CDZ Burkini ban overturned

[GaryDog]

Muslim countries will likely never allow free thought, open homosexuality, secularism, etc. But that's not the standard by which I judge civilized people.

A strange thing to say. There are already about a dozen 'Muslim' countries that are secular. I have been to maybe half of them myself.

I agree I was overbroad. I was thinking of those more strict muslim countries that demand the beekeeper suits and whatnot.

 

[GaryDog]

We are talking about entering someone's home where you are told that you are not allowed to smoke .... yet family members of the house are smoking like a rubber factory bent on making Friday's deadline. It is called, discrimination.

No, actually it's called US history. See, that's why we are called the melting pot. People from around the world have ALWAYS came here , dumped the worst of their former country and added the best to our society, making us a great nation.

The Muslims , however, have no desire to do that. They wish to reject what is best about our country and give us what is the worst about their own. I love , for example, Middle Eastern cuisine, I welcome that part of their culture into our country. Beating women? Not so much.

The "best" and "worst" are subjective. Almost all can agree that beating women is the "worst" and should be left behind. Anything that harms or goes against the reasonable will of others should be left behind. But assuming that immigrants to our country should abandon all forms of dress from their home country, or abandon religious traditions that don't harm others, or decorate their home a certain way, is not American at all. The exact reason America is great is because we're not all the same. It's a land of immigrants where cultures don't blend, they exist together.

I certainly don't consider all forms of traditional dress to be the "worst" of any culture, but we can agree that the burqa is a form of dress that degrades women and has no place in free society.

I agree with that, but you can't force women to stop wearing them with a law. Many, if not most, women wear them by choice (after years of indoctrination, naturally). Similarly, women in the U.S. who are fundamentalist Christians (or even not so fundamentalist) accept a subservient position to men willingly, because they've been forcefed a religion that preaches that. We're throwing rocks in a glass house on that issue.

no glass houses for me on this one Gary. I don't believe ANY religion ought be able to demand subservience of women , even if those women "consent" for the simple reason that you know they consent under duress.

If you're a Christian who's devoted to the word of the New Testament, then you do, in fact, demand subservience of women. Read Timothy 2:12 for starters. All Abrahamic religions treat women like shit. Adhering to any of them, IMO, is a recipe for legalizing misogyny.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, actually it's called US history. See, that's why we are called the melting pot. People from around the world have ALWAYS came here , dumped the worst of their former country and added the best to our society, making us a great nation.

The Muslims , however, have no desire to do that. They wish to reject what is best about our country and give us what is the worst about their own. I love , for example, Middle Eastern cuisine, I welcome that part of their culture into our country. Beating women? Not so much.

The "best" and "worst" are subjective. Almost all can agree that beating women is the "worst" and should be left behind. Anything that harms or goes against the reasonable will of others should be left behind. But assuming that immigrants to our country should abandon all forms of dress from their home country, or abandon religious traditions that don't harm others, or decorate their home a certain way, is not American at all. The exact reason America is great is because we're not all the same. It's a land of immigrants where cultures don't blend, they exist together.

I certainly don't consider all forms of traditional dress to be the "worst" of any culture, but we can agree that the burqa is a form of dress that degrades women and has no place in free society.

I agree with that, but you can't force women to stop wearing them with a law. Many, if not most, women wear them by choice (after years of indoctrination, naturally). Similarly, women in the U.S. who are fundamentalist Christians (or even not so fundamentalist) accept a subservient position to men willingly, because they've been forcefed a religion that preaches that. We're throwing rocks in a glass house on that issue.

no glass houses for me on this one Gary. I don't believe ANY religion ought be able to demand subservience of women , even if those women "consent" for the simple reason that you know they consent under duress.

If you're a Christian who's devoted to the word of the New Testament, then you do, in fact, demand subservience of women. Read Timothy 2:12 for starters. All Abrahamic religions treat women like shit. Adhering to any of them, IMO, is a recipe for legalizing misogyny.

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

 

[Lipush]

France's top court suspends burkini ban

I'm an atheist and I have no love for Islam, or silly religious traditions. That said, telling people what to wear at the beach is incredibly stupid. French court checked the overreach of the French executive govt. here, and that will do more to stem the tide of Islamic extremism than the ban itself.

What say you?

Agreed.

 

[GLASNOST]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

 

[GaryDog]

The "best" and "worst" are subjective. Almost all can agree that beating women is the "worst" and should be left behind. Anything that harms or goes against the reasonable will of others should be left behind. But assuming that immigrants to our country should abandon all forms of dress from their home country, or abandon religious traditions that don't harm others, or decorate their home a certain way, is not American at all. The exact reason America is great is because we're not all the same. It's a land of immigrants where cultures don't blend, they exist together.

I certainly don't consider all forms of traditional dress to be the "worst" of any culture, but we can agree that the burqa is a form of dress that degrades women and has no place in free society.

I agree with that, but you can't force women to stop wearing them with a law. Many, if not most, women wear them by choice (after years of indoctrination, naturally). Similarly, women in the U.S. who are fundamentalist Christians (or even not so fundamentalist) accept a subservient position to men willingly, because they've been forcefed a religion that preaches that. We're throwing rocks in a glass house on that issue.

no glass houses for me on this one Gary. I don't believe ANY religion ought be able to demand subservience of women , even if those women "consent" for the simple reason that you know they consent under duress.

If you're a Christian who's devoted to the word of the New Testament, then you do, in fact, demand subservience of women. Read Timothy 2:12 for starters. All Abrahamic religions treat women like shit. Adhering to any of them, IMO, is a recipe for legalizing misogyny.

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

Couldn't disagree more. Demanding subservience is a precursor to abuse.

 

[GaryDog]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

My wife is subservient to me in that I make the decisions etc etc but she doesn't ever fear that she would be hit, or raped if she didn't feel like having sex, or that she can't go out without me to escort her, or whatever.

So maybe in that sense, subservient isn't the right word, maybe traditional is a better word for it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Couldn't disagree more. Demanding subservience is a precursor to abuse.

It is you who equates subservience with demanding.

 

[GLASNOST]

So maybe in that sense, subservient isn't the right word, maybe traditional is a better word for it.

No, I think you were right the first time.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

I demand NOTHING of my wife. Just as she demands nothing of me.

 

[GaryDog]

Couldn't disagree more. Demanding subservience is a precursor to abuse.

It is you who equates subservience with demanding.

So there's willing subservience? Are you sure it isn't strongly implied, and thus followed by the women?

 

[GaryDog]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

My wife is subservient to me in that I make the decisions etc etc but she doesn't ever fear that she would be hit, or raped if she didn't feel like having sex, or that she can't go out without me to escort her, or whatever.

So maybe in that sense, subservient isn't the right word, maybe traditional is a better word for it.

Why's that? Is she incapable of decisions?

Congrats on not hitting or raping your wife.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

My wife is subservient to me in that I make the decisions etc etc but she doesn't ever fear that she would be hit, or raped if she didn't feel like having sex, or that she can't go out without me to escort her, or whatever.

So maybe in that sense, subservient isn't the right word, maybe traditional is a better word for it.

Why's that? Is she incapable of decisions?

Congrats on not hitting or raping your wife.

I really don't understand it, this is ONE forum Gary, can't you be mature in a SINGLE forum?

 

[GaryDog]

Being subservient and being abused are two entirely different things.

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

My wife is subservient to me in that I make the decisions etc etc but she doesn't ever fear that she would be hit, or raped if she didn't feel like having sex, or that she can't go out without me to escort her, or whatever.

So maybe in that sense, subservient isn't the right word, maybe traditional is a better word for it.

Why's that? Is she incapable of decisions?

Congrats on not hitting or raping your wife.

I really don't understand it, this is ONE forum Gary, can't you be mature in a SINGLE forum?

It was a legitimate question. This thread is about oppression of women. I'm pointing out that oppression comes in many forms. Was it decided by you both that YOU would make the decisions, or is that a biblical precept you're following?

 

[GLASNOST]

So there's willing subservience?

Absolutely. Have you never told your wife that she is the expert in whatever and that you are an idiot when it comes to that whatever .... just because you know it will make your wife feel good?

 

[oldsoul]

Couldn't disagree more. Demanding subservience is a precursor to abuse.

It is you who equates subservience with demanding.

So there's willing subservience? Are you sure it isn't strongly implied, and thus followed by the women?

There is subservience in nearly all situations involving more than one person, this is not unique to marriage. You, I assume, are subservient to the government in the sense that you (willingly or not) obey the rules (laws) and regulations of the land. You are subservient to your "boss" (even if you are self-employed, you have customers) in the sense that you follow the rules to serve the customer. So, yes, there is willing subservience, it is just not referred to as such most of the time.

Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

Please define what you mean here. In the tradition I was raise in (Lutheran) there are no such "demands" that do not go both ways.

 

[GaryDog]

So there's willing subservience?

Absolutely. Have you never told your wife that she is the expert in whatever and that you are an idiot when it comes to that whatever .... just because you know it will make your wife feel good?

I'm talking overall subservience.

 

[GaryDog]

Couldn't disagree more. Demanding subservience is a precursor to abuse.

It is you who equates subservience with demanding.

So there's willing subservience? Are you sure it isn't strongly implied, and thus followed by the women?

There is subservience in nearly all situations involving more than one person, this is not unique to marriage. You, I assume, are subservient to the government in the sense that you (willingly or not) obey the rules (laws) and regulations of the land. You are subservient to your "boss" (even if you are self-employed, you have customers) in the sense that you follow the rules to serve the customer. So, yes, there is willing subservience, it is just not referred to as such most of the time.

Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

Please define what you mean here. In the tradition I was raise in (Lutheran) there are no such "demands" that do not go both ways.

Employer/employee relationship is contractual, so I don't think "subservience" applies. My clients can be fired at anytime if I don't want to work for them.

I don't care what "tradition" you were raised in, any Christian religion that believes the New Testament is the divine word of god demands that women shut up and listen to men in all things. Again, Timothy 2:12.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

True, subservient has several shades of black and white. My wife is rather traditional in her role as a wife. She's from Slovakia where men's and women's roles are still seen. Of course at her (and my) age it's normal to see life through the eyes of one's upbringing anyway. The kitchen is my wife's territory. When she's doing her thing, I stay out of her way. That can be interpreted in two different ways. Am I not contributing to the preferred 50/50 role that my countrymen want to dictate because I seldom cook? Or am I subservient to my wife by showing her respect? Believe me ... she gets angry in a second if I get in her way. Then there is my self-appointed role with the hammer and screwdriver. Now and then my wife gets her nose in the way with 'advice' or perpetual chatting ...... and that really angers me. I need to concentrate on what I am doing just as much as she does. Anyway, I never beat her and she only beats me on Saturdays.

I think you have the more common marriage setup. You're not demanding subservience in all things, and neither is she. You share your workload, cooperate, etc. Definitely not what we're talking about here in light of what Christianity demands of women (subservience in ALL things).

My wife is subservient to me in that I make the decisions etc etc but she doesn't ever fear that she would be hit, or raped if she didn't feel like having sex, or that she can't go out without me to escort her, or whatever.

So maybe in that sense, subservient isn't the right word, maybe traditional is a better word for it.

Why's that? Is she incapable of decisions?

Congrats on not hitting or raping your wife.

I really don't understand it, this is ONE forum Gary, can't you be mature in a SINGLE forum?

It was a legitimate question. This thread is about oppression of women. I'm pointing out that oppression comes in many forms. Was it decided by you both that YOU would make the decisions, or is that a biblical precept you're following?

OF COURSE it was decided by both of us Gary, that's sort of what " I don't DEMAND anything of my wife" means.