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.
Equilibrium does not exclusively equal a resting state at the bottom of the arc.
Uhmm...with the exception of a pendulum on a rigid rod which could, theoretically, come to equillibrium at the top of the system, you are completely wrong on this. Equilibrium in a pendulum by definition means a resting state at the bottom of the arc. These are the only two possible equilibrium states.
"A perpetual oscillation is one form of equilibrium."
Incorrect. It is not in any way equilibrium. It is what is known as a steady state. They are not the same thing.
You also badly misinterpreted what I said earlier. I said that a spring and a continually flowing fluid represent energy injected into the system.
Actually, I chose to ignore what you said earlier because it too, was wrong, and I did not want to raise your hackles further. But since you bring it up, a spring does NOT represent energy injected into the system. I don't think you understand the concept of energy. Neither the spring nor gravity contribute any energy whatsoever to they pendulum. None. In no way can they be said to "power" the system. Ask any physicist whether a gravity adds energy to a pendulum, and I guarantee 100% that they will say no.
More support from the wikipedia article:
"When released, the restoring force combined with the pendulum's mass causes it to oscillate about the equilibrium position"
THE equilibrium position. Not "one of the equilibrium positions". Nowhere does the article use the term equilibrium to describe anything other than the pendulum at rest at the bottom of the arc.
And then, of course, there is the wikipedia article on equilibrium which simply defines it thus: "Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced."
As you (should) know from physics, when competing influences are balanced there is can be NO acceleration. The absolute ONLY state of a classic pendulum where there is no acceleration is at the bottom of the arc.
"You've also missed a lot of the precise wording in that article, and more to the point, you've missed where words are missing."
I've missed where words were missing? You are getting desperate. Why don't you go back to the wikipedia article to "correct" it, and see what happens to your edits....
"Sandy's comment did not make me feel any shame or guilt on behalf of my gender. "And yet you felt compelled to reply, and tell her that not all men treat women with disrespect. Why did you feel the need to post a response if you did not feel a need to redeem your gender? Why did you feel the need to post a serious response if Sandy's post was meant in jest?"It was made in the context of a story about women in Indonesia who think they have to be completely submissive to their husbands and who think they are commanded by Allah to do so."Sandy did not ask whether female submission was the only thing that makes Indonesion men happy, or keeps Islamist societies afloat. Her comment was aimed at the male gender as a whole. It was aimed at you, and it was aimed at me, and it was aimed at our sons.
"Women need more access to health care assistance considering the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant and are often left caring for the child alone. "Are you not aware that women outlive men?Are you not aware that mortality rates for testicular cancer are even with mortality rates for breast cancer, yet breast cancer recieves THREE TIMES the funding?Are you not aware that in very many cases, women end up caring for children alone because they actively exclude the fathers from their children's lives?
"considering the fact that men make more money than women in the same job, often have an easier time getting promoted, and are more likely to be taken seriously by their superiors, some leveling of the playing field is warranted."Are you aware that all studies that examine the causes of the wage disparity between men and women have shown that this is due to choices made by women in their careers, and not by systematic discrimination? Are you aware that a recent study showed that unmarried professional women without children earned 8 percent MORE than their unmarried professional childless male colleagues? The wage gap is a complete myth, and you have been fed a line.
If I am being sensitive, it is because I have witnessed the effects of statements such as Sandy's first-hand. I have walked into a family court room and had to deal with the assumption that I was a self-centered dead-beat father who's only goal was to avoid supporting his children. I've been presumed guilty in courtrooms, and I've seen how men are presumed guilty within society as a whole. Posts such as Sandy's contribute to this.
Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin.
(Just trying to increase my overall accuracy rate....)
I didn't lose my custody battle.
I won, but only after the mother demonstrated complete irresponsibility did I get primary custody of my children. And then I was STILL ordered to pay child support to my non-custodial ex-wife who had the children about 30% of the time, because she was voluntarily unemployed. It took five years, two trips to the court of appeals, and $80,000 to get that reversed.
The studies are available by google searching, and I have also posted them on Atheist Nexus before in the Atheist Feminist forum. I don't have time to dig them up right now. If you are unable to find them in a search, let me know and I will retrieve them for you.
Sandy, admittedly, is usually pretty balanced in her comments.
I will say, I think she may have been unaware of the subtle implications of her post.
I respect Sandy, based upon the other exchanges we have had, but I will still call her out when she posts something which is demeaning to men. I trust she, and others, would do the same were I to post something demeaning to women.
I think she may have been unaware of the subtle implications of her post.
You are free to think that, but it is an assumption on you part, you can attempt to show that it might be a somewhat reasonable assumption but you do not know this.
I will still call her out when she posts something which is demeaning to men.
Please do so, I do see a lot of sexism going around in everyday life and what can be frustrating to me is that it's not okay to make sexist jokes about women, but that it is often quite okay to make sexist jokes about men. Personally, I would like to see that all kinds of horribly offensive jokes are considered to be ok, regardless of who might be offended and to what degree.
I do feel however that this is more then just a pet peeve to you and that you are emotionally involved in this subject, all perfectly fine to me, but it does seem though you are taking your assumptions at least one step too far. You can also point out your problems and opinions in regards to the subject or Sandy's post without making assumptions as to the motivation of the people involved, it will generally improve the atmosphere of the discussion.
I notice, TByte, that during your long-winded "argument" on the AN News wall, TNT666 called you out as actually being Bruce Lindemann, the guy who was accused of being a troll on the Feminist Atheists forum a few months ago. I thought she was wrong, as initially your posts didn't come across the same as Bruce's but now I'm beginning to wonder. Bruce used to make the same sorts of accusations - "nobody's answered my questions" - "you're all over-reacting to innocent-little-me." "women have everything their own way, and it's so unfair to men" ad nauseam.
If you are Bruce, and you're only keeping this thread alive to feed a deep need for attention, please stop. You're sucking my time.