Religion and women.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wegs,

your response was emotional and irrational. We can go into reasons why if you like.
But in the discussion we had, there was no “sexism” on my part.

Just throwing up whole posts and saying “here you go” doesn’t cut it.
Remember we are here to discuss.
 
Wegs,

your response was emotional and irrational. We can go into reasons why if you like.
But in the discussion we had, there was no “sexism” on my part.

Just throwing up whole posts and saying “here you go” doesn’t cut it.
Remember we are here to discuss.
I think that it’s relevant for members to read your comments in context of the discussion. You posted those things - I was not irrational, I merely replied to your post suggesting that you see women as incapable of rational thinking because we’re emotional. I’m just reposting your own words.
 
I missed that first comment above ^^ So if a guy is ''emotional,'' he's not only acting like a woman, he's also a ''snowflake.'' lol

I was kinda hoping someone would pick up on that bit. I mean, the "women are more emotional than men" aspect is only so interesting: you can poke and prod Jan all you like, but you're just gonna get the standard Jan bs explanation, always sans any substantive evidence whatsoever. Just a baseless, non-sensical assertion.

But the "men who are emotional, are like women" bit? What the hell does that even mean?
 
I missed that first comment above ^^ So if a guy is ''emotional,'' he's not only acting like a woman, he's also a ''snowflake.'' lol
Is that a quote?
I looked for it in the above post and couldn’t find it.
Jan, you don't offend me.
Im glad to hear that.
Why are you acting as though I am.
It's sad that you have this mindset.
I think you misunderstand my mindset
It's not a Biblical mindset, btw. Jesus treated women as equals, and he often ignored social norms of the time, so he could share the Gospel with them...so they could go on and share it with others. If he were a sexist however, he would have likely only approached men to keep in stride with social norms.
I think you’re talking about undermining women, because they are women. But I already told you that’s not where I’m going.
 
I was kinda hoping someone would pick up on that bit. I mean, the "women are more emotional than men" aspect is only so interesting: you can poke and prod Jan all you like, but you're just gonna get the standard Jan bs explanation, always sans any substantive evidence whatsoever. Just a baseless, non-sensical assertion.

But the "men who are emotional, are like women" bit? What the hell does that even mean?
My best guess is that it means if you're a guy unafraid to be vulnerable around others, or perhaps get a little emotional now and again, you're weak...like a woman.

But, I'm being 'accused' of being emotional when I'm not, so perhaps Jan's definition of emotional is anyone who disagrees with him.
 
I think that it’s relevant for members to read your comments in context of the discussion. You posted those things - I was not irrational, I merely replied to your post suggesting that you see women as incapable of rational thinking because we’re emotional. I’m just reposting your own words.
Your posting my words (discussion), but your not showing where or how I’m being sexist.
 
Where did I say “women are emotional and irrational”?
See Wegs' list below.
I don’t get angry.
It is clear when you are angry here. You start calling people names. "Snowflake" for example.
So it is ok for you you to not only falsely accuse me of saying “women are emotional and irrational”, but of being emotional and irrational.
Yes, you are irrational. You have, several times, presented irrational claims (i.e. creationism) and when pressed on the issue replied with answers like "it's what I feel to be true." That is irrational.
 
Your posting my words (discussion), but your not showing where or how I’m being sexist.
Your belief that women act inherently different than men is pretty much the definition of sexism. "Do you think it is okay for men to be emotional (like women)?"
 
Your posting my words (discussion), but your not showing where or how I’m being sexist.

Okay. What does this mean:

''I would like to add that men who are emotional, are like women.

Maybe that will get me banned from snowflake county, but it’s true.''

That's a direct quote from you.
 
My best guess is that it means if you're a guy unafraid to be vulnerable around others, or perhaps get a little emotional now and again, you're weak...like a woman.

But, I'm being 'accused' of being emotional when I'm not, so perhaps Jan's definition of emotional is anyone who disagrees with him.
Yeah, we see a lot of that around here--accusations of being emotional wherever there is disagreement, that is.

Personally, I also find that (such accusations) to be somewhat more fascinating than the ridiculous assertion that "women are more emotional than men." How do you gauge such when interacting with a person online? IRL measuring such things is hard enough already. I suspect that MRIs, or something of that nature, might be able to measure "emotional lability" to some degree--but, again, only to "some degree" and to get any truly meaningful or valuable results, a person would have to be undergoing an MRI pretty much constantly, throughout the course of their lives.

But then people make claims as to assessing such solely on the basis of their anonymous posting online? That's just whacked. For instance, were I to attempt a "fresh" read, so to speak, of my own posting, I might conclude that I am oftentimes being very "emotional." But from my own perspective, I'm simply being hyperbolic--it's simply a stylistic choice and tactic.
 
This is supposedly(?) a Science Site, Alex.
You are expected to backup your assertions with evidence...you know, provide direct quotes of me(dmoe) stating that I(dmoe) think of you(Alex) as "someone who has no compassion".

I humbly request that you(Alex) either provide the evidence to support your spurious allegation or Retract said spurious allegation, Alex, Please?

No I won't retract it at the moment. I do like that you said please however. I suppose I could throw you a crumb but this turns upon ones right to state and opinion that has a reasonable foundation and further you seem to be adopting an abusive and bullying position which if so needs to be resisted.

I am considering the need to support a casual opinion with some evidence and if you continually calling me disingenuous entitles me to hold a casual opinion that you do not see me as someone who has compassion.

Now I say that because I try to show you compassion and when ever I do you call me disingenuous which certainly suggests that my opinion has some reasonable basis...do you agree with that?

Further I think if I go back thru this thread I will find plenty of evidence that shows you have offered many casual opinions without backing them up which suggests something but I am not sure what as yet.

Further you now seem to be preoccupied with trying to catch up and even the score but I don't know because I am not a mind reader...yet it does seem you are taking things just a little to far...can't you accept the score is not a big thing and it only reflects how many times each of has been wrong it certainly however reflects the grace we each show when we make a mistake and sadly that puts you in even a poorer light don't you think..

Perhaps what would be helpful is if you could say if you do or do not agree with the statement I made regarding compassion so let me ask you this..do you think that I am a person with compassion for other humans and many living creatures. As I said when I have showed you compassion you in effect said that I was not being compassionate because in your attempts at mind reading you conclude that I was not being compassionate but in your opinion disingenious...have you addressed this at all..I think I drew your attention to the fact that you really did not know..that means you have been presenting over and over an unsupported opinion...again it is probably this thing where one attacks others who seem to exhibit behaviours that the person does not like in themselves...sure you have a problem but you must stop obsessing over it..oops there I go interpreting your constant use of disingenious as obsessive..I will retract that and let others form their own opinion as to your behaviour.

However before we proceed I ask you directly ..do you think I am a compassionate guy or not? Given you share readily your opinion that I an disingenious it should be no trouble to answer my question.


Alex
 
your response was emotional and irrational. We can go into reasons why if you like.
But in the discussion we had, there was no “sexism” on my part.
That was both gaslighting and sexist, and a great example of what women have to put up with day in and day out.
 
Your posting my words (discussion), but your not showing where or how I’m being sexist.
???

I'm not going to quote the relevant remarks here--Wegs and billvon have already done so above. (And I'm lazy.)

But how do you figure--both that you are not (being) sexist and (being) irrational here? You make pretty bold generalizations, making no effort whatsoever to back up said claims--that, in itself, is irrational. The nature of the generalizations themselves are sexist.

You can string together words in a semi- or sufficiently coherent manner such that your claiming that you are not (being) sexist and irrational really strains credulity.
 
Post 138 still goes without comment...

I do think that there is more merit in addressing at least one obvious cause of sexism that being the church than indulging side arguement that really should go in the sexist thread..the reason I started this thread was to examine the reasons sexism is so ingrained in our culture ..it seems this thread has been sidetracked in such a subtle manner that I have yet to identify a culprit...why post 138 is extremely interesting is it is written by a Christian.. he points out as did Weggs that Jesus demonstrated a decent approach to women...now I would ask members to please address the various links and videos which are after all what the thread is about.
I think the other thing to address is that we all are no doubt more stressed than say 18 months ago due to the virus and politics...we have been taking our distress out on others..I recognise that I have and that is not like me.
So as Jan says this is a discussion forum which suggests a display of respect for a person even if you do not agree with them.

I would like to see that at least one person has read , even if you ignore the rest, post 138

Alex
 
No I won't retract it at the moment. I do like that you said please however. I suppose I could throw you a crumb but this turns upon ones right to state and opinion that has a reasonable foundation and further you seem to be adopting an abusive and bullying position which if so needs to be resisted.

I am considering the need to support a casual opinion with some evidence and if you continually calling me disingenuous entitles me to hold a casual opinion that you do not see me as someone who has compassion.

Now I say that because I try to show you compassion and when ever I do you call me disingenuous which certainly suggests that my opinion has some reasonable basis...do you agree with that?

Further I think if I go back thru this thread I will find plenty of evidence that shows you have offered many casual opinions without backing them up which suggests something but I am not sure what as yet.

Further you now seem to be preoccupied with trying to catch up and even the score but I don't know because I am not a mind reader...yet it does seem you are taking things just a little to far...can't you accept the score is not a big thing and it only reflects how many times each of has been wrong it certainly however reflects the grace we each show when we make a mistake and sadly that puts you in even a poorer light don't you think..

Perhaps what would be helpful is if you could say if you do or do not agree with the statement I made regarding compassion so let me ask you this..do you think that I am a person with compassion for other humans and many living creatures. As I said when I have showed you compassion you in effect said that I was not being compassionate because in your attempts at mind reading you conclude that I was not being compassionate but in your opinion disingenious...have you addressed this at all..I think I drew your attention to the fact that you really did not know..that means you have been presenting over and over an unsupported opinion...again it is probably this thing where one attacks others who seem to exhibit behaviours that the person does not like in themselves...sure you have a problem but you must stop obsessing over it..oops there I go interpreting your constant use of disingenious as obsessive..I will retract that and let others form their own opinion as to your behaviour.

However before we proceed I ask you directly ..do you think I am a compassionate guy or not? Given you share readily your opinion that I an disingenious it should be no trouble to answer my question.


Alex
I have only Stated that going solely by your Posts, Alex, that those Posts SEEM TO ME to be disingenuous...
I have provided suuporting "evidence" of what SEEMED TO ME to be disingenuous by providing direct quotes from those Posts when asked.

I have never "attempted" any "mind reading", nor have I stated or implied in any way that I might attempt to...

Again, Alex...I DO NOT PERSONALLY KNOW YOU...therefore I CANNOT 'think' anything at all about on any personal traits that you possess other than what you choose to Post on this Site.

I have not Posted any statement or opinion concerning whether you are "a compassionate guy or not".
I cannot and will not state or claim to do so simply because I DO NOT PERSONALLY KNOW YOU, Alex.
 
Okay. What does this mean:

''I would like to add that men who are emotional, are like women.

Maybe that will get me banned from snowflake county, but it’s true.''

That's a direct quote from you.
It means exactly what it says.
You labelled me sexist, accusing me of saying women are emotional and irrational. But I didn’t.
You could have done that because you took what I said personally.
Here is another example of an emotional response from you...
ME: Would you prefer your husband, or boyfriend not to view you in anyway, at any time as a sex object, because you feel it undermines your personhood?
YOU: Is that how you see a woman’s “role” in a relationship? To be a “sex object?” Isn’t sex to be enjoyed and shared as a partnership?

The only reason why I asked that type of question was because earlier in the thread you said something like we don’t have to walk on eggshells.
But how do you get to the point of asking me what you did, from the question I asked? Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the question?
Your response created a negative atmosphere, by making it personal. You made it personal by thinking I was being sexist. But if read what I said, you’ll find I wasn’t being sexist. I’ve always liked talking to you, and I’ve always known your a woman, and it makes not the slightest difference.
When men argue like that, they are like women.
 
???

I'm not going to quote the relevant remarks here--Wegs and billvon have already done so above. (And I'm lazy.)
Wegs posted my entire conversation. Are you really saying that everything I said was sexist?
Look what this simple conversation descended into.:D
But how do you figure--both that you are not (being) sexist and (being) irrational here? You make pretty bold generalizations, making no effort whatsoever to back up said claims--that, in itself, is irrational. The nature of the generalizations themselves are sexist.
It never really got that far before accusations and cancellations took place.
Men and women are different. I don’t know if you regard that as sexist or not, but it is an observation. Once we understand and accept that observation, then we can get into what those differences are, and how they relate to us on a fundamental level. It’s just a discussion, no need to take anything personally.
You can string together words in a semi- or sufficiently coherent manner such that your claiming that you are not (being) sexist and irrational really strains credulity.
You can string together words in a semi- or sufficiently coherent manner such that your claiming that you are not (being) sexist and irrational really strains credulity.
Apologies for terrible spelling, but I hope you get the meaning of what I’m expressing.
At the moment I’m being accused of something without any evidence. That’s seems to be the way these days
 
So when men are emotional and irrational, they are like women?

That's about as offensive as saying "Thank you! That's mighty white of you."
I said no such thing.
I guess your response will be something like, “well you might as well have said it”:D
 
I said no such thing.
Your words: "When men argue like that, they are like women." ("Like that" was a reference to Wegs' reply. You claimed her "response was emotional and irrational.")

So yes, you said when men are emotional and irrational, they are like women.

You do realize that the Internet keeps a record of what you post, right? Again, Matthew 7:1-5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top