Women's Rights [Archive]

cfrizz

10-02-2006, 10:25 PM

I had to address this little bit from James. BTW: Monogomy only exists because of religion, not in spite of it. Without religion there would be no marriage and humans would act more like packs of dogs or a pride of lions with the dominant males humping everything in site and the non-dominants getting what they can. Womens and family rights wouldn't exist. Yup, religion defining relationships is EVIL!!!!! :rolleyes:

Monogamy doesn't really exist now if all the people who are cheating on thier spouses have anything to say about it.

Religion had ZERO bearing on womens rights when this country first came to be. Or any other country for that matter!

Here is a little bit of reading for you James, you obviously missed this in history class:

The Women's Movement

“To have drunkards, idiots, horse racing rum-selling rowdies, ignorant foreigners, and silly boys fully recognized, while we ourselves are thrust out from all the rights that belong to citizens, is too grossly insulting to be longer quietly submitted to. The right is ours. We must have it (Rynder 3). “

This quote from one of Cady Stanton's speeches shows what great injustices women had to suffer. Stanton is saying that even the scum of the earth had more rights than highly cultured women.

In many aspects of life, women's rights were dramatically less than those of men. Women were not allowed to vote, yet they had to pay taxes. Women were subjects of their husbands, and expected to do all of the house work. The fight for women's rights, also known as the women's movement, changed women's civil rights, social rights, and opened doors for generations of women to come.

The most important civil right that women were denied of was the right to vote. When the United States became a country, women were never included in which people had the right to vote. The right to vote in our country was restricted to white men that owned property.

Women wanted this right. The women's movement was already in action before the civil war. Women were fighting for suffrage, the right to vote, and prohibition, which would outlaw alcohol. During the war, women's attentions were diverted to war issues, but the movement was strong again after the war.

In the United States, individual states decided who was allowed to vote. In the western frontier states men and women had to work equally hard to survive, and men recognized this. In light of this fact, women were given the privilege of voting. When the civil war ended, all of the slaves were free. This was also the time when women strove their hardest to pass an amendment that would give women the right to vote (Sigerman 3).

With all the slaves free, the men and women would want suffrage, and they joined in the fight. One of the women that stands out in history as being a leader in the women's movement was Susan B. Anthony. When Anthony voted in the election of 1872, she did so illegally. As a result of her action, Anthony and 16 other women were arrested. They were then released on bail and were ordered to appear before a grand jury. Susan was found guilty and given a sentence to pay $100 and the cost of persecution. She was never forced to pay.

Before this, the women's movement had suffered its largest blow on February 3, 1870 when the 15th amendment was passed. The amendment stopped states from denying citizens the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but said nothing about not discriminating based on sex. In this amendment, men were saying that the African-American men they had enslaved were of higher stature than their own wives (Stevenson 54).

Despite this setback women continued to work for suffrage. Stanton and other wrote the Sentiments and Resolution 9 in order to get more people to join in the fight. Many women worked hard to achieve suffrage, and finally they got it. In 1920 the 19th amendment was finally passed giving women the most important civil right, the right to vote.

Beside not having the right to vote, women did not have the basic civil right of owning property. When a women entered into marriage, it was believed that the husband and wife became one unit. The husband was considered the head of that unit. If a women owned any property, when she was married, it would legally become her husbands.

Besides not owning plain property, women were not allowed to own businesses either. It was believed that it was the husband's duty to make money for the family. A women may have been able to sell a few goods out of her home, but that was the extend of it. Over time women were given more freedom from their husbands.

They were allowed to receive some possessions in a divorce, and women started opening their own businesses. Today women have the same opportunities to own property as men (Chafe 53). Along with civil rights, women's social rights were not equal to those of men. Women were to be submissive to their husbands. As wives, women's were expected to perform all of the household duties. They were expected to cook, clean, and take care of the children (Chafe 67).

As the women's movement went on, new methods of performing these duties became available. Catherine Beeches wrote The New Housekeeper's Manual. showing women how to lay out their homes in order to save time, and create a cleaner, more comfortable home (Rydner 2).

New appliances such as toasters and washing machines started becoming available to aid women with their chores. Today men and women do housework, and our society has a lot of new technology that helps with housework.

Before about 1900, were still not able to control their own bodies, and were not allowed to use birth control. A woman was bound by law to her husband. She was forced to consent to his wishes. If she did not, it was legal for him to beat her as punishment (Rydner 34). A women was not allowed to control whether or not she wanted children.

Before 1873 women could learn about birth control through advertisements in women's magazines. This right was taken away from women in 1873 when Congress passed the Comstock Act after Mr. Comstock's prodding. This law prohibited selling distributing, or mailing obscene literature and defined contraceptive devices and any information about them as obscene.

The new form of birth control was voluntary motherhood (Rydner 37). Supporters of this form stated that if women were able to have children when they wanted to, the women would have happier, healthier children because they were wanted. In order to use this form of birth control, women needed the right to say no to their husbands.

Some religions encouraged this practice because it prevented sexual excess. It is not known to what extent this method worked, but from 1800 to 1900 the birthrate among American women declined by about one half (Ryder 39). Today, women are allowed to use birth control, and in some cases, are encouraged to do so. Different religions say different things on what to use for birth control, and every women has to decide for herself what is best. Material is made widely available for women to research and find answers to their questions.

It only became illegal for a man to beat his wife in the 1970's. Protection of children from child abuse came years later after that.

So please don't try to convince me that marriage was the salvation of women! Regardless of what religion, they simply went from being the property of their fathers to being the property of their husbands!

TroyD

10-02-2006, 10:34 PM

Who said progress was always a good thing? :)

BDT

Airplay355

10-02-2006, 10:42 PM

I'm with you. I'm definitely for women's rights over any religios beliefs.

aaharvel

10-02-2006, 10:53 PM

same.

ohskigod

10-03-2006, 12:59 AM

ah, the good old days :p

audiobliss

10-03-2006, 01:02 AM

Hmm. They have rights? Well I'll be. Maybe being up on these kinds of things will help out my luck a bit.

mrbigbluelight

10-03-2006, 03:45 AM

As with all rights comes responsibilities.

Like making sure their husband's pot pie is cooked, but not overly cooked so as to make the crust less than flaky, thereby upsetting the husband.

........okay, put the gun down. :rolleyes:

Nice post there Cfrizz.

brettw22

10-03-2006, 04:05 AM

Nice post Cathy.....

Seems AB wants to keep 'tang to just his computer screen for the rest of his life.........;)

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 08:32 AM

Religion has zero bearing on monogomy in general. There are species other than humans that are inherently monogomous - they choose a mate for life.

But Cathy is exactly right. Religion has kept women's rights in the background for thousands of years. Most religions just further establish the dominance of males in society. Most religions were invented in order to keep the status quo going. The heirarchy of the religion always reflects the hierarchy of the region where the religion was born. And since men invented them, not only did they try to keep certain people in power, they tried to keep MEN in power as well.

It's obviously worked all right for me, being a guy, but... :)

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 09:22 AM

Once again, someone missed the point and read what they wanted to into it. I need to read history? Something tells me the only history you know comes from government schools. Try reading history a LITTLE closer next time and go a LITTLE further back (say 400,000 years if you're into evolution or 6,000 if your not) and be a LITTLE more informed...

Monogomy is NOT in the human desire pattern (Marriage and cheating). Yes, other animals mate for life but not humans, it's not natural to the species. So that fact is meaningless.

As for womens rights, look to the animal kingdom as to what womens rights would be without formal societal patterns. Who or what formed the earliest laws and societal patterns? Answer: Religion. Without these for a basis, as backwards as they might have been, women would have and still would be viewed as mere objects to have and pass around amongst the men. To believe that we would have gone from cave man patterns to women owning property and having abortions without laws based on religion is ignorant at best.

The right to vote? You might want to look as to who was the true silent majority in that movement. Same with the rest of your "post". If you knew what was going on behind the scenes you'd see how uninformed you are.

Yes, most religions do put women in the background, but they tend to do it as a sign of respect, as misguided as it is. If you look at the intent, typically it is to "protect" them from whatever.

The next time you want to call me out, be a little more educated on the topic please, this is tiresome.

Here you go, you want to disprove my point: Argue how humans could have moved from cavemen to equal rights and protections for women WITHOUT involvement from religion or the laws that having a religion would generate. That was my point. Try looking at the broader world sometime. There is more to it the the 20th century US.

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 10:32 AM

How's the view from that high horse, professor?

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 10:37 AM

Hehe, I haven't been a prof for 6 years now... ;)

BTW, who did the calling out first? I didn't see you responding to the arrogance of the first post, so what's changed?

Anyway, I'm done with this crap. Everyone is going to view it through their preconcieved ideas and views and nothing will ever be accomplished.

cfrizz

10-03-2006, 10:41 AM

You did with the bullshit you posted in the other thread! I simply responded with some more current facts. You call it misguieded protection. I call it sexist monopolization which is still being combatted to this day.

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 11:09 AM

Early B.

10-03-2006, 11:19 AM

Monogomy is NOT in the human desire pattern (Marriage and cheating). Yes, other animals mate for life but not humans, it's not natural to the species.

This statment is without merit. The first law of life is preservation of the species. "No man is an island." We need others to help us, to protect us, and to teach us survival skills. This is the function of the family -- the core component of any civilized nation. If the family structure breaks down, then so goes the nation. Strong families cannot be built with daddy's infidelity. Such behavior perpetuates the development weak men who cannot control their sexual urges, and it creates inappropriate competition among women for the attention of men (i.e., promiscuity).

Just because we have these natural urges does not mean we have to act upon them in ways that only satisfies our individual desires. To imply that monogamy is not a human desire pattern is a misapplication of this principle.

zombie boy 2000

10-03-2006, 11:27 AM

I've never understood how such a sharp dileneation can be drawn between a "pre-societal" evolutionary scheme and that which exists today.

I agree wholeheartedly with Early B.... the practice of monagamy fits just as well into the framework of evolution, though it is often dismissed as a trivial artifact of recent times.

As Early pointed out, monogamy serves a purpose -- mainly the survival of the species. Moreover, "Spreading the seed" is overly simplistic.

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 11:36 AM

You seem to be afraid for anyone to disagree with you without bringing up all this "preconceived notion" garbage.

(Apologies in advance to any religious folk for the below statements... )

Even if you are right about human beings natural proclivity towards non-monogamy, taht doesn't mean religion was the only path to where we are now. What separates humans from other animals is our unique ability to reason, and to feel compassion. We haven't evolved from our animal roots (sorry to Creationists) simply by adhering to religion. There is a conscious effort involved in forming a society. To say taht without religion, we would have formed societies that simply followed all of our animalistic urges is overly simplistic. Someone formed the ideas behind religions. Those people obviously had a vision of society and the way it "shoudl be". Where did those ideas come from? Someone at some point said "monogamy is good." Someone at some point made a conscious decision to treat certain people certain ways, and those decisions were not always just based on animal instinct.

Just telling peopel they're wrong and uninformed and getting ANGRY for whatever reason doesn't make your opinion or view of the world right.

I think he's getting annoyed because the bulk of the board has opinions they have no clue about the dynamics of. There's being informed, and knowing what your opinion actually means, and then there's having an opinion and just not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

'Oh, I think I know more about homosexuality than you because I am gay.' :rolleyes: Okay, Confucious -- didn't know being meant all knowing.

Whatever, we all have brains, but I doubt many of us are qualified to perform brain surgery. It's the same thing here. 'Oh, I'm a woman, you don't know.' How do you explain all the women pushing against the feminazi movement then? Men and women are different, so stop trying to make them the same. Think a man has the same affect on an infant as a nurturing mother? No chance. Neither sex can be replaced and they're both needed to varying degrees.

Nobody really wants to recognize differences, we just want to make everyone who is different exactly the same with no unique properties. I can't think of anything more boring. Society evolves, but pushing it where it was never meant to go does more harm than good.

The Woman's sufferage was by and large a good thing. Taking it to an extreme is a joke. You want equal pay? How does an employer know you're not going to get pregnant? Women are a bigger risk in the workplace, but the rest of the world is supposed to pay for their special needs. What a load of crap. If you really want equality can we get rid of the paid leave benefits? That's just one example of the whole women's rights thing that was never intended, but simply hijacked by militant feminists. You ladies can blame them for the bulk of today's woes.

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 11:46 AM

criverajr

10-03-2006, 11:55 AM

:D Barefoot and pregant I say, lighten up guys:D

CRj

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 12:13 PM

Demi, no offense, but I think you're confusing a lot of issues. Yes, the feminazi movement is often ridiculous. But i think there's an obvious difference between giving women the same RIGHTS as any other human being deserves and trying to treat them as EQUALS.

And your equal pay argument is kind of backwards. Pay is based on quality of work, not the idea that someone might "get pregnant." Most companies offer paternity leave nowadays anyways, so who's to say that a man's wife won't get pregnant and he'll leave for a month?

I think something more along the lines of waht you're saying would be women in the military, or being firefighters. Sure, if they're equally strong as a man vying for the job, they should be allowed to get it, but forcing women into the mix who are less qualified simply because of gender equality is forcing a false equality where one does not exist.

I think I recognized in my post the highlights of women's sufferage, and the women's rights movement that by and large it was a good thing. The point I was making is that the entire movement has been hijacked by the entitlement crowd like the first poster seems to be a part of. It really runs the line of the typical mentality of these types. I read her business bashing posts in other threads, sue happy mentality she seems to have, and so it's no surprise the same naïveté carries over from those threads.

The idea of pay in a small business is quite different than in a major corporation, but even there I guarantee it's a factor. Women are an expense in the workplace in so many ways at this level it would boggle your mind. Do you know how much a woman costs in insurance? A pregnant woman isn't cheap on the old insurance premiums. Do you really think salary is the only calculation going through a business owners mind? I know you're a smart guy, and you know exactly what I am saying.

A man making $50,000 salary in my business is not in any way shape or form the same as a woman making $50,000 in my business. Not with all of the additional expenses that come along with that $50K salary offered to a woman.

Women are different, and so are men. On that point we agree. The idea that pay should be equal is a joke. You should pay for what you get, and often time with women you're not getting 100% of what you paid for. Just a fact of life.

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 12:22 PM

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 12:32 PM

Early: Humans would develop into packs, not family units. Look at high school cliques for modern examples in humans.

I'll take the position of evolution is fact since most of the people arguing assume that it is a fact, so:

Studies into the neandertal and other early humans and great apes do show them forming family units, but not the nuclear family that modern humans define. In fact, they more resemble packs of families where the females may have favorites but are always available to be taken by a dominent at anytime.

You want to see how humans would evolve without religion and laws, look at research on the great ape species. See how the females of the species influence the pack and how many rights they have and how they are treated by the males. (no laws or governenment that I'm aware of was ever formed without religion as a basis, even communism has a religious basis, you just need to think about it)

Great ape view of human behavior: Both the men and the women would have multiple partners. The female drive for multiple partners is that any child born would be protected by all suiters as no one would know whose it is, typically this would be for the more submissive of females. Now once a female has seduced the strongest male, she will vie for monogamy with that one since he provides the greatest benifits to her and offspring (goldiggers anyone?) Or she might force monogamy on a subserviant male (P-whipped anyone?). However, she would still be subject to the dominent male (how many P-whipped guys get cheated on, anyone, anyone? Usually with a biker or the captain of the football team right?)

The dominent male will never want the monogamy for himself, but would fight to protect "his" females from other males. The submissive male will accept it just because it provide him the oppurtunity to mate.

Face it, this is what humans would be without the rule of law which is based on the mythology that the group adheres to, misguided or not.

One rhetorical question: How come we keep trying to point out differences between people and then demand equal rights/oppurtunities?

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 12:45 PM

Never really thought of the insurance implications, so I will definitely cede that point. I know you're a business owner, so I really can't argue costs of owning and operating a business with you, you'll definitely win that argument.

I'm also not a woman, so I'm not going to fight that hard on this topic anymore. I'm spent. :)

I think we're on the same page there anyhow. It's just if you look at it from a base salary standpoint it's going to look unfair, when in reality it's much more in line with getting what you pay for. Larger businesses can offer better packages, but watch when they cut back on the benefits. The same people go nuts as if they're entitled to it. That I just don't get. Businesses are forced to be competitive.

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 12:53 PM

Great ape view of human behavior:

Grape ape?

http://www.animationalley.com/images/animationart/hannabarbera/grapeape.jpg

PhantomOG

10-03-2006, 12:58 PM

Grape ape?

:D I kept thinking the same thing.

Early B.

10-03-2006, 01:15 PM

If you want to believe that you evolved from an ape, feel free to do so. It conveniently allows you to justify immoral, animalistc behavior as "natural," denies your will (freedom to choose), impedes rational thinking, and absolves you from responsibility of your actions.

For instance, when you screw around on your wife or girlfriend and she finds out, just blame it on your ape ancestors! She'll understand, forgive you, apologize for bringing it up, then cook you some dinner and a pie.

ND13

10-03-2006, 01:37 PM

PolkThug

10-03-2006, 01:49 PM

A man making $50,000 salary in my business is not in any way shape or form the same as a woman making $50,000 in my business. Not with all of the additional expenses that come along with that $50K salary offered to a woman.

Women are different, and so are men. On that point we agree. The idea that pay should be equal is a joke. You should pay for what you get, and often time with women you're not getting 100% of what you paid for. Just a fact of life.

What about infertile women, should they get paid as much as men?

ND13

10-03-2006, 01:50 PM

One rhetorical question: How come we keep trying to point out differences between people and then demand equal rights/oppurtunities?

Because differences should not dictate your rights, MAYBE some opportunities, but not rights.

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 01:51 PM

AMEN!!!

And I do get offended when spirtuality is equated to mythology.

Dont' equate spirituality with organized religion. All of what I spoke about above was about the organization / heirarchy of religion, not the "meat" of it. For example, the heirarchy of the Catholic church, with a Pope and bishops and blah blah, was created to mimic the heirarchy of the governmental systems of the time period. Nowhere in anyone's Bible is there mention of a Pope.

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 01:59 PM

What about infertile women, should they get paid as much as men?

Sure.

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 02:01 PM

If you want to believe that you evolved from an ape, feel free to do so.

He doesn't believe it, he was approaching it as fact since the overwhelming mentality of this board seems to be that evolution is fact, which it isn't. So, basically -- for the sake of argument. It's just as much of a faith as that all of this was created by a God or Gods. All you had to do was read the first sentence.

ND13

10-03-2006, 02:01 PM

Dont' equate spirituality with organized religion. All of what I spoke about above was about the organization / heirarchy of religion, not the "meat" of it. For example, the heirarchy of the Catholic church, with a Pope and bishops and blah blah, was created to mimic the heirarchy of the governmental systems of the time period. Nowhere in anyone's Bible is there mention of a Pope.

I wasn't referring to you. And I don't equate spirituality with religion, because I'm of the opinion that the majority of organized religions are so corrupt, they are beyond repair. With that said, I do believe in God and I maintain a one on one relationship with he/she and will attend certain churches from time to time. I believe that as long as you treat your fellow man as you want yourself and your family/loved ones to be treated, your doing what is expected of you in this stage of being.

cfrizz

10-03-2006, 02:09 PM

bobman1235

10-03-2006, 02:09 PM

Fair enough. This topic is apparently volatile enough as it is without debating the merits of organized religion :)

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 02:13 PM

ND13

10-03-2006, 02:16 PM

Fair enough. This topic is apparently volatile enough as it is without debating the merits of organized religion :)

TRUE DAT!!!:p

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 02:36 PM

How is any employer supposed to know whether a woman is infertile or not & why should it matter?

Thuggy how would you feel if your wife came home from an interview that she was very qualified for & told you the the interviewer asked her

"Are you planning on getting pregnant, or are you infertile?" "You already are pregnant? Sorry we don't want you. You cost too much money in insurance & you won't be here to work."

How would you feel towards any of that?

Good lord, could you please try to look at it from the owners rather than an entitlement perspective. The owner could hire a pregnant lady, spend more money for insurance, pay for maternity leave, and might or might not have an employee after that. Or, you could hire the guy who will only leave iff you piss him off or he gets a better offer. Who is more of a business risk and expense? It's not a sexist position, but a purely economic one. Granted, no employer is no allowed to ask those questions anymore even though they are relevent from a business perspective. (Remember the business in your private life thread?)

Want a real life example? My wife can not do her job if we are even trying to have kids. Her job requires exposure to nuclear sources and lead. While the exposure is under the EPA health limits, it is there. Once she might have a child, she can not do her job because fetus exposure is a whole different ballgame. The law will be forcing her employer to pay her the same amount of money for another job that is of a lower pay scale and all the insurance. So now her company has to pay for an employee that can not do the job she was hired to do for up to the time she stops breast feeding or trying to have children. So they could be on the hook for years and years and not get any work out of her for the job for which she was hired. Do you think that's fair to the employer? I don't, nor does my wife.

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 02:41 PM

What about infertile women, should they get paid as much as men?

Sure.

Damn Demi, you're brave. Any idea how much infertility drugs cost? You'd be on the hook for that as well.... ;)

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 02:44 PM

Because differences should not dictate your rights, MAYBE some opportunities, but not rights.

I'd agree with that 100%. The problem though is what items are defined as rights and what are choices/oppurtunities.

Demiurge

10-03-2006, 02:52 PM

Damn Demi, you're brave. Any idea how much infertility drugs cost? You'd be on the hook for that as well.... ;)

LOL! Didn't say I was hiring any women. No positions available. ;)

We got pinched by a woman who was hired, got all the training, healthcare, etc....and then she decided to have a 3rd child. Took her leave, and then decided to be a full time momma (good choice on her behalf, moms should be with their infant children whenever possible). Unfortunately it screws everyone else here in terms of how big the raises are, etc. It's not to say small businesess aren't making money, but they also extend themselves beyond belief. When you have customers like GM, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney stringing you out 90 days for payment it becomes a problem on $20,000+ jobs.

But hey, I'm just an evil discriminating ass. :p

jdhdiggs

10-03-2006, 04:13 PM

To be fair, we typically recommend a >70% female work force in some of our projects since their quality of work handling multiple tasks at the same time is vastly superior to men's. 100% women cause MASSIVE issues though... 70% seems to be the sweet spot in a lot of industries for the ideal workforce even taking the other outside risks into account.

cfrizz

10-03-2006, 06:52 PM

I didn't know when working for a living became an entitlement.

You & your wife obviously have to make some tough decisions regarding work versus children. Most women have found that it is extremely difficult to do both well. Good luck!

My point is, until laws were enacted to protect women, men would constantly discriminate against women simply because they were women & not hire them at all. Or hire them, then fire them when they became pregnant.

Today they hire them but will still pay them less money (on average .74 to your 1.00)

If I am qualified to do a job then I should be hired to do the job. Regardless of the fact that I am in my childbearing years & might have a child.

MacLeod

10-03-2006, 09:39 PM

I disagree that companies will pay women less than a man for the same job.

While its true that statistics show women earn less than men in specific fields, its also misleading mainly because they break the stats down by a general field rather than a specific job like say a department manager at Walmart or whatever. By using a general field they take into account all kinds of different companies and levels and basically average them out. This makes the finals stats misleading for a couple reasons.

For one, women take off time for having children and therefore will have less experience and will build up less seniority. Also, because of child bearing, women will tend to have less experience due to less years in that field.

Also, a lot of women in married households have a job as secondary income only and so they dont pursue promotions as vigorously as a man or single woman would. If a woman is raising children and her husband has a good job and she doesnt want to work 16 hours a day, she will be more likely to be happy in a middle management position while the man is the primary or sole income source and is out to make as many promotions, raises and climb as far as they can.

One last thing, women arent as cuthroat as men in business. The whole "nice guy finishing last" thing. Even a single mom wont be as likely to stab her fellow co-workers in the back as a man will and thus the man is likely to advance further and get more raises.

Now I cant find any stats on this but Id be willing to be that if you went out and looked at specific jobs rather than a specific field youd find the woman making as much as a man.

I just dont see a great inequality out there for women. In virtually every field you can think of, there are plenty of example of women that have made it to the top, are CEO's of top companies, managing empires, becoming zillionaires.

My best example is that the 2 most likely people to be our next President is Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice! That just wouldnt be the case in a chauvinistic country.

unc2701

10-03-2006, 11:05 PM

Mac- just about all the stat flaws you mention have been examined & controlled away. A woman with the same level of experience in the same job makes less. However, a few of the things you mention are possible explainations for this, but still aren't justifible. A woman might be more likely to keep a job where she isn't paid as much, but it isn't right that the same skills are rewarded less.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 12:02 AM

ND13: And I don't equate spirituality with religion, because I'm of the opinion that the majority of organized religions are so corrupt, they are beyond repair. With that said, I do believe in God and I maintain a one on one relationship with he/she and will attend certain churches from time to time. I believe that as long as you treat your fellow man as you want yourself and your family/loved ones to be treated, your doing what is expected of you in this stage of being.

Christian "Religions" are man made perversions of the Bible. I can't speak for religions based on some other holy book or codex. I am a Christian. Not a Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness etc, etc etc ad nauseum. I use the Bible as my guide for my morals and beliefs. I try to live a spiritual life. I believe we are all spiritual beings. Has anyone who is downing SPIRITUALITY read the Bible??? Old and New Testaments???

In my humble opinion the King James Version is the best for a well rounded spiritual life. I believe this because in my search for the truth over the years I've read many different versions of the Bible as well as other holy books and found the KJV to have a more positive spiritual influence on my being.

Cathy as far as women rights, the Bible has a lot to say about that and you will find it very much in agreement with you feelings. It puts women & men in their places especially defining their places in the big picture with God.

Please don't confuse spirituality with religion it is like comparing an apple to a zucchini.

Audio obsession, audio obsession . . . not politics not politics get out before it's too late. . . audio obsession audio obesesssssssss. . . . . . .Ahhhh

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 12:04 AM

I am a Christian. Not a Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness etc, etc etc ad nauseum.
Amen!

shack

10-04-2006, 12:08 AM

but it isn't right that the same skills are rewarded less.

Pay should be based on performance and productivity...not skills.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 12:18 AM

Pay should be based on performance and productivity...not skills.

You got that right . . .that is why I always stayed away from unions.

Airplay355

10-04-2006, 12:45 AM

My boss's are all women, always have been. They all make more then me and have much more control of the company then alot of the men there. The CFO is a woman, VP of sales = woman...alot of important women out there making more then men.

I'm just getting at that sexism hasn't been apparent in my job. I've been for 5 years and plenty of women have had kids...there used to be a joke about how the water there would get you pregnant.

Anyway, while there may be sexism in the business world, I've never been exposed to it, and it's never been very apparent to me. Even at other jobs I looked at, the boss was a woman.

As far as what pay is based on. It seems starting pay is based on qualifications, like what your resume says and what degrees you have. However, if you've been at a company for a long time, performance and poductivity will get you more money in most cases.

schwarcw

10-04-2006, 12:58 AM

My point is, until laws were enacted to protect women, men would constantly discriminate against women simply because they were women & not hire them at all. Or hire them, then fire them when they became pregnant.

Today they hire them but will still pay them less money (on average .74 to your 1.00)

If I am qualified to do a job then I should be hired to do the job. Regardless of the fact that I am in my childbearing years & might have a child.

Amen! I might be in a minority her, but what you're saying is right on. Women should earn equal pay for equal work. Glass ceilings should be shattered. I've worked for several women. Well educated, very capable and I found to be much more approachable than most men. They were much more understanding when I had family trouble and needed some time off, were generally concerned about me and my family and were sincere about wanting to help anyway they could. I wouldn't hesitate to work for another.

tonyb

10-04-2006, 07:54 AM

Woooo......I'm scared............

tonyb

10-04-2006, 07:56 AM

Don't you youngsters know by now ...never argue with a woman?

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 10:44 AM

Well this whole statement says it all.

The MEN who wrote the bible all subscribed to women being squarely behind & subservient to men!

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN DOING SO! My place is right beside men doing my own thing as they do theirs!

Cathy as far as women rights, the Bible has a lot to say about that and you will find it very much in agreement with you feelings. It puts women & men in their places especially defining their places in the big picture with God.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 10:46 AM

Airplay, women have made tremendous strides since laws were enacted that allowed us to show everyone what we are capable of! We always knew that we could!

We simply needed the chance to do so.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 10:52 AM

Well this whole statement says it all.

The MEN who wrote the bible all subscribed to women being squarely behind & subservient to men!

I don't think you have read the Bible Old & New Testaments because it says the opposite of what you wrote here.

"Remember Who You Really Are
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God."

PolkThug

10-04-2006, 11:50 AM

I don't think you have read the Bible Old & New Testaments because it says the opposite of what you wrote here.

I seem to remember it more like Cathy does. I remember thinking, that women weren't treated very well in the Bible and that probably most women who claim to be Christians have never actually read the Bible.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 11:56 AM

I seem to remember it more like Cathy does. I remember thinking, that women weren't treated very well in the Bible and that probably most women who claim to be Christians have never actually read the Bible.

Well my next question is, is this what you were taught or did you actually read it and remember that way. I read it daily and have read a great deal more than several times and the Bible has men and women as equals but far from equal to God.

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 11:56 AM

Wow. I just realized something. Why are we all trying to reason with and placate an emotional woman who has flown off the handle about this?

We're all doomed.

:D

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 11:57 AM

It is extremely ignorant to say that the Bible doesn't treat women fairly, especially in the NT. Sure, they're not allowed to play an active role in the public worship service, but the 'inequalities' stop there.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 11:58 AM

Wow. I just realized something. Why are we all trying to reason with and placate an emotional woman who has flown off the handle about this?

We're all doomed.

:D

Oh BOY YOU BETTER START DUCKING!!!

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 12:01 PM

*puts on flame suit, climbs in armored car and drives away*

jdhdiggs

10-04-2006, 12:14 PM

Cathy,

I agree with you in concept, but I also feel that it is the employers rights to hire whoever s/he wants to do the job. It is there responsibilty. What I have a problem with is forcing a business to hire underqualified people to fill their quota's.

At TI, at their internal promotion seminar that tell managers to look for minority and female candidates ONLY and if none of them have the minimum qualifications, then it's ok to look elsewhere. Is that equal rights? No, that's entitlement.

From an owners side, the risk for women is that they will quit to raise a family. Women are also less likely to quit for low pay or fight their bosses for a raise. Hence, they tend to get paid less.

Good looking people make more money and get hired easier too, is that unfair? What if someone was doing it because they thought that the healthier person was less risk than the 400lb guy?

I think everyone should be paid for their abilities and that the business owner should be able to adjust that pay based on the risk of the employee. In the end, the owner needs to stand by his business practices. If they are appalling, then the public will force him out of business. There should be no laws about this.

cheddar

10-04-2006, 12:22 PM

I seem to remember it more like Cathy does. I remember thinking, that women weren't treated very well in the Bible and that probably most women who claim to be Christians have never actually read the Bible.

Well, to be honest, the Bible does have references to DIFFERENT roles people should take on to live within a Christian community. The Bible has just one real comment about equality. And that is that we are all, if left to our own nature, selfish and self serving at heart. And this preoccupation with our own interests and desires be it monetary, sexual, whatever, will take us away from a more meaningful subservience to God and more meaningful relationships to those closest to us in a Christian community.

It is not how we handle a raise at work that makes us 'equal' or graduation from college that makes us 'equal' that allows us to overcome the depression and anger in our lives. For it has been my experience that those who want money, only want more money when they get it and those that want equality only see more inequality when they succeed in rising up the ladder. But instead, its the relationships we form with those closest to us that will get us past the adversity we all face in our lives that helps us move past our more selfish, brooding nature.

At its core, the Bible is about relationships. Our relationship of subservience to God being paramount. But what is often left out is how the Bible transforms our relationships to those closest to us, forcing us to look away from selfishness and unsatisfied desires to actually helping those closest to us in their times of need. In their quest for equality, I've actually seen friends of mine hate their fathers and destroy a perfectly good, loving relationship because they perceive our society wracked with unfairness, controlled by self-serving men.

Compare that to what happened in the Amish community after the school shooting. When offered top clinical psychiatric services to see them through this disaster, they uniformly turned them down to be with those in their own community. Their faith in God and in the close support and relationships built upon years of faith and principled upbringing (however 'unequal') is worth more to them than all the 'higher knowledge' a secular, more 'equal' society can produce.

I'm not saying that Christians are perfect or superior than a secular society. Or that the Amish are the best example of a God fearing people. Just that Christian's have some options available to them at important times that really are because of teachings in the Bible and their faith and subservience to God.

PolkThug

10-04-2006, 12:40 PM

Well my next question is, is this what you were taught or did you actually read it and remember that way. I read it daily and have read a great deal more than several times and the Bible has men and women as equals but far from equal to God.

I actually read. If they are equal, then why is a woman "unclean" for two weeks and not completely clean for 60 daysif she has a female child and unclean for only one week plus 30 days if she has a male child? Why is it only 144,000 'men who have not spoiled themselves with women' who get pulled up when the events of Revelations go down? etc. etc. Men and women are definitely not equal in the Bible.

PolkThug

10-04-2006, 12:50 PM

Have you read Corinthians? After a quick google:

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

1 Corinthians 11:5-10: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

ND13

10-04-2006, 12:52 PM

The woman ate the apple.:rolleyes:

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 01:02 PM

I actually read. If they are equal, then why is a woman "unclean" for two weeks and not completely clean for 60 daysif she has a female child and unclean for only one week plus 30 days if she has a male child? Why is it only 144,000 'men who have not spoiled themselves with women' who get pulled up when the events of Revelations go down? etc. etc. Men and women are definitely not equal in the Bible.

The first part was Old Testament law for surviving in the hot deseart for 40 years. After birth the woman needs to heal plus it is not safe to "know" the woman when blood is present. It is not a put down of women. God went to great pains to micro-manage his people in the deseart so they would survive.

The 144,000, if you read the whole passage:
1And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

2And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

This passage is not putting down women but exhaulting the virtues of purity, those who lived like Jesus. . . virgins, no guile in their mouths, without fault before God these can be both men and women. Those are the first taken. . . the rest are taken later.

The Bible is a matter of personal enterpretation. If you are looking for bad things in it you will find it. If you look at it as the good spirit leads you that is what you will find.

Before I read the Bible I ask for guidance and understanding and then go in with a fresh mind.

cheddar

10-04-2006, 01:05 PM

It's been my experience that pulling passages out of context is probably not the best way to study the true intent of the Bible. There's plenty of ammo there for both sides of this argument. But go at it if you must. Should be interesting.

1 Corinthians 11:5-10: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

For example, the above passage really refers to men's sexual attraction to women with long beautiful hair. Basically, horny men have trouble concentrating on God when they're thinking of jumping the woman next to them...

Word...;)

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 01:52 PM

Sorry that this thread got hijacked Cathy. . . I was just trying to spell out the difference between religion and spirituality. . .I didn't mean it to go in the direction of a debate on Bible enterpretation.

I read the Big Book, I study it, I don't get out of it that women are less then men I get that they are equal. That's all I am saying.

Joe

bobman1235

10-04-2006, 02:06 PM

Wow. Actually quoting scriptur eon Club Polk today. Didn't see that comin'.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 02:07 PM

Thank you Thuggy!

This is the same shit that I heard over & over & over again when I was forced to go to church!

And NO priest ever said that it WASN'T meant as negatively toward women as it came across!

Like I said, it was men who wrote the bible & they simply arranged for it to glorify themselves & treat women like 2nd class citizens!

So entire nations were created discriminating against women & it took centuries of fighting for our rights to start getting things on the right path.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 02:14 PM

No problem Joe. Most men don't have a problem with inteprepting the bible since it clearly favors them!

The plain fact is that God doesn't live here & I'm not putting my faith in ANY man as to what he thinks God meant when men created the bible.

Humans screw things up all the time, the world we live in is plenty proof of that!

Sorry that this thread got hijacked Cathy. . . I was just trying to spell out the difference between religion and spirituality. . .I didn't mean it to go in the direction of a debate on Bible enterpretation.

I read the Big Book, I study it, I don't get out of it that women are less then men I get that they are equal. That's all I am saying.

Joe

tommyboy

10-04-2006, 02:24 PM

It should not of your race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc. All humans in the United States should have equal rights. End of Thread...........please:).

if that didn't work, pretty please?;)

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 02:35 PM

James the reality was, women & minorities have ALWAYS had the abilities to do the work, but the then mostly white business owners just didn't want to hire them! They didn't care what qualifications they had.

If laws had not been enacted we still wouldn't be given a chance!

I don't believe in hiring unqualified people to do a job either regardless of color or sex!

You obviously don't think racism & sexism still exist in the work place. I do! But so long as there are laws on the books to protect us from such things, we will continue to have the same opportunities as everyone else.

It will be up to us to prove it & we have been ever since!

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 02:38 PM

No problem Joe. Most men don't have a problem with inteprepting the bible since it clearly favors them!

You are agreeing with "Thuggy" (a few posts up) a man who is enterpreting the Bible as anti-women.

Do you agree that if a man enterprets the Bible as pro human under God, no matter male or female, that that man is someone you would be inclined to agree with?

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 02:58 PM

Like I said, it was men who wrote the bible & they simply arranged for it to glorify themselves & treat women like 2nd class citizens!
That's your opinion, whereas fact is that God wrote it through the fingers of men.

You obviously had a very bad experience at whatever church you were 'forced' to attend. I'm not surprised, if they had 'priests'. Several issues with that church, I'd say.

It really is sad that you actually did attend a church for at least some time, and have most likely read at least some of the Bible at some point, and have come off with the feeling that the Bible is anti-female. The Bible and Christianity are no where close to being anti-female. As I said earlier, sure, women are not allowed to have an active roll in public worship, but there are no other stipulations that I can think of at the moment.

I can only pray, and will do so, that at some point in your life you will somehow, for some reason, decide to pick up a Bible again, and that through the Holy Spirit, you would see its true meaning.

PolkThug

10-04-2006, 03:06 PM

You are agreeing with "Thuggy" (a few posts up) a bad ass mofo who is enterpreting the Bible as men and women not being treated equally.

fixed!

:D

Demiurge

10-04-2006, 03:09 PM

That's your opinion, whereas fact is that God wrote it through the fingers of men.

You obviously had a very bad experience at whatever church you were 'forced' to attend. I'm not surprised, if they had 'priests'. Several issues with that church, I'd say.

It really is sad that you actually did attend a church for at least some time, and have most likely read at least some of the Bible at some point, and have come off with the feeling that the Bible is anti-female. The Bible and Christianity are no where close to being anti-female. As I said earlier, sure, women are not allowed to have an active roll in public worship, but there are no other stipulations that I can think of at the moment.

I can only pray, and will do so, that at some point in your life you will somehow, for some reason, decide to pick up a Bible again, and that through the Holy Spirit, you would see its true meaning.

I wonder how she feels about Islam. ;)

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 03:13 PM

I can only pray, and will do so, that at some point in your life you will somehow, for some reason, decide to pick up a Bible again, and that through the Holy Spirit, you would see its true meaning.

Cathy I am with Bliss on this! Please get a copy of the King James version of the Bible and read it, you will find peace and contentment in your heart. I'll even buy you one and send it to you and pickup the tab. I feel very hostile toward the RC church myself but I dont' want to get into that here. If you have issues with the priests, they are Catholic and they have their own "version" of the Bible and their own dogma. I have no dogma! I am a spiritual person by way of the Bible and I reiterate, I SEE NO ONE SIDEDNESS IN THE BIBLE towards men. It's simply not there just like there is no theology in the New Testament. Organized religions PUT theology there, they create the dogma.

God is the Author of the Bible at least I believe that He is the Author of the one I read.

I am not patronizing you here I speak from my heart.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 03:18 PM

fixed!

:D

"Oh you are a regular riot Alice a regular riot, how would you like to be laughing on the moooooonnnn!"

Ralph Kramden
Male Chauvinist Pig.

cheddar

10-04-2006, 03:49 PM

Humans screw things up all the time, the world we live in is plenty proof of that!

I think that this is probably the point we can all agree on. At least you didn't say Men instead of Humans.

It is interesting that even from a secular standpoint, men and women both shared in socially organizing themselves into 'traditional' family units to ensure the passing on of their genes (children) into the next generation of humanity.

It's only in the 20th or 21st centuries when we measure the worth of a human by the amount of money they get paid slaving away for some company that we can turn everything around and blame men for some vast conspiracy against women throughout time.

Before the 20th century, a human's worth was measured by their ability to not work but still have money to follow the intellectual pursuits of life (European Aristocracy, etc.). Those men and women who had to work for money were thought to be beneath even the women who benefited from aristocractic wealth. Equality today seems like such a firm and well understood word. But against human history it is very mushy and not well defined. Before aristocracy, I'm sure humans had some other fleeting way of defining the worth of a human.

I wonder how we will be judged a century from now when women work in part as a measure of self-worth and importance when our children of this generation are often put into daycare at only two or three months old? What does equality mean to them? What does it say when working for a company (what men have traditionally done) is somehow more important than taking care of our own children full-time (can be done by men as well) in our current social organization? Are we really in transition toward some new equal utopia? Or are we finding yet another way to screw up humanity?

TroyD

10-04-2006, 04:32 PM

You know.....I really despise when folks selectively quote to support thier agenda.

The 1 Corinthians 11 is about conduct in church; nothing more.

Before someone else does...flip to Ephesians 5. Everyone skips down to verse 22 (men do, anyhow) and stop at verse 25. Again, Paul is giving examples of perfect submission using analogies. If you get right down to it, men have, if you interpret the passage, greater debt of submission to thier wives than vice versa.

Sorry for the typo!

BDT

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 04:42 PM

You know.....I really despise when folks selectively quote to support thier agenda.

The 1 Corinthians 11 is about conduct in church; nothing more.

Before someone else does...flip to Ephesians 11. Everyone skips down to verse 22 (men do, anyhow) and stop at verse 25. Again, Paul is giving examples of perfect submission using analogies. If you get right down to it, men have, if you interpret the passage, greater debt of submission to thier wives than vice versa.

BDT

Troy, Ephesians ends at chapter 6????? Are you sure this isn't a typo.

ND13

10-04-2006, 04:51 PM

The 1 Corinthians 11 is about conduct in church; nothing more.

BDT

So that means that masturbating in the last row of pews, while fantasizing about the cute, long-haired blonde in the 2nd row of the choir is off-limits, right???;) :p

shack

10-04-2006, 04:55 PM

I normally stay out of these dicussions.

Christianity is based on the life of Christ, Jesus. The New Testament shows women were a priority in both Jesus' life and Minsitry.

Not my words:

Jesus’ honor and respect was not reserved simply for his mother. It was extended to all women—an attitude largely unexpected and unknown in his culture and time. Jesus, unlike the men of his generation and culture, taught that women were equal to men in the sight of God. Women could receive God’s forgiveness and grace. Women, as well as men, could be among Christ’s personal followers. Women could be full participants in the kingdom of God. Jesus offered full discipleship to women.

These were revolutionary ideas. Many of his contemporaries, including his disciples, were shocked. Women were overjoyed and grateful, of course, and many dedicated their lives to his service.

Women actually traveled with Jesus and his disciples and were part of his ministry.

The Book of Corinthians is primarily correspondece between Paul and the new Church at Corinth. Paul also wrote: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28).

I seems to me that Christianity as shown in the New Testament through the words of Jesus and Paul (probably wrote most of the New Testament) in not only the examples above but throughout the text hold women as equals in the sight of God...the most important aspect of the faith.

Those that blame "Christianity" for the role of women in society through history...well that is just not the case. IMO

brettw22

10-04-2006, 04:58 PM

That's your opinion, whereas fact is that God wrote it through the fingers of men. Whose fact? Yours? Hers? Mine?

I can only pray, and will do so, that at some point in your life you will somehow, for some reason, decide to pick up a Bible again, and that through the Holy Spirit, you would see its true meaning.She didn't ask you to pray ONTO/for her. Seems a little odd that you'd pray that she sees things your way........

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 05:02 PM

Whose fact? Yours? Hers? Mine?

She didn't ask you to pray ONTO/for her. Seems a little odd that you'd pray that she sees things your way........

You angry twisted up little mess of a man. . . you have reason to hate the Bible???? We are trying to show Cathy that what we read in it places women equal and in some case higher than men. I pray for you regularly whether you like it or not.

Joe

PolkThug

10-04-2006, 05:03 PM

So that means that masturbating in the last row of pews, while fantasizing about the cute, long-haired blonde in the 2nd row of the choir is off-limits, right???;) :p

That's fine, but your wife has to keep her trap shut til you get home. ;) :D Corinthians rocks! Especially that fine leather they make.

ND13

10-04-2006, 05:04 PM

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 05:05 PM

Whose fact? Yours? Hers? Mine?

She didn't ask you to pray ONTO/for her. Seems a little odd that you'd pray that she sees things your way........

Then please kindly excuse me for praying for someone.

And did I say that I'd pray that she'd see things my way? No. I prayed that she'd see the true meaning. I also pray that God will help me to see the true meaning of His Word, and correct my beliefs where they may be flawed.

unc2701

10-04-2006, 05:05 PM

You angry twisted up little mess of a man. . . you have reason to hate the Bible???? We are trying to show Cathy that what we read in it places women equal and in some case higher than men. I pray for you regularly whether you like it or not.

Joe

Can I get in on that? I'm an ex-altar-boy-catholic-sorta-atheist. Seems like I could use a little help. Just address it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you don't mind.

PolkThug

10-04-2006, 05:05 PM

We are trying to show Cathy that what we read in it places women equal and in some case higher than men.

Do you deny that there are places in the Bible where women are less than equal to men?

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 05:06 PM

One thing there Joe....Brett ain't little.

He behaves little.

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Can I get in on that? I'm an ex-altar-boy-catholic-sorta-atheist. Seems like I could use a little help. Just address it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you don't mind.
I will. I'll get down on my knees and ask that God would forgive you for the years you were a practicing Catholic. He's merciful. There may be hope. ;)

brettw22

10-04-2006, 05:08 PM

You angry twisted up little mess of a man. . . you have reason to hate the Bible???? We are trying to show Cathy that what we read in it places women equal and in some case higher than men. I pray for you regularly whether you like it or not.LOL.....I have absolutely nothing against the Bible....I'm just saying that to claim it as fact because that's what he believes is NOT a fact. Also, I think it's a little weird to tell someone that they're being prayed for when it's not something requested. Maybe it's one thing to do it in silence, but I think it's weird to say something to the effect of "I'm doing it because I think you're wrong......"

And I'm neither a mess, nor little.......deal with it. :D

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 05:10 PM

One thing there Joe....Brett ain't little.

He calls me knee-jerk and tells me I take things personally and then chimes in with an angry statement like that, in my eyes he is a little man that I pray for every day, not to see my way or my opinion but I pray for him to have peace of mind and happiness. He'll tell me to shove that up my rear end but I will continue to pray for him.

unc2701

10-04-2006, 05:11 PM

You know, it's not like god doesn't have a budget. You'd think he would be buying spots on the superbowl, on the first reel of Pirates of the Carribean, etc... little more direct than inspiring a couple of guys 2,000 years ago... then again 325 years later... then again 1611 years later...

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 05:11 PM

LOL.....I have absolutely nothing against the Bible....I'm just saying that to claim it as fact because that's what he believes is NOT a fact. Also, I think it's a little weird to tell someone that they're being prayed for when it's not something requested. Maybe it's one thing to do it in silent, but I think it's weird to say something to the effect of "I'm doing it because I think you're wrong......"

And I'm neither a mess, nor little.......deal with it. :D

You need to deal with it Brett.

unc2701

10-04-2006, 05:14 PM

I will. I'll get down on my knees and ask that God would forgive you for the years you were a practicing Catholic. He's merciful. There may be hope. ;)

wait a sec... god has something against catholics? 'cause you would think he would have done something about that before 1517. Unless he was trying to tell us to be greek orthodox, russian orthodox or coptic.

brettw22

10-04-2006, 05:16 PM

Joe...........there IS a difference in questioning one's position and being angry. I don't sense any anger in my post above.....and i should know.......I wrote it. ;) Please don't claim I'm hateful because you want to snap react to what is posted.

Have a nice day. (even without prayer)

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 05:16 PM

My word, unc2701,...you have the weirdest posts.

unc2701

10-04-2006, 05:29 PM

Explain?

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 05:39 PM

Haha, you first. I just don't understand 90% of your meaning/insinuations.

unc2701

10-04-2006, 06:01 PM

shack

10-04-2006, 06:40 PM

There are those that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God with each step along the way a result of the direct hand of God.

There are those that believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, with men inspried by God making decisions as to what information is or is not relevant and how the original texts were to be translated. To them the Bible may have some factual inaccuracies but the messsage is from God.

There are those that believe the Bible is a history book as recalled by the writers and is based of factual information that may or may not have been accurately recorded and or translated. The characters are real and the events are real whether inspired by God or not.

There are those that believe the Bible is fiction.

Many religions base their faith on the words of this book. Regardless of how you come down on the Bible, one cannot deny it's impact on civilization, society, laws, etc, etc. It is the most influential book the world has ever known. There are very few pockets of human life that have not at least been exposed to it's existance. It equally influences the most fundamental Christian to the most fervent athiest. The history of the Bible, how it came to all of it's various forms, how the various sects and denominations use the Bible is very interesting. Both it's message and it's history are the most widely written about document in history. I think it is important to know what is in the Bible and know the history of the Bible ragardless of your particular religious belief (or lack of it) because of the influence it has had in the past and the future. To treat this book lightly is foolish.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 06:43 PM

I don't want or need any one of the umpteen million versions of the bible to know that for the most part all of them are discriminatory against women.

I don't need Thuggy to interpret the bible for me, he just quoted all the passages I was forced to listen to for years by priests. I made up my own mind as I matured that I wanted nothing to do with something so negative against me. Something that made me feel that I & every other woman was responsible for all the evil that exist in man!

That's what those versuses say in black & white! History has shown how men have interpreted them. Jesus may have said & believed one thing, but it is clear that MEN decided that he was wrong! If men & women were equal, it wouldn't have taken until 1920 for women to be able to vote! My mother would have had all her credit cards in her own name rather than Mrs. Thomas XXX she wasn't allowed to sign her own name & this was in the 1960's!

I don't blame the priests, I have nothing against anybody who believes in the bible or who chooses to practice their faith however they see fit.

I don't play the race card, I don't go around looking for racism. I simply work hard, treat everyone with respect, give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they show they don't deserve it & just live my life and do to the best of my ability to be a good person!

And believe it or not I LIKE men! Not all men are sexist pigs. Most of my friends are men. I just can't find one that doesn't see me as another notch to add on his belt, or find one that wants to work for a living!

Until I find one, I will stay happily single.

If that's not enough for some people TOUGH *HIT! Hopefully it will be enough for God!

Cathy I am with Bliss on this! Please get a copy of the King James version of the Bible and read it, you will find peace and contentment in your heart. I'll even buy you one and send it to you and pickup the tab. I feel very hostile toward the RC church myself but I dont' want to get into that here. If you have issues with the priests, they are Catholic and they have their own "version" of the Bible and their own dogma. I have no dogma! I am a spiritual person by way of the Bible and I reiterate, I SEE NO ONE SIDEDNESS IN THE BIBLE towards men. It's simply not there just like there is no theology in the New Testament. Organized religions PUT theology there, they create the dogma.

God is the Author of the Bible at least I believe that He is the Author of the one I read.

I am not patronizing you here I speak from my heart.

lanion

10-04-2006, 06:59 PM

[QUOTE=shack]There are those that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God with each step along the way a result of the direct hand of God.
QUOTE]

if you believe this please be aware the English version is a translation, and when you translate something you put a lot of your own meaning and interpretation into it. The original Hebrew has a lot of puns and multiple interpretations that would be obvious to a native Hebrew speaker, but these intricacies are lost in translation.

shack

10-04-2006, 07:03 PM

cheddar

10-04-2006, 07:23 PM

And believe it or not I LIKE men! Not all men are sexist pigs. Most of my friends are men. I just can't find one that doesn't see me as another notch to add on his belt, or find one that wants to work for a living!

How about a man who wanted to take care of the home and kids full-time? Would that be a good man? Does equality swing both ways for you or is it something that is mainly defined through work outside the home?

(Not trying to pick a fight here. I'm really curious.)

brettw22

10-04-2006, 07:49 PM

Cheddar, I don't think that has to do with equality.......that has to do with the family dynamic that the family unit would discuss/agree upon.......if both people agree, that's something completely different than how you define a 'good man.'

EDIT: Also, just because that might work for one family doesn't arbitrarly mean that it would work for all either....but the families that opt for that method would have discussed that part of the relationship up front I'd imagine.

cheddar

10-04-2006, 07:54 PM

For young and married people without kids, I would agree. But as married couples get older and start bringing children into the world, work at the workplace and work at home are intimately related. I think people place much more value on work in the workplace these days, but another form of equality would be valuing the contribution a man can make in taking care of business in the home and raising the kids full-time.

Edit: While the wife brings home the bacon...of course...with equal pay to men.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 08:16 PM

I have absolutly NO problem with that. If that is what the man chooses to do & wants to do GO FOR IT!

I wish we still lived in a world were there could be 1 full time parent at home!

I was fortunate enough to grow up in that environment & I think it made a huge difference in my brothers & my lives! My Mom didn't go back to work until her youngest was in school, & she still managed to come home & fix us dinner! My Dad worked 2 jobs to put food on the table, get a Masters degree in music & live his dream of teaching music until he died of cancer in 1982 @ the age of 59. He only got to live his dream for about 10 yrs or so.

But he took care of his family first & foremost! It's sad to see all of these children growing up without both of their parents in their lives. It's sad to see so many men & women abandoning their responsibilities to their children.

So man or woman, if you can afford to stay home & be a full time parent, you have my admiration & respect!

How about a man who wanted to take care of the home and kids full-time? Would that be a good man? Does equality swing both ways for you or is it something that is mainly defined through work outside the home?

(Not trying to pick a fight here. I'm really curious.)

cheddar

10-04-2006, 08:30 PM

Well, in truth, I have no problem with certain legal protections for women and minorities at work. I just see the intense value we place on both men and women working outside the house as being detrimental to the future of our next generation. True equality to me means that all the important roles are taken care of in the family by a responsible adult either man or woman.

I know it's probably blasphemy on this forum, but anyone who can afford lsi speakers (myself included) can probably afford to make sacrifices in their lives to have a one wage earner family work out. Who knows, if as many men dropped out of the workforce to go home as women who entered, wages might be a lot higher too :D.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 08:31 PM

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 08:38 PM

cheddar

10-04-2006, 08:45 PM

Cheddar, the value of work is NOT more important than the value of the family, it is simply the necessity that BOTH parents have to work if they are going to survive!

A great many women are guilt stricken because they have no choice but to work & put their children into daycare. Or feel guilty that they couldn't give their children enough attention, stuff, whatever, because it was just her raising them & her time & money only went so far.

A great many women found out the hard way that you just CAN'T have it all, something has to give somewhere.

Men like Demi bitch about women leaving to take care of their babies. I would also bet that he would call a man a wimp if he decided to stay home & be the full time parent. I would respect that man like there is no tomorrow!

I respect & admire every single married man on this board who hasn't been afraid to say that he loves & respects his wife & women in general and that he takes her feeling into consideration. And I have no use to the other men on this board who have derided those men for saying so!

On valuing the family we agree. I just think that some of the 'inequalities' in the Bible and elsewhere might also be to support areas in the family that might be neglected if both parents worked outside the family. Maybe not always put in the most politically correct way, but at least some of the 'inequalities' may have ended up ensuring that the roles were filled. I know it's not always possible to have a single wage earner today, as you've already said.

Also, I know that the Bible is a sensitive area for you and it's ok if you disagree. :cool:

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 08:45 PM

No, you wouldn't.

Up until the protestent reformation, just about all christians fell under the Roman Catholic church or the ones I've listed. 1517 was the year of Martin Luther's 95 theses or when western christians got a choice. Your remark that I needed forgiving for being a Roman catholic implys that god let a whole lot slide for 1500 years OR he was ok with the other non-RC christian churchs available until that point.

Other post:
325- year of the nicean council... even bigger than the protestant reformation in terms of 1)the content of the bible and 2)the beliefs of christians.

1611- (I think... it's been awhile) The year your favorite translation of the bible was written.

So there's this all powerful, all knowing being. Instead of laying it down for us mano a mano like he did with moses, he gets a few guys to write a bunch of books, a few more guys to pick out which books are for real and a few more guys to translate it properly into the vernacular of the 17th century. All knowing all powerful. Why didn't he just have them write it in modern english, bury it with the dead sea scolls and wait for us to dig it up 2000 years later?

Anyho, you keep telling us to read the bible... maybe you should read a little of its history?

oh- flying spaghetti monster. Internet thing. Google it, but it's a better creation story than either of the ones in Genesis.

Faith is faith. I need faith and with faith and belief in the Bible as the Word of God I have found peace and contentment as much as a human being can have it. I have attained a great measure of serenity the likes of which I never new when I had more money than most people, a nicer house, etc etc etc. By reading and studying the Bible and focusing on Christ my life has changed for the better. That is all the proof I need to know that the Bible is the Truth for this human being. I would be remiss in my duty to God to not pass that on no matter how it is received. I try not to shove it down people's throats as Brett feels that I do. . . if I am coming off that way to anyone then I deeply apologize. I reiterate, I would be remiss in my duty to God not to pass on what I have found.

Joe

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 08:53 PM

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 09:11 PM

Also, I know that the Bible is a sensitive area for you and it's ok if you disagree. :cool:

Cathy, I feel the same way I was just trying pass on what has been freely given to me. . . sorry if I offended you.
Joe

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 09:43 PM

No one with one exception has offended me. I thank every single participant in this thread for exchanging meaningful dialog in a fairly polite & respectful manner.

Hopefully all of us has taken something of value from this thread, or has at least been entertained.

Demiurge

10-04-2006, 09:47 PM

Sweet, a prize. :)

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 09:56 PM

Cheddar, while there might be a clear delineation of roles in the bible, One that I don't necessarily have a problem with since that's pretty much how I was raised. The problem today is that most familes today consist of divorced one parent homes.

And it is usually the mothers who are doing the child raising without any support emotionally or financially from the father. Meanwhile he is out their getting more women pregnant!

This is how the vast majority of my girl friends are living & the results & affects on the children are decidedly bad!

My best friend has gone through 2 losers for husbands. The 1st one constantly dragged her through court trying to get the child support reduced going so far as to tell the judge that because he had remarried he should pay less to his 1st set of children! The judge laughed in his face!

The 2nd one was in the Army, got sent off to Panama & never came back. He has never seen his daughter, & remarried & then sued for divorce cause his new wife needed his benefits!

The state of matrimony is I think irrevocably broken these days & so to is the state of the family & I don't see any signs of it getting better!

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 10:38 PM

Speaking my mind here...and against my better judgement...which, of course, never prevails...

I don't want or need any one of the umpteen million versions of the bible to know that for the most part all of them are discriminatory against women.
So, you're willing to dismiss the whole book based on your conjecturing without even looking at the book? Sounds like a great game plan to me.
I made up my own mind as I matured that I wanted nothing to do with something so negative against me.
Just because something is negative toward a person, or because it condemns that person's actions, doesn't mean it's wrong. Of course, I'm not saying that's applicable to you. I'm just making that statement in general. Also, you've matured? I certainly would have expected better behavior during a debate from a mature person than what has been displayed in this thread. Mind you, I'm making *no* claims to being mature. ;)
I don't blame the priests, I have nothing against anybody who believes in the bible or who chooses to practice their faith however they see fit.
Your attitude thus far certainly hasn't reflected that...in the least...
I thank every single participant in this thread for exchanging meaningful dialog in a fairly polite & respectful manner.
Yes, I'm glad everyone has been kind and polite. Well, almost everyone. I can't truthfully say I think you have been. I mean, caps lock and foul language? That ain't too kind or polite. And that's the least of it. The attitude all your posts are saturated with clearly says it doesn't matter what kind of argument is made against your beliefs. They're wrong before you even know what they are, and the presenter of those arguments is a chauvinist pig for presenting them.
The state of matrimony is I think irrevocably broken these days & so to is the state of the family & I don't see any signs of it getting better!
Finally, we agree 100% on something. :)

Now, what in the world am I doing spouting off like this? I don't know...I don't know. I'm sure most of what I said was pretty inappropriate, and I'll probably end up wishing I hadn't posted it after I cool off. But the thing that gets me in this thread is attitude. I don't care what you believe or what you think of me. However, you should have a decent attitude. I don't think anything in life grates against my skin the wrong way like a bad attitude. (Which is rather ironic, considering Mom always says I have a bad one myself...:p)

I think I'm done in this thread. At least, I should be. My patience isn't up to making nice replies, and no other reply should be made. Perhaps you'll say I'm ducking out because I can't hold up my own. Well, that's true, I can't. And so I won't try to. Even if I could...nothing good ever comes from these threads, and this one is a perfect example. It's just been a waste of my time, and I suppose I should have just stayed out of it. But, I'm just not that strong.

Now, I need someone praying for me! :(

audiobliss

10-04-2006, 10:41 PM

No, you wouldn't.
Oooh, thanks. I like the way that stings. :)
Your remark that I needed forgiving for being a Roman catholic implys that god let a whole lot slide for 1500 years OR he was ok with the other non-RC christian churchs available until that point.
Not at all. The only thing my remark implied is that I disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. I think you missed my smiley face. So, again...:)

Anyho, you keep telling us to read the bible... maybe you should read a little of its history?
I think you're probably right.

At any rate, thanks for all the extra information. I did actually learn something there.

hearingimpared

10-04-2006, 10:54 PM

The state of matrimony is I think irrevocably broken these days & so to is the state of the family & I don't see any signs of it getting better!

Do you think the state of matrimony would be better if people had stronger morals and good character, both the women & the men? I do.

The thing that I see that is very disturbing and way more than it should be in this city is the inordinate amount of unwed mothers who have children with several different men. The ratios here are incredibly high. . . it is literally children having children in this city. You should see the way these young girls walk around. If you didn't know any better you would swear they were hookers. . . It is very scary.

cfrizz

10-04-2006, 11:31 PM

Yes I do, but since no one is around to teach these morals or the ones who are responsible for bringing the children into the world haven't been taught any morals or have had any mothers or fathers of good character around themselves they wouldn't know how to teach it to their children!

We also can't discount outside influences like other kids. You can try to teach your kid all the right things in the world, but if he/she is constantly surrounded by bad influences & pressure from other kids it's going to have an impact.

A lot of these girls are having babies because "I want someone to love me unconditionally!" Which tells you they don't feel like they are getting any love, support, attention at home. How can they when daddy doesn't want the responsibility he's too busy running around trying to get into some other womans pants & mom just spends her life working usually at a low paying job just to keep food on the table. And they are too young to think about all of the consequences of having a baby until it's too late.

And this cycle repeats from one generation to the next.

As I've said before, the men aren't teaching their sons to respect women & the mothers aren't teaching their daughters to respect themselves!

Do you think the state of matrimony would be better if people had stronger morals and good character, both the women & the men? I do.

The thing that I see that is very disturbing and way more than it should be in this city is the inordinate amount of unwed mothers who have children with several different men. The ratios here are incredibly high. . . it is literally children having children in this city. You should see the way these young girls walk around. If you didn't know any better you would swear they were hookers. . . It is very scary.

PolkThug

10-05-2006, 01:00 AM

Now, what in the world am I doing spouting off like this? I don't know...I don't know.

http://www.alcimedes.com/Canada.gif

brettw22

10-05-2006, 02:20 AM

Audio, I think you need to rethink the way you talk to people. Joke or not, you've sarcastically said "why are we placating an emotional woman" and also made jokes about something that she's bothered with. Your 18 or 19 years are all yours, but I guarantee you that you have no idea what her life experiences are beyond what limited info she (or anyone) has posted on the forum, and I personally wouldn't be taking snide maturity comments from an 18yo.

F1nut

10-05-2006, 03:06 AM

The state of matrimony is I think irrevocably broken these days & so to is the state of the family

I agree. Women need to get back in the kitchen and bake me some pie!

TroyD

10-05-2006, 03:10 AM

Again, squarely with Brett on this one.

You know, there are a lot of Christians out there running around doing more harm than good. There is a LOT of things in the Bible but we seem to want to glom on to the passages that happen to coincide with our personal slant and ignore those that don't.

While there is a whole list of things that God objects too (and some of us pick up on that very easily) we forget that it ain't OUR place to cast judgement (we tend to forget that). Lest ye be judged. Yes, I think I've read that somewhere. Also, Jesus also made it a point to reach out to the great unwashed, the dregs of society. He also taught patience, toleration and servitude (sp). But, no, we don't want to hear that. We read that homosexuality is wrong. Yup, so we go on our personal crusades to preach how wrong that is. Well, I would say that the Bible teaches us that in God's eyes, sin is sin. He doesn't differentiate and we are ALL sinners who fall short of the glory of God. If that's the case than who the hell are we to sit as judge and jury over anyone else? If God can use people like David and Paul (go ahead and look up THIER litany of shortcomings)....maybe we shouldn't be so quick to write other folks off.

There is an old saying, before you judge, walk a mile in MY shoes. Well, Jesus we are taught did that very thing. Some of us think we can sit here and tell folks what they ought to do, think and feel without the first clue of what they have gone through and so forth. That's crap, folks. I consider myself Christian, but a long way from perfect and I sure don't think I have any business judging others, that's God's job.

Lastly, I really think that we need to steer away from these topics. This is an audio forum, primarily. I really think that there are more appropriate places for these discussions.

BDT

PhantomOG

10-05-2006, 11:25 AM

so are all men evil mysogynistic philanderers or just most of them?

ohskigod

10-05-2006, 11:31 AM

The state of matrimony is I think irrevocably broken these days & so to is the state of the family & I don't see any signs of it getting better!

Not broken, theres just alot of people that get married for the wrong reasons, as well as choosing the wrong partners for the wrong reasons. I walked into my marriage knowing the woman I was marrying was the one I wanted to tackle life's challenges with. Sure on rare occasion she ticks me off, and vice versa I'm sure, but I chose the right person for the right reasons, hence, my marriage so far is all good, dare I say enjoyable.

Is it undefeatable? no, and that knowlege alone means I am better equiped to spot problems in my marriage earlier than many others, and work with the wifey to get through them. Most marriages that fall in the crapper are caused by pure selfishness. one, or both, will wnat things a certain way only without considering the needs of there partner and coming to a compromise.

Maybe I'm just lucky as hell, but I'm married, and thank my lucky stars for being so. couldnt imagine my life any other way.

PhantomOG

10-05-2006, 11:38 AM

Maybe I'm just lucky as hell, but I'm married, and thank my lucky stars for being so. couldnt imagine my life any other way.

You're not the only one. I couldn't be happier in my marriage and I know that my wife and I will be together for a long time, just like both sets of our parents who recently celebrated 30th year anniversaries (both sets!). So despite all this doom and gloom I know things are not that way for everyone and definitely not for me.

cheddar

10-05-2006, 12:14 PM

Celebrated the fifth anniversary this year. I'm also part of a church home group with about a dozen young couples in it. We are all on our first marriages with one or two kids each. :D

ND13

10-05-2006, 12:42 PM

Will have my 15th Anniversary in November and have been together, from the first night we met, for almost 17 years. We're both 39 yrs old, well I'll be in December, and we know several of our friends, co-workers, and family that are close to our age or younger that have been married several times. Marriage isn't supposed to be disposable or easy. We've worked our way through several extremely trying times and it just made our marriage stronger each time. My parents have been married for 40 years, but her mother is on her third husband, but in her defense, the first was abusive, the second was killed in a freak hunting accident(officially anyways, but that's a long story), and her third marriage is on it's 25th year or so.

I may, on occasion make an off-beat joke(which I usually do to show how ridiculous a comment or topic is), but that in no way means that I don't have the utmost respect for women. But as with all people, that respect can be lost as easily as it was earned. I live by the Golden Rule and treat people the way that I want me, my family, loved-ones and friends to be treated. Life really is that simple, if you choose it to be. But if you want life to be difficult, it surely can and will be.

I'm out on this, as I think I can hear the loud clanking of the COWBELL!!!

jdhdiggs

10-05-2006, 01:00 PM

Cathy,

Man, you have it great in the US. It is so damn hot here and those black burka's, yikes!

Dang it PT, you stole Jesse's pic!

cfrizz

10-05-2006, 02:25 PM

James, I have no idea what you are talking about, or where you are coming from.

Ohski, Phantom, Cheddar & Noel, congratulations on your commitments to your marriages & families. May you continue as my mother & father did for 40 yrs to love, honor, & cherish each other until the day you die!

You have my utmost admiration & respect.

cfrizz

10-05-2006, 02:43 PM

Are all women the reason why men are evil mysogynistic philanderers?

Keep an eye on the attitudes of the guys towards women here on the club. I think it is fairly representive of what I see outside of it from guys.

If you all are just talking trash to be "one of the guys" so that you will fit in, maybe you need to rethink whether or not you really want to fit in. Are you so anxious to fit in you will go against what you know is right just to do so?

I've lost count of the number of times one of the guys has promoted a positive remark regarding women & worried at the same time that others of you would come out & slam & deride him as a wimp, p****, or tell him to grow a pair of brass ones. I've seen some guys put down for proclaiming how much they respect their wife. When comments like that have been made, that man should have stood up & told the offender to STFU!

Phantom, if you guys can't even respect each other & the commitments that you have made to your wives, how do you think we women feel?

I would love to see more respectful attitudes towards wives/women like the kind that are demonstrated by Troy, Noel, Henry, BMD, FrankZ, Doro, & George Grand.

so are all men evil mysogynistic philanderers or just most of them?

PhantomOG

10-05-2006, 03:56 PM

Are all women the reason why men are evil mysogynistic philanderers?

Nope... I believe in personal responsibility. Sure there are bad people (men and women) but I'm not going to prejudge anyone based on the bad actions of others.

Keep an eye on the attitudes of the guys towards women here on the club. I think it is fairly representive of what I see outside of it from guys.

If you all are just talking trash to be "one of the guys" so that you will fit in, maybe you need to rethink whether or not you really want to fit in. Are you so anxious to fit in you will go against what you know is right just to do so?

I've lost count of the number of times one of the guys has promoted a positive remark regarding women & worried at the same time that others of you would come out & slam & deride him as a wimp, p****, or tell him to grow a pair of brass ones. I've seen some guys put down for proclaiming how much they respect their wife. When comments like that have been made, that man should have stood up & told the offender to STFU!

Phantom, if you guys can't even respect each other & the commitments that you have made to your wives, how do you think we women feel?

I would love to see more respectful attitudes towards wives/women like the kind that are demonstrated by Troy, Noel, Henry, BMD, FrankZ, Doro.

I hope I'm correct in believing that you are not singling me out as someone who makes derogatory/demeaning comments regarding women here because I certainly don't remember doing so.

With that said, this is the Polk Audio Clubhouse forum (ie Off-Topic) and not the Sesame Street Politically Correct and Totally Non-Offensive forum. I hope you haven't turned on your television lately, because jokes and sitcoms abound making humor out of typical marriage/relationship/husband/wife stereotypes. There is such a thing