Should women be treated as equals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your enjoyment of being over the top is obviously important. Your caricatures are just that, caricatures. And are mind-numbingly consistent with a certain school of thought.

Before Radical Feminism, women had no brain. No nothing, actually (according to some).
Why listen to the Church? Why listen to your parents or your relatives?

After total strangers published their nonsense:

You have a brain.
The Church, mom, dad and relatives are gone.
You have, created out of thin air, No-Fault Divorce.

You now have everything.
I invite all reading who have gone through life thinking that to post their experiences.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
Bradskii:
The people who hold these type of ideas get to vote. And if only half of the population can drag their sorry butts out of the house to cast their own, then there is a risk that unrepresentative and plainly absurd views will hold the day.
Click to expand...
So should only those who are non believing atheist pro feminism people be allowed to vote?
Or are we a country that allows different points of view?
Click to expand...
I thought that was the point I was making. That people with different points of view to mine regarding the position of women in today’s world (and clearly a view matching the vast majority of posters on this thread) should be encouraged to voice them.

Maybe if people who don’t normally vote can see that people with views they feel are almost prehistoric are going to head to the polling booth, then it will encourage them to do likewise.

I support Edgar’s right to hold his opinions. As odious as I think they are. And if you want to support him, then all power to you. Bring on the arguments to back him up. Let’s get these opinions out in the open.

There are two reasons to vote. One is to get the person who matches your views into a position when he or she (it won’t be a she as some on this thread will allow) can exercise some control over how your suburb, county, state or country is run.

The other is to prevent people who hold monstrously abhorrent views (in one’s humble opinion) to gain that same control.

And the only way to fulfill the second criteria is to know what these people believe.
 
edwest211 said:
Your enjoyment of being over the top is obviously important. Your caricatures are just that, caricatures. And are mind-numbingly consistent with a certain school of thought.

Before Radical Feminism, women had no brain. No nothing, actually.
Why listen to the Church? Why listen to your parents or your relatives?

After total strangers published their nonsense:

You have a brain.
The Church, mom, dad and relatives are gone.
You have, created out of thin air, No-Fault Divorce.

You now have everything.
I invite all reading who have gone through life thinking that to post their experiences.
Click to expand...
I did tell you to start using the quote facility, Ed. Only for it to fall on deaf ears. Consequently, nobody knows to whom that minor diatribe was addressed.

Could you try again?
 
Good question. There are women on this forum whose husbands forbid them from going to a male ob/gyn. Add the women who prefer a female doctor as well.
 
niceatheist said:
chauvinistic views that would see women transformed back into little more than chattel to be enslaved to their husbands after a childhood enslavement to their fathers, then be my guest.
Click to expand...
So many women are so tired of hearing this nonsense. We are tired of hearing that growing up and being raised by a mom and dad we were slaves to our fathers, who by the way loved us. And so very many are tired of hearing the lie that being in a traditional marriage, caring and loving for your family is enslavement. This lie has done so much damage to so many people
 
Last edited:
That is the current, widely promoted propaganda. To think what you wrote just invites browbeating.

You are right. Thank you for posting.
 
Consider that you and your family are not who he is talking about. You might be adjacent to someone like that though.
 
edwest211 said:
Your enjoyment of being over the top is obviously important. Your caricatures are just that, caricatures. And are mind-numbingly consistent with a certain school of thought.

Before Radical Feminism, women had no brain. No nothing, actually (according to some).
Why listen to the Church? Why listen to your parents or your relatives?

After total strangers published their nonsense:

You have a brain.
The Church, mom, dad and relatives are gone.
You have, created out of thin air, No-Fault Divorce.

You now have everything.
I invite all reading who have gone through life thinking that to post their experiences.
Click to expand...
At least so far as the English-speaking world goes, the Church, as in the Roman Catholic Church, hasn’t had much say since the 16th century.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
niceatheist:
chauvinistic views that would see women transformed back into little more than chattel to be enslaved to their husbands after a childhood enslavement to their fathers, then be my guest.
Click to expand...
So many women are so tired of hearing this nonsense. We are tired of hearing that growing up and being raised by a mom and dad we were slaves to our fathers, who by the way loved us. And so very many are tired of hearing the lie that being in a traditional marriage, caring and loving for your family is enslavement. This lie has done so much damage to so many people
Click to expand...
Have you even read Edgar’s posts? I’m not saying being raised by mom and dad in a traditional family is a bad thing. I’m saying someone who thinks keeping their daughters ignorant very much is a bad thing. It’s a vile reprehensible view, certainly not one that is advocated by the Church, though in the Church’s favor is the apparent fact that Edgar isn’t a Catholic, and appears to have as low an opinion of the Church as he does of women in general.

But let’s be clear here. Do YOU believe women have the right to choose their own course, whether that to be a wife and mother or, if they so desire, to seek their own way in the world?
 
Last edited:
That is not true. I was posting on a new forum that was promoting marijuana. The response: “You people don’t have the influence you once had.” You people meaning all Christians. And the reference was to the time period I grew up in not centuries ago.

All any Christian has to do is follow Church teaching.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
That is not true. I was posting on a new forum that was promoting marijuana. The response: “You people don’t have the influence you one had.” You people meaning all Christians. And the reference was to the time period I grew up in not centuries ago.

All any Christian has to do is follow Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Um, the majority of Christians aren’t Catholic at all, and thus unless you’re talking very expansively of the Church, a majority of Christians would disagree with you, at least insofar is they give a nod to Rome. And within those other denominations, there has always been some pretty significant variation.

But if we’re going to start talking about non-Catholic Christians erring because they don’t accept Rome’s guidance and authority, well that’s a whole other thread. Let’s remember here, if I’m judging your age right, that in that time, particularly in the English-speaking world, Catholics were a rather distrusted group by their Protestant brethren.
 
I could care less what anyone thought.

And yes, Christianity encompasses all Christians. Encyclicals are not just written for Catholics but “all men of good will.” A quote from Billy Graham about Pope John Paul II: “That Pope sure can Pope!”
 
edwest211 said:
I could care less what anyone thought.

And yes, Christianity encompasses all Christians. Encyclicals are not just written for Catholics but “all men of good will.” A quote from Billy Graham about Pope John Paul II: “That Pope sure can Pope!”
Click to expand...
But if you’re not a Catholic, you won’t feel obliged to fall the Pope’s lead on, well, anything. In Protestant circles these days, he’s usually viewed as a nice man who leads a lot of Christians, but certainly has no authority over Protestants. Not so long ago, and still in some circles, he’s basically viewed as the Anti-Christ.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
You might be adjacent to someone like that though.
Click to expand...
Daughters are not slaves to their fathers. Wives are not slaves to their husbands. We need to stop describing family this way and definitely need to stop telling this stuff to young girls.
niceatheist said:
I’m saying someone who thinks keeping their daughters ignorant very much is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
No one said women are to be kept ignorant. There are many intelligent people who have never stepped foot in a college.
niceatheist said:
Do YOU believe women have the right to choose their own course, whether that to be a wife and mother or, if they so desire, to seek their own way in the world?
Click to expand...
I’ve said this before, as long as she is single and an adult, she is autonomous and needs to seek her own way. She needs to seek God’s will for her. If she marries, she is no longer autonomous. She becomes one with her husband and has responsibilities to her husband, children and home. Yes she needs outside interests but family and home come first.
And the Church does teach that a husband and wife are no longer two but one.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Do YOU believe women have the right to choose their own course, whether that to be a wife and mother or, if they so desire, to seek their own way in the world?
Click to expand...
I’ve said this before, as long as she is single and an adult, she is autonomous and needs to seek her own way. She needs to seek God’s will for her. If she marries, she is no longer autonomous. She becomes one with her husband and has responsibilities to her husband, children and home. Yes she needs outside interests but family and home come first.
And the Church does teach that a husband and wife are no longer two but one.
Click to expand...
Then let’s meet on middle ground. No two families are alike. In my family, I was the breadwinner, and we agreed that my wife would stay at home while my daughters were young. It was a choice that came with some considerable financial consequences, but believe it or not, I’m not objecting to traditional families at all.

But other families are going to have other formulations, and I don’t believe that marriage means a complete surrender of autonomy. Call it more a pooling of autonomy and then I won’t find it objectionable, because traditional, the woman was the one who got the sharp end of the stick in the deal. And it’s only because, since the latter half of the 19th century that women’s right advocates pushed for things like full property and legal rights for women, support for mothers and children if the husband abandons the family, political rights and a move towards encouraging women seek higher education of some kind or another as a means of assuring economic stability for the whole family, that we got rid of the egregious abuses.

I’ll be blunt. The Church certainly taught that both man and woman surrendered their autonomy with their marriage vows, but the political and social rights of women were so far behind men that whatever the religious view of marriage, the reality was quite different. Women were disadvantaged, and the views of someone like Edgar (if he isn’t just trolling us) come right out of that notion of the social if not outright intellectual inferiority of women means giving up autonomy is a very bad bargain for women.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top