A REALLY hot girl knocked on my door...

Post Reply New Topic

Not at all. Pardon me for this obvious statement, but I feel its time has come: Men are not the same as women. They have fundamental differences (or haven't you noticed?). As every medical student knows, their brains and bodies are differently designed. That suggests different functions intended.

Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Oct 2007, 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think that the scriptures (especially in the new testament books Acts, Romans, and Paul's letters), being written in a time of Roman domination (Rome had very distinct double standards for gender) forced the New Testament writers to hide messages of gender equality within the books, while ostensibly mentioning "inferiority of women" so that it wouldn't be termed as even more controversial than it was at the time of its inception... For example, one of Paul's letters (I forget which) makes mention of restrictions on women preachers, but the fact that he mentioned women preachers at all was a controversial idea buried in that message. There's alot of similar stuff buried in the new testament (I know, I know, reading between the lines is hard for me too...)




Are you referring to the systemic vs. empathic brain configurations? If so, then I do remember reading something like that (autism is mentioned too, as an extension of the "male brain"...)

There's a BIG difference between a few biological differences,
and this sub-human image that you seem to paint of women.

The bolded statement is the most telling, but this "desire to
fight against their husbands," is equally disturbing. As though
the husband is right, by virtue of his gender, whilst the woman
is in rebellion. I'd rebel against ANY fool who thought they could
treat me as you seem to desire to treat women. Indeed, I have.

But, yes. This is indeed quite in line with your religious beliefs.
I just see it as not only archaic, but perversely so. The same
kind of thinking which condoned slavery. You da massah, and
wifie is there only to serve you. Yes, you will treat her 'well',
but that doesn't change the reality of your desired relation,
nor would it offer any protections to a woman whose husband
abused her.

Rome actually treated its women fairly well,
for an ancient society. Certainly much better than
it did in the Christian era, where women lost property
rights, for example. Other religions had no problems
with females preaching. The real problem was
more the Greek East, which is where Paul targeted
the rapid expansion. While this was indeed a part
of the empire, Christianity reached out first to those
who were not citizens of Rome.

A few? Womanhood is incidental, then? Nothing to identify themselves with, or be proud to be? Huh... Try floating that idea past a few women, and tell them their womanhood is "not important" -- see how they respond.

Clearly, it is you who is painting that picture. Stop demeaning women with phrases such as "sub-human" -- good grief!
(Not that that would disqualify them in your eyes. I prefer humans.)


It's called rebellion.

But since you don't believe in sin, you have no handle on that concept... Where to even start with you?





But we're not talking about slavery, and we're not talking about husbands who abuse their wives. We're talking about the importance that a wife not constantly strive for disharmony in her marriage.

So, let me make this simpler for you:

Should a wife:

A) Seek to create disharmony and discord within her marriage

Or...

B) Seek harmony in her marriage

I need to make it this simple, because that's where we're at now.

Yeah. Pretty few. Indeed, I've
found that treating men and
women approximately the same
earns respect and trust. Then again,
I'm not used to the kind who have
been taught to "not rebel against
their husbands," and have minds of
their own.



Clearly you can't read, if that's what you got out
of my statement. 'Tis your warped view of some sort
of inferior place, which brought forth that phrase.
Perhaps you need to practice your grammar, before
you attempt the rhetoric?



SEE? Right here IS my point. You are elevating
men to a place as far above women, as you would
have your God stand above humans. Presumably
animals are somewhere lower. Ok, so maybe you
like to use the word human, to describe women, but
it means nothing if you don't learn to treat them as
equals. Not isomorphisms, but equals.



Yes. 'Tis always clever to try and
use pictures when your arguments
can't hold. I do understand the ways
of the propagandist, yet reject them.
They are tools of deceit, which I oppose
every bit as much as I do slavery.



Perfectly fair. But don't you see that by demanding
OBEDIENCE from another human being, that you
are introducing the disharmony, if they are and adult?
A marriage is a partnership - not some sort of parent /
child, or God / slavering worshiper relationship, one
between equals, not one of dominance and submission.




Of course I choose B. But the same holds for
the other partner. But this buys you nothing,
as your very demands are a crime against
harmony of such a nature that no free soul
would accept them. I know you want to be
God, but can't quite accept it. I'm only glad
of the fact that you seem reluctant to actually
live this fantasy out, at the expense of whatever
poor women would suffer it.



No. You need to make it a false question,
in an attempt to win your point through
trickery and deception. I think that my
bit of clarity shows all for what it really
is though.

My point is that you are attributing concepts from your own imagination to me -- concepts which I don't remotely consider true. You're strawmanning, along the lines of "I don't agree with / understand Ragtime's views, so I'll just tell him his views are these..."



It's misreading like that that I'm talking about.

Where did you get the idea that I see man "far above" women, in any way near the extent that God is far, FAR above all humans?


You need to define your use of "equal".
For instance, you surely don't mean that I should presume their biology is male, right? So, obviously, you're being selective with your use of the word "equal". Therefore, you need to get very specific.

It's generally considered rude for a man to challenge a woman to an arm-wrestling, or full-force boxing match. Why? Aren't they equal? Also, most women would think something is wrong with you if you sincerely suggested they pursue a career as a construction worker. Or, indeed, if you proposed that she disregard restroom signs.
The reactions a man would receive upon making these suggestions to a woman are all understandable to me, because I understand that women are not identical to men. (Hence, the selective terms we're using: "men", "women".) But you might find yourself perplexed, since you think women have "very few" differences to men. Like skeletal shape and design, just to mention one itty-bitty difference.

Did it ever occur to you that differences can be beautiful? The fact that I think women are truly better looking than men is obviously not an insult to men, nor would most people construe it as such. But criticize a woman's looks, and suddenly you're treading on very thin ice -- because of the tilt at which our culture worships/reveres women.


No, that is exactly the reaction you'd get if we were in person. Just trying to communicate more clearly, to bolster this very limited text-only format.



There you go again... casting a reasonable and well-reasoned belief as some kind of raving demand. You liberals and your drama-spin...


It's between those extremes.

Again, we vote for presidents. Do we then say, "He's got no right to run the country! After all, he's no better a person than me!"
The second sentence is true, while the first is false.

What you're saying is, you believe that every leader/follower system makes the leader better than the follower.
Is that what you think? If so, it's no wonder you can't figure out the roles of the sexes.


Yes -- and, ah, here's the salient point: Who said it didn't?

Quite possible. If you flatly stated the
things that I implied, and didn't seem to
waver, I'd have NO objection whatsoever.
I'd disagree, but I wouldn't feel that there
was any discourse. Thus, I try and probe,
and you deny what seems absolutely clear
from what you say, and then proceed to
make exactly the same kind of statement.

I'm trying hard to pin what you mean down,
but you simply don't acknowledge the obvious
negative words, which mean the same as you
are stating.



HERE is a perfectly fair complaint.
I got a bit overexuberant. You
did NOT state that there was any
congruency between the two relations.
But, that was merely a bit of hyperbole.
You DO insist that males are somehow
destined and rightfully the masters of
women. This sickens me.


You need to learn the meaning of isomorphic.
Not exactly the same.

The crux of the idea is that both genders have
equal rights and responsibilities towards making
their own decisions. There is more, but I don't see
that it's relevant to this discussion, and will only
side track us. Now, if one is subservient to the
other, this is simply not equality. This is the essence
of what I would call, slavery. Why I say that
the God you envision demands such.


I think what we have there is sufficient,
as long as this doesn't start wandering into
equal opportunities and other such dangerous
grounds.



Rude? No. It's UNFAIR to challenge someone
to something which they are not suited for, but
I've lost fights to women, and certainly there
are some who could whoop me in arm wrestling.
You're trying to replay the King-Riggs match here,
I think.



Not if they were suited for it.
My wife dug ditches, for a living.
I've known women who work construction,
and held just that kind of conversation with
others. This is absolutely besides the point,
but it does disturb me to see such feelings
of limitations - just the kind of thinking
which kept men from being nurses, for
a long time. Pure BS.


Inconsequential. This is just some weird taboo
thing. In some countries, women don't EAT with
men. All the same stuff.



A matter of taste. I don't find women attractive,
if they carry extra weight, some do. I don't find
men attractive, some do. I like ice cream without
nuts, some do.



Not in the least. I wouldn't be that rude to
ANYONE (unless I cared for them).




Oddly, this is the exact tactic that
trolls have used. I 'ware it (though
obviously safe against me), in general,
as I know one who was banned for just
that kind of stuff.




Ok, so WHICH part of that is my 'drama-spin'?
Is it your demand for obedience, or the thought
that demanding such from another human will
is going to cause disharmony? See, you're making
some sort of random flailing attack (including ME
among liberals? - you're high as hell there, I
believe in feudalism), without SAYING anything.
Pure emotionalism. If you're going to reason
about someone, I'd suggest throwing some
'drama-spin' (or whatever your word for
enlightened discussion is) into it. I can't
work with your overwrought and underspecified
rants.




Ah! So she gets her 'mad money' and can
buy a new iron with it? But you control
the rest of the finances? She can say
she has a headache, but can't deny you
sex for more than a week? It's fine if
supper's late every now and then, but
it had better be on the table, when you
get home, MOST nights? So, the benevolent
slave master again. You owe her SOME
respect (just as one owes a dog some),
but expect her to fetch your slippers -
you just won't beat her for missing
now and then?




Presumably, we try and pick the BEST choice.
Not the one who is indeed lesser. But no, they
both have a right to the office, but NOT to
absolute command.



Gives the leader POWER over the follower.
Likely makes the leader worse, actually.
Thus, in democracies, we attempt not
to have some great leader, of fuhrer.



I suspect I do a better job of that than you.
But, I'll let the ladies here ponder that for
themselves, instead of just KNOWING what
is best, as you believe that you do.


Only MY interpretation of everything that you
appear to be saying. If you go into a relationship,
expecting that your will is at some higher importance
than the other's, and they have any sense of self,
you are attempting to remove their own free will.
It's not too different than if I stab you. You could
accept it, and there would be no disharmony - but
the very nature to struggle for existence makes my
desire to insert metal into your gut a conflict with
your own interests. Likewise, subjugating someone's
will to your own is going to cause conflict.

Here's the thing: I don't see gender as random. I see it as specifically intended by God, and a special part of who we are.
Men and women are beautifully different. They enjoy living those differences, not spend their energies trying to suppress and negate them. The differences in the sexes should be celebrated, not considered regrettable accidents of nature, which we should strive away from, and toward an ultimate unisexuality. Ugh! One might as well say blacks and whites need to be elimated, and replaced with brown. People have special appreciation for their own ethnic backgrounds, and that's good. It's not the same as hating all other backgrounds. How would you like rainbows to suddenly all be monochromatic? Ugh, again!

My point is it's not racist for blacks to have black pride, an appreciation of what it means to be black.

And yet, you're saying that if a Christian woman delights in submitting to her husband's will as part of her self-identity as a woman, and finds fulfillment in that submission, that she's "not equal" to her husband, and that that's "wrong". Well, I, along with all such Christian women, disagree with you there.



AH! But how dare you cut down women with such a statement! Like saying, "The poor little darlings can't compete with us men."
(See how your accusations sound to me?)
I, as a biblical Christian, view women as unsuited for marriages in which they are premitted to regularly go against their husband's full and directly-stated wishes, especially when it's simply for the pleasure of countermanding him. I believe that creates anarchy, and is a major reason why today's divorce rate is so high -- at around 50%.


Most aren't, and "most" was the qualification I gave.


See your statement above, in which you directly imply that most women "are not suited for" things such as arm-wrestling and full-strength boxing with men.

Surely not a veiled threat?

No one was banned simply for trying to add some G-rated nonverbal communication toward clarity of expression. One photo-reliant guy in particular was very talented at expressing how he felt through photos -- but, sadly, his motives were clearly and consistently toward maximizing his accompanying personal-insult text.



Yes.



Yes.

I never used any word as strong as "demand"; that concept is something you injected into this discussion.




First of all, it is continually telling that you consider every potential wife to be this bitchy -- so that upon being proposed to, she immediately closes her eyes tightly, balls up her fists, and screams: "WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS?!?!!111!one"

Geez, who would marry such a freak? I'd feel like saying, "Go away li'l brat. Forget I asked."


Huh?? Again, you're making things up about my views.
My wife and I went without sex for three weeks right before our final split-up. (Which probably helped raise mutual tensions toward that final decision.)

I would never order my wife to have sex with me. (Never had to ) But if we were in a chastity rut by her will alone, I'd try to gently change her mind. I would consider it dysfunctional if my marriage went months with no sex -- as most people would -- but I would never attempt to force her!


Nope. Again, don't know whose views your reciting there. Not mine.



Well, a wife's absolute obedience to her husband in all cases is not something I'm for. What I'm for is the general principle that the man leads the home. Sometimes the man is way off on a decision, and needs to be corrected. And in extreme cases, even rebelled against. Again, I'm talking about voluntary, general submission -- not a slave/master setup. That obviously wouldn't be love. Husbands are nowhere near gods. But, to speak briefly to the subject of God Himself, it is never correct to rebel against Him. This is because He is always right, as opposed to mere men/husbands. Sometimes the man is wrong but doesn't know it, but the wife does. When she's sure this is the case, she should strongly voice her disagreement. And, if the stakes are really, really high, she should disobey him.



Well, this is my point. You think I'm talking about führer husbands, when in reality I'm talking about closer to democratic leader husbands -- the slight difference being, she gets to choose which suitor she wants, but she can't vote him "out of office", unless he's involved in an adultery scandal, or abandons her. Likewise, he gets to choose her, if she's willing, but he can't vote her "out of office" unless she's caught in an adultery scandal, or abandons him. So really, it's more even-tier than the democratic leader / citizen.


I want whatever God wants. If God wanted the man to submit to the woman in marriage, I would either do that, or remain single. And if you don't believe me, then you don't know my devotion to God. I think the man should lead ONLY because that's what God said.

I think I must have miscommunicated something... I was saying stuff about how Paul himself was more for equal rights for women than some of his contemporaries in the church did, and after Paul died, these other church leaders took over and basically got rid of the idea of women's leadership.

I have nothing against the idea of woman's leadership, especially in this day and age when humanity needs to look past itself in order to survive. I just don't want Hillary to lead because she was a part of Jack Thompson's crusades...

Raggy, you are really hilarious.
I'm surprised you haven't been called a misogynist or something like that, which it would be amusing to watch

well, the question here is why she is happily submitting to her husband's will? I agree with you in a little of some degree, in which it is the woman decision how she wants that relationship to work, however, it is always influenced by social standards and gender role stereotypes in which a few women still believe in it, other women would like to be independent and they wouldn't want someone to act like her superior (the leadership you said) just because they are male.


You said you didn't claim they were inferior? This statement surely illustrates it.
Why do you think this should work better than working as an equal partnership?


You seem to forget how jewish and early christian societies were at that time, with their views about women and gender roles and sexuality, it is very obvious the bible is influenced by that.

So women always wanted equal rights just for the pleasure to rebel against men and their husbands? That somehow sounds familiar.

Anarchy? Obviously you believe that the husband should always be in charge and not the wife, that is evidently and it is logical to conclude that it is a matter of who is superior and who is inferior, unequality.

So you believe that equality is an extreme?


In other words, Equal rights = rebellion against God?

By your post there, it seems so.

He didn't implied that, he just said that if women are suited for those kind of jobs they should be allowed to do that without any prejudice whatsoever. A few men are not suited for those jobs either. This is the same with men, they shouldn't be subjected to prejudice because of not conforming the gender role stereotypes you seem to firmly believe in.


Bodies, obviously when it comes to sexuality and reproduction it is different, but their physical capabilities as well as mental capabilities are the same regardless of sex and gender. I ask you Ragtime, what are your thoughts about a few men that don't fit the men stereotype. I'm not talking about sexual orientation, I'm talking about having difficult to comply with the idea of what a man is capable of and women are not.

I would also like to see scientific facts from your claim about the brain being different.

how is me pointing out that you didn't respond to my valid point on your prvious post suggest that i'm telling you what to say? i just point out that whenever there's something directly challenging to your posts... something that there reality isn't some sort of glib remark for... and you generally never respond to those points.

then you just wait for the thread to get so convoluted that you cant remember what quotes people are referring to (like i bet you don't know what i'm referring to atm) and then you just give some glib remark vs actually addressing the points

No disagreement here. I'm merely arguing
about the fundamental freedom of will.





There IS a subtle difference though. Racial
differences are primarily societal in nature.



No. I didn't say that was wrong,
nor do I find your desire to be
dominant, in personal relationships
all that intolerable. We have our fetishes,
after all. What I've been saying is that your
fetish is sufficiently out of the mainstream
of this culture, that there is good reason
to believe that you shouldn't expect it
easily. Just as one doesn't expect ANY
person is into BDSM.

The other point that I've been making is that
cultures which DO support such views, tend to
have some really unattractive features about
them - such as not allowing a women most of
what westerners would consider basic human
rights.



Perhaps you should have read the entire
paragraph, before cutting out one damning
part. You make it seem that I'm implying
women, in general, are unsuited for arm
wrestling with men. I don't believe this at
all. Certainly, in my martial arts background,
sparring partners were chosen by ability, NOT
by gender. I would often spar with females.


Luckily, most Christians don't believe this crap.
But, you're absolutely right about divorce. When
women had no defense offered by that institution
(for both legal and cultural reasons), they were indeed
essentially chattel, and had to serve in the manner that
you express. Why would a man throw his property away?


I can't think of many who aren't.
Unless they're nails would qualify
as being 'unsuitable'.



Hah! You should know enough about me
to know (a) I am NOT a mod, and (b) the
staff here would simply laugh in my face,
if I made any such accusation. There is no
one here MORE in the camp of free speech
than myself. Simply a reference, which you
caught, to someone who did something similar.
Not that the accusation of trolling hasn't been
applied to you, but I feel it applies just as well
to myself. I think you are careful enough, to
skirt the edges.



So, it would seem that your whole 'drama-spin' crap,
which entirely side stepped the issue, was merely based
upon ONE word? Let's replace it with 'expecting' then. Has
the same essential meaning to me, and might make your
panties unbunch.



Gods no. I damned well expect her to KNOW
that she and I would be equals. Anyone so
simpering, as to think that her rights devolved
from me would sicken me.


Merely a series of examples, which follow
logically from the type of obedience you ask.
Doesn't really matter WHICH of them you'd
require, just the pattern itself. Hell, maybe you
philosophically believe all this crap, but would
NEVER apply it, just sit around discussing how
subservient your wife is with her, while she
treats you like s**t. Whatever floats your boat.



At least there's that. Your argument
so far hasn't led one to see this.


Sounds like NOW you expect HER to make all
the final decisions. As some sort of schoolmarm.

This isn't a matter of one person dominating. Sure,
in any given relationship, there would be some decisions
that are not jointly made. Anything important should
probably at least be discussed (say investment strategy,
or general budget outline). Some issues NEED to be an
agreement (sharing of workload, for example). It's never
a matter of one person 'laying down the law.'



Here we go again. Rebellion implies superiority
of standing. Not something which belongs in a
loving relationship. You rebel against a teacher,
a parent, or other tyrant. You don't rebel against
a spouse. That makes NO sense at all. The other
is a part of you, essentially.


You know my view on this already.
I shall NEVER submit to a tyrant. No
matter what PR job has been done
for such an evil bastard.



Free will is the HIGHEST stake that
there is. Submission is abrogating
one's responsibility to live freely.




Fair enough. I really don't care how far
you wish to take your control fetish. Once
there is an inherent one-sidedness to a
relationship, it's all the same to me. A
slippery slope. Clearly, if you and some
other person WISH to enter into something
like this, that's your right, every bit as much
as my desire to have a three person union is
mine, and every bit as much as group unions
are the right of those who wish it. I'm just glad,
because of issues of that slippery slope, and
historical precedent, that your view is NOT the
law of the land here.



I had the feeling that your own marriage
ended because she was simply psychotic
towards you, which doesn't seem to
git these. I do presume that you're just
being facetious about 'scandal' here, which
implies that the act become PUBLIC knowledge.



This is how one ends up killing their
first born. I'd choose a more benevolent
and kind master, 'twere I you.

I'm mainly referring to other times in other threads where you keep instructing me how I should answer your question, and virtually jump up and down in protest about it over and over. It's irrational (and insane?). So naturally, I don't know how to respond to it.



When I respond to everything you say in a post, you come back with something like, "Once again, you refused to answer my most important points", whatever "most important" means... I'm not a mind-reader ya know. I then re-read, and find that I answered every single point -- so I assume you're hallucinating. Nothin' I can do about that.



You're right -- I have no idea what mysterious point it is that you may be thinking of atm.

If history is any indicator, when you tell me what that point is, and I answer it again, you'll say I didn't... So why not step off this merry-go-round now?