Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

[LadyShea]

Shouldn't that be "our gals"?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Should you stop opening with rhetorical questions that are actually statements?

Should anyone here know who or what you are quoting?

Should you review the history of the world and the treatment of women in numerous cultural, religious, and legal frameworks before saying something so obviously laden with false equivalencies?

Should the rest of the world not adopt your xenophobic tendencies?

Should you stop posting the same video as if that were useful data on determining the opinions regarding women of one billion religious followers of Islam?

Should you sign every missive as if someone gave a fuck about your regards or lack thereof?

Are you a Muslim or just a fool?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait what? It's cited as book and verse but it's not actually from the Koran?

It is what Islam live by.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

No, and I have a good idea how to start fighting back! Hear me out ... how about we forbid Muslim women to wear whatever they want?

Muslim women cannot wear what they want. That is one of the points.

Have you seen their bathing suits?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

You really are a condescending, misogynistic little twerp, aren't you, dear?

No. I have heard oppressed women say that they were oppressed by "our men" though.

You do make a good point about my speech though. I do not really believe in equality for myself but do not push my view particularly in this O.P.

I think men should rule over women in the sense of the law of the sea.

When it comes to protection of women and children, our fatherly/husband instincts should kick in and men should force women to comply in taking a seat in the lifeboats. If no children are involved then the woman should be allowed her free choice.

When protection is not the issue, the man should be subservient to his women and children as the strong are to serve the weak and not the weak be made to serve the strong. This assumes a strong and manly man. If the woman is the strong one then she should serve the weak.

I preach equality but do not believe in it for true men. True men will take a back seat to wife and family.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by But

Could you post something other than stupid shit?

Are you a Muslim or just one who lacks a sense of social justice?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'll surely regret the everloving fuck out of this, but how to you propose that we "bring [Islam] to heel"?

re: the assumption that Western cultures do in fact feature "equality of the sexes."

We in the West do have a ways to go but are at least on the right road.

How will we bring Islam to heel? By legislation and social pressures.

Australia and France are showing us how to do so and the some of the Netherland countries are showing how a country can be lost to Islam if we do not take the proper steps to protect our cultures.

Regards
DL

[But]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you a Muslim or just one who lacks a sense of social justice?

Regards
DL

I admit I'm from a Netherland country where Islam was not brought to heel.

[But]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

No. I have heard oppressed women say that they were oppressed by "our men" though.

You do make a good point about my speech though. I do not really believe in equality for myself but do not push my view particularly in this O.P.

I think men should rule over women in the sense of the law of the sea.

When it comes to protection of women and children, our fatherly/husband instincts should kick in and men should force women to comply in taking a seat in the lifeboats. If no children are involved then the woman should be allowed her free choice.

When protection is not the issue, the man should be subservient to his women and children as the strong are to serve the weak and not the weak be made to serve the strong. This assumes a strong and manly man. If the woman is the strong one then she should serve the weak.

I preach equality but do not believe in it for true men. True men will take a back seat to wife and family.

Regards
DL

Take your sexist shit and shove it up your ass, you fucking clown.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

No. I have heard oppressed women say that they were oppressed by "our men" though.

You do make a good point about my speech though. I do not really believe in equality for myself but do not push my view particularly in this O.P.

I think men should rule over women in the sense of the law of the sea.

I think we all agree that thalassocracy is the ideal form of government, but is it something that landlubbers can realistically accomplish?

[Crumb]

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

It is what Islam live by.

Regards
DL

Because you say so?

[Watser?]

Also: I am actually from on of those Nether Lands where Islam is running wild.

ISLAM CHIPSY EEK TRINITY اسلام شيبسي...

He needs to chill.

[lisarea]

I was just gonna drop it at the rule of the sea thing, but I must be bored or something.

I think men should rule over women in the sense of the law of the sea.

When it comes to protection of women and children, our fatherly/husband instincts should kick in and men should force women to comply in taking a seat in the lifeboats. If no children are involved then the woman should be allowed her free choice.

Why are you classifying women in the same category as children? Do you believe that women require the same standard of care and guidance as children? Is it your position that women are incapable of taking care of themselves, physically and intellectually and in terms of basic life competence? Why?

Also you realize that lifeboat thing is largely a myth?

And for good measure: Chivalry Isn’t Dead, You Just Don’t Know What the Fuck it is. | Myths RETOLD

When protection is not the issue, the man should be subservient to his women and children as the strong are to serve the weak and not the weak be made to serve the strong. This assumes a strong and manly man. If the woman is the strong one then she should serve the weak.

Strong as in capable of beating people up, or what? So, like, small elderly men should be protected by women who are stronger than them? Do they have to also be subservient because of this?

My sister could beat most people up for real, and I can think of several other women who are probably a lot stronger and more skilled physically than most men.

Or is it that you think that men overall are smarter than women?

I preach equality but do not believe in it for true men. True men will take a back seat to wife and family.

This is called 'benevolent sexism' and you should learn more about it.

[Ari]

Feminist Angler Fish agrees, let it be the law of the sea!
(MRA Angler Fish has no opinion)

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you a Muslim or just a fool?

Regards
DL

Should you learn how to defend your position if you are going to ask for feedback?

Should you identify the part of my response that appears foolish to you?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I think we all agree that thalassocracy is the ideal form of government, but is it something that landlubbers can realistically accomplish?

That was just for lulz, of course. See, "[t]rue men will take a back seat to wife and family." Not having wives, gay men such as the characters in the SNL sketch cannot qualify as "true men."

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by But

I admit I'm from a Netherland country where Islam was not brought to heel.

Have you noted the benefits to those cultures as they lose their cultures?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by But

Take your sexist shit and shove it up your ass, you fucking clown.

You must belong to the Captain Coward club. Better to be a clown than a coward.

Regards
DL

[Stephen Maturin]

Captain Coward club

I predict the advent of a new user-created social group.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I think we all agree that thalassocracy is the ideal form of government, but is it something that landlubbers can realistically accomplish?

I do not know enough of the thalassocracy rules to be able to judge that.

But if based on duty and honor, then it should be better that the oligarchies we presently all live under.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I was just gonna drop it at the rule of the sea thing, but I must be bored or something.

Do you believe that women require the same standard of care and guidance as children? Is it your position that women are incapable of taking care of themselves, physically and intellectually and in terms of basic life competence? Why?

Also you realize that lifeboat thing is largely a myth?

And for good measure: Chivalry Isn’t Dead, You Just Don’t Know What the Fuck it is. | Myths RETOLD

Strong as in capable of beating people up, or what? So, like, small elderly men should be protected by women who are stronger than them? Do they have to also be subservient because of this?

My sister could beat most people up for real, and I can think of several other women who are probably a lot stronger and more skilled physically than most men.

Or is it that you think that men overall are smarter than women?

This is called 'benevolent sexism' and you should learn more about it.

My bias tells me that most children need a mother more than a father and that is why I would insure that my wife and children took the lifeboat ahead of me.

"Why are you classifying women in the same category as children?

I did not and if as bored as you indicated, you could have read what I said twice instead of trying to paint what I said in the repugnant color you tried to use.

Regards
DL

[lisarea]

I like how you are evading my questions by Taking Great Umbrage.

Stop being a coward. Stop dog whistling and evading. Answer questions, and tell the truth.

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think men should rule over women in the sense of the law of the sea.

When it comes to protection of women and children, our fatherly/husband instincts should kick in and men should force women to comply in taking a seat in the lifeboats. If no children are involved then the woman should be allowed her free choice.

Just how realistic are these scenarios? These lifeboats and such? What are your plausible, modern scenarios where this sort of thing would apply? No dragon slaying or jousting or cartoon pirates.

And why are men the default arbiters of everything from laws to culture to lifeboats?

This ties into the attitudes you betray by saying 'our women.' Not only does it imply ownership, but it also assumes a male audience. That men are responsible for making decisions, so you're addressing what you assume is an audience of regressive, heteronormative 'men.' That's a very egregious oversight, to the point that that in itself is sufficient evidence that your opinions are just kind of jank overall.

When protection is not the issue, the man should be subservient to his women and children as the strong are to serve the weak and not the weak be made to serve the strong. This assumes a strong and manly man. If the woman is the strong one then she should serve the weak.

What is a strong and manly man, and what is weakness? In what sense? In the sense of brute force? So if I get an appliance dolly and a baseball bat with nails in it, am I now more strong and powerful and thus responsible for making decisions for random doughy men walking around outside? Or better, forcing them to comply with rules that I devise for their own good?

And again, do you believe that physical strength is really a major factor in power balances today?

[Florence Jellem]

Well, boys, I was married and divorced three times. And, truth be told, my three husbands weren't worth a lick. And none of them were Muslims, either, though Seymour was a Jew.

My first husband, Harold, was a tailor. He left his dirty socks and underwear lying about the living room floor. You'd think a tailor would have more respect than that for clothes, even underthings, but no. He was a total slob. In addition, I could never teach him to cook. Land sake, I don't think that bird could boil water if Jesus Himself showed up and asked for instant coffee. Also, he was prone to flatulence.

Irving was a jeweler who also never learned to cook and spent far too much time at the race track.

Then there was Seymour, the Jew, who jumped the shark one day and put on a transparent robe with nothing on underneath. He chased me around the house, demanding to "do it" on the kitchen table. There was a big scene, and I'm sorry to say the police were involved. I had to kick Seymour to the curb.

I must say this Mr. Bishop is quite a kooky piece of carrot cake, if you catch my drift. If he were my husband, I'm afraid I'd have to hit him over the head with a rolling pin and confine him to the basement, tied up from head to foot and with a ball gag in his creepy craw.

And nobody tells Flo what to wear or not to wear. Lots of times I go around in a hoodie and if you don't like it because you think I'm some sort of elderly female gangsta rapper, you can lump it, dears.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Have you noted the benefits to those cultures as they lose their cultures?

Regards
DL

Have you what while they what?