Why Are Some People So Goddamn Racist?

[Guest ninurta]

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

 

 

 

            As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

 

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

 

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

 

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

 

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

 

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

 

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

[Yrth]

*

[Deidre]

Fear and ignorance...a racist person tends to possess both.

[Jutta]

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree. 

[Thurisaz]

Cracked.com article "5 things I learned as a neo-nazi" - quite relevant to this topic I guess

 

As the author claims, ultimately the reason for this shit is always fear (not too surprising)... but one important thing is that the original fear need not have anything to do with "racism" in any way. I will not write too much right now because it's still a bit too early for me and reading the article will be the better way to go anyway... so yeah, read

[Darklady]

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

 

 

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

 

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

 

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

 

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

 

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

 

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.

Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

[gall]

 

This does not negate the fact that the religion, that pesky set of writings, and all the writings and practices that go with it, is harmful to people, and mainly to women.

Both the writings that christianity and Islam are based on are immoral, and encourage extremist behaviours.

 

It has nothing to do with "race", ethnicity, racism, prejudice etc, and everything to do with wanting freedom and equality for women.

 

Returning land and making repayments for past wrongs is putting a line in the sand and allows us as a nation to say,

Yes wrong was done, we acknowledge it, and put right what we can and will move forward together to make a better, inclusive nation for all our people.

 

How is it harmful to people? And how so women?

I disagree, I think that the religious texts are based on cultures that were well meant, but had some rather unproductive, and often times disturbingly wrong, ways of handling things. The immoral and extreme behaviors they cause, aren't far out from the immoral and extreme behaviors anything we in the modern west produce from our own worldviews absent of religion. O wait,... sorry, you're right... .I'm wrong.... I forgot that the west has the superior race and culture! All hail the Goddess of the West!

 

It really does have to do with race, and it really has nothing to do with how they treat women. It's the west's view that they have the right to dictate how others exist; or their specific supreme race/nation (whether that be America, Britain, etc... specifically).

 

There's so much wrong with what you said, I don't even know where to begin. The number of assumptions you make is astounding.

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

 

anti-islamic is not racist, never was, never will be

 

 

That's all cool and all, but hating blacks by that same logic is the same, not racist. Want to know why? Because race doesn't exist, nobody is "black" by ethnicity, its a skin tone not a race. Nevermind that its because of the perception of "where someone comes from" is what's the cause, its not an ethnicity nor will it ever be. Its a color.

 

Or, you can negate my above point, and not just make claims. As anyone can do that.

 

 

everyone is human period no matter how you slice it. the race is called HUMAN.

 

As soon as the planet gets that term straight maybe more people will understand what group they belong to. When you act racist you are hurting the very group you already belong to no matter how tiny and ridiculous a racist mind is.

 

It is more our difference in culture that keep us apart all over the globe. Well a lot of us. I personally love the diversity and would like to keep living on a world that has color and variety. My life is richer because of the multitude of differences around me.

 

I wish more people would see it like this and like you said. Where you come from means nothing overall to me. What life really is is only ever happening between your ears and eyes. If you are human and act human to others then humanity will gain. Act like a one sided kill or be killed animal and you basically have de-evolved yourself mentally.

[gall]

Fear and ignorance...a racist person tends to possess both.

 

One only needs open their eyes to the world around and see it really see it to not live in ignorance. If one can do that maybe the fear would subside and they could learn something about themselves through someone different than they seem to be.

[Guest ninurta]

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree. 

Fair point. Though I've known people who have spanked their children who didn't go overboard with it. Ineffective? Oh yeah. Abuse? I'm not as sure, but I don't approve of it.

 

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

 

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

 

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

 

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

 

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

 

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

 

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.

Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

 

Oh okay, and honestly, my bad. Either way, I don't disagree with you that its fucked up. I've decided to make it a project to defend those that regularly get a beating, its not exactly easy

 

Either way, why shouldn't the males get the larger part of the inheritance, in a culture where they're expected to work harder? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

[Darklady]

 

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree.

 

Fair point. Though I've known people who have spanked their children who didn't go overboard with it. Ineffective? Oh yeah. Abuse? I'm not as sure, but I don't approve of it.

 

 

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

 

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

Oh okay, and honestly, my bad. Either way, I don't disagree with you that its fucked up. I've decided to make it a project to defend those that regularly get a beating, its not exactly easy

 

Either way, why shouldn't the males get the larger part of the inheritance, in a culture where they're expected to work harder? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

 

Go through child birth then ask that question.

[Guest ninurta]

 

 

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree.

Fair point. Though I've known people who have spanked their children who didn't go overboard with it. Ineffective? Oh yeah. Abuse? I'm not as sure, but I don't approve of it.

 

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

Oh okay, and honestly, my bad. Either way, I don't disagree with you that its fucked up. I've decided to make it a project to defend those that regularly get a beating, its not exactly easy

 

Either way, why shouldn't the males get the larger part of the inheritance, in a culture where they're expected to work harder? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

 

Go through child birth then ask that question.

 

That's what the dowry is for.

[Blood]

I was watching the TV news with a 20 year old xian family member.  

 

There was an item about $170m compensation paid to an indigenous tribe for historic wrongs against them including murdering several of their ancestors 150 years ago, stealing their land assets and consigning them to poverty, illness and low educational attainment.  IMO $170m is a token amount but nonetheless I am proud that some of my taxes are part of the state's apology to these people.  Typically the tribes invest the money in long term income streams and also social, health and education services to assist their people.

 

She who knows everything at 20 piped up and said it was sad to waste that amount of money on people just because of their race and the money could be better spent on something like disabled children for example.  Looking aghast, I pointed out that their family members had been murdered, to which she replied that it was a long time ago and they need to move on already.  So I mentioned the land theft and the ongoing poor treatment of the people but she was unmoved.  In the end I let it go for the sake of peace.

 

But I'm fucked off.  Why,  why, are racist people so fucking racist?  Is it ignorance?  Is it privilege?  What the hell is it?

 

Does religion dull the brain or something?

 

I'm just really sick of this conservative bigoted bullshit and needed to vent.

 

Seriously, if anyone can help me understand why people think like this, I'm all ears.

 

Thanks.

 

White privilege, my friend. It is a tremendous force of nature that exists outside all bounds of logic and reason. 

 

But your family member would be right at home here in the USA, where such ideas are common, as you can witness everyday on these boards. 

[sdelsolray]

As Carl Sagan wrote in one of his books (I don't know the exact reference, or quote - I wish I did), 'Xenophobia began with the development of the cell wall'.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree.

Fair point. Though I've known people who have spanked their children who didn't go overboard with it. Ineffective? Oh yeah. Abuse? I'm not as sure, but I don't approve of it.

 

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

Oh okay, and honestly, my bad. Either way, I don't disagree with you that its fucked up. I've decided to make it a project to defend those that regularly get a beating, its not exactly easy

 

Either way, why shouldn't the males get the larger part of the inheritance, in a culture where they're expected to work harder? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

 

Go through child birth then ask that question.

 

That's what the dowry is for.

 

If you think the Bible and the Koran don't oppress, and don't allow people to brutalize and harm women you are living in an alternate universe.

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

I was watching the TV news with a 20 year old xian family member.

 

There was an item about $170m compensation paid to an indigenous tribe for historic wrongs against them including murdering several of their ancestors 150 years ago, stealing their land assets and consigning them to poverty, illness and low educational attainment. IMO $170m is a token amount but nonetheless I am proud that some of my taxes are part of the state's apology to these people. Typically the tribes invest the money in long term income streams and also social, health and education services to assist their people.

 

She who knows everything at 20 piped up and said it was sad to waste that amount of money on people just because of their race and the money could be better spent on something like disabled children for example. Looking aghast, I poi:-)nted out that their family members had been murdered, to which she replied that it was a long time ago and they need to move on already. So I mentioned the land theft and the ongoing poor treatment of the people but she was unmoved. In the end I let it go for the sake of peace.

 

But I'm fucked off. Why, why, are racist people so fucking racist? Is it ignorance? Is it privilege? What the hell is it?

 

Does religion dull the brain or something?

 

I'm just really sick of this conservative bigoted bullshit and needed to vent.

 

Seriously, if anyone can help me understand why people think like this, I'm all ears.

 

Thanks.

White privilege, my friend. It is a tremendous force of nature that exists outside all bounds of logic and reason.

 

But your family member would be right at home here in the USA, where such ideas are common, as you can witness everyday on these boards.

I'd rather have the Native American privilege. they get the best check from Uncle Sam .

 

 

I work with Native American populations. This idea they receive checks directly from the federal government is incorrect. Do some research. Earlier in this thread you were bemoaning those who are racist. Maybe apply those words to your assumptions of others? 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

I was watching the TV news with a 20 year old xian family member.

There was an item about $170m compensation paid to an indigenous tribe for historic wrongs against them including murdering several of their ancestors 150 years ago, stealing their land assets and consigning them to poverty, illness and low educational attainment. IMO $170m is a token amount but nonetheless I am proud that some of my taxes are part of the state's apology to these people. Typically the tribes invest the money in long term income streams and also social, health and education services to assist their people.

She who knows everything at 20 piped up and said it was sad to waste that amount of money on people just because of their race and the money could be better spent on something like disabled children for example. Looking aghast, I poi:-)nted out that their family members had been murdered, to which she replied that it was a long time ago and they need to move on already. So I mentioned the land theft and the ongoing poor treatment of the people but she was unmoved. In the end I let it go for the sake of peace.

But I'm fucked off. Why, why, are racist people so fucking racist? Is it ignorance? Is it privilege? What the hell is it?

Does religion dull the brain or something?

I'm just really sick of this conservative bigoted bullshit and needed to vent.

Seriously, if anyone can help me understand why people think like this, I'm all ears.

Thanks.

White privilege, my friend. It is a tremendous force of nature that exists outside all bounds of logic and reason.

But your family member would be right at home here in the USA, where such ideas are common, as you can witness everyday on these boards.

I'd rather have the Native American privilege. they get the best check from Uncle Sam .

I work with Native American populations. This idea they receive checks directly from the federal government is incorrect. Do some research. Earlier in this thread you were bemoaning those who are racist. Maybe apply those words to your assumptions of others?

I'm from Montana where there's a lot of Native American reservations and I've lived in a lot of facilities and group homes with the Native Americans. I'm not racist against them by saying that they receive government money that I am NOT eligible for even if it comes to them in directly.

 

there was nothing racist in my statement. I'd be proud to be Native American. I was also joking with the guy that was joking about the white privilege.

 

 

It's just sad to see there is this idea that Native Americans are sitting around living high on the hog receiving money from the federal government. Not implying that's exactly what you were saying (or joking) but it seems to be a popular opinion among white people. Either way, I have a Lakota friend living up in Montana. Visited there a few times too, very pretty scenery. 

[gall]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was watching the TV news with a 20 year old xian family member.

There was an item about $170m compensation paid to an indigenous tribe for historic wrongs against them including murdering several of their ancestors 150 years ago, stealing their land assets and consigning them to poverty, illness and low educational attainment. IMO $170m is a token amount but nonetheless I am proud that some of my taxes are part of the state's apology to these people. Typically the tribes invest the money in long term income streams and also social, health and education services to assist their people.

She who knows everything at 20 piped up and said it was sad to waste that amount of money on people just because of their race and the money could be better spent on something like disabled children for example. Looking aghast, I poi:-)nted out that their family members had been murdered, to which she replied that it was a long time ago and they need to move on already. So I mentioned the land theft and the ongoing poor treatment of the people but she was unmoved. In the end I let it go for the sake of peace.

But I'm fucked off. Why, why, are racist people so fucking racist? Is it ignorance? Is it privilege? What the hell is it?

Does religion dull the brain or something?

I'm just really sick of this conservative bigoted bullshit and needed to vent.

Seriously, if anyone can help me understand why people think like this, I'm all ears.

Thanks.

White privilege, my friend. It is a tremendous force of nature that exists outside all bounds of logic and reason.

But your family member would be right at home here in the USA, where such ideas are common, as you can witness everyday on these boards.

I'd rather have the Native American privilege. they get the best check from Uncle Sam .

I work with Native American populations. This idea they receive checks directly from the federal government is incorrect. Do some research. Earlier in this thread you were bemoaning those who are racist. Maybe apply those words to your assumptions of others?

I'm from Montana where there's a lot of Native American reservations and I've lived in a lot of facilities and group homes with the Native Americans. I'm not racist against them by saying that they receive government money that I am NOT eligible for even if it comes to them in directly.

there was nothing racist in my statement. I'd be proud to be Native American. I was also joking with the guy that was joking about the white privilege.

 

It's just sad to see there is this idea that Native Americans are sitting around living high on the hog receiving money from the federal government. Not implying that's exactly what you were saying (or joking) but it seems to be a popular opinion among white people. Either way, I have a Lakota friend living up in Montana. Visited there a few times too, very pretty scenery.

the Native Americans that I know have a lot more available to them if it comes to getting a college education, health care, and all of them that I know without exception do get a monthly check. there is a major misconception among many people that Native Americans get to live this easy life where they can earn as much money as the working man/woman doing nothing whatsoever.

 

however in Minnesota I have met two Native Americans who are living in homeless shelters and not receiving any money. that doesn't make very much sense to me and I'm curious as to why. one reason could be because they're choosing not to live on a Native American reservation but in Montana that does not stop a person from getting their monthly check.

 

 

the only monthly checks that natives get around my parts are from the casino's they own tribally. Some of the checks they get are outrageously large. Many of them do really great things with the money. There are just as many that are hurting and need more in their life. I am not sure who gets what but it is obvious some of them are not making out the same way others are.

 

The reservations around here are just as bad as you could imagine. Run down with lots of garbage around.

 

 

I in the end believe in this:

 

It is a man or womans responsibilty to make their own way as a person. if someone born into modern times refuses to even try and just waits for better the only person at fault is them. I could care less what happened to their ancestors. My ancestors fought in crusades against christians taking their homes as some bulshit holy war but they don't go after anyone for anything. Although my ancestors current day inceptions are sort of assholes. They use Islam to further violence and idiocy. At least native Americans are not trying to kill anyone that is different than they are.

 

I love the ones I know personally as they are the kindest most generous people I know where I came from. I just wish some of them had parents that had said fuck your heritage go out there and make it your own don't listen to others tell you you can't do it don't wait for hand outs, instead put your hands to work. As it stands many had parents that taught them nothing. Luckly many went to school at my high school years ago and overcame that and made great things of themselves and excel today.

 

People are people first.

[RipVanWinkle]

No matter whom prejudice is directed to, it always has this one characteristic: No one who is prejudiced can be talked out of it. It must have a space in the brain where no neural transmitters can reach it with new or correcting information . It's frozen, as it were. Like those frozen prehistoric monsters we have seen in movies trapped under the ice in the artic.  bill

[Eban73]

Just my two cents. To me racism is a basic lack of maturity, a sort of compensation. It's those who want to be handed everything on a silver platter without working for it that hold these ideologies. These are people who will never get far in life or never got far in life and are bitter. Ultimately, instead of bettering themselves as humans, they seek those people and movements that fuel their victim mentality and, in the end, never live a fulfilled life.

[Thurisaz]

I still think it's very much due to authoritarian mindsets. Those who have been raised to value obedience and nothing else tend to define themselves by whether they're bowing to the right führer. Naturally, when these people find that some kiss another führer's arse (or - shock - none at all!), these must be The Enemy™. Such people also worship strength... and strength of course is best proven by winning a fight against The Enemy™.

 

You can see where this is heading.

 

This entire mindset thrives on enemies, needs enemies to set its own peer group apart from The Others™. And whatever group happens to qualify as The Enemy™... is "it". To them at least.

[Guest ninurta]

 

 

 

 

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree.

Fair point. Though I've known people who have spanked their children who didn't go overboard with it. Ineffective? Oh yeah. Abuse? I'm not as sure, but I don't approve of it.

 

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

Oh okay, and honestly, my bad. Either way, I don't disagree with you that its fucked up. I've decided to make it a project to defend those that regularly get a beating, its not exactly easy

 

Either way, why shouldn't the males get the larger part of the inheritance, in a culture where they're expected to work harder? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

 

Go through child birth then ask that question.

 

That's what the dowry is for.

 

If you think the Bible and the Koran don't oppress, and don't allow people to brutalize and harm women you are living in an alternate universe.

 

I said that the Quran wasn't uniquely extra oppressive to women and I stand by that. You gotta love how the "save the women and children" histrionics are everywhere, even here on this forum, yet women still think they're oppressed. Not all women, but alot of them.

 

Does the Quran have a tendacy to have laws, penalties, etc... drawn from the barbaric middle ages? Yes, but not even uniquely so. Half of what people think is in the Quran though is actually in the Hadiths, half of which aren't even authentic. I have no clue which ones are supposed to be or not though.

 

From the Quran's writers' and followers perspectives, to harm women wasn't on their mind, they were looking to protect women from all the dangers that could be found in the middle ages. Some of the penalties made alot of sense for the time. Like the penalties for adultery, because if you were cheated on and got a disease that killed you before you could have kids, then your life was ruined. No, that doesn't mean I agree with it, it just means I dislike your oversimplistic way of seeing it.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

I'd equate the mind-set that women are rebellious children as a form (or maybe a symptom) of hatred. Often times, children considered "rebellious" are controlled physically, beaten, or psychologically terrorized into "knowing their place". They are restrained from the realm of adults. They are kept ignorant of the world. They are only seen as reflections of their parents, and not as human beings in themselves.

Perhaps my view here is due to my growing up with a highly misogynistic father, but I'm fairly certain most women would agree.

Fair point. Though I've known people who have spanked their children who didn't go overboard with it. Ineffective? Oh yeah. Abuse? I'm not as sure, but I don't approve of it.

 

 

 

 

You know nothing of Islam. I guarantee if you make any criticisms of Islam specifically, it will apply to cultural differences specific to nationstates, most likely those torn up by war or poverty, or some monarchy whose culture was misogynistic long before Islam came to town.

As for Islam -from their ‘holy’ book

““Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”

—4:34

“And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”

—2:282

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females…”

—4:11

Men are in charge of women because they see women as they see children, hence why some believe in spanking them. Does that make parents who spank their children or people who believe in spanking, anti-child, or misjuvenile? If so, if it means they hate their children or children in general, then I concede your point.

Now, that being said, I do think that spanking children and adults both are wrong, and spanking children actually is worse.

That's also why they found women less trustworthy, as they didn't think they were "mature enough" like they do children. Hence the need to have a man and two women as witnesses.

As for provisions, I assume that's feeding people. You didn't give me much to go on, so I'll assume that the internal logic behind that is that the males are more active, and hence were fed more. Or at least that's what seems to be the internal logic. I'll look into that part further as I'm uncertain.

Either way, I'm not a believer so I have to run alot of this by people who know more about Islam than I do. Though the internal logic isn't hatred of women, its the view that women and children are fragile and need to be taken care of and protected, and that they can't always be trusted to take care of themselves. Its true that they see women as more rebellious, and I get that, but it stems from the view of them as grown up children. I don't agree with that mindset, it just is what it is.

it has nothing to do if you agree or not, you made claims which i have shown not to be correct.

Religion is harmful to women.Provision here is referring to 'inheritance' ...not food, but even so, its harmful to women to give them half the amount of food,

women are not children, nor should they be treated as children. Its disgusting.

Oh okay, and honestly, my bad. Either way, I don't disagree with you that its fucked up. I've decided to make it a project to defend those that regularly get a beating, its not exactly easy

 

Either way, why shouldn't the males get the larger part of the inheritance, in a culture where they're expected to work harder? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

 

Go through child birth then ask that question.

 

That's what the dowry is for.

 

If you think the Bible and the Koran don't oppress, and don't allow people to brutalize and harm women you are living in an alternate universe.

 

I said that the Quran wasn't uniquely extra oppressive to women and I stand by that. You gotta love how the "save the women and children" histrionics are everywhere, even here on this forum, yet women still think they're oppressed. Not all women, but alot of them.

 

Does the Quran have a tendacy to have laws, penalties, etc... drawn from the barbaric middle ages? Yes, but not even uniquely so. Half of what people think is in the Quran though is actually in the Hadiths, half of which aren't even authentic. I have no clue which ones are supposed to be or not though.

 

From the Quran's writers' and followers perspectives, to harm women wasn't on their mind, they were looking to protect women from all the dangers that could be found in the middle ages. Some of the penalties made alot of sense for the time. Like the penalties for adultery, because if you were cheated on and got a disease that killed you before you could have kids, then your life was ruined. No, that doesn't mean I agree with it, it just means I dislike your oversimplistic way of seeing it.

 

This is the exact same apologist "context" argument. It's bogus. 

[Guest ninurta]

 

This is the exact same apologist "context" argument. It's bogus. 

Actually, I'm not using it to justify the text, so its not bogus. I wouldn't expect someone with less knowledge than we have today, to not act ignorant when in reality they are. That's the difference between us. You're expectations of people living in the middle ages are way too damn high.

[Darklady]

I said that the Quran wasn't uniquely extra oppressive to women and I stand by that.

. No one is saying it is "uniquely" harmful. I used examples from christianity as well.

 

You gotta love how the "save the women and children" histrionics are everywhere, even here on this forum, yet women still think they're oppressed. Not all women, but alot of them.

women are oppressed worldwide. As a group, they are poorer than men, they are much more often forced into slavery than men, and female children are more likely to die before they turn five than male children. These stats are readily available. While the west has much better stats, more women are still, even in the states, in the poorest group.

 

Does the Quran have a tendacy to have laws, penalties, etc... drawn from the barbaric middle ages? Yes, but not even uniquely so. Half of what people think is in the Quran though is actually in the Hadiths, half of which aren't even authentic. I have no clue which ones are supposed to be or not though.

 

From the Quran's writers' and followers perspectives, to harm women wasn't on their mind, they were looking to protect women from all the dangers that could be found in the middle ages. Some of the penalties made alot of sense for the time. Like the penalties for adultery, because if you were cheated on and got a disease that killed you before you could have kids, then your life was ruined. No, that doesn't mean I agree with it, it just means I dislike your oversimplistic way of seeing it.

In the Middle Ages NO ONE knew that some disease was sexually transmitted.... No one knew anything AT ALL about germ theory.

The restriction against adultery has always been about ownership of women and children.

Islam has always allowed multiply wives, and men were never restricted to only one women, men would have been the ones spreading sexual disease, they were the group allowed sexual encounters.

[Guest ninurta]

In the Middle Ages NO ONE knew that some disease was sexually transmitted.... No one knew anything AT ALL about germ theory.

The restriction against adultery has always been about ownership of women and children.

Islam has always allowed multiply wives, and men were never restricted to only one women, men would have been the ones spreading sexual disease, they were the group allowed sexual encounters.

I realize that you included christianity into the mix, and I get that it's just as bad, but is it not more of the society that the religion developed in, rather than religion in general, that causes these restrictions against both men and women? Don't we see, via homophobia and transphobia versus eating pork and killing and eating horses, that people have biases, and use religion to either confirm those biases or excuse them? Usually picking and choosing which to and not to follow? My point is, can we really blame religion? What about Islam? For enabling? Sure. Causing the problem? No.

 

Women didn't have it worse, in fact, most homeless currently are men. Most college graduates are women. Nobody is claiming that sexism against women doesn't exist, its always existed, right alongside that of men. The sexism and differential treatment is just that, different, wrong, but not leaning towards any gender more than another.

 

As far as STDs in the olden days, people were brighter than you might have imagined them. Sure, they may not have seen them as diseases as in germs, but they seen them as demons. In fact, they've been known about since at least Roman times, whether they were seen as punishments from the gods, or lilitu demons seeking to seduce and kill men and their children, people knew about them since at least almost as long as there has been writing.

 

A notable example was Tiberius trying to get people to stop kissing, as it was adding to the spread of a disease we now call Herpes:

http://www.livingsphere.com/herpes-in-the-roman-period-a-time-of-discovery/