Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.


Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DL

[stevecanuck]

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.


Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DL



Muslim men can't. It would go against the Qur'an.

[Caliban]

I don't get this: it's 2014, not 1914. Women are essentially the equals of men now. In western societies at least.

And the influence of religion on the status of women is not a simple one of mere repression. Classical Athens kept women in a form of purdah as bad as any Muslim nation, and organized religion had nothing to do with it.

In many ways Christianity elevated the status of women from what they were in the ancient world. It's not as simple as the opening post would seem to indicate.

[DragonStryk72]

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.


Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DL



First, God didn't curse women, it's called a period, and it's necessary for the baby factory they're carrying. Ask women who wants that had to have a hysterectomy if they feel their uterus was a curse? Now, to a man, especially one who isn't all that knowledgeable (like, say, a man who has only just recently discovered that being naked in the woods where there are snakes is bad), a period might seem like a curse, all the pain, cramping, bloating, and mood swings.

The majority of Catholics, and especially in Irish culture, there already WAS equality in marriage, but it was the greater society that was problematic. Why Irish culture? Well, put simply, because women owned the land. Yeah, they were to tend the land, and raise/have the children, while the man was in charge of the financial end of things, so that there was a balance of power within the marriage. Yes, there were also horrible things that happened, but really, these days it's not really any risk to call out for equality.... because we're basically equal, at lest here in the civilized world.

Equality is laudable, but for most of the world, we're already pretty much there. Yeah, there are incidences in every country, even in the best countriesm, but they inspire outrage, eaning that we view those abuses as being outrageous now.

It also brings up this, "How do we define equality?" Simply crying for equality is useless, because it sets no parameters.

These days, in the civilized world, it's not really about equality. Well, it is, and it isn't. The big thing I've noticed is men complaining that their stay-at-homes wives with children need to go get jobs. The problem is, that attempts to define equal as being financially equal, which is just not feasible. I mean, if she's a teacher, and you're a lawyer, it's clearly something where you're going to make more money than her. At the same point, if you're a lawyer, and she stays home, but does charity work through your firm, sets up/caters work parties for you, and generally maintains your home, isn't she, by definition, putting in her share?

Here, I believe it is more a lack of understanding of value. Look at it this way: If a woman stays home to take care of, and raise, the kids, then it could be compared, quite reasonably, to hiring a maid, nanny, cook, and driver (Now, there's another I could tack on, but that's rather crude, so I'm going there for this discussion.). If you paid each of them minimum wage (7.25/hr is fed, so we'll use that), and assume a 40 hour work week, then you would be looking at about 60-80k a year in expenses for them (variance for some mandatory overtime here and there), maybe 50k if you let them all live on premises, though you would actually have to make sure each of them has their own room, as opposed to bunking with you (so figure another 10-20k in renovations). Now, if they also tend the garden, then we have to tack on a gardener's salary, which bring up to 75k-95k (another 5-7k in renovations as well).

Yeah, suddenly seems like a more than fair arrangement to just let her stay home if she wishes, huh? This is what I'm talking about, the perception of value. Men tend to think in static terms, even when talking emotionally, and unfortunately, we've slipped in teaching most men what a proper relationship looks like, what a man's part in the relationship is.

Real equality is usually imbalanced one way or the other, because life isn't a straight line. Sometimes, the guy is going to need extra support, emotional or otherwise, and the same is true of the woman. That... isn't being taught. We've sort of made teaching such things "obsolete", but then that leaves it to media, and media tends to paint marriage and relationship equality in very broad, biased strokes. Even most churches don't really teach this stuff these days.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Muslim men can't. It would go against the Qur'an.



He will rule over you is pure Christian and Catholic dogma.

To try to exonerate any o the mainstream religions is pure hypocrisy.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I don't get this: it's 2014, not 1914. Women are essentially the equals of men now. In western societies at least.

And the influence of religion on the status of women is not a simple one of mere repression. Classical Athens kept women in a form of purdah as bad as any Muslim nation, and organized religion had nothing to do with it.

In many ways Christianity elevated the status of women from what they were in the ancient world. It's not as simple as the opening post would seem to indicate.

Check and see how our courts in the West are full of women winning cases for equal pay for equal work.

If Christian men act like Christian men then this topic would not exist.

When men of all religions walk their talk, such posts will not exist.

Ask the women in your family I they are treated as equal to men or not.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

First, God didn't curse women, it's called a period, and it's necessary for the baby factory they're carrying. Ask women who wants that had to have a hysterectomy if they feel their uterus was a curse? Now, to a man, especially one who isn't all that knowledgeable (like, say, a man who has only just recently discovered that being naked in the woods where there are snakes is bad), a period might seem like a curse, all the pain, cramping, bloating, and mood swings.

The majority of Catholics, and especially in Irish culture, there already WAS equality in marriage, but it was the greater society that was problematic. Why Irish culture? Well, put simply, because women owned the land. Yeah, they were to tend the land, and raise/have the children, while the man was in charge of the financial end of things, so that there was a balance of power within the marriage. Yes, there were also horrible things that happened, but really, these days it's not really any risk to call out for equality.... because we're basically equal, at lest here in the civilized world.

Equality is laudable, but for most of the world, we're already pretty much there. Yeah, there are incidences in every country, even in the best countriesm, but they inspire outrage, eaning that we view those abuses as being outrageous now.

It also brings up this, "How do we define equality?" Simply crying for equality is useless, because it sets no parameters.

These days, in the civilized world, it's not really about equality. Well, it is, and it isn't. The big thing I've noticed is men complaining that their stay-at-homes wives with children need to go get jobs. The problem is, that attempts to define equal as being financially equal, which is just not feasible. I mean, if she's a teacher, and you're a lawyer, it's clearly something where you're going to make more money than her. At the same point, if you're a lawyer, and she stays home, but does charity work through your firm, sets up/caters work parties for you, and generally maintains your home, isn't she, by definition, putting in her share?

Here, I believe it is more a lack of understanding of value. Look at it this way: If a woman stays home to take care of, and raise, the kids, then it could be compared, quite reasonably, to hiring a maid, nanny, cook, and driver (Now, there's another I could tack on, but that's rather crude, so I'm going there for this discussion.). If you paid each of them minimum wage (7.25/hr is fed, so we'll use that), and assume a 40 hour work week, then you would be looking at about 60-80k a year in expenses for them (variance for some mandatory overtime here and there), maybe 50k if you let them all live on premises, though you would actually have to make sure each of them has their own room, as opposed to bunking with you (so figure another 10-20k in renovations). Now, if they also tend the garden, then we have to tack on a gardener's salary, which bring up to 75k-95k (another 5-7k in renovations as well).

Yeah, suddenly seems like a more than fair arrangement to just let her stay home if she wishes, huh? This is what I'm talking about, the perception of value. Men tend to think in static terms, even when talking emotionally, and unfortunately, we've slipped in teaching most men what a proper relationship looks like, what a man's part in the relationship is.

Real equality is usually imbalanced one way or the other, because life isn't a straight line. Sometimes, the guy is going to need extra support, emotional or otherwise, and the same is true of the woman. That... isn't being taught. We've sort of made teaching such things "obsolete", but then that leaves it to media, and media tends to paint marriage and relationship equality in very broad, biased strokes. Even most churches don't really teach this stuff these days.

Correct. They teach to discriminate without just cause angst women and gays.

This is not an issue of bleeding and money. But thanks for your input.

You are correct in that churches do not teach men their duty to family.

Regards
DL

[gabosaurus]

Ask the women in your family I they are treated as equal to men or not.


All women is my family are treated as equal to men. Because we are. Only a prehistoric dumass would treat his wife or girlfriend as an inferior.
The modern woman can do anything a man can do (aside from tasks that require excessive physical strength). We are smart enough to run small businesses and large corporations.
Modern marriages are equal cooperatives. My best friend's husband can cook a mean steak and change nappies with the best of them. She can handle purchasing orders and issue directives.
When my sister's former charge first came to the U.S., she couldn't speak English and had never seen a TV set or a phone. Now she is a college graduate working a job that pays $70,000 a year.
The Bible does not limit us. Only the thick headed reluctance of men to accept the openings in the Glass Ceiling limits us.

[tailfins]

All women is my family are treated as equal to men. Because we are. Only a prehistoric dumass would treat his wife or girlfriend as an inferior.
The modern woman can do anything a man can do (aside from tasks that require excessive physical strength). We are smart enough to run small businesses and large corporations.
Modern marriages are equal cooperatives. My best friend's husband can cook a mean steak and change nappies with the best of them. She can handle purchasing orders and issue directives.
When my sister's former charge first came to the U.S., she couldn't speak English and had never seen a TV set or a phone. Now she is a college graduate working a job that pays $70,000 a year.
The Bible does not limit us. Only the thick headed reluctance of men to accept the openings in the Glass Ceiling limits us.




If two things are equal, one of them is generally unnecessary. The idea that males and females are equal is absurd on its face. Both in general have their strengths and weaknesses. In business, the hazard for women is to let relationships sweep errors under the rug. The hazard for men is leave "dead bodies" behind when completing the task. In our current legal system, the men can't expect a fair shake, so they had better be failsafe when they marry. I have two divorced nephews that would be better off dead. Sorry, but I'm not going to "dumb down" my code so some "diversity hire" manager doesn't have to understand derived classes, delegates or overlays. Just a question, Gabs, how patient are you with Hindi accents? If you want to talk about people who are treated like doormats, its the Indians in a company. American women are the worst offenders. I will take an Abha, Nishtha, Prabha or Sajni (Hindi female names) over a Beth, Susan, Dani or Gabi any day of the week on a project because I like things that function as advertized and not based on decisions of WHO won a popularity contest. You want to talk about a "glass ceiling"? How does an 80% unemployment rate for Aspies grab ya'? So while you're busy complaining about underqualified people not getting a key to the executive washroom, there's OVERQUALIFIED people who can't get minimum wage. Again, the worst perpetrators are American women who severely punish people for not following their non-verbal communication.


Scheiner, who has a college-age son with Asperger’s, told the Journal that there’s a daunting 80% unemployment rate among Aspies.

Ref: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2011/02/25/helping-people-with-aspergers-find-work/

In support group meetings, it's common to see gifted people with a Masters or Ph. D. working collecting shopping carts.

[stevecanuck]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=698315#post698315) Muslim men can't. It would go against the Qur'an.


He will rule over you is pure Christian and Catholic dogma.

To try to exonerate any o the mainstream religions is pure hypocrisy.

Regards
DL

I have exonerated no religion. I merely gave the Islamic position. If someone wants to say the same about any other religion, then they are more than welcome to join the fray.

[gabosaurus]

Tailfins, I can't wait until you get a female manager. Preferably one adept at non-verbal communication. :cool:

[DragonStryk72]

Correct. They teach to discriminate without just cause angst women and gays.

This is not an issue of bleeding and money. But thanks for your input.

You are correct in that churches do not teach men their duty to family.

Regards
DL

You were the one who brought up "God's curse" (insert fake ghost sounds), and clearly you're not a serious enough debater to read what I actually wrote about. I flat out stated that there's no way for money to equal equality. If you had actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't look like an ass for it now.

Now, given that finances is the second most common cause of divorce in America (Second only to lack of communication, which many times relates to financial issues), we can reasonably state that finances do matter in the context of the male-female relationship. This of course, leads, by extension, to how we approach and view each other. Note that I say finances, and not money. This is because it doesn't matter if it's Stocks, bonds, and cash, or a tribal barter system, it is still relative to the dynamic.

For many men, they see only their own part of things (This is as true of atheists and agnostics as it is of orphans raised in the church.) , and thus, don't see women's end of it. While my parents were married, I observed this trend many times, not only from my father, but also several of my friends' parents. It wasn't really about disrespecting women, it was more a lack of understanding of what they were doing while they weren't there to witness it. Not seeing the work that goes in, and not being taught about this, by churches, schools, or even parents, It becomes easy to see only what is absent or incorrect on the other end of things. Now, women these days do it as well, and have the same lack of teaching in what goes into a proper, loving relationship (regardless of with women or men) so in a sense, there's a sort of horrible equality in the lack of understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to one another.

While there are some churches that, indeed, teach horrible conduct toward women, the majority teach love, honor, and respect, regardless of gender. You're not here to debate, though, Christian, you're here to just yell at the church, but want it to look like clever, reasoned debate. that's really all you've ever been after, and it is more evident by the thread.

Of course, we're talking about civilized regions here, because really, if you were addressing the uncivilized regions, the internet is about the worst spot to do it, since most don't have it, and wouldn't allow sites like this there if they did.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

All women is my family are treated as equal to men. Because we are. Only a prehistoric dumass would treat his wife or girlfriend as an inferior.
The modern woman can do anything a man can do (aside from tasks that require excessive physical strength). We are smart enough to run small businesses and large corporations.
Modern marriages are equal cooperatives. My best friend's husband can cook a mean steak and change nappies with the best of them. She can handle purchasing orders and issue directives.
When my sister's former charge first came to the U.S., she couldn't speak English and had never seen a TV set or a phone. Now she is a college graduate working a job that pays $70,000 a year.
The Bible does not limit us. Only the thick headed reluctance of men to accept the openings in the Glass Ceiling limits us.




As well as women who think all is well at 70,000 when men make 100,000 for the same job.

Check the stats.

For evil to grow all some need do is think local and not global.

Your anecdotal rendering shows promise but you have a ways to go to see the bigger picture.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I have exonerated no religion. I merely gave the Islamic position. If someone wants to say the same about any other religion, then they are more than welcome to join the fray.


No argument. I just wanted to add my comment over yours to broaden the outlook of the lurker and posters.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You were the one who brought up "God's curse" (insert fake ghost sounds), and clearly you're not a serious enough debater to read what I actually wrote about. I flat out stated that there's no way for money to equal equality. If you had actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't look like an ass for it now.

Now, given that finances is the second most common cause of divorce in America (Second only to lack of communication, which many times relates to financial issues), we can reasonably state that finances do matter in the context of the male-female relationship. This of course, leads, by extension, to how we approach and view each other. Note that I say finances, and not money. This is because it doesn't matter if it's Stocks, bonds, and cash, or a tribal barter system, it is still relative to the dynamic.

For many men, they see only their own part of things (This is as true of atheists and agnostics as it is of orphans raised in the church.), and thus, don't see women's end of it. While my parents were married, I observed this trend many times, not only from my father, but also several of my friends' parents. It wasn't really about disrespecting women, it was more a lack of understanding of what they were doing while they weren't there to witness it. Not seeing the work that goes in, and not being taught about this, by churches, schools, or even parents, It becomes easy to see only what is absent or incorrect on the other end of things. Now, women these days do it as well, and have the same lack of teaching in what goes into a proper, loving relationship (regardless of with women or men) so in a sense, there's a sort of horrible equality in the lack of understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to one another.

While there are some churches that, indeed, teach horrible conduct toward women, the majority teach love, honor, and respect, regardless of gender. You're not here to debate, though, Christian, you're here to just yell at the church, but want it to look like clever, reasoned debate. that's really all you've ever been after, and it is more evident by the thread.

Of course, we're talking about civilized regions here, because really, if you were addressing the uncivilized regions, the internet is about the worst spot to do it, since most don't have it, and wouldn't allow sites like this there if they did.

"the majority teach love, honor, and respect,"


This is no true at all. If it were, we would not be here discussing the issue.

I like debate but not with those who cannot discern reality.

As to uncivilized religions, would you say that a religion based on human sacrifice and a judge who thinks it just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty a civilized religion?

Regards
DL

[gabosaurus]

As well as women who think all is well at 70,000 when men make 100,000 for the same job.


I doubt many 23-year-old women would complain about making $70,000. It beats working at 7-11.

[gabosaurus]

Suspicious...


Women. Religion’s longest running victims.


Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DL





1. Yeah some *Ass Hat* bumped my Jag yesterday with a shopping cart.
2. Looked like it was no accident.
3. Its done now, and I can't do anything about it.
4. Makes me upset a little, will have to touch up the paint.
5. Some people have no respect for other peoples stuff.
6. May be one reason I started a thread on Gabster, in a bad mood,...grrrr,.......


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[DragonStryk72]

"the majority teach love, honor, and respect,"


This is no true at all. If it were, we would not be here discussing the issue.

I like debate but not with those who cannot discern reality.

As to uncivilized religions, would you say that a religion based on human sacrifice and a judge who thinks it just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty a civilized religion?

Regards
DL

Very well, provide your link that proves that the majority of churches teach disrespect for women. Remember, this is your thread, burden of proof's on you.

REGION, region. like an area of the globe, not religion. I can actually spell. God, could you manage one post anymore without an asinine assumption?

[gabosaurus]

Very well, provide your link that proves that the majority of churches teach disrespect for women. Remember, this is your thread, burden of proof's on you.

REGION, region. like an area of the globe, not religion. I can actually spell. God, could you manage one post anymore without an asinine assumption?

Very true. Churches do not teach disrespect for women. It is those who misinterpret the teachings of the church that teach disrespect for women.
The world has changed a lot over the last 2,000 years or so. Yet there are some who still want women to be regarded as property (as once was the law) rather than equal partners.
In fact, if you believe men are superior, then you might as well be a Muslim. Since you both own the same beliefs.

[tailfins]

Tailfins, I can't wait until you get a female manager. Preferably one adept at non-verbal communication. :cool:

Easy fix: Call a few agencies and say "I'm available". Three weeks later I can tell her to fuck off without giving notice nor documentation. I had one of those at ESPN with the directive that I dumb down my code so she could understand it: No Object Oriented Programming. I was told that she blows through programmers/consultants like water.

[DragonStryk72]

As well as women who think all is well at 70,000 when men make 100,000 for the same job. Funny, thought it had nothing to do with money? I smell hypocrisy.

Check the stats.

For evil to grow all some need do is think local and not global.

Your anecdotal rendering shows promise but you have a ways to go to see the bigger picture.

Regards
DL

Yes, interesting that the studies do no cross-comparisons. What am I talking about? Well, let's take you fictional man and woman here: The man got $100,000, while the woman got $70,000.

Now, there are some factors here that need discussing, because otherwise we're taking a huge thing of spray paint to subject, which is absolutely bound to be inaccurate, as well as being nothing more than somebody banging their drum and screaming about equality with no point.

Let's go down a list shall:

In the studies, do they answer the following individual question that are devoutly important to determining starting paying:

What were their respective education levels?

If they did both go to college, what were their respective colleges, and degrees in?

Are they applying to the same company?

Did either serve in the military?

Are they applying to work in the same workplace?

Are they applying at the same time?

What does their respective work histories look like?

How well was their resume written?

How many recommendations did they have, and from whom? (After all, let's take Joss Whedon -love him, writes amazing female characters- is up for doing a blockbuster movie. He uses Felicia Day as a reference from his work on Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Not likely to get that much attention. Now let's say he uses Scarlett Johanson from Marvel's The Avengers, a huge blockbuster movie that made hundreds of millions of dollars on the movie alone. Yeah? See my point?)

How did they perform on the interview?

How did their background checks look?

If there were tests for the jobs, how did they score in key areas related to the job?

Were there any other benefits that either one got? (Like say, the woman opted for a company car)



I can actually go on, but I feel my point is clear. The broads strokes approach that the current studies use, don't really show where the problem areas are, just that women overall all make less.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I doubt many 23-year-old women would complain about making $70,000. It beats working at 7-11.




If you were woman seeing others of your peers, who paid the same as you did to qualify, making that much more than yourself, would you be such a prick.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Very well, provide your link that proves that the majority of churches teach disrespect for women. Remember, this is your thread, burden of proof's on you.

REGION, region. like an area of the globe, not religion. I can actually spell. God, could you manage one post anymore without an asinine assumption?

He will rule over you is held as biblical law by the majority of the population.

They teach disrespect by the mere saying of those words as they indicate that women cannot rule over men.
What would be your thoughts if it was She shall rule over you. Does that boost your ego or reduce it?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yes, interesting that the studies do no cross-comparisons. What am I talking about? Well, let's take you fictional man and woman here: The man got $100,000, while the woman got $70,000.

Now, there are some factors here that need discussing, because otherwise we're taking a huge thing of spray paint to subject, which is absolutely bound to be inaccurate, as well as being nothing more than somebody banging their drum and screaming about equality with no point.

Let's go down a list shall:

In the studies, do they answer the following individual question that are devoutly important to determining starting paying:

What were their respective education levels?

If they did both go to college, what were their respective colleges, and degrees in?

Are they applying to the same company?

Did either serve in the military?

Are they applying to work in the same workplace?

Are they applying at the same time?

What does their respective work histories look like?

How well was their resume written?

How many recommendations did they have, and from whom? (After all, let's take Joss Whedon -love him, writes amazing female characters- is up for doing a blockbuster movie. He uses Felicia Day as a reference from his work on Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Not likely to get that much attention. Now let's say he uses Scarlett Johanson from Marvel's The Avengers, a huge blockbuster movie that made hundreds of millions of dollars on the movie alone. Yeah? See my point?)

How did they perform on the interview?

How did their background checks look?

If there were tests for the jobs, how did they score in key areas related to the job?

Were there any other benefits that either one got? (Like say, the woman opted for a company car)



I can actually go on, but I feel my point is clear. The broads strokes approach that the current studies use, don't really show where the problem areas are, just that women overall all make less.

70%
Would you like 7% ?

Regards
DL

[DragonStryk72]

He will rule over you is held as biblical law by the majority of the population.

They teach disrespect by the mere saying of those words as they indicate that women cannot rule over men.
What would be your thoughts if it was She shall rule over you. Does that boost your ego or reduce it?

Regards
DL

Um, seeing as the church no longer teaches that, just like they're not going at people about eating meat on a friday, or a number of other old school points of belief, that's not evidence of anything. You'll find that we also are allowed to shave our beards and cut our hair these days. That's you uttering a line you can't actually back up, and trying to make it something it isn't, and as well, again, please provide the evidence of this assertion.

Now, as to Bible, remember that when the says "Rule", there are caveats. For one, again, there's the Oath to God to be maintained. Respect is a part of both love and honor, so right there, if you're breaking it, you're fucked, because you gave your word to God, and the church teaches that's wrong.

Second, Rulers were held by oath to God as well (Later named by the Romans as Noblisse Oblige.). To rule wasn't just to have the power to make the decisions, it imparted responsibility to the "ruled". That's right, just like our dominion over the Earth gives us responsibility for the Earth. Do people violate that Oath? Certainly, but that doesn't mean the Church teaches anyone to do it.

Third, we must also remember the covenant, because a wife was not without expectations for her care, even in olden times. This is where things like annulments played into things. If a husband failed in his duties as husband, there were grounds for not only divorce, but annulment, making the marriage as though it didn't happen.

Now, rulers can respect those that they rule, clearly. I mean, after all, many managers, and even CEOs, respect the people that work for them. Sure, there are also assholes who see themselves as better, or entitled, but they're assholes, that's sort of a part of thing at that point.

So, um, unless you've got an actual argument, unlike the last few posts of yours in this thread, I think we're done here.

[gabosaurus]

If you were woman seeing others of your peers, who paid the same as you did to qualify, making that much more than yourself, would you be such a prick.

Regards
DL


I've been called many things on this forum, but a "prick" is not one of them. An anatomically fascinating comment, to be sure. :cool:

To answer the alleged question, the men and women at this company are paid the same based on experience. Some women are paid more than men.

[gabosaurus]

Easy fix: Call a few agencies and say "I'm available". Three weeks later I can tell her to fuck off without giving notice nor documentation. I had one of those at ESPN with the directive that I dumb down my code so she could understand it: No Object Oriented Programming. I was told that she blows through programmers/consultants like water.

What I meant was a female manager who knows more about code and programming than you do, and wants to know why your work is not up to her satisfaction. And she makes more than you for doing the same work.

[tailfins]

What I meant was a female manager who knows more about code and programming than you do, and wants to know why your work is not up to her satisfaction. And she makes more than you for doing the same work.




If she knew more than me, I would shut up and learn. If she knows more than me, she's not doing the same work, is she? In my type of work, people make more because they are better negotiators, creating a bidding war between several companies. I've never met an American woman with an aptitude for coding. Russian, Indian and even French, yes, but not American.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I've been called many things on this forum, but a "prick" is not one of them. An anatomically fascinating comment, to be sure. :cool:

To answer the alleged question, the men and women at this company are paid the same based on experience. Some women are paid more than men.




That answer does not speak to the question. Nice deflection that all will see.

Regards
DL

[DragonStryk72]

That answer does not speak to the question. Nice deflection that all will see.

Regards
DL

Well, actually, it did. The women she works with are, by definition, her peers. You continue to fail the second that your 'broadest possible strokes' mentality fails in the face of actual life on Earth. She hasn't said that inequity doesn't exist, and you don't if even know the religion of her family, you're just making one assumption after another.

Look, Gabs isn't even a solid debater, and she's winning this.