Obedient wives club: Good sex to keep hubby happy, curb social ills

A new organisation is stirring up controversy in Malaysia.

 

[The Obedient Wives Club] launched on Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom. "Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu.

Just wondering, but is female submission the only thing that makes men happy and keeps societies afloat? You hear this argument again and again all over the world, and the saddest thing is when you hear it coming from women.

Story

Tags: muslim, obedient wives, submission, women

Views: 280

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Well there was that stereotyping comment about women spending too much money on purses and shoes, and you've made other similar comments.

 

You're harping on one sentence (which you've also done before). The thread is about something entirely different. So far there has never been a thread about women's rights that you haven't managed to derail into a tirade about how oppressed men are. I will readily acknowledge that sexism affects men as well as women. I don't see how sexism against one sex makes sexism against the other sex any more acceptable. So far, regardless of subject matter, you have only been able to change the subject to gripe about women.

 

Can you actually give your opinion on the Obedient Wives' Club without changing the subject to "yes, but men blah blah blah"? Why don't you just start a men's rights group since that is the only subject you have any interest in?

Nice.

Wrong, of course.  It is easy to find many threads on the forum regarding feminism and women's rights on which I have not posted, because they did not involve slandering men.  Either you are too lazy to actually check your facts before posting your opinion, or you were well aware of this and you are just flat out lying.

Also, I gave my opinion on the obedient wives club already.

Also, I am not interested in starting a "Men's Rights" group.  I'm an Equalist, and seek fair treatment and equal opportunity and respect regardless of gender.

...and I have no idea what "purses" comment you are referring to.  I did a search of the site for posts by me containing that phrase, and came up with nothing.
I get it.  You know Sandy's mind better than she does.  Yet I bet if a the roles were reversed you would protect the man who was using sarcasm because men are so misunderstood on this site.  You know I liked you when you went against TNT but, now I see you are no better than her.
Thanks for trying, Susan, but I don't think any amount of rational argument will penetrate Bruce-TByte's defences. He's determined to misrepresent me just so that he can perpetuate the debate, which he's enjoying because he's getting our attention. Hard as it may be to let such unjust accusations lie, the only way to respond to this sort of attention seeking behaviour is to refuse to pay it any attention. This is my last contribution to this thread. Thanks for your support.
Sorry, your thread got so horribly derailed Sandy.

Can you show any posts suggesting that I would defend a man who made misogynistic statements?

No, you can't.

The difference between me and TNT666 is that I do not post derogatory comments towards the opposite sex.  If you can't see that, they you are not paying attention.

This is yet another attempt to avoid facing your own double standard.  Examine yourself, and your own behavior and reactions.

Tell me, oh wise one, what is my double standard.  You must be psychic to see one in me without even knowing me.

You have reminded me of a book I'll never finish reading.  I think it was The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.  Whichever book it was, the "factive" nature of certain verbs--in particular, think and know were focused on--was mentioned, including a discussion of George W. Bush and whether or not he lied about something.  Specifically, the conclusion arrived at was that it is true that he lied in saying (something like) that "British Intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein is seeking [stuff to make nuclear weapons]." because for someone to've learned something it has to be true.  In a similar manner, to point out also bears this yoke.

 

If you point it out, it must be true.  I'm leaning over the railing, squinting my eyes in this bright midday sun, staring across the canyon, but...  I just don't see it.  I'm fully open to drink in your response like a nice cup of tea and digest it; just make it clear how you know what Sandy meant and that that is what you say it is.

I'm happy to point it out....AGAIN.
The entirety of her comment was:

"Just wondering, but is female submission the only thing that makes men happy and keeps societies afloat? You hear this argument again and again all over the world, and the saddest thing is when you hear it coming from women."

Clearly this comment is directed at all men.  It does not single out a specific group of men.

Clearly, there is nothing in this comment which looks at all sarcastic or ironic. Sandy asks a direct question, inviting direct answers.  In response, two men quickly posted to reassure here that not all men think that way.  There is nothing in their posts that indicates they considered it an example of sarcasm.
Clearly, all my initial post said was that I found her comment offensive.  Do I not have a right to be offended when someone slanders me?

Clearly, Sandy could have resolved the issue by acknowledging how her poor choice of words could have been construed as a smear against the male gender.  She did not.  Instead, she tried to pass it off as a joke.So, while in my original post I was prepared to accept a reasonable and respectful explanation from Sandy, none was forthcoming.

No, there are only two expected responses from a post such as Sandy's.  1) "Yes, men are all pigs."  2) "No, not all of us are pigs!"  Sandy has been on this forum long enough to know the types of responses she will get from a comment such as she made.  If her question was not designed to elicit fervent and defensive denials from the male participants, what was it for?

This passive-aggressive strategy is an all too common, and all too effective means of making men feel defensive about their gender.

 

Clearly you are wrong.

 

Clearly "Just wondering, but is female submission the only thing that makes men happy and keeps societies afloat?" is a question, after all it has a is clause and a question mark ! This means that it is a proposition, not a statement of opinion.

 

Clearly you need to learn the difference between a question and a statement. also you should consider looking into rhetorical questions as they are clearly missing from your ability to process.

 

Clearly this statement: "You hear this argument again and again all over the world, and the saddest thing is when you hear it coming from women." went over your head also. When analysed it states that it is something that is heard a lot, and comes from women, and it is sad. This is no more critical of women than of men, as it says nothing about mens comments on the issue.

 

I see you live in ohio, here is an adult literacy course provider for you :

www.columbusliteracy.org/


M.

 

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service