Bigotry against women in Fundamentalism

[Asimov]

Okay. I'm sorry for thinking that you're an arrogant, immature, jackass pervert...

 

...no, wait...

 

I'll allow arrogant....immature? Since when is maturity always being serious and somber? hmmm???? I'll allow jackass, because yes, I can be. But pervert? No. You can go fuck yourself.

[Rachelness]

The sad part is that it creates marriage relationships that reflect the sort of relationship we have with policemen/our boss/traffic lights.

 

You're right, because I was going to say, I'd rather my relationship with my husband wasn't like that of one with a traffic light.

[Asimov]

You're right, because I was going to say, I'd rather my relationship with my husband wasn't like that of one with a traffic light.

 

Stop! Go! Clear the intersection!!!!

[Rachelness]

Hot.

[Alice]

OK ~ I'm off to bed.

 

Red

Red amber

Green .... woohoo!

 

(Ok ~ so that's just the british traffic light sequence isn't it.....)

[LadyFeline]

I'll allow arrogant....immature?  Since when is maturity always being serious and somber?  hmmm????  I'll allow jackass, because yes, I can be.  But pervert?  No.  You can go fuck yourself.

 

"Ooh, someone doesn't like me! I'm going to throw a temper tantrum and be, like, all mean an' nasty and shit!"

 

 

Get over yourself. I can think that you're immature, and a pervert if I want to, just like I can think that mad_gerbil is a sexist twit who's stuck in the 1950s.

 

Now, kindly stop derailing the thread. If you've got a problem, be a man and take it to PM.

[Asimov]

Now, kindly stop derailing the thread. If you've got a problem, be a man and take it to PM.

 

Why should I pm a whore who can't own up to being dishonest?

[LadyFeline]

Why should I pm a whore who can't own up to being dishonest?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh. Boo-hoo. Asimov's calling me names. Mommy, make him stop.

 

I'm not being dishonest. Now, if I said I thought you were a wonderful person and I was just dying to hang out with you, that would be me being dishonest. However, I think you're an arrogant, immature, jackass pervert, and I'm not going to lie about it just to make you feel better.

 

If you can't handle someone disliking you, and saying so, then you really need to grow a thicker skin, dear. That, or learn to use the "Ignore" function, like I do.

 

[Asimov]

Oh. Boo-hoo. Asimov's calling me names. Mommy, make him stop.

 

I'm not being dishonest. Now, if I said I thought you were a wonderful person and I was just dying to hang out with you, that would be me being dishonest. However, I think you're an arrogant, immature, jackass pervert, and I'm not going to lie about it just to make you feel better.

 

If you can't handle someone disliking you, and saying so, then you really need to grow a thicker skin, dear. That, or learn to use the "Ignore" function, like I do.

 

 

Now I understand why some men beat their wives.

 

Good day.

[crazy-tiger]

CT, that's not the way it ought to be.    I think it's time our in-house rodent gave you some marriage advice, and told you how things are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shit... that would explain why our marriage is so fucking bad.

 

I mean, the amount of arguments and fights we get into you could count on one finger and still have enough left over to instruct certain people to go and screw themselves...

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway... back to the thread-derailment.

[Kuroikaze]

White Raven:

 

Your assertion that cruel slavery was introduced by Early American Christians is pure and utter nonsense.  Cruel slavery practices go back to before America was discovered by the white guy.

 

That some early American Christians practices cruel forms of slavery cannot be denied, but to pretend that this sprung up on this continent as something entirely new is absurd.

 

People have been treating each other like garbage for a very long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So, uh...how come christianity, if its so true and all, never seems to do anything to end this problem and in fact seems to create more of it? You know...if its true.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Look here -- I DO know what I'm talking about because I live respect for women.

 

I don't use women as toys.

I committed my life to my wife in marriage.

I committed my life to raising my two daughters.

I stayed home with my kids.

I went to work while my wife earned her masters degree. (I only have a bachelors).

 

Now if you wanna talk about respecting women why don't you talk to the boys who pass porn around, or get gals drunk for a quick lay, or tell sexist jokes about you behind your back, or refer to you as a skirt, or think Clinton abusing women is no reason not to vote for him, or about a thousand other things that BOYS do.

 

I don't talk equal treatment -- I live it.

When you grow up you'll learn the difference between the slick BOY you meet at the bar who says he believes in equality and a MAN who is willing to commit his life to you and back it up with action.

 

I suppose because I strongly disagree with you about 8 people will jump in and call me a sexist.  I guess if you don't have anything worth saying the name calling is good filler until something rational occurs to ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow are you jumping to conclusions left and right.

 

Go look at your bible. Look at all those passages that basically tell women they exist as men's property, and that to get right with God, they need to be "in submission" their whole lives. THAT is what I have a problem with. Not what you personally are doing in your personal life! Sheesh! What the hell is wrong with you?

 

As for me--I'm happily engaged to a nice, very committed Pagan guy who has never had his brain fouled up by that idiotic "headship principle". I'd take him over any "good Christian MAYYY-UN" on this fucking planet.

 

And you're the one who decided to get nasty with me. So I'm damn well getting nasty back. Where the fuck do you get off, treating this thread like it's a personal attack on your manhood?

 

The writers of the bible were FLAMING MISOGYNISTS. I already cited for you once, in another thread. My question was how any woman could stomach any literalist approach to the bible when the whole thing encourages treating her like a second-class citizen, who among other things can be beaten by her husband, like a bad kid or a slave.

 

Instead I have you screaming insults and bellowing "I'm not sexist!!!!!!" when the subject of the thread is NOT "Mad Gerbil Is A Misogynist Pig". WTFing fuck?!??

 

I guess some "good Christian MEN-not-boys" get really neurotic, defensive and apt to jump to conclusions whenever any topic even remotely connected to Feminism comes up. I'll just make sure to ignore you next time you have an uncalled-for, off-topic spaz on one of my threads. It'll save a lot of time and effort, and give you less of an opportunity to look like a knee-jerk hysteric.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Hey Asi, 

 

I'm not in the mood to deal with your crap tonight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He seems to have some kind of intellectual allergy to anything remotely related to women's issues. I don't know--maybe he's only been exposed to ballcutter loons and assumes all Feminist women are like that.

 

(AhahahahahahahahaNO, please don't shelve me with those idiots!)

 

Or maybe he's had too much sugar and wants to be annoying.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will with your attitude), but part of the thread's topic is why women would accept that they are inferior to men in fundamentalist religions. 

 

Well... the answer is that they believe they are.  They are ok with this.  They are happy living that out.  It is not complicated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*swallows bile*

 

Simple answer. Probably absolutely right.

 

Horrifying nonetheless.

 

My personal beef comes more when these brainwashed women then decide that we ALL MUST LIVE IN SUBMISSION, and put pressure on women who live otherwise to conform, be it through their votes, demonstrations, or what have you.

 

This mess came up a lot during my experience with the Jehovah's Witnesses, where I had a bunch of WOMEN trying to talk me into being a good skirt-wearing baby-machine for Jesus. They were both overtly nasty and insidiously "persuasive" about it. It was...awful. I guess it's just been on my mind lately.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Do you believe a domicile (did you mean this?) and subservient woman is a igood thing? Because if so, I think we may have found the crux of our disagreement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Considering that his whole argument seems to be "what's wrong with women wanting to be submissive" (which misses the point), I've got my suspicions about this as well. But whatever. Opinions are like assholes...and it's not like we're dating him or something.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

I guess I see the submissive role of women in a marriage relationship in this way:

 

1: First, being submissive to one's husband isn't the same as being submissive to all men.  In light of Proverbs 31 (that describes a business woman) I see no Biblical mandate for a woman to be submissive to any man other than her husband.

 

2: Secondly, all people submit to someone else -- as a man I submit to other men and to women I work with -- I submit to cops, teachers, politicians, etc.  So asking a woman to submit to her husband isn't putting women into some unusual position since everyone (for the sake of civilization) has to submit to someone at some point down the line.

 

3: Thirdly, any time you have a team you must have a leader.  Someone has to be the final decision maker when the two disagree -- there is just factually no way around it.  If the marriage is going to survive then someone has to submit at some point - those are just the facts.

 

4: Fourth, it is a startling embrace of reality to recognize that as long as men are physically stronger than women that women will in fact submit to men whether they want to or not.  Any freedom that women have today is because the stronger sex allows it.  That isn't politically correct -- I know that will get me labeled, but it is a fact of biology whether you like it or not.

 

5: Fifth, the man is commanded to love his wife with a self sacrifical love -- which is a very tall order.  Real love is patient, kind, and considerate.  Real love is not abusive, mean, and harsh.

 

Those are my thoughts, anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*eyeroll* Trying to "justify" the domination of one sex by another only makes you look like a sexist ass. It doesn't explain why women can stomach not only curtailing their own freedoms by "submitting" to men (their husbands, their fathers, their clergymen, even their sons in some situations), but also trying to curtail the freedoms of women who DO NOT WISH TO LIVE IN SUBMISSION TO ANYONE.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Submission: Needing your husband's "permission" to do things like get a job, make big purchases, go back to school, go on birth control...basically, letting him treat you like less than him by virtue of his maleness. Giving him the final say in all decisions merely by virtue of his being the one who wears the penis in the family.

 

(Or, as you mentioned, by virtue of his being "physically stronger" and thus can beat her up if she says no. Which, as everyone knows, is the REAL measure of one's fitness to rule over everyone else ).

 

I think of it as mindless obedience, because unless someone's a lifestyle submissive by nature, it's basically forcibly subordinating yourself to someone merely by virtue of his dangly bits. What a stupid idea. It's a PENIS, not a "rod of rulership" or a second brain. Nothing qualifies men to rule over women, any more than anything qualifies women to rule over men.

 

My love does not "allow" me to do anything--I do it, and if it's something that affects him too, we talk about it. He affords me the same courtesy. We're equal human beings, we treat each other as such, and the fact that he's "physically stronger" doesn't factor into it except when it's time to open peanut butter jars.

 

 

I think we probably should work out what we mean by the word submit?

 

I don't think submit means 'stupid' or 'incapable' or 'without an opinion'.  I don't think it means 'mindlessly obey' either.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[BeccasStillSeeking]

And the poor rodent puzzled and puzzled over why some of the women at Ex-C.net thought he was a sexist pig...

 

go figure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*snort* He's an insensitive idiot. He doesn't even realize when he's deeply offending half his audience.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

LadyFeline:

 

I welcome you to refute the factual claim I've made instead of posting funny, albeit irrelevent pictures.

 

The facts are that women are vunerable -- they get pregnant for one, and are physically weaker.  When negotiations break down and push turns to shove who is gonna win about 95% of the time in a knock down drag 'em out? (Xena aside, of course)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

OOoooooKAAAAY. So you believe that the "headship principal" is justified because men can beat women up?

 

WOW, there go all your halfassed claims of egalitarianism.

 

Look. If it boils down to "women should submit to men because men can beat them up", that is YET ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE "HEADSHIP PRINCIPAL" IS MORALLY WRONG. Christian men's ability to enforce their "headship" with abuse doesn't excuse or justify anything. It just makes them look like brutal, vicious animals whom women should AVOID, and certainly never have sex with.

 

...actually, it's part of why I left Jesus Freak Boyfriend. He started hitting me to try and enforce his "headship". Know what "asserting your headship" through violence gets you in the real world?

 

JAIL TIME FOR PHYSICAL ABUSE.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Is there a way to subjugate women that isn't absurd?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*snert* Don't ask that, he's the one who is arguing that headship is "practical" because men can beat up women!

[pug]

Wow are you jumping to conclusions left and right.

 

Go look at your bible. Look at all those passages that basically tell women they exist as men's property, and that to get right with God, they need to be "in submission" their whole lives. THAT is what I have a problem with. Not what you personally are doing in your personal life! Sheesh! What the hell is wrong with you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hey Beccas,

 

The Quran and its accompanying book the Hadith is even a better read on this beating up wife thing.

 

Enjoy:

 

 

Allah gets displeased with the woman who does not respond when her husband demands sex from her…(Shahih Muslim 8.3367) Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he (her husband) is pleased with her.

 

Imam Ghazali:

A woman must keep her sexual organs ready for service at all times. “She should prefer her husband before herself, and before all her relatives, she should keep herself clean and ready at all times for her husband to enjoy her whenever he wishes.”

 

Be sad during husband’s absence

 

“And from the ethics of the woman is that she should adhere to righteousness, and sad in the absence of her husband, and to return to play and happiness and be the cause of enjoyment when he is present”.

 

It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when

A. he asks her;

B. at home (O: home meaning the place in which he is currently staying, even if being lent to him or rented);

C. and she can physically endure it.

D. (O: Another condition that should be added is that her marriage payment (mahr) has been received or deferred to a term not yet expired.

 

As for when sex with her is not possible, such that having it would entail manifest harm to her, then she is not obliged to comply.) If she asks him to wait, she is awaited, to a maximum of three days. ( O: She does not ask to wait because of not having finished period or postnatal bleeding, for there is no physical harm entailed in her complying as she is, though if she fears that such foreplay with him will lead to actual copulation)

 

A: which is unlawful under such circumstances), then she may refuse, as that is not obligatory). (n: w45 discusses wives’ other duties to husbands.)

The husband is entitled to insist that his wife undertake both the measures necessary for having sex with her such as the purificatory bath (ghusl) after her monthly period,and those necessary to full enjoyment of her such as the purificatory bath after major ritual impurity (janaba), shaving her private parts, and removing filth.

 

(Abu Ishaq Shirazi:) A woman is not obliged to serve her husband by baking, grinding flour, cooking, washing, or any other kind of service, because the marriage contract entails, for her part, only that she let him enjoy her sexually, and she is not obligated to do other than that. (A: Rather, it is considered sunna in our school for the wife to do the house work, and the husband (who is obliged to support her) to earn the living, since this is how the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) divided the work between Fatima and Ali (Allah be well pleased with them)) (al-Muhadhdhab fi fiqh al-Imam al-shafi’i.

 

The wife’s serving her husband at home - by cooking, cleaning, and baking bread-is religiously obligatory for her, and if she does not, she is committing a sin, though it is not something that she may be forced to do by the court (al-Durar al-mubaha fi al-hazr wa al-ibaha (y99), 172).

 

Excuse of no sex due to period

If a woman claims to be having her period but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her.

 

 

Who do you think knows best the working of private parts of a woman? Yeah, it is her husband, of course. You’ve guessed it right, didn’t you? A woman is not even to be trusted regarding the statement about her own body function!

 

How insulting! It seems as if that every Muslim husband must examine the private sex organ of his wife/s if he has some doubt about her period. He must do this to comply with Islamic Sha’ria.

[Mad_Gerbil]

BeccasStillSeeking:

 

In my 10 years of participating in forums on the internet I've never seen anyone twist the intent of posts to the degree that you do -- your ability to obfuscate, color, and misrepresent the clear intent of plain english is truly a wonder to behold.

 

I recommend a career as an anchor person for a major media outlet.

 

[Reach]

4: Fourth, it is a startling embrace of reality to recognize that as long as men are physically stronger than women that women will in fact submit to men whether they want to or not.  Any freedom that women have today is because the stronger sex allows it.

I am sure you don't mean that all men are stronger than all women. And perhaps you've never seen a woman on the rampage. She will rip your gonads off and stuff them down your throat before you realize they have been removed.

 

Any freedom that a woman has today is because she has had to fight tooth and nail to get it. Yes, a few internally strong men have had the guts to fight alongside of her to help earn the freedoms she should have already been enjoying but the men have joined her cause; they did not initiate it.

 

Your attitude is unbelievable!

[Mad_Gerbil]

I am sure you don't mean that all men are stronger than all women. And perhaps you've never seen a woman on the rampage. She will rip your gonads off and stuff them down your throat before you realize they have been removed.

 

Any freedom that a woman has today is because she has had to fight tooth and nail to get it. Yes, a few internally strong men have had the guts to fight alongside of her to help earn the freedoms she should have already been enjoying but the men have joined her cause; they did not initiate it.

 

Your attitude is unbelievable!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why don't you tell everyone what you think my attitude is?

Then reconcile that carticature with my previous statements about how I treat my family.

[Reach]

Why don't you tell everyone what you think my attitude is?

Then reconcile that carticature with my previous statements about how I treat my family. 

I said your attitude is unbelievable. That's enough of a statement to make. You can think about what I mean by that or you can simply ignore my post. It makes little difference to me, one way or the other but the ones most effected by it are your wife and daughters and that's where it makes all the difference in the world. You have a blind spot and you are unwilling to see the truth about yourself.

 

From the statements I have read (and I have not read many of your posts), you state that you treat your wife and two daughters well.

 

Regardless of your alleged treatment of them, your attitude comes through loud and clear and that is what I find so toxic.

 

Whether you see it or not, you maintain a typical fundy male attitude towards women. You may state that your wife is a better person than you but you come across as viewing yourself as superior to her so your statements ring as disingenuous.