The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Domestic slaves and birthing machines

Domestic slaves and birthing machines

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. All
Boazy: << ...even IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing) some kind of hair(not head) covering for women in Church, it would be a gentle persuasion approach and a choice by them..not a 'law'. >>

Uh, Boazy - from the perspective of those of us who would find absurd the very notion of women feeling pressure to cover their hair/heads because of some superstitious dictate, your views about the roles of women and men actually aren't all that far from Yemeni tribal customs. You are a member of a sect that 'encourages' women to wear scarves over their heads in public - which isn't very far from what I understand the hijab is all about.

<< ...you do need therapy because you have a problem >>

Do you possess a mirror, or are they proscribed by your sect?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos: You state "that women and men should be free to be whomever or whaever they want."

Only trouble with that is nature has given women breasts and the ability to bear children. When contraception fails as it does then women fall pregnant. When poverty comes around as it does in different eras then there will be no pill or daycare. What then?

If all the men are caring for the babies and a big army of men appear on the horizon hell bent on conquerng will the women by themsleves be able to defeat the male invaders. If you are under a tree giving birth to a baby will you be in any fit state to drive the invaders off.

A man can never have a brain that is wired to think like a woman 100% just as a woman cant have a brain that thinks like a man 100% otherwise there would be no difference between the sexes.

I'm not trying to let men off the hook,they could certainly have done a hell of a lot better in regard to treatment of women now and across history. What I am saying is dont always assume that men and women can have the freedom to be whomever and whatever they want. Nature will often dictate otherwise.

We are just fortunate that in rich countries in this era we do have the pill and daycare. Otherwise nature would very soon reassert her biological control over the lives of men and wowmen in particular.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:39:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ... I sure hope you don't prepare lectures in the same way you spit out posts... now..lets see what a 'careful' scrutiny of my post would have educed from a fair and balanced critic?

"in church".. would have been included in your come-back. I said nothing about having hair covered in public.

My own thinking on this issue is that in a meeting, we should do our utmost to symbolize the creation mandate as linked by Paul to the issue itself. (Hair covering)

As for public? thats a different story, because as I understand it, there was a 'public morals' issue with being UNcovered in public in those days. Such is not the case now, so I don't see any need for Christian women to cover up in public. (aside from the normal need for modesty)

Now..I don't mind you calling me whacky,superstitious,religious nutter, bible basher, godbotherer... none of that worries me,... but I confess that being compared to the picture of Yemeni men as described in that article is a bit irksome, not to mention totally innaccurate.
(by any measure of objectivity)

I can read, and so can you.. and you (if you were honest) would fully realize that we are worlds apart.. so one can rightly conclude that you have a rather sad motive in playing on that issue as you did.
Shame. (you flamed)
3 days in solitary 4 u
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 22 May 2008 9:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: << My own thinking on this issue is that in a meeting, we should do our utmost to symbolize the creation mandate as linked by Paul to the issue itself. (Hair covering) >>

Boazy is either being obtuse or he's one incredibly thick godbotherer. What on earth is "the creation mandate as linked by Paul", and why does it mean that women (and presumably not men) should cover their hair at prayer meetings? To me that sounds like so much textually derived patriarchal mumbo jumbo designed to keep women in their place, which is of course defined by men.

I've seen photos of women from Boazy's Brethren sect taken at Melbourne airport en route to some sect 'conference' or other, and they looked for all the world like a mob of hijab-wearing Muslim women en route to Mecca. They all wore dowdy dresses headscarves.

Boazy's confected indignation at being compared with members of other patriarchal Abrahamic sects might be amusing if he didn't spend so much time vilifying them.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 May 2008 10:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos,
'most men don't do enough and many women let them get away with it.'
Prove it! This is feminist propaganda. So is your title. You could just as easily call men 'Worker Bees and Sperm Donors.' The way men are cut out of families so easily by family law, and with the state as provider for any women without a man anyway, it could easily be argued all men are here to do is work and provide sperm. I don't agree with that, but that's just as radical as your position.

Hey you'll like this one:-)
If a black person gives up his seat for a white person it was once called subservience, if a man gives up his seat for a women it's called chivalry.

'any role, any one at all, would be possible. In other words, women and men would be free to be whomever, or whatever. '
Gender roles influence people, but men and women ARE FREE to to be whomever, or whatever. Men in our society can do anything except give birth or breast feed, enter Gyms that only allow women, or choose not to have children if their partner becomes pregnant. Women can do anything except have children without having to give birth.

Vanilla,
I really must start using 'To All' after I have finished addressing you. Actually I would be better to stop rambling on, but topics like this and the way it has been phrased bring out the worst in me. Sorry for the confusion.

Thatch is Definitely not my role model. But she is living proof feminism DOESN'T have 'a long way to go' in OUR society. Her saying that from the position of prime minister IS a pretty convincing argument.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 22 May 2008 11:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"confected indignation" Ah, you have a way with words.

Boazy, what CJ said. I'm not suggesting you're a carbon copy of a Yemeni husband/owner, but you turn to your religious book for moral guidance rather than using your empathy, rationality and intelligence. You are constantly interpreting that text to justify your natural inclinations while insisting that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation. You argue with other sects, like Islam. You have stated many times that you believe women should be cooking scrumptious delights in the kitchen while the men chop wood.

You are nowhere near like those blokes. But you're in the ballpark.

You're always on about what a Christian-hater I am, but you need to take some credit for that. When I first posted on these boards I had far more sympathy for Christianity, and had recently gone to church with a friend to learn more. Then, I stumbled across quite a few things that really drove home to me what a immoral, arbitrary, aggressive and fundamentally untrue religion Christianity is. You were one of them.

If it's any comfort, I think exactly the same about Islam. I just sometimes forget if you hate Islam and love Christianity or if you hate Christianity and love Islam. Doesn't seem to make much difference.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 22 May 2008 11:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy