the over-representation of some racial minorities in the criminal justice system can in part be explained by socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, exposure to poor neighborhoods, poor access to public education, poor access to early childhood education, and exposure to harmful chemicals (such as lead) and pollution. Racial housing segregation has also been linked to racial disparities in crime rates, as blacks have historically and to the present been prevented from moving into prosperous low-crime areas through actions of the government (such as redlining) and private actors. Various explanations within criminology have been proposed for racial disparities in crime rates, including conflict theory, strain theory, general strain theory, social disorganization theory, macrostructural opportunity theory, social control theory, and subcultural theory.

    Research also indicates that there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system.​

    What's unprecedented? What are you comparing?
    I don't know.

    What's all this about? What does any of this stuff about murder have to do with the thread topic (Religion and Women)?

    I guess that whether you're racist or not will depend very much on why you are concerned about the high murder rate, etc., and what you think the root causes are. So, tell me.
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I'm definitely not one to defend Jan, but it seems a bit odd to respond to his posts and then before he can address those comments he is now banned for a month.

    If you are going to ban him for a month why address his posts knowing that he can't respond for a month?

    I would think it would make more sense to just ban him and not address his posts.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The order of events was that he got himself banned for a month and after that I decided to respond to his posts.

    I'm happy to wait 1 month for his response.

    It's not my fault that he decided to get himself banned for another month. He's the one who decided it was important enough to repeat the lie that has got him banned several times previously. If he hasn't worked out the cause and effect of repeating his lie yet, in the light of previous experience, that's on him, not me. It's not like the situation hasn't been clearly communicated to him.
    Easier for me to reply now and know I've replied than to put this on a list of things to do 1 month from now, especially because I'm likely to be busier with other things 1 month from now. Besides, this way you get to see my post now rather than later, and he gets 1 month to carefully consider his response, if any.
    Note that, technically, his ban is not my choice - it's his. As a moderator, I issue warnings, not bans (except for extreme actions by posters, or obvious spam). Warning points are issued with warnings. Active points expire automatically 6 months from the date of issue. It is only if a person accumulates 50 or more active warning points at one time that he or she is banned, and if that occurs the ban is automatic, not imposed directly by a moderator.

    The best way for a person to avoid incurring automatic bans is simply to follow our site posting guidelines. In that case, the poster will never receive any warning points in the first place, let alone more than 50 such points. There are plenty of people who manage to post here without attracting warnings. A second workable strategy for avoiding bans is to limit one's rule breaches in such a way that one never has more than 50 active warning points at one time. In practice, that means that one must follow the rules most of the time.

    Being banned from this place is a choice people make. In Jan's case, he has opted to allow his active warning point total to increase to the point where he is now banned for 1 month. Stupidly, he has chosen to do that by repeating the same rule breach several times in an identical way. Some might suggest he's a slow learner, expecting a different result from the same repeated action. Jan is now on the brink of getting himself banned permanently. Whether that happens or not will be up to him, once again.
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    The problem here, JamesR, is that you, and the others, are focussing on entirely the wrong part of the process: the dispute is in what is meant when people call him a misogynist, and in getting him to accept that they mean it without there necessarily being any hatred of women.

    Note how Jan has, at every turn, focussed on you showing him how he "hates" women. This is because he believes "misogyny" requires there to be a hatred of women. And if someone calls him a misogynist they are saying that he hates women. He disputes that charge. He has asked you, repeatedly, to show how his words show that he hates women. And you, nor anyone else, has been able to do that, yet you constantly tell him that you have.

    So stop focussing on how his words show he has sexist attitudes. I'm not sure he disputes that (time will tell, should he ever comes back to this thread and someone asks him outright). Focus either on showing how his words demonstrate a hatred of women, or get him to accept the accusation without the need for that hatred. To the latter, maybe if you just accused him of sexism, perhaps??
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    He’s been banned so many times, it’s like a cat with nine lives.

    I don’t think you’re going to have any break-throughs with him, James. You do you, but his thoughts about women are too ingrained to change.
  22. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    How did a thread which began with such a base, unthinking question develop like this? The matter is irrelevant: gods aren't real. Next case.

    Think less about how to transform religion to help women and more about eliminating its pointless existence totally.
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    We’ve moved on ^ and the topic has become more about defining misogyny and how to spot a misogynist.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page