Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[rational experiences]

Father said his brother the scientist as his equal human man lost his sperm by penis by irradiation of it as man being was sciences theist.

The actual teaching.

Said moutain∆ o. UFO radiation sun mass converter thesis. Vision first.

Is man a mountain by his science laws theism? Inferred.

Read and realise what you said as a science possessed mind psyche.

Reaction stopped by laws natural causes. Natural history. Change in cosmic evolution. By natural causes.

You theoried temple pyramid machines as men. Not natural history whatsoever.

Neither forms as machines yours. As theme I am bio mechanical today.

You reacted encoded transmitters yourselves first. In heavens. As cause effect.

Then caused ground dust fission by man inferring God.

Next moment a man's penis erects in image as the cloud burning nuclear event smoking.

DNA brother gone out of man body described as Adam event by nuclear atomic fission quotes.

Categorically stated zero O womb space changed and man's erect penis constructed in nuclear cause imaged sacrificed his DNA.

Exactly what you were told. Visionary. Prophetic causes.

Even balances natural gas atmosphere changed in space womb uneven eve.

You told man body attack irradiated statement as Adam. You were not the nuclear dust fission.

Dust owned by God as dust. Fission dust highest form disappears

How could you have believed you began as a man by dust in fission?

As your sperm DNA penis body got irradiated first.

Today man erects penis to put inside mechanical robot. He built. Is the same mind claiming my DNA sperm is God reacting nuclear mass inside machine.

Possessed mind.

 

[Meow Mix]

Then demonstrate how it's wrong.Every romantic relationship has a power imbalance, but the stakes are higher for women

I had access through my uni. OK, so if you accept this source, then you should accept that there are plenty of power-balanced relationships. Here's the raw data:

[GALLERY=media, 9484]Pdistro by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 1:19 AM[/GALLERY]

Also, I felt like this part was especially relevant for the relationships that did happen to be unbalanced:

For young women—especially those who are also racially or socioeconomically marginalized—relationships in which they have less power are just yet another domain (on top of workplaces, classrooms, and public spaces like streets and subways) in which they need to guard against sexism in all its forms. Endless battling for equality and defending against mistreatment is exhausting. And for women, it does not make for warm, harmonious relationships.

 

[Meow Mix]

I certainly didn't accuse you of being too emotional. Strong language? Swearing is awfully unbecoming for anyone, but even more so for women. It's masculine.

I don't think either is automatically under the obligation to defend how they feel or act due to how they feel, but women probably feel the need to defend themselves more often regarding this issue, ironically due to the fact that they are being emotional. How often are they actually asked to explain or defend?

You used a poorly typed section as evidence that I was "thinking emotionally," specifically in some feminine way (I guess). You're gaslighting if you're going to pretend that isn't the same thing as saying "too emotional."

 

[Meow Mix]

You used a poorly typed section as evidence that I was "thinking emotionally," specifically in some feminine way (I guess). You're gaslighting if you're going to pretend that isn't the same thing as saying "too emotional."

It's water under the bridge at this point, don't worry about it (if you might have). I'm more interested in the other points about balanced relationships, the inequalities of risk in the inbalanced relationships, etc.

 

[Shakeel]

OK, so if you accept this source, then you should accept that there are plenty of power-balanced relationships. Here's the raw data:

I don't believe it is possible. Even in friendships and any relationship there is always the leader even if the difference is subtle. That some people think they're in such a relationship doesn't mean they are.

You used a poorly typed section as evidence that I was "thinking emotionally," specifically in some feminine way (I guess). You're gaslighting if you're going to pretend that isn't the same thing as saying "too emotional."

1. I'm not convinced your current post, though I can't really understand it, is not written with a significant amount of emotion.
2. I didn't use it as evidence for anything. I even used a question mark.
3. Saying someone is being emotional and saying someone is being too emotional are two completely different things and if you want to use the word gaslight here, I can use it right back at you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Is saying that gossip in and on itself?

Yep. Case in point!

 

[Samael_Khan]

This source is toxic misinformation.

At no point does it suggest simply sharing the housework based on availability. No, instead it assumes that the woman will be "angry" to coax the man into doing it if the man doesn't "make" her do it. So women are capricious creatures that have to be "tamed" in order to be a man (and put her in her place). It's frankly disgusting, aside from being fractally wrong.

The scenario literally postulates a hypothetical where each partner has the same amount of time; but it suggests "making her feel like she has to do the lion's share." What constitutes "making her feel" this way? I probably don't want to know: this is already describing abuse.

Well yes, that is why I only agreed with two points. I agree with it if it goes both ways though. As the source says, if she does work longer hours than her husband then it is only fair that he do a lot of the housework. Same if he doesn't have a job. I agree with the point as well about if both have free time then the man shouldn't be doing all the housework because she is bullying him into it (which is what I understood from the highlighted points. I will also say that if both have the same free time then the man shouldn't be pressuring the woman into doing most of the housework. They should do equal housework.

I agree that the woman wouldn't respect her husband as a man if she bullies him into doing things based on what I have seen in those relationships. I think a man who bullies his wife into doing those things also has no respect for her as an individual.

But, the loaded language in the article that you mentioned, "but she won’t look at you in the same way as she would a man who made her feel like she had to do the lion’s share of the housework", suggests that one must be seen in a certain way in order to be considered a man, which is something that I disagree with as it is a middle eastern social construct.

So the article is indeed misleading as it operates under assumes premises.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't believe it is possible. Even in friendships and any relationship there is always the leader even if the difference is subtle. That some people think they're in such a relationship doesn't mean they are.

OK, so this may be something like the heap paradox (when you put sand in a pile, how much sand does it take for it to be a heap?). There are often leadership dynamics even among friends. However, the dynamics can often be in flux, and may be dependent on subject matter and context (a friend that follows in one context may lead in another). At some point the effect can be so subtle as to be negligible. Thinking about my friendships, I probably definitely lead some, definitely follow some, and others there just isn't enough difference to say. I feel comfortable calling relationships where the difference is so slight or in such flux that it's negligible "balanced," I think it exists quite commonly.

Additionally, since we're talking about self-reporting, people may be self-reporting their balanced relationships as unbalanced ones: a person might joke "yeah, haha, he/she wears the pants," when in reality they are each fully autonomous in the relationship without one definitely being a "head" over the other. Pointing out self-reporting goes both ways.

1. I'm not convinced your current post, though I can't really understand it, is not written with a significant amount of emotion.
2. I didn't use it as evidence for anything. I even used a question mark.
3. Saying someone is being emotional and saying someone is being too emotional are two completely different things and if you want to use the word gaslight here, I can use it right back at you.

If we really wanted to I could probably go back and type that sentence better, I admit it wasn't typed that well. I'm multi-tasking, I'm starting up a new galaxy research project that was just given to me today. I make mistakes. As for emotion, I don't claim to be unemotional. Of course I have emotion, and even display emotion (usually on my sleeve, when I'm at it). The problem is in thinking that displaying annoyance at harmful ideas is uniquely feminine (and that feminine goes hand in hand with thinking "emotionally," I assume in contrast to thinking logically?).

Do you remember this emotionally charged thing that you wrote, expressing annoyance at ideas you found to be harmful?

It's not the personality that doesn't match. It's the feminist liberal trash that poisons young minds and makes their "personality" that of a selfish cretin.

According to your worldview, is this you being feminine? Or can we just agree that humans in general use stronger language at ideas that annoy them? (Also, to clarify my earlier statement, I didn't mean cursing by "strong language," I meant something more along the lines of sterner, more impactful language).

With regards to your third point, maybe you can clarify: when you said, "Here you're demonstrating the way women think emotionally which can lead them to misunderstand and get upset over something that hasn't been said," can you see why someone might reasonably infer that this wording appears as though you're saying there's something specific about women thinking emotionally?

What do you mean by "thinking emotionally," if not "being too emotional?" Is it in contrast to thinking reasonably or logically? Wouldn't a reasonable person infer that is pretty much the same thing as being "too" emotional if they're not thinking reasonably due to emotions (if that's indeed the context)?

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree with the point as well about if both have free time then the man shouldn't be doing all the housework because she is bullying him into it (which is what I understood from the highlighted points. I will also say that if both have the same free time then the man shouldn't be pressuring the woman into doing most of the housework. They should do equal housework.

I agree that the woman wouldn't respect her husband as a man if she bullies him into doing things based on what I have seen in those relationships. I think a man who bullies his wife into doing those things also has no respect for her as an individual.

Well said, and I agree: either person bullying the other into doing everything doesn't respect their partner.

The contentious line said, "However, if you have just as much free time as she does and do the housework for her because you don’t want her getting angry, then she’s going to lose respect for you as a man"

I guess because of the wider misogynistic context, it sounds an awful lot like it's saying that in general, a woman would try to bully a man into doing most of the housework by getting angry if he doesn't (ostensibly because, per the author, this is just the way women are), not merely that she might (if she were a gross person).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, if a woman has a question, if married first ask her husband, then if need be, go to the spiritually older men.

And why should she? She is NOT a child, to be patronized. There is no good reason she should not have the identical opportunities to ask questions that a man has.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well said, and I agree: either person bullying the other into doing everything doesn't respect their partner.

The contentious line said, "However, if you have just as much free time as she does and do the housework for her because you don’t want her getting angry, then she’s going to lose respect for you as a man"

I guess because of the wider misogynistic context, it sounds an awful lot like it's saying that in general, a woman would try to bully a man into doing most of the housework by getting angry if he doesn't (ostensibly because, per the author, this is just the way women are), not merely that she might (if she were a gross person).

Would it not be best if both man and woman could do houswork together? As a man i learned a lot about how much females go through each day by learning to do everything a woman do in the house. Holy caramba that is a lot we men do not think of
Now when i live alone and do all the housework my self, i can truly understand why the woman do complaine a lot when the man sit in the sofa watching TV all week and weekend

 

[Meow Mix]

Would it not be best if both man and woman could do houswork together? As a man i learned a lot about how much females go through each day by learning to do everything a woman do in the house. Holy caramba that is a lot we men do not think of
Now when i live alone and do all the housework my self, i can truly understand why the woman do complaine a lot when the man sit in the sofa watching TV all week and weekend

I mean, I personally agree that it's best to split things according to each partner's schedule.

More generally what I've been trying to argue though is that there is no single formula that works for all relationships. In some relationships, a submissive/dominant system works best for both (and we will just note here that I'm only speaking of relationships like that with a power dynamic where one partner was not coerced into it by family, culture, friends, community, etc. but freely chooses it, and can freely leave it).

What works for a relationship is going to have to depend on that relationship. The idea being fought here isn't necessarily that power dynamic relationships are bad, it's that the idea that they're good for everyone is bad. Also, certainly the misogyny of insisting women must always be submissive in relationships is bad.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Bible tells this is the reason:

But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
1 Tim. 2:12-14

Read this 10x. Let it sink in -- the woman was only deceived but the man was willfully rebellious. Who does this verse REALLY put second?

But, that is what Paul says. And perhaps it is not the same as God’s words. However, for me the main issue is in, why one wants to speak. Often it seems the goal is to get glory and high position for the speaker. And I think that is wrong. Person who is truly a disciple of Jesus (=”Christians”) should not seek high position for her/himself but instead serve others the best way he/she can. It seems to me that the reason why women want to get high position is that they could:

… bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men…
Mat. 23:4-12[/quuote]
Many people become leaders because that is where their gifts are best used, and that includes many gifted women.

You are misapplying a section of Matthew that describes a bunch of men, to women. Shame!

It is interesting that women often seem to seek to become leaders so that they would be served and praised.

no more than men.

Do women really want to be servants, like leaders should be?

Do men?

It seems to me that in this regard, men and women are identical, and thus should be treated the same.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I mean, I personally agree that it's best to split things according to each partner's schedule.

More generally what I've been trying to argue though is that there is no single formula that works for all relationships. In some relationships, a submissive/dominant system works best for both (and we will just note here that I'm only speaking of relationships like that with a power dynamic where one partner was not coerced into it by family, culture, friends, community, etc. but freely chooses it, and can freely leave it).

What works for a relationship is going to have to depend on that relationship. The idea being fought here isn't necessarily that power dynamic relationships are bad, it's that the idea that they're good for everyone is bad. Also, certainly the misogyny of insisting women must always be submissive in relationships is bad.

I do agree with you here

 

[Debater Slayer]

Strong language? Swearing is awfully unbecoming for anyone, but even more so for women. It's masculine.

According to whom? The same patriarchal norms that declare women as inferior to men in terms of reasoning capacity despite the scientific evidence to the contrary?

I don't think either is automatically under the obligation to defend how they feel or act due to how they feel, but women probably feel the need to defend themselves more often regarding this issue, ironically due to the fact that they are being emotional. How often are they actually asked to explain or defend?

What is your source for the highlighted statement? Since such a claim should be verifiable, it isn't a matter of opinion. It needs to be evidenced by studies/science or it is simply unfounded.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that God create Men and Women equal - but different. He - ideally - wanted them to fulfill particular roles.

Women were intended to be mothers - to care for and nurture the next generation - every generation - and to assist their husbands.

And men are meant to be fathers. There is no substitute for the influence of a father in the lives of his children. In many marriages, the fathers are the primary raisers of the children, and it works out just fine.

Men were intended to protect their wives and children from both physical and spiritual threats and to assist their wives.

Men are better at protecting because they have superior upper body strength in case of a fight. But women can be dang good fighters too... some of them better than most men.

On the other hand, there is nothing inherent in maleness that gives a man greater spiritual insight than a woman. Thus it is nonsense to say it is his job to spiritually protect her.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It comes down to the arrangement of God.

He has assigned certain roles to men that he has not assigned to women.

God has directed men to be the head of the family and in the 'assembly' to lead the assembly in worship. God has not assigned women that role so by taking that role they are really showing great disrespect for Gods authority.

To women he has assigned the role of teachers to their own children and to the younger women.

You are not answering the question of why. I am aware there are Christians who believe this already. What I want to know is what is the rationale behind it. Surely God must have a sensible reason.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Here you're demonstrating the way women think emotionally which can lead them to misunderstand and get upset over something that hasn't been said?

Aside from the generic misogyny of the generalization, your logic is flawed because, among other things, there are literally thousands of examples of men misunderstanding others' points online and getting upset as a result. Do you think it would be accurate or fair to make the same statement about men?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

By design, men and women have different roles in society. Nature chose women to bear children

Yes, and nature has also had us evolve FATHERS who care for their children and play just as important a role. The problem with this top down mentality is that it produces fathers who are negligent.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is your source for the highlighted statement? Since such a claim should be verifiable, it isn't a matter of opinion. It needs to be evidenced by studies/science or it is simply unfounded.

One issue here is that when there is a social/systemic imbalance, studies can be produced that seem to demonstrate this or that.

For instance, consider the old "women aren't as good as men at science" canard. The data that might be touted for this is obvious, because, well, just look at STEM demographics.

But it ignores that just because there's a gendered/sexed asymmetry doesn't mean that the asymmetry actually exists because of gender/sex: in this case it's because of societal reasons, broadly understood and studied (and called the "leaky pipeline"); whereas actual sexed studies of say, brains, or studies which do their best to remove cultural and societal factors, find zero difference between male and female science, logic, and math capability.

Just pointing this out, because there are any number of awful claims people can make about misogyny, racism, classism, and so on that they can actually dig up demographics on. The problem is in their interpretation of what those demographics mean.