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.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
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.
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.
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 :
Trust me Meddlesome, I read very well and am much smarter than you.
If you are not ware of the oratorical technique of making a statement in the form of an interrogatory, then you should take a class in remedial debate.
In 2004, Karl Rove set up a "Push Polling" campaign where southern voters were called and asked the following question: "If it was true that John McCain fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman, would you vote for him?"
Now of course, Rove was not claiming that John McCain did have an illegitimate black child. He was just asking a simple question, right?
Glenn Beck is famous for posing insinuating questions. So much so, that a parody counter-meme was created last year asking the question "Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?"
And just to save you the trouble of looking them up yourself:
There! At least you got a chance to learn something today!