Religion and women.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason you have continued this rant asking for more proof when you’ve been given ample proof, is all part of your misogyny.
Lol!!!:D
I’m not asking for more proof because nothing has been proven.
You claim I dismiss women because you think I said all women are emotional and irrational...
Neither you or anyone has shown where I have said that. You didn’t discuss p82 after I explained to you that is not what I meant. In fact you replied “good” in a later post, when I told you that I do not view women as inferior to men. So why do insist on calling me a misogynist. If you’re confused over my posts, then why not discuss it?
The view I expressed is based on the spiritual as well as materialistic well-being of family structures, and is the same as the biblical view you say you understand. If I am a misogynist, is God, Jesus, Timothy, and Paul misogynist also?
I’m not entirely sure how you can reconcile this being a believer in God and Christ.
You simply see nothing wrong with anything you’ve posted so there will never be proof that satisfies you.
What you regard as proof assumes I am a misogynist. You assumed from p82 that “so, in other words - women don’t evaluate situations rationally? We’re basically emotional and “irrational?” My question to you is what was in that post to make you come to such a determined and immovable conclusion. To the point where now, my very being is misogynistic, therefore any and everything I say comes under that banner.
Can you not see something wrong with that?
If I were a guy, you wouldn’t have dismissed my comments in the thread as easily as you have.
Show where I have dismissed your comment because I am not aware that I have. If Ihave, I will either apologise or explain the so called dismissal.
You dubbed me emotional without any rationale behind it -
That’s not true, I gave at least two demonstration on why I thought that response to p82 was emotional.
so the conclusion would be that you don’t take my points seriously because I’m a woman.
That doesn’t follow wegs.
But that would fall under the banner of misogyny.
The proper one, not the lefty one :D
Hope you see the humour.
This is why it is not good to just charge people with labels like misogyny, racist, pervert, rapist, etc. These can stick.
Now you’ve given these atheists a new meme to play with. Imagine someone come on here for the first time, they will think I am a misogynist, because I’m constantly being called one.
But the truth is that I am not a misogynist, and your summary of my posts are just straight up wrong.
I feel like I’m on a tilt-a-whirl at an amusement park...:oops:
Good. Because what you have done is not only irresponsible, and wrong. but spiteful and nasty.
 
-- is ridiculous. I know that you are anti-education,
How do you know that?
I assume that you know better than to think that a simple dictionary definition adequately conveys the comprehensive meaning of a term.
We use dictionaries as point of reference. I know there are in-depth meanings.
Or do you believe that by being able to recite a dictionary definition of, say, "automobile," one thereby possesses a full understanding of what an automobile is, sufficient to qualify one as an automobile mechanic even?
Do you believe that one could become an auto mechanic by pulling up a wiki article?:rolleyes:
Regardless, even simplistic and insufficient dictionary definitions of "misogyny" adequately describe you, but why not consider, at least, a slightly more fleshed-out conveyance of the concept--or would that be in violation of your anti-education stance?
What have I said that convinces you I am a misogynist? Are you prepared to discuss, or are you going to continue with baseless accusations?
And again, stop asking for "proof": an abundance of evidence, supporting the contention that you are a misogynist, has been provided by every single poster within this thread, over 40 pages worth of evidence.
That’s not how it works.
Show the actual posts or comments where you believe I discriminate against women and girls.
 
Show the actual posts or comments where you believe I discriminate against women and girls.
Examples of your sexism and what many would classify as misogynistic attitude towards women:

When you mocked and dismissed the notion of equality between men and women:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-2#post-3660880

When you told us that men and women were not equal but that women can be deemed superior when we grow babies in our wombs:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-3#post-3660940

When you advised that the man is "naturally heads over his wife" and you deemed her role to be a mere incubator and inferred that women were emotional and thus, irrational:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-5#post-3661158

You then tried to reiterate this with support from the Bible (while whining that religion doesn't really have a problem when it comes to women):
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-5#post-3661218

When you accused Wegs of being emotional and then gave us the real low-down of how women are simply "emotional":
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-5#post-3661228

And we're only up to page 5...

Through a few pages of you prattling about how women are emotional, we get to this gem about how men who are emotional are like women, as though it's a negative:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-8#post-3661347

You then tried to argue that a child is better off with a mother and father, instead of a single parent, "especially if the single parent is the mother", as though a woman is unable to bring up a child:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-8#post-3661349

When you tried to gaslight while re-affirming your sexism:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-9#post-3661424

When you (again) only save the 'you're being emotional and irrational' for the only woman responding to you in the thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-10#post-3661429

More gaslighting in regards to your sexism:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-10#post-3661434

Followed by more sexism and gaslighting:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-10#post-3661450
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religion-and-women.163938/page-10#post-3661452


That is just from the first 10 pages. I could go on and do this for the entire 40 pages, but really, I have a life and your posts are repulsive.

Now, you complete and utter troll.. Stop asking the same question and making the same demands even after it has been answered repeatedly.
 
The view I expressed is based on the spiritual as well as materialistic well-being of family structures, and is the same as the biblical view you say you understand. If I am a misogynist, is God, Jesus, Timothy, and Paul misogynist also?
If you take the Bible 100% literally, then yes - they absolutely are. They also support genocide, killing gays and rape. Fortunately for society, very few people take the Bible 100% literally.
That’s not true, I gave at least two demonstration on why I thought that response to p82 was emotional.
Attempting to provide proof that women are emotional and irrational really doesn't help you here.
This is why it is not good to just charge people with labels like misogyny, racist, pervert, rapist, etc. These can stick.
And in many cases (Weinstein, Maxwell, Trump, Steve King, yourself) it is good that they stick.
Good. Because what you have done is not only irresponsible, and wrong. but spiteful and nasty.
You have an ongoing problem with this concept that seems to stem from your belief that a discussion forum is like gossip. With gossip, you can say whatever you want and have a chance to be believed.

For example, let's say you are angry at Wegs for calling you out, and so you gossip about her behind her back with your friends. "She is emotional, irrational, spiteful and nasty! What she is doing is irresponsible and wrong." And they might believe you, since they can't check to see what she's done in the past.

But here on line all they need to do is read her posts. And then they would discover that she is NOT being any of those things. This would reveal that you, not her, were the nasty, spiteful person, attempting to smear her by lying about her.

Can you see the difference there, and why the usual smear tactics don't work here?
 
Last edited:
Wait, is wegs required to believe in God and Christ?

Why would that be an issue?
I’m a “believer” but Jan seems to think that women should accept misogyny, sexism etc...and that if I don’t accept my “role” in society as being second to men, I’m somehow dissing my faith.

It’s just funny that a guy who posts misogynistic garbage all over the place is man ‘splaining to us all about misogyny. -_-
 
Lol!!!:D
I’m not asking for more proof because nothing has been proven.
You claim I dismiss women because you think I said all women are emotional and irrational...
Neither you or anyone has shown where I have said that. You didn’t discuss p82 after I explained to you that is not what I meant. In fact you replied “good” in a later post, when I told you that I do not view women as inferior to men. So why do insist on calling me a misogynist. If you’re confused over my posts, then why not discuss it?
The view I expressed is based on the spiritual as well as materialistic well-being of family structures, and is the same as the biblical view you say you understand. If I am a misogynist, is God, Jesus, Timothy, and Paul misogynist also?
I’m not entirely sure how you can reconcile this being a believer in God and Christ.

What you regard as proof assumes I am a misogynist. You assumed from p82 that “so, in other words - women don’t evaluate situations rationally? We’re basically emotional and “irrational?” My question to you is what was in that post to make you come to such a determined and immovable conclusion. To the point where now, my very being is misogynistic, therefore any and everything I say comes under that banner.
Can you not see something wrong with that?

Show where I have dismissed your comment because I am not aware that I have. If Ihave, I will either apologise or explain the so called dismissal.

That’s not true, I gave at least two demonstration on why I thought that response to p82 was emotional.

That doesn’t follow wegs.
But that would fall under the banner of misogyny.
The proper one, not the lefty one :D
Hope you see the humour.
This is why it is not good to just charge people with labels like misogyny, racist, pervert, rapist, etc. These can stick.
Now you’ve given these atheists a new meme to play with. Imagine someone come on here for the first time, they will think I am a misogynist, because I’m constantly being called one.
But the truth is that I am not a misogynist, and your summary of my posts are just straight up wrong.

Good. Because what you have done is not only irresponsible, and wrong. but spiteful and nasty.
I haven’t been spiteful at all unless spiteful to you, means truthful. ;)
 
I’m a “believer” but Jan seems to think that women should accept misogyny, sexism etc...and that if I don’t accept my “role” in society as being second to men, I’m somehow dissing my faith.

It’s just funny that a guy who posts misogynistic garbage all over the place is man ‘splaining to us all about misogyny. -_-
Maybe Jan has the ultimate know-how on what it means to be a good Christian?

And maybe Jan could then educate everybody. Isn't that what Jesus technically did?
 
Maybe Jan has the ultimate know-how on what it means to be a good Christian?

And maybe Jan could then educate everybody. Isn't that what Jesus technically did?
Jesus told men and women how best to live their lives, but Jan focuses on how only women should be conducting themselves. lol
 
Difference between what?
A misogynist has an hatred and prejudice against what men because they are women, is irrational.
His reasoning could be sound, as to why he is the way he is. A person who is prejudice toward women, is simply an unreasoned thought process (according to definition), it does not necessarily involve any type of emotion, or thought for that matter. Such a person changes with each new situation that arises, whereas a misogynist cannot change because his prejudice is deep-rooted, hence to term “hatred”
I have no need to. One characteristic can be described as both misogynistic AND sexist. Either description will suffice for that characteristic.
In the same sentence?
Did she do it for decoration:D
You know she meant it literally, and I have proven it to you on numerous occasions.
. It may mean you have an intense dislike, but per your own definition above, it may also be that you simply have an (unreasonable) "preference for one group of people or things over another"
“Over” but not against.
It s the ‘against women’ that separates a misogynist from a person who has a bias for or against types of folk.
Some would argue that all prejudice is irrational, and should be part of the definition, to differentiate it from when there is reason to differentiate.
Some would argue that Nissan cars are better that Toyota cars.
What is your point? You think this means that anyone who is prejudice against women must be so because of hatred?
Yes.
Can you think of any other reason why someone could be prejudice against all women, as long as women and girls exist?
You displayed an ignorance to the idea that different words can mean the same thing:
That has no bearing in this discussion
1 she said what she said, indicating I was both
2 you do not know her intent at the time of the accusation
3 her testimony after the accusation had been made, may be a ploy to water down the seriousness of the accusation. It would require a proper dialogue to clear up any misunderstandings. But she refuses
Correct. You steretype women: sexist. You are prejudice against women: misogynist. That is one possible explanation.
Women wear dresses and make up?
Would you regard that as a stereotype, or an observation.
Women are naturally made for giving birth, and being a mother to her children.
Would you regard that as a stereotype?
Women are naturally suited to nurture their children?
Is that a stereotype, or an observation?
Regarding “submission”, I gave a good example of what is meant by submission, and it certainly was how a misogynist would be inclined to see it.
But if there was any misunderstanding about that. I would have happy to discuss.
How is that a display of prejudice?
Wish- washy logic, such as the one you present. can assign anything to anything.
So analysis that speaks to the issue you're not willing to address, at the heart of your trolling and dishonesty, is "namby-pamby analysis"?
Yes, people do need to come to a conclusion - most notably about your continued trolling and dishonesty.
Namby-Pambyism is incapable of any reasonable solution because it is based on the whim of the individual. They can assign anything to anything because they feel to.
You can’t show that I’m being dishonest, you can only make accusation because you lack substance.
What a bizarrely irrational comment that in no way addresses the comment to which you have attributed it.
If you can label a man sexist because he keep looking at women’s breasts while they’re trying to talk to him, you can label him a misogynist. If the person is favourable in the eyes of the accuser, he will not be accuse of hate. If the person is not favourable, the accusation can become serious where the man gets accused of hateful activity against women.
That is why wegs should not running away from the responsibility of her accusations.
As for you and all the other atheists
 
If you can label a man sexist because he keep looking at women’s breasts while they’re trying to talk to him, you can label him a misogynist.
Correct. (Important part of that in bold)
If the person is favourable in the eyes of the accuser, he will not be accuse of hate. If the person is not favourable, the accusation can become serious where the man gets accused of hateful activity against women.
Nope. Just misogyny, not hate. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, the two are not the same.
That is why wegs should not running away from the responsibility of her accusations.
As for you and all the other atheists
She's not running away from anything.
 
A misogynist has an hatred and prejudice against what men because they are women, is irrational.
His reasoning could be sound, as to why he is the way he is. A person who is prejudice toward women, is simply an unreasoned thought process (according to definition), it does not necessarily involve any type of emotion, or thought for that matter. Such a person changes with each new situation that arises, whereas a misogynist cannot change because his prejudice is deep-rooted, hence to term “hatred”

In the same sentence?
Did she do it for decoration:D
You know she meant it literally, and I have proven it to you on numerous occasions.

“Over” but not against.
It s the ‘against women’ that separates a misogynist from a person who has a bias for or against types of folk.

Some would argue that Nissan cars are better that Toyota cars.

Yes.
Can you think of any other reason why someone could be prejudice against all women, as long as women and girls exist?

That has no bearing in this discussion
1 she said what she said, indicating I was both
2 you do not know her intent at the time of the accusation
3 her testimony after the accusation had been made, may be a ploy to water down the seriousness of the accusation. It would require a proper dialogue to clear up any misunderstandings. But she refuses

Women wear dresses and make up?
Would you regard that as a stereotype, or an observation.
Women are naturally made for giving birth, and being a mother to her children.
Would you regard that as a stereotype?
Women are naturally suited to nurture their children?
Is that a stereotype, or an observation?
Regarding “submission”, I gave a good example of what is meant by submission, and it certainly was how a misogynist would be inclined to see it.
But if there was any misunderstanding about that. I would have happy to discuss.

Wish- washy logic, such as the one you present. can assign anything to anything.

Namby-Pambyism is incapable of any reasonable solution because it is based on the whim of the individual. They can assign anything to anything because they feel to.
You can’t show that I’m being dishonest, you can only make accusation because you lack substance.

If you can label a man sexist because he keep looking at women’s breasts while they’re trying to talk to him, you can label him a misogynist. If the person is favourable in the eyes of the accuser, he will not be accuse of hate. If the person is not favourable, the accusation can become serious where the man gets accused of hateful activity against women.
That is why wegs should not running away from the responsibility of her accusations.
As for you and all the other atheists
At this point, you’re merely harassing and bullying me. Not surprising, considering your prejudice of women. But, it feels like you’re bordering violation of forum rules, at this point.
 
I said:
I know that you are anti-education...

How do you know that?

You said as much:
You shouldn’t need evidence outside of your own understanding.
Your own common sense, experience, intelligence, and observations should be adequate to become informed.
___________

What have I said that convinces you I am a misogynist? Are you prepared to discuss, or are you going to continue with baseless accusations?

They're hardly baseless--there's over 40 pages of text explaining in great detail why you are a misogynist.

I said:
And again, stop asking for "proof": an abundance of evidence, supporting the contention that you are a misogynist, has been provided by every single poster within this thread, over 40 pages worth of evidence.

That’s not how it works.

You're absolutely right. Under normal circumstances, when dealing with honest people, 40 pages of posts are hardly necessary to get a point across. However, when dealing with idiots and/or dishonest trolls, other avenues need be explored--in your case, repetition ad nauseam.

Show the actual posts or comments where you believe I discriminate against women and girls.
Done, done and done. Just set aside your anti-education idiocy for a while and read the damn thread.
 
At this point, you’re merely harassing and bullying me. Not surprising, considering your prejudice of women. But, it feels like you’re bordering violation of forum rules, at this point.
I am bullying you?:eek:
Because I have prejudice of women?
That is rich,
 
A misogynist has an hatred and prejudice against what men because they are women, is irrational.
I assume you mean "women" rather than "what men"?
His reasoning could be sound, as to why he is the way he is.
If his reasoning is sound then he is not irrational, by definition of what it means for an argument/reasoning to be sound.
But yet again you insert "because they are women" - despite having explained to you, repeatedly, that it is a tautology, and thus unnecessary. All prejudice against X is because it is X.
A person who is prejudice toward women, is simply an unreasoned thought process (according to definition), it does not necessarily involve any type of emotion, or thought for that matter. Such a person changes with each new situation that arises, whereas a misogynist cannot change because his prejudice is deep-rooted, hence to term “hatred”
So you sill refuse to accept that the meaning of misogynist as used was prejudice toward women? Okay - so you're continuing to be a troll. Fair enough.
In the same sentence?
Did she do it for decoration:D
Presumably she did it either for emphasis, or because, having explained what she meant by her use of misogynist, she felt you also displayed other characteristics that are covered by the term sexist.
You know she meant it literally, and I have proven it to you on numerous occasions.
Alas, you have proven nothing. You have simply trolled.
“Over” but not against.
It s the ‘against women’ that separates a misogynist from a person who has a bias for or against types of folk.
Oh, for Pete's sake - your squirming and scrabbling is utterly pathetic. Now you're trying to say that a prejudice of one thing over another is not the same as a prejudice for one thing and against another... priceless.
Stop trolling!
Some would argue that Nissan cars are better that Toyota cars.
Sure. But then you're referring to informed preference, and not prejudice. So stop arguing against strawmen, and please stop trolling.
Yes.
Can you think of any other reason why someone could be prejudice against all women, as long as women and girls exist?
Ignorance.
That has no bearing in this discussion
On the contrary, you are simply failing to comprehend its relevance. Understandable given your apparent difficulty with the English language.
1 she said what she said, indicating I was both
And I have given an example of why she might - i.e. misogynist (prejudice) and sexist (another characteristic of sexist that isn't covered by misogynist). It's not difficult to follow, Jan. But you continue to troll because you don't actually want to address the issue.
2 you do not know her intent at the time of the accusation
She has detailed it. I, and others, have pointed this out to you. Your failure to recognise this is bordering on pathological delusion. And you are trolling.
3 her testimony after the accusation had been made, may be a ploy to water down the seriousness of the accusation. It would require a proper dialogue to clear up any misunderstandings. But she refuses
That's for you to take up with her.
Women wear dresses and make up?
...
I would have happy to discuss.
Take all this up with those who you are discussing the issue with.
Wish- washy logic, such as the one you present. can assign anything to anything.
Then please try and show how what you suggested is an example of prejudice.
Namby-Pambyism is incapable of any reasonable solution because it is based on the whim of the individual. They can assign anything to anything because they feel to.
You can’t show that I’m being dishonest, you can only make accusation because you lack substance.
It has been shown, Jan. I'm sorry that you don't follow the reasoning, but that in itself is all part of your dishonesty, because I don't believe you're that ignorant.
If you can label a man sexist because he keep looking at women’s breasts while they’re trying to talk to him, you can label him a misogynist.
Perhaps, but not just for looking at one woman's breasts without knowing the why and intent etc.
If the person is favourable in the eyes of the accuser, he will not be accuse of hate. If the person is not favourable, the accusation can become serious where the man gets accused of hateful activity against women.
And I'm sure they'll take that up with the accuser.
That is why wegs should not running away from the responsibility of her accusations.
That's for you to raise with her.
As for you and all the other atheists
As for me and all other atheists... what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top