Bigotry against women in Fundamentalism

[Mad_Gerbil]

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.

 

I'm not ignoring your post -- I asked for you to elaborate.

 

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

 

Saying that I have an attitude is meaningless, since we all have attitudes. I've asked you to elaborate on my attitude (the one you feel that I have).

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least we get to some kind of claim here.

Your claim is that I view myself as 'superior' -- in what way, do you think?

 

[Purple]

quote from MadGerbil

 

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.

 

Actually I have seen her both understand and be succinct about what has been posted, and make a huge effort to keep this thread on topic. OTOH MadGerbil I have seen you misunderstand and misinterpet many a post, and Whatdehey does the Koran have to do with anything??? Even if the Koran was horrible in it's dealings with women that would not and does not change what is written in the bible.

The question was, why do women tolerate the bible's teaching that the man should be the head of the household? So MadGerbil, ask you wife, why DOES she stomach you being the head of your household?

[Reach]

I'm not ignoring your post -- I asked for you to elaborate.

Saying that I have an attitude is meaningless, since we all have attitudes.  I've asked you to elaborate on my attitude (the one you feel that I have).

At least we get to some kind of claim here.

Your claim is that I view myself as 'superior' -- in what way, do you think?

 

I am an editor. In serious discussion, I don't play games with words like you do. What you actually said is this:

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.

There's a hell of a difference. "Why don't you tell everyone what you think my attitude is?" is not a request for elaboration, nor clarification. You are being disingenuous, again.

 

Do your own work, Gerbil. When you get the inner work done that you have left undone, you'll be able to live life at a higher level of honesty with a lot less self-deception. You'll respect others who have done significant amounts of internal work, whether you agree with them or not, and you'll be able to better see through this kind of smokescreen. You don't fool me at all and you never have.

[Mad_Gerbil]

I am an editor. In serious discussion, I don't play games with words like you do. What you actually said is this:

 

There's a hell of a difference. "Why don't you tell everyone what you think my attitude is?" is not a request for elaboration, nor clarification. You are being disingenuous, again.

 

Do your own work, Gerbil. When you get the inner work done that you have left undone, you'll be able to live life at a higher level of honesty with a lot less self-deception. You'll respect others who have done significant amounts of internal work, whether you agree with them or not, and you'll be able to better see through this kind of smokescreen. You don't fool me at all and you never have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So instead of sharing with the rest of the class your answer to my direct question you run off and claim that I'm dishonest? And then claim you don't play word games while I do?

 

Again Reach, I ask you (drop the mind reading about my motivations and answer a question for once) how exactly do I picture myself as superior in regard to my wife and kids?

 

Can you answer that question?

You claimed that is my 'attitude'

Either back up your claim with some elaboration or stand as a fool for making claims that cannot be backed up.

 

Your pick.

[Reach]

Either back up your claim with some elaboration or stand as a fool for making claims that cannot be backed up.

I'm not going to reiterate what a dozen women and several men, members of this site, have already called you on. Go back and read your own posts (and this very thread), and see how you have historically responded to women on this site, and often simply ignored their posts altogether. Your responses have indicated what kind of man you are. I have already discussed this with you before and you prefer to live with your blind spot. That's your choice.

[Mad_Gerbil]

I'm not going to reiterate what a dozen women and several men, members of this site, have already called you on. Go back and read your own posts (and this very thread), and see how you have historically responded to women on this site, and often simply ignored their posts altogether. Your responses have indicated what kind of man you are. I have already discussed this with you before and you prefer to live with your blind spot. That's your choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another non-answer to a direct question.

 

I've decided to pin down one of the 'dozens' (you) to get a direct answer.

 

Again:

1: You claim I'm a sexist.

2: You claim that part of the sexism is an 'attitude of superiority' in regard to my wife and kids.

3: I've asked you for details on what specifically I'm all 'superior' about.

4: In return I get an appeal to 'dozens'

 

I can take you into a church in any city in the USA and introduce you to 'dozens' that believe that they talked to G_d that very morning. Would the appeal to the fact dozens are convinced they talked to G_d this morning make any ground with you? Of course not -- that would be a logical fallacy.

 

I'm willing to examine this thing you feel I'm all superior about -- that is why I'm here. You can discuss it with me or continue to throw up excuses as to why you don't wish to discuss it.

 

Now if I don't respond to your posts in the future you can be sure it has nothing to do with you being a woman. You may wish to bookmark this post so you can see that my objection isn't to your gender, but rather the fact that you as an individual refuse to back up claims with anything other than name calling.

 

I invite anyone else here who has an issue with my 'sexism' to jump in and discuss with me exactly what makes me a sexist. I'm willing to be an open book on this subject and I'm willing to examine it with people interested in having a discussion free of baseless assertions and name calling.

 

Edited: I removed an insult. Sometimes the name calling gets to me and I apologize.

[Cerise]

MG: What makes you are sexist?

 

TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE.

 

The way things ought to be isn't the same as the way things are....

 

Apparently, the ways things ought to be, in your opinion, is the woman submitting to the man of the household. What do you mean by submission?

 

Submission is statement regarding authority and order in the home but it makes no statements about worth, capability, or spirituality.

 

Apparently, by submission you mean the woman follows the man's orders regarding household issues. Even though the woman may be more capable, more worthy of authority, or more spiritually knowledgable she must take orders from the man. She must submit.

 

Why do you believe this?

 

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.

 

Apparently you believe that since men (and I take that to mean all men) are physically capable of forcing women (and I take that to mean all women) to bend to their wishes much the same way someone would force a slave to work in the fields, this gives them the authority to rule the household. Because apparently the penis is like an alternative whip or something.

 

Not only is this ridiculous reasoning (if you could call it reasoning), it is sexist. You, Gerbil, are sexist. No matter how nice a guy you say you are to your wife and daughters (and we only have your word for that, and I wouldn't put it past you to lie) what you have said here indicates that you are sexist.

 

The guy with black friends can still be racist. The guy with wife and daughters that he loves can still be sexist. And YOU ARE SEXIST.

 

QED.

[Vixentrox]

Guns are great equalizers. No need to be physically stronger, just shoot straighter and many women are very good shots.

[white_raven23]

Mad Gerbil, I'm really not sure where you are trying to go by pointing out the abuses is the Quran (sp). Where are you trying to go with that? Is Christianity supposed to look "better" somehow because another major world religion sees women as inferior too?

 

Do you think we somehow "prefer" islam to christianity somehow, and would therefore respect it in some way? Just because we are ex-christian, doesn't mean other religions are off the hook. We just don't give them as much flack because those aren't the religions most of us have escaped from. It certainly doesn't mean we hold those faiths at a higher esteem or anything.

 

And just because men are bigger than women, and most of the worlds societal history has had men at the figurative helm, it doesn't mean that is the way things get to stay.

 

This is a "might makes right", "everyone else has done it" and "it's always been that way" justification. I know you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but there's even a silver lining to that little problem.

 

Old dogs die.

 

So do folks who resist change and adaptation.

[Cerise]

Mad Gerbil, I'm really not sure where you are trying to go by pointing out the abuses is the Quran (sp). Where are you trying to go with that? Is Christianity supposed to look "better" somehow because another major world religion sees women as inferior too?

 

Do you think we somehow "prefer" islam to christianity somehow, and would therefore respect it in some way? Just because we are ex-christian, doesn't mean other religions are off the hook. We just don't give them as much flack because those aren't the religions most of us have escaped from. It certainly doesn't mean we hold those faiths at a higher esteem or anything.

 

And just because men are bigger than women, and most of the worlds societal history has had men at the figurative helm, it doesn't mean that is the way things get to stay.

 

This is a "might makes right", "everyone else has done it" and "it's always been that way" justification. I know you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but there's even a silver lining to that little problem.

 

Old dogs die.

 

So do folks who resist change and adaptation.

 

Just so we get this straight:

 

PUG was inserting his totally uneccessary two cents in about Islam.

 

NOT Mad Gerbil.

 

thanks you.

[Mad_Gerbil]

MG:  What makes you are sexist?

 

TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE.

Apparently, the ways things ought to be, in your opinion, is the woman submitting to the man of the household.  What do you mean by submission?

Apparently, by submission you mean the woman follows the man's orders regarding household issues.  Even though the woman may be more capable, more worthy of authority, or more spiritually knowledgable she must take orders from the man.  She must submit.

 

Why do you believe this?

Apparently you believe that since men (and I take that to mean all men) are physically capable of forcing women (and I take that to mean all women) to bend to their wishes much the same way someone would force a slave to work in the fields, this gives them the authority to rule the household.  Because apparently the penis is like an alternative whip or something.

 

Not only is this ridiculous reasoning (if you could call it reasoning), it is sexist.  You, Gerbil, are sexist.  No matter how nice a guy you say you are to your wife and daughters (and we only have your word for that, and I wouldn't put it past you to lie) what you have said here indicates that you are sexist.

 

The guy with black friends can still be racist.  The guy with wife and daughters that he loves can still be sexist.  And YOU ARE SEXIST.

 

QED.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Despite the fact you took some things out of context, I'll play along.

 

Sexism is a statement of worth or superiority based upon gender. Phrases like "Women aren't good with directions" or "Women aren't as clever as men" would be sexist statements, IMHO. I'm sure you agree.

 

However, fulfillment of a role or ordering of a household doesn't have one thing or the other to do with a person's worth, capability, or intelligence. A gender was chosen to perform a certain role -- but that choice says nothing about the worth, spiritual insight, or intelligence of the person fulfilling the role. The organization of the household makes no statement regarding the worth of those being organized. It says absolutely nothing about superiority.

 

There is a video game that I play wherein I'm the captian of the team. I am easily the worst player on the team yet I call the shots because I've a role to fulfill. My role as captian says nothing about the abilities of my teammates, rather, I'm just doing a chore that needs to be done so that we can have a team.

 

I see my marriage the same way. I've got a role to fulfill as the team leader but that says nothing about my level of superiority in any area. A good leader will recognize the strengths and weaknesses on a team and arrange teammembers in such a way to exploit gifts. Practically speaking, my wife really excelled at her career and making dough and I didn't so she had the career and I didn't.

 

Does the fact that my wife had the role of 'breadwinner' mean I'm stupid, incapable, or not worth spit?

 

Does the fact that my wife had the role of 'child bearer' mean I'm stupid, incapable, or not worth spit?

 

Does the fact that my wife has any number of roles in society or in our home mean that she is inferior to me?

 

I don't think so.

 

I think what has happened is that a 'role' has been confused with 'worth'. This is probably because so many men abused their roles -- so it is understandable. For me, railing against the idea that the man is the head of the household is like railing against the fact that the woman bears children. Those are the facts and there are those that abuse those facts for personal gain and there are those that try to do the right thing.

 

Embracing ones role isn't sexism anymore than me deciding to work at my job makes me a 'slave'.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Mad Gerbil, I'm really not sure where you are trying to go by pointing out the abuses is the Quran (sp). Where are you trying to go with that? Is Christianity supposed to look "better" somehow because another major world religion sees women as inferior too?

 

Do you think we somehow "prefer" islam to christianity somehow, and would therefore respect it in some way? Just because we are ex-christian, doesn't mean other religions are off the hook. We just don't give them as much flack because those aren't the religions most of us have escaped from. It certainly doesn't mean we hold those faiths at a higher esteem or anything.

 

And just because men are bigger than women, and most of the worlds societal history has had men at the figurative helm, it doesn't mean that is the way things get to stay.

 

This is a "might makes right", "everyone else has done it" and "it's always been that way" justification. I know you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but there's even a silver lining to that little problem.

 

Old dogs die.

 

So do folks who resist change and adaptation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't mention the Koran anywhere.

[Cerise]

Despite the fact you took some things out of context, I'll play along.

 

Sexism is a statement of worth or superiority based upon gender.  Phrases like "Women aren't good with directions" or "Women aren't as clever as men" would be sexist statements, IMHO.  I'm sure you agree.

 

Agreement so far.

 

However, fulfillment of a role or ordering of a household doesn't have one thing or the other to do with a person's worth, capability, or intelligence.  A gender was chosen to perform a certain role -- but that choice says nothing about the worth, spiritual insight, or intelligence of the person fulfilling the role.  The organization of the household makes no statement regarding the worth of those being organized.  It says absolutely nothing about superiority.

 

Okay, stop. Think. Who chose a "gender" to perform a certain role? God? Why was one gender chosen over another? If it has nothing to do with superiority (as you claim) then it shouldn't make any difference who leads the household, correct?

 

If it does make a difference, then you are claiming a power difference. You are claiming superiority. No matter what excuses you come up with to cover that.

 

There is a video game that I play wherein I'm the captian of the team.  I am easily the worst player on the team yet I call the shots because I've a role to fulfill.  My role as captian says nothing about the abilities of my teammates, rather, I'm just doing a chore that needs to be done so that we can have a team.

 

What moron made you team captain if you are not the most fit person for that role?

 

I see my marriage the same way.  I've got a role to fulfill as the team leader but that says nothing about my level of superiority in any area.  A good leader will recognize the strengths and weaknesses on a team and arrange teammembers in such a way to exploit gifts.  Practically speaking, my wife really excelled at her career and making dough and I didn't so she had the career and I didn't.

 

Again, what moron (God, I assume) made you leader of the household if you are not most fit for that role? If your wife can do a better job, why is it not permissable to let her? Just because you have gonads, and she does not?

 

Does the fact that my wife had the role of 'breadwinner' mean I'm stupid, incapable, or not worth spit?

Does the fact that my wife had the role of 'child bearer' mean I'm stupid, incapable, or not worth spit?

Does the fact that my wife has any number of roles in society or in our home mean that she is inferior to me?

 

Nope. But You make yourself superior when you assume that even if you are utter shit at leading, you should still be given the authority to lead because you have a dick.

 

I think what has happened is that a 'role' has been confused with 'worth'.  This is probably because so many men abused their roles -- so it is understandable.  For me, railing against the idea that the man is the head of the household is like railing against the fact that the woman bears children.  Those are the facts and there are those that abuse those facts for personal gain and there are those that try to do the right thing.

 

It is impossible for a man to give birth. It is not impossible for a woman to lead a household. Here is where you fuck up your analogies.

 

Embracing ones role isn't sexism anymore than me deciding to work at my job makes me a 'slave'.

 

It is when you assume that leadership is a "role" most suited for men because of gonads or physical strength.

[doomguarder]

Hello MG,

 

The very stereotype you are perpetuating as fact is what women fought against when the began trying to obtain the right to vote.

 

Women get pregnant, women are overly emotional, women are weak, women need protection, and the like. This made us children or possessions in the eyes of the law. It was strong women who protested this stereotype who won for future generations the ability to break this mold and take whatever role they wished for themselves. This choice is their gift to us.

 

Being told from birth that you are less capable, weak, unclean and unable to fend for yourself created generations of dependant women. Gender roles are no longer set in stone. It may have been simpler for men when they were, but now we all have choice. I have known many at home fathers who are far better with the kids than their wives.

 

Accepting the fact that women are weak only perpetuates a cycle low self esteem in women. Tell someone enough times that they are weak and they will believe it.

 

Argue that your faith places women in this role, but do not tell any of us that we are weak and should there fore accept our subservience. I have only one answer to that, FUCK YOU. I have a 5ft tall friend who is a black belt in aikido who would beg to differ regarding her ability to defend herself against someone or multiple people attacking her. Years of beatings at the hand of the man who said he loved her taught her one thing, no one will protect you but yourself. Now she can. Had she believed the same things you are espousing, she would likely be dead right now. I am so glad she ignored the stereotype and chose to take her own path.

 

Will you teach your daughters that they are weak?

[Mad_Gerbil]

First off thank you for your reasonable and well stated reply.

 

Okay, stop.  Think.  Who chose a "gender" to perform a certain role?  God?  Why was one gender chosen over another?  If it has nothing to do with superiority (as you claim) then it shouldn't make any difference who leads the household, correct?

 

I agree.

 

Question: Is it possible that there is a real difference in the sexes that (assuming two normal healthy people) that make giving the role to the man the rational choice? What I mean is, a difference that doesn't involve superiority? Or is it just convention?

 

By way of illustration, it isn't possible for two people to steer a typical automobile. Somebody has to lead the way and somebody has to be the co-pilot. There just ain't no two ways around it.

 

If it does make a difference, then you are claiming a power difference.  You are claiming superiority.  No matter what excuses you come up with to cover that. What moron made you team captain if you are not the most fit person for that role?

 

I'm the most fit person for the role, I'm just not the best player.

I think this illustrates an important point I've been trying to make -- my 'role' as captian doesn't make me the most 'superior' player. I'm just filling the role because it has to be filled.

 

Just like the mayor fullfills a role but isn't a better person than non-mayors and just as a cop fulfills a role but shouldn't be above getting a ticket himself - even so I see the roles in family life being laid out but not actually making anyone a second class citizen.

 

Think about all the injustice done to women over the years -- there is nothing in the idea of role fulfillment that can be rationally translated into the abuse women have endured. It is like saying that evolution means that Nazism makes sense -- some people have made a career out of abusing an idea.

 

When I read about Biblical roles for the family I don't think to myself "wOOt, I get to slap my wife around" -- instead I think about the responsibility I've been given and wish to handle that responsibility well.

[doomguarder]

Just curious MG,

 

Have you just skipped all of my posts, or do I not meet some standard needed to receive a reply?

[Cerise]

Question: Is it possible that there is a real difference in the sexes that (assuming two normal healthy people) that make giving the role to the man the rational choice? What I mean is, a difference that doesn't involve superiority? Or is it just convention?

 

Can you give me a plausible reason why man is the better choice for leading in any and all situations involving the husband/wife relationship? Reasons that aren't just "he has a penis and she does not" or "God said so" or "he's got some muscles so he could force her to if he wanted"?

 

What difference between men and women makes men the better leader in the household, in your opinion?

 

By way of illustration, it isn't possible for two people to steer a typical automobile. Somebody has to lead the way and somebody has to be the co-pilot. There just ain't no two ways around it.

 

Yes, but Gerbil, if it's just a case of "somebody has to be the leader" then why must it always or ought always be the man? Somebody has to drive the car. But why must it always be Mr. Bumpy, when Mrs. Bumpy also knows how to drive and can do it perfectly well?

[Purple]

This is a "might makes right", "everyone else has done it" and "it's always been that way" justification. I know you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but there's even a silver lining to that little problem.

 

Old dogs die.

 

Then you get a cat.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Just curious MG,

 

Have you just skipped all of my posts, or do I not meet some standard needed to receive a reply?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

doomguarder,

 

I've covered everything you addressed already.

 

Please review this quote of yours:

 

The very stereotype you are perpetuating as fact is what women fought against when the began trying to obtain the right to vote.

 

Despite the fact that I said time and time again that I make no claims regarding the superiority of men and that my household has been run in a very non-sterotypical fashion you are still on the idea that I'm pushing a stereotype.

 

If attempts to explain myself have failed enough times after a while I just stop trying.

[Mad_Gerbil]

What difference between men and women makes men the better leader in the household, in your opinion?

 

This is the heart of the matter -- and this was something that I tried to address in earlier posts to a small degree. This is something I'm thinking about and I'm gonna think out loud so please don't run to all sorts of extremes with what I say because my thoughts are a work in progress.

 

As with all thoughts in progress, there will be many dead ends and silly conjectures.

 

Now then -- this question of yours seems to suggest that you agree that within marriage either one or the other is going to end up being the leader. I'm not saying that is what you are saying -- I'm asking if that is a notion that you agree with because I don't want to assume it.

 

Again, being the leader doesn't say anything about intellectual capability, worth, spirituality or any of that nonsense -- but I do agree that in a marriage, even one with a great deal of attention to teamwork -- that one will end up the leader and the other will end up at least mildly submissive.

 

Your thoughts?

(we'll get to your question, but this is important ground work I think)

[Purple]

I didn't mention the Koran anywhere.

 

Sorry MadGerbil it was Pug that brought up the Koran.

[Rachelness]

Can you give me a plausible reason why man is the better choice for leading in any and all situations involving the husband/wife relationship? Reasons that aren't just "he has a penis and she does not" or "God said so" or "he's got some muscles so he could force her to if he wanted"?

 

What difference between men and women makes men the better leader in the household, in your opinion?

 

Yes, I would also like an answer to this, Mad, since you have already stated that man should lead even if the woman is 'better at handling emergencies than I am and she thinks quicker on her feet.'. You claim that your view is practical, but I'm just not seeing how.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Yes, I would also like an answer to this, Mad, since you have already stated that man should lead even if the woman is 'better at handling emergencies than I am and she thinks quicker on her feet.'. You claim that your view is practical, but I'm just not seeing how. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm gonna attempt to throw a couple of ideas out there on the topic -- so get your flame thrower ready. I'd like to give time for Cerise to reply first, though.

[Rachelness]

I can wait.

[Mad_Gerbil]

I can wait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For some reason I feel like a gazelle being hunted by a pack of lionesses.

This isn't gonna be pretty.