Who Cares...??

Adam4868

Senior Member
I assume this also applies to theclaud's comment on pubrunner's internet bust up.

It was going off at a bit of tangent Iagree, but not completely irrelevant to the subject.

I have long started to think that equality is part of the problem. I remember reading in the local government chronicle ages ago that what was usually regard as a looney left council was banning certain sexist expressions from use, including the weaker sex. The is from the new testament (likewise you husbands, live considerably with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex). Now you can ban the expression, but you cannot ban the underlying truth of it, that men and women are not equal, certainly when it comes to physical strength, and possibly emotionally as well.

Is one of the problems that men are starting to treat women as men? No need to be chivalrous any more, that's old fashioned. Instead of bestowing honour what we should now do is fight it out with the women as your equal.

It is coincidence, but the very next post from Paley was this:

Men and women don't think the same way. Men initiate, women respond. Wouldn't it be better if you want at least to restrain the mistreatment of women by men that you taught men that they have a greater responsibility in this than women, that an inequality exists and should not be seen as something to take advantage of?
Pretty mad post that....especially if reading it as a woman I would of thought ?
Ah feck it ! It's absolute shite.Chivalrous,bestowing honour,weaker sex lol.We are in the 21st century aren't we.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
Pretty mad post that....especially if reading it as a woman I would of thought ?
Ah feck it ! It's absolute shite.Chivalrous,bestowing honour,weaker sex lol.We are in the 21st century aren't we.

You know what comes next though right .??

"Oh it was just joking about, no need to take any of it, at all seriously "

:blink:
 

winjim

Regular
You know what comes next though right .??

"Oh it was just joking about, no need to take any of it, at all seriously "

:blink:
I think in this case the justification is religious which like it or not is worth addressing properly. We have, quite rightly and within certain limits, religious freedom. People are free to believe whatever they want, hopefully free of coercion and manipulation although that's a not unrelated issue. And many people are religious and claim to base their morality on their understanding of their religion. Never mind that my personal opinion is that they've got that a bit backwards, it's what they claim to believe and it's right that we acknowledge it. But there are many different religions, we can't demonstrate the truth of any of them and many people don't believe at all. So what we can't do is base either societal expectation or our legal system on any religion. That part of our culture has to be secular, it doesn't work otherwise.

But this brings us into conflict because, supernatural considerations aside, a religion is a means of describing societal expectations regarding morality and behaviour, and in some cases providing a legal framework to resolve disputes that arise in that context. We need to resolve that conflict, and the way we do that is almost by definition going to be unsatisfactory to everybody. We have, for example, banking which is compliant with religious observance, and we have religious exemptions for certain things such as dress codes but there's only so far we can take it. One is free to believe in the inferiority of women, (and that's why we don't use the term 'weaker sex', regardless of notions of physical strength or differences in emotional response, it implies inferiority) but is not free to treat women as inferior. That's an almost impossible paradox.

This discussion, along with that regarding refugees, brings to mind those images from a few years ago of French police forcing Muslim women to undress. That's such an aggressive assertion of secularism that it removes the rights of women that it claims to protect, and weakens any assertion that France is a 'safe' country for Muslim refugees.




As an aside, I have twice witnessed a woman, after forty weeks patiently carrying them and prior to many months providing nourishment to them from her own body at huge cost to herself, push an entire human being through her cervix and out of her vagina and I can't think of anything I've seen a man do which comes even close to being the equal of that, physically or emotionally.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
I think in this case the justification is religious which like it or not is worth addressing properly. We have, quite rightly and within certain limits, religious freedom. People are free to believe whatever they want, hopefully free of coercion and manipulation although that's a not unrelated issue. And many people are religious and claim to base their morality on their understanding of their religion. Never mind that my personal opinion is that they've got that a bit backwards, it's what they claim to believe and it's right that we acknowledge it. But there are many different religions, we can't demonstrate the truth of any of them and many people don't believe at all. So what we can't do is base either societal expectation or our legal system on any religion. That part of our culture has to be secular, it doesn't work otherwise.

But this brings us into conflict because, supernatural considerations aside, a religion is a means of describing societal expectations regarding morality and behaviour, and in some cases providing a legal framework to resolve disputes that arise in that context. We need to resolve that conflict, and the way we do that is almost by definition going to be unsatisfactory to everybody. We have, for example, banking which is compliant with religious observance, and we have religious exemptions for certain things such as dress codes but there's only so far we can take it. One is free to believe in the inferiority of women, (and that's why we don't use the term 'weaker sex', regardless of notions of physical strength or differences in emotional response, it implies inferiority) but is not free to treat women as inferior. That's an almost impossible paradox.

This discussion, along with that regarding refugees, brings to mind those images from a few years ago of French police forcing Muslim women to undress. That's such an aggressive assertion of secularism that it removes the rights of women that it claims to protect, and weakens any assertion that France is a 'safe' country for Muslim refugees.




As an aside, I have twice witnessed a woman, after forty weeks patiently carrying them and prior to many months providing nourishment to them from her own body at huge cost to herself, push an entire human being through her cervix and out of her vagina and I can't think of anything I've seen a man do which comes even close to being the equal of that, physically or emotionally.

Well most man (!) made religions uphold patriachal 'norms' which in some way or other imply the inferiority of women, often suggesting they should be controlled or owned in some way ..

(!) Isn't that a coincidence??

Yup I done that baby carrying , birthing , feeding thing X 2 too.

Can't claim I was always a paragon of patience, always....

But they've turned out damn fine chaps, despite my wonky attempts at parenting..

I was out on 'the town' with one of them last night

Can you believe it? I turned down a chance to see Arab Strap, because I needed an early night, for an early train home .

Ah well.
Next time..
 

winjim

Regular
Well most man (!) made religions uphold patriachal 'norms' which in some way or other imply the inferiority of women, often suggesting they should be controlled or owned in some way ..

(!) Isn't that a coincidence??
Well that's partly why I mentioned coercion and manipulation and getting it kind of backwards. I have my opinion on which way round it all goes but I can't tell believers what to believe.

Again with the example from France, the way they dress is a choice for some women, not so much for others. A symbol of patriarchal oppression for some, of female empowerment for others. For some it's cultural expression and not religious, for some an expression of faith. So there's no one size fits all solution of we should / should not permit a certain type of dress. Armed police enforcing dress codes and requiring women to expose themselves is not the way to go and has much in common with theocratic societies where women certainly are oppressed.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
Well that's partly why I mentioned coercion and manipulation and getting it kind of backwards. I have my opinion on which way round it all goes but I can't tell believers what to believe.

Again with the example from France, the way they dress is a choice for some women, not so much for others. A symbol of patriarchal oppression for some, of female empowerment for others. For some it's cultural expression and not religious, for some an expression of faith. So there's no one size fits all solution of we should / should not permit a certain type of dress. Armed police enforcing dress codes and requiring women to expose themselves is not the way to go and has much in common with theocratic societies where women certainly are oppressed.
Yup,

Just stop policing what women wear.

So long as they're not hurting anyone.

If women genuinely want to wear 'faith based' symbols that's fine.

Thats clearly not always the case, some are coerced or threatened by their faith communities into doing so.

But some do actively choose to wear such garments.

The French approach seemed very heavy handed..

A secular society, surely doesn't mean we can't have freedom to practice our faith within it.
So long as it's not hurting anyone else.

I wouldn't choose to wear a headscarf for the sake of 'modesty'

But I would often choose to wear a shirt in situations where some guys might go shirtless.

I'd rather not have to labour under that gender differential, but there we go..

Basically just let women wear, what they want to wear, and stop making assumptions, and or passing judgement based on our choices..

It's really no one else business.
 

AuroraSaab

Regular
I find the increase in the number of UK Muslim women wearing burkas depressing, but policing what women wear because they are covered up is just the other side of the coin to policing them for being uncovered.
 

Unkraut

Regular
Is it based on fact based evidence, or Biblical fiction?
Whether you really wanted a reply only got through on a 52% to 48% majority.

Conversation between friends humourously reminiscing about how they got together: him - I was afraid to ask her out in case she said no, her - 'why won't he ask me out'. Why didn't she ask him out as a modern equal woman? I remember being amused at that at the time.

When people get engaged, who pops the question? I don't know anybody where is wasn't him. Is this just a tradition, with 29th February as the exception? Or something designed or 'hardwired' as even some evolutionists propose (although I am not sure about the latter as it would imply purpose, which is inadmissible in evolution).

Blogger I used to read quoting secular Mrs Professor in the NY Times (? whatever) lamenting the fact that despite all the newly won equality between male and female students, all nicely regulated and enshrined in law, when it came to personal relationships the girls still waited for the boys to take the initiative. This was nothing at all to do with religion. It would certainly appear that modern attempts to obliterate all distinctions aren't having much of an effect, at least yet. Such attempts won't survive first year medical school!

It's hardly surprising that modern sophisticated people of the 21th century who have ditched religion and have science and reason are living in a delusional fog where they no longer know the meaning of words like mother or father, son or daughter. No wonder relationships fall apart.
 

AuroraSaab

Regular
Whilst women have equality in law in the west at least, we still socialise boys and girls in different ways. Girls are socialised to value themselves by how much men are attracted to them, but conversely not to pursue men because that makes them appear 'loose'. Boys are socialised to compete for partners and take the initiative, whilst society judges them by the number of partners they can or can't attract.

It's a lose-lose situation for both sides. I'm not sure more religion would help. It's social conditioning and a messed up society that causes it, not a lack of equality per se.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
You do now, even if only virtually.

Thirty-eight years say you’re wrong.

Congrats etc.

Its very possible @unkrauts survey pool, and even sources of reading material are somewhat skewed towards a confirming bias.

I know of plenty of long term relationships, mine own included where the woman took the initiative.

Whether you really wanted a reply only got through on a 52% to 48% majority.

Conversation between friends humourously reminiscing about how they got together: him - I was afraid to ask her out in case she said no, her - 'why won't he ask me out'. Why didn't she ask him out as a modern equal woman? I remember being amused at that at the time.

When people get engaged, who pops the question? I don't know anybody where is wasn't him. Is this just a tradition, with 29th February as the exception? Or something designed or 'hardwired' as even some evolutionists propose (although I am not sure about the latter as it would imply purpose, which is inadmissible in evolution).

Blogger I used to read quoting secular Mrs Professor in the NY Times (? whatever) lamenting the fact that despite all the newly won equality between male and female students, all nicely regulated and enshrined in law, when it came to personal relationships the girls still waited for the boys to take the initiative. This was nothing at all to do with religion. It would certainly appear that modern attempts to obliterate all distinctions aren't having much of an effect, at least yet. Such attempts won't survive first year medical school!

It's hardly surprising that modern sophisticated people of the 21th century who have ditched religion and have science and reason are living in a delusional fog where they no longer know the meaning of words like mother or father, son or daughter. No wonder relationships fall apart.

I think it's to do with the circles you circulate in
I know of lots of solid relationships initiated by women.
Thankfully we're not all susceptible to the same social conditioning. But it takes a while for these entrenched 'norms' to shift.

there are plenty of people of no religious faith who are living in healthy long term relationships, a good few on here by the looks of things.

Whereas conversely there are plenty of very unhealthy relationships where religion is present.

Having a religious faith. isnt much of a guarantee, either way, it wouldn't seem.

It is used by many people to justify some awful behaviours though.


There's all kinds of messed up thinking that has men as being 'dominant' and controlling. Controlling by violence, or threat of violence often.
How many serial killers have claimed they were 'instructed by God' to carry out their crimes..

Relationships 'fall apart' or in many cases come to a natural end, for all sorts of reasons.

Thankfully we've (largely) done away with the stigma of divorce, so people aren't forced to carry on in relationships which are making them miserable.

It used to be the case that abused spouses were just expected to shut up, and put up, keep up appearances to avoid a 'scandal' .

'delusional fog' about the 'meaning of words' or having ditched religion for science and reason, are often factors, in relationship breakdown though.?

I'd be interested to know where that idea arises, or any evidence for it.

.


Whilst women have equality in law in the west at least, we still socialise boys and girls in different ways. Girls are socialised to value themselves by how much men are attracted to them, but conversely not to pursue men because that makes them appear 'loose'. Boys are socialised to compete for partners and take the initiative, whilst society judges them by the number of partners they can or can't attract.

It's a lose-lose situation for both sides. I'm not sure more religion would help. It's social conditioning and a messed up society that causes it, not a lack of equality per se.

This whole idea of 'pursuit and conquest' of woman by man is part of the problem, imo

It can quickly become harassment and worse.

Ideas put about in film and other media make it worse.
That women's 'value' is defined by a mans opinion.

Impressionable minds, getting their 'sex ed' via violent pornography.. Yuck.:sad:

'more religion' isn't going to cure that.

Education on respect for self and others, is more likely to help.

That's to do with being decent humans though, not religious directives from on high.
 
Top Bottom