Christian Misogyny
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 12:50 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I guess you missed the point that leaders are not superior per se, but rather you guys are attaching that subjective judgment to the role.

My boss owns the firm and is certainly in charge, but I don't see him as a superior human being to myself.

Superior has an authoritative definition in addition to 'quality.' In this case, we're referring to authority, not quality. I guess you missed that. How you see your boss doesn't matter. He is in charge whether you like it or not, and whether he is truly capable or not. His rank and authority are superior to yours; you are the Beta Male at work. Unlike religion, however, his position was not decreed by god and is therefore open to change (I hope).

The religious doctrine mentioned does not say 'decide amongst yourselves who will be in charge.' It says the man is in charge. The man's word and authority are superior to the woman's, regardless of whether the man is capable, and regardless of whether the woman wants to be in charge. It is not a choice between the couple. While you may one day have the chance to be boss of your firm through your own merit and abilities, the woman will never be granted such a reward (should she chose to continue to follow the primitive rules of her religion).

However, why would she want such a reward? She's been told since childhood it is not hers to pursue.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
12-02-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 11:15 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(11-02-2014 10:18 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  lol, but that's the thing; she won't respect you or honor you if you don't make yourself shepherd.

Indeed she will. She'll respect me as a person who's just like her.
Maybe...but is that really what you want in a marriage - to be just like her?

There was an article in the NY Times last week which referenced a study showing that marriages with more egalitarian roles have a lesser sex life than those with more traditional male-female roles.

From an atheist viewpoint, evolution made women physically smaller and weaker than men. Is it so hard to believe that it produced psychological differences too?

My wife loves having me be the leader. It means a lot less for her to worry about.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Us poor widdle women are so good at getting you big, stwong manly men to believe that.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
12-02-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 01:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I may get panned here, but, I think I can see what AM may be trying to say here.
Yes, this board frowns on the idea that theists can ever be even slightly right.
Quote:AM are you saying that a position of leadership does not necessarily infer with it a rank of superiority? Ie; your boss is in charge but it's merely a role, not a signifier of being better or a more worthwhile human being than you? ... If I understand you correctly, I agree.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Quote:From my perspective, as an atheist I take it a step further. I hold the view that, equal footing, submission and dominance are all ethically sound positions to hold, so long as all parties concerned have voluntarily taken on these roles. This usually isn't a choice, dominant people dominate and passive people submit. The issue I have with having it prescribed or enforced by religion or any other means, is that dominant people shouldn't be forced to submit and passive people shouldn't be forced to lead, nor should it be that a leader is selected if none is required. It makes even less sense to me that a leader should be nominated from a source external to the relationship.
Most people on this forum are free to leave religion, or change to a different religion or denomination with different views on marital roles if they wish. If someone voluntarily remains in a religion which prescribes such roles, they are voluntarily taking on such roles.
Quote:Now, if I have assumed correctly that you and I are in agreement that a leader does not automatically infer superiority, why then does it matter who leads? Furthermore, why follow a dogma that in some specific cases will directly cause conflict between people, say a dominant female and a passive male, which would in turn probably be a source of sadness for both parties?
A passive male isn’t going to assert his leadership, so there won’t be conflict in that situation.

Conflict will arise if both are dominant, and in that case it’s good to have a tiebreaker. Also note that a leader can delegate. The man can cede authority in certain areas if he chooses. I certainly have. Atheists are generally familiar with the verses cited in the OP, but not familiar with the wife of virtue in Proverbs 31:10-31. She runs her household, runs multiple businesses, deals in real estate – there’s not much that she doesn’t do, and “her husband safely trusts her” to do these things. There’s more than enough to keep a Christian wife fulfilled, and there's no charge on the husband to micromanage her.

If both are passive, there is no leadership, and it would be good if the man took the Biblical hint and stepped up to the plate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes alpha male's post
12-02-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 01:56 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 01:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I may get panned here, but, I think I can see what AM may be trying to say here.
Yes, this board frowns on the idea that theists can ever be even slightly right.
Quote:AM are you saying that a position of leadership does not necessarily infer with it a rank of superiority? Ie; your boss is in charge but it's merely a role, not a signifier of being better or a more worthwhile human being than you? ... If I understand you correctly, I agree.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Quote:From my perspective, as an atheist I take it a step further. I hold the view that, equal footing, submission and dominance are all ethically sound positions to hold, so long as all parties concerned have voluntarily taken on these roles. This usually isn't a choice, dominant people dominate and passive people submit. The issue I have with having it prescribed or enforced by religion or any other means, is that dominant people shouldn't be forced to submit and passive people shouldn't be forced to lead, nor should it be that a leader is selected if none is required. It makes even less sense to me that a leader should be nominated from a source external to the relationship.
Most people on this forum are free to leave religion, or change to a different religion or denomination with different views on marital roles if they wish. If someone voluntarily remains in a religion which prescribes such roles, they are voluntarily taking on such roles.
Quote:Now, if I have assumed correctly that you and I are in agreement that a leader does not automatically infer superiority, why then does it matter who leads? Furthermore, why follow a dogma that in some specific cases will directly cause conflict between people, say a dominant female and a passive male, which would in turn probably be a source of sadness for both parties?
A passive male isn’t going to assert his leadership, so there won’t be conflict in that situation.

Conflict will arise if both are dominant, and in that case it’s good to have a tiebreaker. Also note that a leader can delegate. The man can cede authority in certain areas if he chooses. I certainly have. Atheists are generally familiar with the verses cited in the OP, but not familiar with the wife of virtue in Proverbs 31:10-31. She runs her household, runs multiple businesses, deals in real estate – there’s not much that she doesn’t do, and “her husband safely trusts her” to do these things. There’s more than enough to keep a Christian wife fulfilled, and there's no charge on the husband to micromanage her.

If both are passive, there is no leadership, and it would be good if the man took the Biblical hint and stepped up to the plate.

What I like about your reply is that you have been honest about saying, if they don't like it, leave the religion. Can you appreciate from my (an external point of view) that it implies a sort of 'browsing for shoes' sort of mindset? Y'know like, I don't like this church, I like this one, which devalues all of them when they're so different but simultaneously claim to have the truth?

I can see what you're saying regarding Proverbs, if I were to be a wanker about it, I could simply write it off as a contradiction, however, seeing as I am enjoying our civil discourse and you have been gracious enough to humour me with a thorough answer, I will attempt to respond in kind Big Grin

My understanding of that Proverbs quote combined with your explanation of delegation, it seems to mean that both genders regardless of temperament (dominant, passive) are free to play to their strengths. Which is all well and good if the male permits it. But that's just it, he must permit it, furthermore, I assume he can pull the plug at any given moment?

I hope you can see where I'm coming from with my line of thinking, that 'final say' based on the fact that he's swinging meat and two veg between the old pins is intrinsically, ethically unfair from my perspective.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 01:25 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Superior has an authoritative definition in addition to 'quality.' In this case, we're referring to authority, not quality. I guess you missed that. How you see your boss doesn't matter. He is in charge whether you like it or not, and whether he is truly capable or not. His rank and authority are superior to yours; you are the Beta Male at work. Unlike religion, however, his position was not decreed by god and is therefore open to change (I hope).
No, my boss is not in charge whether I like it or not. When I don't like my boss, I quit and move on. I could start my own business, but IMO it's better to be high up but not at the top. The guys at the top are always in the office, whereas I get lots of free time outside of our busy season (right now unfortunately). No one forced my wife to marry me. In fact, her father was so kind as to point out that she could still change her mind on the morning of our wedding day. Some women actually like being taken care of by a strong man.
Quote:The religious doctrine mentioned does not say 'decide amongst yourselves who will be in charge.' It says the man is in charge. The man's word and authority are superior to the woman's, regardless of whether the man is capable, and regardless of whether the woman wants to be in charge. It is not a choice between the couple.
Except...it's a choice to be part of the religion.
Quote:While you may one day have the chance to be boss of your firm through your own merit and abilities, the woman will never be granted such a reward (should she chose to continue to follow the primitive rules of her religion).
OK, now you're recognizing that it's a choice to follow the religion. Enough said.
Quote:However, why would she want such a reward? She's been told since childhood it is not hers to pursue.
Plenty of you guys have rejected the religious things you've been told since childhood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 02:26 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  What I like about your reply is that you have been honest about saying, if they don't like it, leave the religion. Can you appreciate from my (an external point of view) that it implies a sort of 'browsing for shoes' sort of mindset? Y'know like, I don't like this church, I like this one, which devalues all of them when they're so different but simultaneously claim to have the truth?
Yes, I can see that, but remember my audience - many of them have left this religion because they didn't like it. If I were addressing Christians on the topic I would likely approach it differently.
Quote:I can see what you're saying regarding Proverbs, if I were to be a wanker about it, I could simply write it off as a contradiction, however, seeing as I am enjoying our civil discourse and you have been gracious enough to humour me with a thorough answer, I will attempt to respond in kind Big Grin

My understanding of that Proverbs quote combined with your explanation of delegation, it seems to mean that both genders regardless of temperament (dominant, passive) are free to play to their strengths. Which is all well and good if the male permits it. But that's just it, he must permit it, furthermore, I assume he can pull the plug at any given moment?
Yes, critics act as if the husband is permitted to do whatever he wants. The OP quoted Eph 5:22-23, but didn't note that the passage goes on to say:
28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

So, the husband is to nourish and cherish the wife, which means that he would permit her to play to her strengths as you put it.
Quote:I hope you can see where I'm coming from with my line of thinking, that 'final say' based on the fact that he's swinging meat and two veg between the old pins is intrinsically, ethically unfair from my perspective.
No, I don't - you said previously that it's not intrinsically unfair, but rather a matter of consent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes alpha male's post
12-02-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 02:42 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 02:26 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  What I like about your reply is that you have been honest about saying, if they don't like it, leave the religion. Can you appreciate from my (an external point of view) that it implies a sort of 'browsing for shoes' sort of mindset? Y'know like, I don't like this church, I like this one, which devalues all of them when they're so different but simultaneously claim to have the truth?
Yes, I can see that, but remember my audience - many of them have left this religion because they didn't like it. If I were addressing Christians on the topic I would likely approach it differently.

You're saying that if you were talking to women that hadn't left the religion, you wouldn't encourage them to leave the religion if they didn't like it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 02:54 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You're saying that if you were talking to women that hadn't left the religion, you wouldn't encourage them to leave the religion if they didn't like it?
Of course not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 02:42 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 02:26 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  What I like about your reply is that you have been honest about saying, if they don't like it, leave the religion. Can you appreciate from my (an external point of view) that it implies a sort of 'browsing for shoes' sort of mindset? Y'know like, I don't like this church, I like this one, which devalues all of them when they're so different but simultaneously claim to have the truth?
Yes, I can see that, but remember my audience - many of them have left this religion because they didn't like it. If I were addressing Christians on the topic I would likely approach it differently.
Quote:I can see what you're saying regarding Proverbs, if I were to be a wanker about it, I could simply write it off as a contradiction, however, seeing as I am enjoying our civil discourse and you have been gracious enough to humour me with a thorough answer, I will attempt to respond in kind Big Grin

My understanding of that Proverbs quote combined with your explanation of delegation, it seems to mean that both genders regardless of temperament (dominant, passive) are free to play to their strengths. Which is all well and good if the male permits it. But that's just it, he must permit it, furthermore, I assume he can pull the plug at any given moment?
Yes, critics act as if the husband is permitted to do whatever he wants. The OP quoted Eph 5:22-23, but didn't note that the passage goes on to say:
28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

So, the husband is to nourish and cherish the wife, which means that he would permit her to play to her strengths as you put it.
Quote:I hope you can see where I'm coming from with my line of thinking, that 'final say' based on the fact that he's swinging meat and two veg between the old pins is intrinsically, ethically unfair from my perspective.
No, I don't - you said previously that it's not intrinsically unfair, but rather a matter of consent.

The whole playing to strengths thing and deligation thing is reasonable(ish) in practice. To clarify and why I say (ish) is because, to deligate, assumes 'authority', in the first place and as I said in my previous post, just for the privilege of having tackle the guy can pull the plug. It is those 2 specific things I am stating are unfair.

Actually, I also concede you the point that a woman can leave freely. However, if she is sincere in her religious beliefs, from her perspective, it would be more like 'if you don't like the doctrine you can leave' but with the subtext, 'if you leave you're gonna fry'. ...

Also, I'm aware of your 'audience', and your track record for being confrontational, I've read enough of the threads that you post on to know that. As I'm sure you're equally aware of my propensity to be arsey when it suits... With that in mind, I wish to point out that you and I have not had a run in and you were one of, if not the first person to welcome me to the forum Thumbsup so I don't see you as a 'bad guy'. I just happen to disagree with you on nearly everything hahaha. ... So please remember, your 'audience' may indeed be your mortal enemy! But, it could be worse, ... your father in law might start posting! Big Grin

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Christian Misogyny
(12-02-2014 03:25 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  The whole playing to strengths thing and deligation thing is reasonable(ish) in practice. To clarify and why I say (ish) is because, to deligate, assumes 'authority',
Which we've already agreed is fine if the person under authority accepts it voluntarily.
Quote:in the first place and as I said in my previous post, just for the privilege of having tackle the guy can pull the plug.
Same point as above, plus the already made point that the man is told to love, nourish and cherish the wife, so he cannot arbitrarily do things detrimental to her.
Quote:It is those 2 specific things I am stating are unfair.
And they were already addressed.
Quote:Actually, I also concede you the point that a woman can leave freely. However, if she is sincere in her religious beliefs, from her perspective, it would be more like 'if you don't like the doctrine you can leave' but with the subtext, 'if you leave you're gonna fry'. ...
A sincere believer would have the viewpoint 'if I endure I will be rewarded.'
Quote:Also, I'm aware of your 'audience', and your track record for being confrontational, I've read enough of the threads that you post on to know that. As I'm sure you're equally aware of my propensity to be arsey when it suits...
Sorry, no, not really. So far you're cool. We've had a whole discussion and you haven't called me intellectually dishonest. Lots of people here spew that one at the drop of a hat.
Quote:With that in mind, I wish to point out that you and I have not had a run in and you were one of, if not the first person to welcome me to the forum Thumbsup
Really? I don't recall welcoming anyone, but who knows. Although technically this stuff could be around a long time, practically once it hits page two it's dead.
Quote:so I don't see you as a 'bad guy'. I just happen to disagree with you on nearly everything hahaha. ...
You're a throwback to the good old days. When I started doing this 15 years ago, we could sling insults all day, and yet still not see each other as bad guys. That spirit has largely been lost. Your attitude is refreshing. Thumbsup
Quote:So please remember, your 'audience' may indeed be your mortal enemy! But, it could be worse, ... your father in law might start posting! Big Grin
He likes me now. Also note that I didn't say that his comment was unwarranted - I was a mess back then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: