Posted on 05/05/2009 2:35:00 PM PDT by nickcarraway
You wrote:
“Understood - however from what I’ve experienced with friends and relatives they’re few and far between ...”
Maybe we are few and far between. And maybe women just say that because they don’t want to admit that they have decades of choosing poorly under their belts. It’s just so much easier to say all men are losers, isn’t it?
You tell me how an abused wife is going to go to her husband and telling him what she needs ... I am not saying that all husbands are like that. We can be just as demanding. What I’ve been referring to is how religions treat us as second class citizens ....
Nope, I’m not saying all men are losers ... what I’ve been referring to and it seems to slide into relationships is how religion treats women ...
And the hat is to die for.
I can almost hear fashion critic Simon Doonan talking about that hat now.
In his flaming style of speaking...
*cringing*
You wrote:
“You tell me how an abused wife is going to go to her husband and telling him what she needs ...”
Abused? Who said anything about abused? You are now claiming that every friend of yours is an abused woman? That seems statistically unlikely as all hell. If ALL of your friends are married to abusive men, then all of your friend have major issues that go way beyond their choices of men. You never said anything to me about abuse.
“I am not saying that all husbands are like that. We can be just as demanding. What I’ve been referring to is how religions treat us as second class citizens ....”
No. That would be a separate issue. You can’t say your friends have lazy or inattentive husbands and then turn that laziness into abuse of women. There’s a hell of a difference between a husband who is into himself and man who beats or verbally abuses his wife.
Also, religions don’t have citizens. Countries do. Religions have FOLLOWERS, DISCIPLES, ADHERENTS, DEVOTEES, etc. Not citizens. FOLLOWERS. And the leaders of religions - by definition - treat all the followers differently than they treat the other leaders. You do it too. You treat your passangers differently than you treat your co-pilot. The co-pilot is a fellow leader. He has rights and duties and authorities that the passangers do not have.
You tell me how an abused wife is going to go to her husband and telling him what she needs ...
Very simple. The words are: “Buh-bye.” The visual is the door slamming behind her as she leaves.
You wrote:
“Nope, I’m not saying all men are losers ... what I’ve been referring to and it seems to slide into relationships is how religion treats women ...”
Okay, then tell me exactly how God treats women. Seriously, assume there’s a God, look at women as they are, and tell me how God must envision and treat women.
Exactly ... but we’ve moved past what this chat has been about ... how religions treat women ....
First of all I was not saying all my friends who are married are abused. Abuse takes many forms. In any event, we’ve moved too far away from the original chat which was how religions treat us ....
You conclude that because the religion of the Vatican does not allow females in the Swiss Guard they view women as second class citizens? ... not exactly logical...just sayin’.
Nope, just saying that it has no bearing ... what I am saying is going beyond that ... it’s how religion treats us ... the Swiss Guards really isn’t significant, it was just a kicker for me to think on how religion treats women .... just saying ....
Religion defines roles. And then there’s a bunch of folks who interpret what those definitions are — what God really meant — to suit their own agenda.
This is not particularly difficult stuff to understand. I’d prefer to poke fun of the Swiss guard.
Yeah, aren’t those costumes cute? Or silly which ever. I’ve seen them with M-16’s. Imagine a 15 century costume with a modern weapon ....funny .... but true on the other thing. It’s what’s defined by man.
You must be in the wrong religion. My religion, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general honors women.
You wrote:
“In any event, we’ve moved too far away from the original chat which was how religions treat us ....”
You brought it up: post #32 “too many of my girlfriends complain that their husbands say they have their “outside job” so you have your “inside job” ... something I don’t need. Every time I think I need/want to get married I visit one of them and my mind is quickly changed ...”
So, now that you’ve been challenged on what you brought up, you want to go back to another subject?
“First of all I was not saying all my friends who are married are abused. Abuse takes many forms.”
So, they’re not all abused, but abuse takes many forms? You wrote: #62 “You tell me how an abused wife is going to go to her husband and telling him what she needs ... I am not saying that all husbands are like that. We can be just as demanding. What I’ve been referring to is how religions treat us as second class citizens ....”
Now, you brought up abuse. But you said not all husbands are like that. But then you implied all women can be demanding. Where are you getting these things?
I am about to say something completely sexist in our modern world: an argument with you is a chance to see one of the worst examples of female stereotypes I could imagine. You bring something up, make it into a mountain by your word choice (abuse) and then want to disappear over that mountain when called on it. You switch back and forth between ideas and topics and lines of thought that seem to be grounded entirely in girlish emotional froth rather than adult logic. In other words, you argue like a woman. But now like a female of the specious alone, no, instead, you argue like the worst caricature of a woman: lacking logic and rational thought, throwing in the kitchen sink, overly emotionally driven, sweeping generalizations, and the old fashioned “men stink” attitude thrown in for good measure.
I have no reason, whatsoever, after all of these posts, to believe you could logically debate anything about God, or men and women, or religion or anything else.
Yes, you’ll be thinking about this long after I have forgotten it. And you’ll wonder why too. Pity you won’t know why.
Actually I’m not in any religion ... I’m a Messianic Jew (OK so you can call it a religion of sorts). But there’s a big difference in honoring women in word and in actual deed .... Do women have the same rights? Are they able to do the same job or have the same career in the church? I think not. Cleaning, OK - spiritual matters, not so much ....
Thanks then for proving my point.
You gotta love the strips. Medici colors.
I remember reading how the guard was wiped out in the 1500’s or there abouts ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.