NationStates Jolt Archive

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

Fool, women don't need to be consistent.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.
Women are illogical.

Fool, women don't need to be consistent.

Neither do men. :rolleyes:

Neither do men. :rolleyes:

Maybe in Europe, women are no more religious than men? Do you think?

Same case in my community. The men don't even consider it it seems. Going to church sed to be a "baaaaaaah" subject for the men in my immediate family. As some one who spent 5 years in bible studies (I'm now an atheist), I have an idea of what I'm talking about. For the most part I've made the same observations.:confused:

Neither do men. :rolleyes:
Yes, but we do it because we are imaginative, as opposed to hypocritical.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

Maybe it's to please us men. Who here doesn't find a woman in a Catholic school uniform appealing?:)

Maybe in Europe, women are no more religious than men? Do you think?

Uh... I have no idea, maybe.:confused:
I've never been there myself, so I don't know.

Yes, but we do it because we are imaginative, as opposed to hypocritical.

You can't generalise like that! :mad:

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

A lot of women wear crosses for fashion, especially in some schools, where only religious jewellery are permitted.

But I have definitely noticed women tend to be more religious... doing the whole "I've experienced a miracle" / "I've talked to God" business. Hell knows why. Also, could the fact that women are criticised in the Bible, and treated far worse than men in the Old Testament, explain their convenient ignoring of contradictions?

You can't generalise like that! :mad:
All women make sweeping generalisations. :D

Same case in my community. The men don't even consider it it seems. Going to church sed to be a "baaaaaaah" subject for the men in my immediate family. As some one who spent 5 years in bible studies (I'm now an atheist), I have an idea of what I'm talking about. For the most part I've made the same observations.:confused:

During your time in bible studies did you encounter many women who had doubts about the consistency and veracity of the Bible? Or men?

Women are gentler than men, that is why.

Maybe it's to please us men. Who here doesn't find a woman in a Catholic school uniform appealing?:)

A real woman in Catholic school uniform? Or just an entertainer? The real catholic girls make me flaccid immediately. Woosh.

All women make sweeping generalisations. :D

I guess you're fully aware that was a sweeping generalisation? :rolleyes:

Women are gentler than men, that is why.

Gentleness does not equal idiocy. :rolleyes:

I guess you're fully aware that was a sweeping generalisation? :rolleyes:

That was the point wasn't it?:confused:

You can't generalise like that! :mad:

he just did

Women are obviously into repenting for their sins now.

A real woman in Catholic school uniform? Or just an entertainer? The real catholic girls make me flaccid immediately. Woosh.

How can you not like those uniforms? Neck ties, high socks, lovely red sweaters.

he just did

That doesn't make it right.

Also, could the fact that women are criticised in the Bible, and treated far worse than men in the Old Testament, explain their convenient ignoring of contradictions?

Yeah, about that. Shouldn't they have an issue with that?

This sounds sick, but I guess some women may like Christianity in the same way that women fall in love with their kidnappers. Some kind of psychological stuff.

Gentleness does not equal idiocy. :rolleyes:
Actually in women it would appear that gentleness has a strong correlation with idiocy/gullibility when it comes to religion.

In men violence has a strong correlation with idiocty/gullibility in regards to religion.

Women are obviously into repenting for their sins now.

They feel guilty about getting Adam booted out of the garden.

Actually in women it would appear that gentleness has a strong correlation with idiocy/gullibility when it comes to religion.

In men violence has a strong correlation with idiocty/gullibility in regards to religion.

I don't know. I've met some pretty angry Christian girls. One in particular. But then, maybe that's just because she has red hair.

I don't know. I've met some pretty angry Christian girls. One in particular. But then, maybe that's just because she has red hair.

Me too. She kicked my ass because I'm into evolution. She wasn't particularly gentle. Nor did she sound gullible or idiotic. :mad:

Yeah, about that. Shouldn't they have an issue with that?

This sounds sick, but I guess some women may like Christianity in the same way that women fall in love with their kidnappers. Some kind of psychological stuff.

Stockholm's syndrome?

I have no idea. My mother, for example, is really into Christianity, doing the whole "you're going to Hell" routine... but when I mentioned how Christianity was 'against' women in many passages in the Old Testament, I suddenly find myself "going to Hell".

I imagine if I said the same thing to some of my very Christian (female) friends, they would also try and deny it...

Mostly I think it's the power complex... women historically haven't held much power, and now religion empowers people to... condemn people to Hell, I guess! Despite women having practically equal power in today's world, females tend to still assert they're downtrodden (as a female myself, I have seen this) and oppressed... leading them to embrace religion?

And to justify their power, they're selective about what they believe.

Just a theory :P

They feel guilty about getting Adam booted out of the garden.
Exactly.
Plus the whole Rib thing.

Me too. She kicked my ass because I'm into evolution. She wasn't particularly gentle. Nor did she sound gullible or idiotic. :mad:

Hmmm.... Suffice to say that all girls are confusing.

The only self-admitted athiest in my school is female. The only real religious freako in my school is male.

Me too. She kicked my ass because I'm into evolution. She wasn't particularly gentle. Nor did she sound gullible or idiotic. :mad:

You guys meet all the wrong people, the outliers, the psychos, etc. Women are meeker and gentler and thus attracted to the gentle aspects of religion. Men do not like that sort of sentimental stuff, so aren't as mystical/religious, and if they are, they concentrate on the violent parts of religion.

Stockholm's syndrome?

I have no idea. My mother, for example, is really into Christianity, doing the whole "you're going to Hell" routine... but when I mentioned how Christianity was 'against' women in many passages in the Old Testament, I suddenly find myself "going to Hell".

I imagine if I said the same thing to some of my very Christian (female) friends, they would also try and deny it...

Mostly I think it's the power complex... women historically haven't held much power, and now religion empowers people to... condemn people to Hell, I guess! Despite women having practically equal power in today's world, females tend to still assert they're downtrodden (as a female myself, I have seen this) and oppressed... leading them to embrace religion?

And to justify their power, they're selective about what they believe.

Just a theory :P

A good hypothesis :) . Do you think social empowerment will discourage them from becoming religious? I am worried because I am surrounded by angry Christian women. And I am doing science.

The only self-admitted athiest in my school is female. The only real religious freako in my school is male.

Some cool school you have there. Are you from California? :D

During your time in bible studies did you encounter many women who had doubts about the consistency and veracity of the Bible? Or men?

By "bible studies", I mean bible school. Children's studies. Whatever you wish to call it. There was no critiqueing, it was just unusual bible-related activities for us kids, and our oddball head teacher doing religious comedy with his dummy (ventriloquism). Which is weird because he had hooks for hands. Seriously, this is true. ... How the hell did he manipulate the thing?! :eek:

Must've been a miracle of sorts. :D

We used to play the name game. I never paid much attention, but when asked who was the strongest man in the bible, I proudly raised my hand and said Simpson. (It was Sampson). Hehe. I got a loli-pop.

Hmmm.... Suffice to say that all girls are confusing.
Indecisive and flip floppy.

You guys meet all the wrong people, the outliers, the psychos, etc. Women are meeker and gentler and thus attracted to the gentle aspects of religion. Men do not like that sort of sentimental stuff, so aren't as mystical/religious, and if they are, they concentrate on the violent parts of religion.

So do you think they just completely ignore the violent parts? From my conversations I think they blame the violence completely on the free-will of Man.

But violence, inspired by the perfect word of God is the fault of Man? Heh? I will never understand women. :confused:

Indecisive and flip floppy.

Yes, that too. :fluffle:

A good hypothesis :) . Do you think social empowerment will discourage them from becoming religious? I am worried because I am surrounded by angry Christian women. And I am doing science.

A lot more social empowerment would be required. Women have been empowered loads since the Suffragette movement, but some women still look at statistics and say, "the average woman is paid less than the average man", which can be explained by the fact a lot of women elect to be stay-at-home mothers (income=0) after childbirth, etc, or the fact the kind of jobs women tend to do (secretarial) pays less than more male-dominated industries (engineering)... because of the skill level differential.

I think it's because a lot of women are waiting to be 'found' by 'that tall, dark, handsome rich man'. In my Year 8 class, out of all the girls there, I was the only one who didn't raise my hand when they asked "who wants to marry a rich man" (because money was not my priority). To this day, even males can't believe money isn't the main factor for choosing a partner (though these males tend to be the rich sort :p )... the fact most of my friends are actively searching for the elusive rich man, has probably compromised their studies or ambition to achieve anything valuable themselves.

Doesn't stop them whining though, about "unfairness" and the like.

To truly discourage women from being religious, they have to be clearly, without question, above males. In terms of money, prestige, status... everything. They need to attain power themselves, before being discouraged to remove faith in a higher power that will 'help' them.

Of course, I could just be a self-hater :rolleyes:

EDIT: Because of the popular mentality that women must marry rich men, this could explain why men work hard to become rich (get the girl), and women work less hard, waiting for their prince to come (get the rich man)... thus why women feel unempowered financially.

Indecisive and flip floppy.

Why are some so devoted to God then. Like with the "Sisters of Christian Education". They'd rather preach the inspired violence of Christianity then to get a good bonking. For their whole lives! :confused:

Why are NationStates posters so keen to generalise?

Why are some so devoted to God then. Like with the "Sisters of Christian Education". They'd rather preach the inspired violence of Christianity then to get a good bonking. For their whole lives! :confused:

Maybe they're too ugly to get a "good bonking".

You gotta deal with the hand you're dealt. :p

Why are NationStates posters so keen to generalise?
They're like Frenchmen or something. Fricking generalising Frenchmen.

Why are NationStates posters so keen to generalise?

You could ask that about most groups of any kind.

Besides, it seems to me most of the generalizing in here has been sarcastic / silly.

Why are NationStates posters so keen to generalise?

Hey, it's a poll. Just vote if you disagree. :rolleyes:

Maybe they're too ugly to get a "good bonking".

You gotta deal with the hand you're dealt. :p

Wish it were true, pal. If only the ugly ones are religious. :(

Why are some so devoted to God then. Like with the "Sisters of Christian Education". They'd rather preach the inspired violence of Christianity then to get a good bonking. For their whole lives! :confused:
Because 80% of women will contract Genital warts sometime during their lives.

Wish it were true, pal. If only the ugly ones are religious. :(
Maybe the rest of them come from uber-Christian families?
(And so, may be less inclined to be 'angry', rather than those who have "personally spoken to God, and he spoke back")

I don't trust christianity anymore...i used to be a devout christian but then to many things happened to change my opinion. I think some women need christianity...it gives them something to believe in. I think the scenario is that men do believe in god, maybe just as much as women...but they don't need to voice it, or they are asamed to voice it...whilst women take pride in it and believe that crosses accesorise with everything. Believe me some people are better off believing in god...from personal experience i have seen what happens when they stop. And yes i generalised.:headbang:

Because 80% of women will contract Genital warts sometime during their lives.
Is that true? Christ :eek:

I don't trust christianity anymore...i used to be a devout christian but then to many things happened to change my opinion. I think some women need christianity...it gives them something to believe in. I think the scenario is that men do believe in god, maybe just as much as women...but they don't need to voice it, or they are asamed to voice it...whilst women take pride in it and believe that crosses accesorise with everything. Believe me some people are better off believing in god...from personal experience i have seen what happens when they stop. And yes i generalised.:headbang:

I have absolutely no belief in any supernatural existence. To be anecdotal.

I don't trust christianity anymore...i used to be a devout christian but then to many things happened to change my opinion. I think some women need christianity...it gives them something to believe in. I think the scenario is that men do believe in god, maybe just as much as women...but they don't need to voice it, or they are asamed to voice it...whilst women take pride in it and believe that crosses accesorise with everything. Believe me some people are better off believing in god...from personal experience i have seen what happens when they stop. And yes i generalised.:headbang:
What happens when they stop, for your experience?

Is that true? Christ :eek:
Acording to an article i was reading on VD Day it is.

Maybe the rest of them come from uber-Christian families?

I guess I should clarify. I live in Asia, and Christianity has been gaining ground here at a ferocious pace lately. It's popular to wear fancy expensive crosses and T-shirts with Bible-verses or symbols around. Most of these I see on women.

While Christianity has kinda always been here, I wonder what the latest attraction is. Maybe it's those popular evangelical churches with rock music and youth "cells"? :confused:

What happens when they stop, for your experience?

My best friend used to believe in god...i last saw her on new years day this year...one of the last things she said to me is that there is no such thing as god...she commit suicide on the 3 of january.

Believe me...if god can stop people doing that then i don't hate him...the alternative to people believing in him is much worse.

Acording to an article i was reading on VD Day it is.

Oh my. :eek: Is it transmitted from men?

My best friend used to believe in god...i last saw her on new years day this year...one of the last things she said to me is that there is no such thing as god...she commit suicide on the 3 of january.

Believe me...if god can stop people doing that then i don't hate him...the alternative to people believing in him is much worse.

Did she not stop believing in God, because she was probably depressed? So the depression led her to commit suicide; not her failing to believe in God? Her loss of faith was incidental?

And does believe in God stop people committing suicide? Perhaps their wish is to be with God immediately, in dying and escaping a comparatively worse life on Earth?

Oh my. :eek: Is it transmitted from men?

Transmitted from both; whoever is infected can transmit it.

Checked the statistic - and it's true. 80% of women contract it by age 50.

I intend to be of the 20% that doesn't experience the discomfort and embarrasment!

They're like Frenchmen or something. Fricking generalising Frenchmen.

:p

I can understand where your coming from...you may in deed be right...the fact is that, much like me the events in my friends life turned sour and i know...i mean i can remember that her faith made her happy. It stopped her being depressed...

Someone said to me afterwards "God works in mysterious ways"

If god's exsistence can do that...or lack of him can do that...well.

God has never been a good thing for me...with the exception of the fact that i met my friend only due to bizarre circumstances.

You could ask that about most groups of any kind.

Yeah, everyone generalises.

I can understand where your coming from...you may in deed be right...the fact is that, much like me the events in my friends life turned sour and i know...i mean i can remember that her faith made her happy. It stopped her being depressed...

Why did she lose her faith, if faith made her happy?
It just seems more realistic that it would be the other way round... happiness encouraged her to keep her faith, and the onslaught of depression caused her to lose it?

Oh my. :eek: Is it transmitted from men?
I imagine it is, seeing how someone has been giving the sausage a bit of a dipping.

VD Day is 'Valentines Day' Day.

in experience women tend to be more into the whole love thing that religion has going on and less into traditions like marriage and heterosexuality (all the women I have ever met claim Bisexuality WTF:confused: )

So they are pretty much the same they just don’t worry about the stuff you worry about…nor do I but I guess I’m just a big girls blouse eh:D

faith has the side affect on some people of making them feel worse...hell as far as i understand thats the popint of catholocism...its the whole your not good enough...or you don't deserve the things you have...my bfriend never did anything that deserved what she got and she was the best thing that ever happened in my life...

you cant really understand but believe me...faith it's kinda like a virus...for some people it makes them stronger and better, for others its terminal. Me i decided a long time ago that the cure is worse than the disease.

It might also have something to do with th white wedding thing as a little girl, Church wedding and all.
Too bad that they get to college and get given it.:p

I've had a pretty rough ride when it comes to Christianity. My father became a "you're going to Hell" born-again in 1985/6/whatever and subsequently began preaching to my mother that she and her entire family were going to hell.

My mother couldn't take it (it was the final straw heaped upon tons of emotional abuse) and she left him. I didn't really understand it in the front of my mind, but I read enough into the situation that I somehow concluded that I had better try to be a good Christian or else I won't be allowed to stay, either.

My father became born-again when I was 6/7/whatever. I didn't really see things for what they were until I was 22/23.

I had been incredibly depressed before that, but after that, my depression became much worse. I think that I knew that what I was doing regarding religion was only being done to please my father, to make it so that he wouldn't reject me. After all, he rejected my mother, why not reject his oldest son? This feeling was made even more poignant when he remarried and had more children with his new wife and made me feel more marginalized as a person... much of the same kind of emotional abuse he had been heaping on my mother.

Now, my father is an asshole, and that, by itself, doesn't really have anything to do with religion. However, I still have a hard time separating my experience with my father from my experience of God. Thus, I've discarded Christianity wholesale.

I've discovered plenty of other reasons to reject Christianity as a religion since, but that was certainly the first and primary reason. I was already depressed at the time, so you'd think that rejecting the religion would be some kind of relief, but it wasn't.

I believe I have my friends and family to thank for keeping me connected, even if it was strained or tenuous at the time.

I still remember, however, how one of my "friends" used to tell me that he believed my depression was being caused by demonic attack. At first, I considered this as a possibility... later on, however, I realized that it was yet another scare tactic, yet another attempt to keep you bound to yet another fucked-up belief system.

I was initially seeking religion out of fear, and I think that is what drives many people to seek it. They may not seem fearful, but if you prod them enough with questions like, "What if God really doesn't exist?" or "What if you're not believing the right religion?" you begin to see a frightening denial of reality and tattered hope based in fear of nothingness in the Great Beyond.

I've had a pretty rough ride when it comes to Christianity. My father became a "you're going to Hell" born-again in 1985/6/whatever and subsequently began preaching to my mother that she and her entire family were going to hell.

My mother couldn't take it (it was the final straw heaped upon tons of emotional abuse) and she left him. I didn't really understand it in the front of my mind, but I read enough into the situation that I somehow concluded that I had better try to be a good Christian or else I won't be allowed to stay, either.

My father became born-again when I was 6/7/whatever. I didn't really see things for what they were until I was 22/23.

I had been incredibly depressed before that. I think that I knew that what I was doing regarding religion was only being done to please my father, to make it so that he wouldn't reject me. After all, he rejected my mother, why not reject his oldest son? This feeling was made even more poignant when he remarried and had more children with his new wife and made me feel more marginalized as a person... much of the same kind of emotional abuse he had been heaping on my mother.

Now, my father is an asshole, and that, by itself, doesn't really have anything to do with religion. However, I still have a hard time separating my experience with my father from my experience of God. Thus, I've discarded Christianity wholesale.

I've discovered plenty of other reasons to reject Christianity as a religion since, but that was certainly the first and primary reason. I was already depressed at the time, so you'd think that rejecting the religion would be some kind of relief, but it wasn't.

I believe I have my friends and family to thank for keeping me connected, even if it was strained or tenuous at the time.

I still remember, however, how one of my "friends" used to tell me that he believed my depression was being caused by demonic attack. At first, I considered this as a possibility... later on, however, I realized that it was yet another scare tactic, yet another attempt to keep you bound to yet another fucked-up belief system.

I was initially seeking religion out of fear, and I think that is what drives many people to seek it. They may not seem fearful, but if you prod them enough with questions like, "What if God really doesn't exist?" or "What if you're not believing the right religion?" you begin to see a frightening denial of reality and tattered hope based in fear of nothingness in the Great Beyond.
American Baptist?

American Baptist?

Do what now?

It might also have something to do with th white wedding thing as a little girl, Church wedding and all.
Too bad that they get to college and get given it.:p

I went to a church wedding once. It went beautifully until the Reverend decided to use the time to preach to the audience, for like 30 mins. I was turning green but managed to endure till the end of the service. And then I excused meself and left.

Can you have a church wedding without the prosetlyzing? Or are they like concomitant or something. :mad:

You go to a church wedding, you deserve everything you get.

Receptions FTFW.

My family never really proded me to be a christain. I mean when we were all kids we had to go to church and crap but we have never had strong religious beliefs.

You shouldn't force your beliefs onto other people especially your kids as it has to be a self made decision...thats one of the reasons i dislike christianity...the people all try and convert everyone else.

Now your older than me...and i don't pretend to know everything i say but a prolonged discomfort or unhappiness in my case has been down to a profound lonliness. If you are still unhappy perhaps you need to consider who the people you surround yourself with are.

My friend meant the world to me...and she was the only real person that i liked to spend time with...of course i only realised this after she died. The people who tried to comfort me and help me, my apparent friends...well i couldn't stand them...i relaised that the people i had surrounded myself with were people i disliked, hated and loathed...my friend gave me the confidence to tell people just how i felt about them and i am alot happier for it.

Not that this is the same with you but just ask yourself who are your friends and who are the people that you associate with.

I went to a church wedding once. It went beautifully until the Reverend decided to use the time to preach to the audience, for like 30 mins. I was turning green but managed to endure till the end of the service. And then I excused meself and left.

Can you have a church wedding without the prosetlyzing? Or are they like concomitant or something. :mad:

Unless the Rev instituted his will over the couple to insert the sermon, it's likely that the bride and groom rubber-stamped that part of the ceremony, at the very least.

If my girlfriend and I ever decide to get married, we've given more than passing consideration to just eloping and having various receptions here and there.

If you feel that you absolutely must have your wedding in a church, it might be the case that they won't allow you to dictate every aspect of the ceremony, but I'm certain that you could find a church that doesn't do that if getting married in a church was somehow important to you.

Speaking on behalf of all the females I know the opinions of....
Women aren't more religious they just either prefer showing what they feel, or they like wearing that particular symbol as jewellery!

I've had a pretty rough ride when it comes to Christianity. My father became a "you're going to Hell" born-again in 1985/6/whatever and subsequently began preaching to my mother that she and her entire family were going to hell.

My mother couldn't take it (it was the final straw heaped upon tons of emotional abuse) and she left him. I didn't really understand it in the front of my mind, but I read enough into the situation that I somehow concluded that I had better try to be a good Christian or else I won't be allowed to stay, either.

My father became born-again when I was 6/7/whatever. I didn't really see things for what they were until I was 22/23.

I had been incredibly depressed before that, but after that, my depression became much worse. I think that I knew that what I was doing regarding religion was only being done to please my father, to make it so that he wouldn't reject me. After all, he rejected my mother, why not reject his oldest son? This feeling was made even more poignant when he remarried and had more children with his new wife and made me feel more marginalized as a person... much of the same kind of emotional abuse he had been heaping on my mother.

Now, my father is an asshole, and that, by itself, doesn't really have anything to do with religion. However, I still have a hard time separating my experience with my father from my experience of God. Thus, I've discarded Christianity wholesale.

I've discovered plenty of other reasons to reject Christianity as a religion since, but that was certainly the first and primary reason. I was already depressed at the time, so you'd think that rejecting the religion would be some kind of relief, but it wasn't.

I believe I have my friends and family to thank for keeping me connected, even if it was strained or tenuous at the time.

I still remember, however, how one of my "friends" used to tell me that he believed my depression was being caused by demonic attack. At first, I considered this as a possibility... later on, however, I realized that it was yet another scare tactic, yet another attempt to keep you bound to yet another fucked-up belief system.

I was initially seeking religion out of fear, and I think that is what drives many people to seek it. They may not seem fearful, but if you prod them enough with questions like, "What if God really doesn't exist?" or "What if you're not believing the right religion?" you begin to see a frightening denial of reality and tattered hope based in fear of nothingness in the Great Beyond.

Wow. And I thought I had it bad. :(

Anyways, you have it better now. The God I believe in loves Porn, Chocolate, Interstellar Travel and Kick-Ass Walking Robots. Unless any of the above sweet things get smote into non-existence tomorrow, I will stand by my belief. :D

I went to a church wedding once. It went beautifully until the Reverend decided to use the time to preach to the audience, for like 30 mins. I was turning green but managed to endure till the end of the service. And then I excused meself and left.

Can you have a church wedding without the prosetlyzing? Or are they like concomitant or something. :mad:
Speak english please!:p
prosetlyzing???
concomitant???
I don't know if any other types of Christianity bother with the Priest to couple councilling prior to the wedding.
I imagine most Churches would like to see those getting married in their churches to actually stay as parishoners...

Speaking on behalf of all the females I know the opinions of....
Women aren't more religious they just either prefer showing what they feel, or they like wearing that particular symbol as jewellery!

its like i said women are more comfortrable with crosses and faith, but for many women crosses don't actually represent christianity, they represent love or feelings, i know that women always love to recieve a cross as a gift as it represents love.:p

Speaking on behalf of all the females I know the opinions of....
Women aren't more religious they just either prefer showing what they feel, or they like wearing that particular symbol as jewellery!

You mean the diamond-studded platinum cross or the fancy-colored crystal one? :rolleyes:

Wow. And I thought I had it bad. :(

Anyways, you have it better now. The God I believe in loves Porn, Chocolate, Interstellar Travel and Kick-Ass Walking Robots. Unless any of the above sweet things get smote into non-existence tomorrow, I will stand by my belief. :D

Much obliged. :)

I think I'll keep to my non-God existence, though. I wouldn't say it's comforting to be facing the world as it is, but I'll take having my eyes open over the alternative.

You mean the diamond-studded platinum cross or the fancy-colored crystal one? :rolleyes:
LOL it is like that Kaballah BS, let us all wear Red Wrist bands!

Speak english please!:p
prosetlyzing???
concomitant???
I don't know if any other types of Christianity bother with the Priest to couple councilling prior to the wedding.
I imagine most Churches would like to see those getting married in their churches to actually stay as parishoners...

Typo. :)

Typo. :)
Me or you? >.<

Much obliged. :)

I think I'll keep to my non-God existence, though. I wouldn't say it's comforting to be facing the world as it is, but I'll take having my eyes open over the alternative.

Right-O.

Just so you know, my God doesn't smite non-believers in God, Porn or Chocolate. Lunatic Goofballs is familiar with that sort of thing. :D

I could imagine Lunatic Goofballs being a Marriag Celebrant.:)

Me or you? >.<

Me. Should be proselytize. BTW is it just me or do people find Straughn's posts conceptually difficult? I don't get many of his implied references.

snip...
I don't know if any other types of Christianity bother with the Priest to couple councilling prior to the wedding.

Pre-marital counseling really isn't a bad idea... it doesn't have anything to do with religion--getting married is a pretty big deal, and you'd like to think that you're not going to make a life-altering decision like that without at least getting some consultation beforehand. However, I really only think this applies to very young people (i.e., a "word to the wise" before you sign your life away at the age of 19 or something). I don't really see it as being useful or necessary for older folks.

I imagine most Churches would like to see those getting married in their churches to actually stay as parishoners...

Of course churches would like to see their newlywed couple in church the following Sunday. They need all the warm bodies they can get (cold bodies don't contribute to the collection plate).

I only have one close friend who's religious at all, and she's just about agnostic. Over all I'd say it was half and half, I know more women closely than men. Most of my friends are athiests or agnostics.

Can you have a church wedding without the prosetlyzing? Or are they like concomitant or something. :mad:

Go to a Methodist of Lutheren church wedding-- 20 min (the methodist one I just went to)-- no lie- it was awesome!

Go to a Methodist of Lutheren church wedding-- 20 min (the methodist one I just went to)-- no lie- it was awesome!

Don't think I can choose the religion of my friends, ma'am. Unless it's my own wedding, which will probably be a simple reception or something. I am allergic to crosses...er... makes me...er...breathe funny and get rashes! Yeah, that's right.

Go to a Methodist of Lutheren church wedding-- 20 min (the methodist one I just went to)-- no lie- it was awesome!
Well shit i am converting.

To an extent, I agree. Women do tend to be more openly religious than men in my experience.

Part of it, as has been said, is simply that women in general find it easier to vocally express themselves. Given a religious group that is half male, half female, more of the women will be prepared to stand up and state their case and beliefs than the men. That's nothing so much in religiosity itself as much as simple differences in relating to other people.

A second aspect is the approach that people take to artistic value over factual truth. There is a surprisingly profound quite from South Park that sums up one attitude to religion quite well:

Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it.
Subconsciously, a lot of people subscribe to this view. The demonstrated benefits of feigning support for the historical message of a movement are enough to justify sticking to it even when the message itself is complete nonsense. Peoples' communities and churches provide support and guidance to their members, and when these benefits are so strong, it can be beneficial to try to force yourself to believe in order to gain them even if you can't naturally do so.

This idea is a common one within those who have been raised to become dependent on those around them (which is these days quite common in young girls). The benefits are believing are great, so they believe. The stories are but a means to an end.

Finally, of course, is trust. In my experience, men are inherently suspicious of everything and learn to trust over time. On the other hand, women seem to be more trusting naturally, and then become fiercely suspicious whenever that trust is violated. Men therefore naturally are unaligned and typically have the more arduous task of needing to be convinced that a given religion is worth putting faith into. Women, on the other hand, are given these religious ideas by those they trust and tend to need reasons for why it is not worth putting faith into in order to displace that.

Cos they think angels are teh hawtness.

To an extent, I agree. Women do tend to be more openly religious than men in my experience.

Part of it, as has been said, is simply that women in general find it easier to vocally express themselves. Given a religious group that is half male, half female, more of the women will be prepared to stand up and state their case and beliefs than the men. That's nothing so much in religiosity itself as much as simple differences in relating to other people.

A second aspect is the approach that people take to artistic value over factual truth. There is a surprisingly profound quite from South Park that sums up one attitude to religion quite well:


Subconsciously, a lot of people subscribe to this view. The demonstrated benefits of feigning support for the historical message of a movement are enough to justify sticking to it even when the message itself is complete nonsense. Peoples' communities and churches provide support and guidance to their members, and when these benefits are so strong, it can be beneficial to try to force yourself to believe in order to gain them even if you can't naturally do so.

This idea is a common one within those who have been raised to become dependent on those around them (which is these days quite common in young girls). The benefits are believing are great, so they believe. The stories are but a means to an end.

Finally, of course, is trust. In my experience, men are inherently suspicious of everything and learn to trust over time. On the other hand, women seem to be more trusting naturally, and then become fiercely suspicious whenever that trust is violated. Men therefore naturally are unaligned and typically have the more arduous task of needing to be convinced that a given religion is worth putting faith into. Women, on the other hand, are given these religious ideas by those they trust and tend to need reasons for why it is not worth putting faith into in order to displace that.

Wow that was clear and succinct. :)

I believe this video of a crazy religious lady is pertinent to this thread.
http://www.gkko.com/videos/821/trading-spouses-religious-lady

I believe this video of a crazy religious lady is pertinent to this thread.
http://www.gkko.com/videos/821/trading-spouses-religious-lady
That women is hilarious, 'I AM A GOD WARRIOR!'

I believe this video of a crazy religious lady is pertinent to this thread.
http://www.gkko.com/videos/821/trading-spouses-religious-lady

Disturbing. Yessy yes.

I believe this video of a crazy religious lady is pertinent to this thread.
http://www.gkko.com/videos/821/trading-spouses-religious-lady
You call that a woman? That, sir, is a monster!

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.
Two words: learned helplessness.

Two words: learned helplessness.

Some pretty proactive learnt helplessness I've seen.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.
Perhaps because women are more in touch with their emotions and many religious organizations play on that?

Perhaps because women are more in touch with their emotions and many religious organizations play on that?

I am in touch with my emotions. I may openly weep like Max.

Do you think that the emotional aspects of religions are especially attractive to women? Like the repeated (and poorly qualified) use of "Love" in the Bible.

(I see that you did not get over the USian thingy. Oh well.)

To the OP:

Women seem more religious because most of the men are only religious so they can bang the religious women.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

Those crosses may be a fashion statement... or men are just more shy about wearing anything resembling jewellery.

Where I come from, the majority of people are agnostic, but as for religious people, there are just as many female Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc. as there are male ones.

Those crosses may be a fashion statement... or men are just more shy about wearing anything resembling jewellery.

Where I come from, the majority of people are agnostic, but as for religious people, there are just as many female Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc. as there are male ones.

But when you really think about it, women HAVE to be more religious, regardless. Especially in middle-eastern religions, but not limited to them. The reason why is because men are almost ALWAYS portrayed as the better of the two, and women almost ALWAYS have more restrictions and punishments laid upon them according to the dogma of their religion.

I can safely state that this particular woman is not religious, though I sometimes swing between ateheism and agnosticism.

O now I'll share one my favorite quotes from house (Cameron and Foreman discussing the possibility of there being a god):

Cameron: "If there is some higher order running the universe its probably so differnt from anything our species can conieve theres no point in thinking about it..."

Foreman: "So you think god might exist, but you don't think about it? Its the most important issue since-"

Cameron: "I think penguins might as well speculate about nuclear physics."

But when you really think about it, women HAVE to be more religious, regardless. Especially in middle-eastern religions, but not limited to them. The reason why is because men are almost ALWAYS portrayed as the better of the two, and women almost ALWAYS have more restrictions and punishments laid upon them according to the dogma of their religion.

That makes the men just as religious, at least in appearance, as they are subscribing to the religious views of women and use their religion as an excuse to treat them in certain ways.

I can safely state that this particular woman is not religious, though I sometimes swing between ateheism and agnosticism.

O now I'll share one my favorite quotes from house (Cameron and Foreman discussing the possibility of there being a god):

Cameron: "If there is some higher order running the universe its probably so differnt from anything our species can conieve theres no point in thinking about it..."

Foreman: "So you think god might exist, but you don't think about it? Its the most important issue since-"

Cameron: "I think penguins might as well speculate about nuclear physics."

You look down on Penguins? Bad move. Penguins are always prepared. Dressed to the nines.

I'm urr...a little new to this whole forum business, but where I'm from, it's about 50/50.
I haven't read the whole 8 pages, but here in England more men go to church....

That makes the men just as religious, at least in appearance, as they are subscribing to the religious views of women and use their religion as an excuse to treat them in certain ways.

Yeah, but they know that when they sign up for a religion, they aren't gonna get treated like shit for dressing a certain way (to an extent) or speaking out of turn, or wanting to be in charge. That's not something you can say about most classic religions.

EDIT: The fact that women can't be priests is a very glaring example of something like that. "Oh, you can serve him but not have a direct link to him like us men can."

Yeah, but they know that when they sign up for a religion, they aren't gonna get treated like shit for dressing a certain way (to an extent) or speaking out of turn, or wanting to be in charge. That's not something you can say about most classic religions.

EDIT: The fact that women can't be priests is a very glaring example of something like that. "Oh, you can serve him but not have a direct link to him like us men can."

But they buy it! And they buy miracle skincare creams too. Oh well.

*Spreads miracle skincare cream thick over toasty bread.*

Cameron: "I think penguins might as well speculate about nuclear physics."
Maybe they do. Penguins are cool like that.

I think that women wear gold crosses and stuff generally because they've seen Christiana Aguilera et al wearing them and think : "Hmm... boys find her attractive and she wears a gold cross. I am a minger, but as soon as I wear one I have to be subliminally more attractive to them, yeah?"

Or that's how it is in York, anyway. Eugh...

Anyway, I've seen no real evidence that women are more into religion.

I'm not sure I see it, but it would be ironic if most adherents to patriarchal, cheuvanistic religions were women.

I'm not sure I see it, but it would be ironic if most adherents to patriarchal, cheuvanistic religions were women.

He's not saying it in value of NUMBERS of women, but simply to the extent that they're religious.

I think that women wear gold crosses and stuff generally because they've seen Christiana Aguilera et al wearing them and think : "Hmm... boys find her attractive and she wears a gold cross. I am a minger, but as soon as I wear one I have to be subliminally more attractive to them, yeah?"

Or that's how it is in York, anyway. Eugh...

Anyway, I've seen no real evidence that women are more into religion.

Yeah, gold crosses. Aren't they ironic? In that crosses were Roman execution instruments. Oh well.

Why don't women wear gold Pagan symbols? I've only seen one girl wearing a metallic pentagram in my entire life. Of course, she was wearing gothic make-up and stuff...

Hey I have an idea. What if women wear crosses as a symbol of their chastity? Like the Muslim headscarf?

Yeah, gold crosses. Aren't they ironic? In that crosses were Roman execution instruments. Oh well.

Why don't women wear gold Pagan symbols? I've only seen one girl wearing a metallic pentagram in my entire life. Of course, she was wearing gothic make-up and stuff...

Hey I have an idea. What if women wear crosses as a symbol of their chastity? Like the Muslim headscarf?

Because then none of the girls in a Catholic school would be able to wear them.

Because then none of the girls in a Catholic school would be able to wear them.

No I mean as an appearance of chastity... wait. Are you saying what I think you're saying?

No I mean as an appearance of chastity... wait. Are you saying what I think you're saying?

Yar! Slight exaggeration, I know, but from personal experience, every single catholic school girl I've met has drank, smoked, some have done drugs, and all of them partied like college seniors, which includes at the very least having given oral.

Chaste my ass. My ass is chaste.

Yar! Slight exaggeration, I know, but from personal experience, every single catholic school girl I've met has drank, smoked, some have done drugs, and all of them partied like college seniors, which includes at the very least having given oral.

Chaste my ass. My ass is chaste.

Well well. Out goes my hypothesis. Maybe the cross is a symbol of a good family and a fine upbringing. Huh, how's that? Like a status symbol.

I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

Just because a person wears a cross around her neck doesn't mean that she's particularly spiritual. A lot of people consider crosses simply jewelry.

:confused:

Just because a person wears a cross around her neck doesn't mean that she's particularly spiritual. A lot of people consider crosses simply jewelry.

:confused:

I haven't met a non-Christian who wears a cross simply as jewellery. Yet.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

wearing crosses does not make u religious in the least. I have firends who wear crosses cuz it makes them "look gangster".

Women into Chrisitanity are into love and compassion becsuae that it waht the bible demands from there women of God. Both women and men that have faith ignor the "contradictions" becasue there are none at least not with the bible there are contradictions with other Christians but thats the great thing about Chrisitanity, we are not them and are not linked to them we are just followers of God. I am a woman of God and i know full well this history of things some Christians have done that is why i no longer accoicate with the religion. Yes Christians have done bad things but so have many other religions killing in the name of there God and such. It is the best thing anyone had descovered becasue it's freedom and a life with God.

I am a woman of God and i know full well this history of things some Christians have done that is why i no longer accoicate with the religion. Yes Christians have done bad things but so have many other religions killing in the name of there God and such. It is the best thing anyone had descovered becasue it's freedom and a life with God.

:confused: So do you call yourself a Christian or no? And do you wear a cross?

Personally, I think that if people weren't having all this religious nonsense pumped into us when we're young and our brains soft as mush, we'd never buy into it. Personally, I was raised with no religion, but I do have a strong sense of personal ethics and morals which guides me (yes, somewhat shaped by society and therefore also by religion to an extent, I don't deny that). If I come across a bible in the bookstore I might pick it up, look at it and have a laugh or two, then toss it back into the bargain bin with the other junk.

Aside from the fact that I have no faith ina supreme being, I simply couldn't convert to some paternalistic religion which tells me the bad crap of the world is my fault, or that I am somehow worth less, or am meant to be subservient, simply because I have a differing set of genetalia than males. Screw that noise.

Please note: I'm not some crazy male hating feminist. I dig men very much but I do think the genders are both equal, just that men tend to be better at killing stuff or injuring themselves, and we tend to be better at not being stupid. :p

Please note: I'm not some crazy male hating feminist. I dig men very much but I do think the genders are both equal, just that men tend to be better at killing stuff or injuring themselves, and we tend to be better at not being stupid. :p

That is men before their thirties. After that they become so scared of death they just order the younger turks to kill stuff and injure themselves.

Not me, no ma'am. Not my department. I just do Porn and Chocolate.

:confused: So do you call yourself a Christian or no?
Why should that matter? The social movement of Christianity does not hold sole authority over God, Jesus or the Cross.

Well, it's really hard to say. Here is why:

WOMEN
- I hate most women
- I am forced to interact with whatever women I do interact with because I work with them
- they are all religious, although some of them are into a weird new agey religion and some are generic bible-beaters
- most of the people in this job are blue-collar, and blue-collar people tend to be more religious

MEN
- I prefer hanging out with guys
- there are no guys at my workplace except the I.T. guys, and I have no idea if they're religious because they don't come around much
- they guys I do hang out with I do so on purpose
- none of the guys I hang out with are religious, but I would never hang out with religious people on purpose

This is why most of the religious people I know are women, but it's obviously a skewed sample.

I don't find that we women are more into religion than men. Most of the women I know find most religions pretty appalling in their treatment of women and opt for paganism or agnosticism.

However, when you do find a "religious" woman, she's usually pretty vocal about it, so maybe that makes it seem like more women are into religion.

I haven't met a non-Christian who wears a cross simply as jewellery. Yet.

I've been known to wear a cross.

I've been known to wear a cross.

Like upside down, eh Jimmy? ;)

I don't find that we women are more into religion than men. Most of the women I know find most religions pretty appalling in their treatment of women and opt for paganism or agnosticism.

However, when you do find a "religious" woman, she's usually pretty vocal about it, so maybe that makes it seem like more women are into religion.
A lot of women are in a position where their only outlet is religion.

In my boyfriend's home community, women pretty much aren't allowed to do anything except stay at home or go to church. Women aren't supposed to have jobs or hobbies that take them out of the home. Women certainly aren't supposed to be in any position of power in the community, let alone run for office or something.

But women are encouraged to be a part of the church. They are encouraged to run a lot of church events, and to hold leadership positions in the congregation. They can't be priests, of course, but at least they can gain some status and power and have an interest outside the home.

So women tend to be very, very active in the church. Men, who can have hobbies and jobs and lives of their own, are not as active in the church, because they have other things they can do with their time.

Like upside down, eh Jimmy? ;)

Damn. Busted.:D

I'm a female, and I'm not religious.

A lot of women are in a position where their only outlet is religion.

In my boyfriend's home community, women pretty much aren't allowed to do anything except stay at home or go to church. Women aren't supposed to have jobs or hobbies that take them out of the home. Women certainly aren't supposed to be in any position of power in the community, let alone run for office or something.

But women are encouraged to be a part of the church. They are encouraged to run a lot of church events, and to hold leadership positions in the congregation. They can't be priests, of course, but at least they can gain some status and power and have an interest outside the home.

So women tend to be very, very active in the church. Men, who can have hobbies and jobs and lives of their own, are not as active in the church, because they have other things they can do with their time.

Where is this sad place? I'll be sure and avoid it. It's troubling that intelligent people feel compelled to tolerate situations like this.

I'm a female, and I'm not religious.

Can I have a piece of Terrorist Cake please? Is it like a super chocolatey truffle flavor?

Can I have a piece of Terrorist Cake please? Is it like a super chocolatey truffle flavor?

It's every flavour. It's all encompassing.

I think it's simply a case of self-preservation.

You won't see these crosses and stuff where men are overwhelmingly secular. It's only in places where religion is an integral part of daily life.

Women are more intelligent than men. They always have been. Men are driven by hormones while women are driven by their brains. That's because they (women) feel trapped in their bodies. Men don't get pregnant. Men don't have periods. That's why women rely more on their brains.

Coming to the self-preservation part, in a conservative place, if women are not overtly religious, they become targets for agressive men. On the other hand, if women are overtly religious, bad men will think twice before harming them. Good men will be good regardless of the women's religious nature.

Where is this sad place? I'll be sure and avoid it. It's troubling that intelligent people feel compelled to tolerate situations like this.
It's in New England, believe it or not. The Bible Belt isn't the only place where religious nutters can run the show. :(

It's every flavour. It's all encompassing.

Hmmmm chocolate-covered coconut! With fresh strawberries and cream.

*Licks*

I love Chocolate. You deserve a fluffle for such a flavorful cake. :fluffle:

You won't see these crosses and stuff where men are overwhelmingly secular. It's only in places where religion is an integral part of daily life.

Of course. You wouldn't see people doing anything if that wasn't a part of their society's culture.

Women are more intelligent than men. They always have been. Men are driven by hormones while women are driven by their brains. That's because they (women) feel trapped in their bodies. Men don't get pregnant. Men don't have periods. That's why women rely more on their brains.

Women are not more intelligent than men, or vice versa. Gender does not determine intelligence. Assuming that having the abililty to become pregnant somehow makes women smarter than men just shows your ignorance. Not only that, it's sexist.

Coming to the self-preservation part, in a conservative place, if women are not overtly religious, they become targets for agressive men. On the other hand, if women are overtly religious, bad men will think twice before harming them. Good men will be good regardless of the women's religious nature.

I'm somewhat aggressive, but I don't target people that are non-religious. I target people that take things too far for my liking, or personally target me for a vague or non-existant reason.

Sometimes, I get the distinct feeling that Canadians are more intelligent than Americans...

Of course. You wouldn't see people doing anything if that wasn't a part of their society's culture.
I didn't say "people". I said "men". In this day and age, we will hardly find women exclusively being religious, if men were overwhelming secular.


Women are not more intelligent than men, or vice versa. Gender does not determine intelligence. Assuming that having the abililty to become pregnant somehow makes women smarter than men just shows your ignorance. Not only that, it's sexist.
Because , they feel trapped in their bodies, they learn fast not to overly trust their body and rely more on their brains. They use their brains more and hence, they are more intelligent.


I'm somewhat aggressive, but I don't target people that are non-religious. I target people that take things too far for my liking, or personally target me for a vague or non-existant reason.
You're only somewhat aggressive. Everybody is. I'm talking about murderers and rapists. Really bad people will think twice before targeting women who are overtly religious.

To sum it up, you totally mis-read my post...

I didn't say "people". I said "men". In this day and age, we will hardly find women exclusively being religious, if men were overwhelming secular.

But aren't men people too? :p

Because , they feel trapped in their bodies, they learn fast not to overly trust their body and rely more on their brains. They use their brains more and hence, they are more intelligent.

What do you mean by "intelligence"? Do you mean common sense, or actual "school" intelligence? Personally, I think this is flawed. Your brain is a part of your body, so trusting it IS trusting your body. You can't show me any statistics or evidence that proves to me that women uses their brains more than men, or that proves that they are smarter than men. Even if women did learn to "not trust their body", that just implies that all men do it think about sex, which is still sexist.

You're only somewhat aggressive. Everybody is. I'm talking about murderers and rapists. Really bad people will think twice before targeting women who are overtly religious.

Really bad people will target you regardless. Religion can't cast a "shield" around you to protect you from harm.

To sum it up, you totally mis-read my post...

Possible. :)

Neither do men. :rolleyes:
Ah, but women are naturally predisposed to contradiction and inconsistency. Makes them perfect for religion:rolleyes: Seriously though, I find that most girls are not into the analytical side of religion, favouring secular humanism, passive agnostiscism, or apathetic belief in selected religion. Rare is the debate on politics and/or religion to be had with a female. Further, when their belief systems are challenged, It is frequently misread as a personal attack of some kind. Of course there are a exceptions, but this generalisation is for the most part true. Yeah, argueing with women is no fun, it always has to be about them and their feelings...

Women are gentler than men, that is why.
From my point of view, if true (which I do not believe it is), it would be a flaw rather then a benifit

Sometimes, I get the distinct feeling that Canadians are more intelligent than Americans...
heehee. Couldn't blame you for that one:p Thought, to be fair, I think it would be fairer to assume that Canadians put their intelligence towards less stupid things.

heehee. Couldn't blame you for that one:p Thought, to be fair, I think it would be fairer to assume that Canadians put their intelligence towards less stupid things.
Yeah, that's probably more accurate.

The idea that women are more intelligent than men is laughable at best. I've met plenty of stupid women as well as stupid men. As rare as intelligence is, it can hardly afford to be gender-specific.

The idea that women are more intelligent than men is laughable at best. I've met plenty of stupid women as well as stupid men. As rare as intelligence is, it can hardly afford to be gender-specific.
It is not laughable, it is worth looking into seriously.

Most of human progress is the result of women's intelligence, the same intelligence that helps them plan for the long term, instead of preparing for the next orgasm, like men do.

It is not laughable, it is worth looking into seriously.

Most of human progress is the result of women's intelligence, the same intelligence that helps them plan for the long term, instead of preparing for the next orgasm, like men do.
Most of human progress ivolves the work of both Men AND Women. Both genders are integral to the evolution of mankind (not necessarily darwinian evolutionsism), and to say one gender is better than the other cheapens the whole experience. It's the same principal that draws the line between feminists and feminazis.

It is not laughable, it is worth looking into seriously.

Most of human progress is the result of women's intelligence, the same intelligence that helps them plan for the long term, instead of preparing for the next orgasm, like men do.
Any data other then empty claims?

It is not laughable, it is worth looking into seriously.

Most of human progress is the result of women's intelligence, the same intelligence that helps them plan for the long term, instead of preparing for the next orgasm, like men do.

Here's something to consider. Anyone who has ever invented anything that has truly changed the world and how it works, such as, say, a light bulb -- was male. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Alexander Graham Bell are major examples. But, funny, I can't find one woman that has made the same impact.

And personally, i don't really think about my next orgasm all that much. In fact, it somewhat disturbs me that you spend so much effort thinking that that's all that men do.

And personally, i don't really think about my next orgasm all that much. In fact, it somewhat disturbs me that you spend so much effort thinking that that's all that men do.

Maybe it turns her on... :D

Here's something to consider. Anyone who has ever invented anything that has truly changed the world and how it works, such as, say, a light bulb -- was male. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Alexander Graham Bell are major examples. But, funny, I can't find one woman that has made the same impact.
ANYONE?

How about people like Stephanie Kwolek: who invented kevlar
or Grace Hopper who invented COBOL still used at times today and revolutionized the computer industry

?

Most of human progress ivolves the work of both Men AND Women. Both genders are integral to the evolution of mankind (not necessarily darwinian evolutionsism), and to say one gender is better than the other cheapens the whole experience. It's the same principal that draws the line between feminists and feminazis.
I totally agree.
The whole experience of evolution of humankind has been cheapened for women. Only recently have they sighted any semblance of equality.

I don't think feminists and feminazis can be differentiated by this principle.

Feminists recognize the injustice meted out to women throughout history and try to achieve equality from now onwards.

Feminazis want revenge and want to punish men for what they did.

Needless to say, I advocate the former "Ism".

ANYONE?

How about people like Stephanie Kwolek: who invented kevlar
or Grace Hopper who invented COBOL still used at times today and revolutionized the computer industry

?

Oh, I forgot about Kevlar. Yes, there's one woman. But I was just being horribly sarcastic. I KNOW that there are women out there that invent things that truly benefit humanity, men and women alike.

Here's something to consider. Anyone who has ever invented anything that has truly changed the world and how it works, such as, say, a light bulb -- was male. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Alexander Graham Bell are major examples. But, funny, I can't find one woman that has made the same impact.

Really? Everything useful was invented by a male? I guess you're ready to live your life without stoves, grain elevators, fire escapes, life rafts, life preservers, step ladders, ice machines, heaters (for cars and home), syringes, ventilators, wheel chairs, and toothbrushes, to name a few.

Really? Everything useful was invented by a male? I guess you're ready to live your life without stoves, grain elevators, fire escapes, life rafts, life preservers, step ladders, ice machines, heaters (for cars and home), syringes, ventilators, wheel chairs, and toothbrushes, to name a few.

I don't use any of those! :D

And, I was being sarcastic. Read my last post. :)

I totally agree.
The whole experience of evolution of humankind has been cheapened for women. Only recently have they sighted any semblance of equality.

I don't think feminists and feminazis can be differentiated by this principle.

Feminists recognize the injustice meted out to women throughout history and try to achieve equality from now onwards.

Feminazis want revenge and want to punish men for what they did.

Needless to say, I advocate the former "Ism".
I see feminazis as women who blame men as a whole for their sense of inequality, instead of a group of individuals in history. It is equally sexist to blame men in general for gender inequality as it is for men to think that women are inferior. I get tired of being lumped in with a bunch of people who were blinded by their cultural bias.

I don't use any of those! :D

And, I was being sarcastic. Read my last post. :)
Sarcasm is a risky game. There are many who either can't or won't bother to notice.

I don't use any of those! :D

And, I was being sarcastic. Read my last post. :)

Sarcasm or not, that was a hurtful post. It didn't appear sarcastic; it appeared like the rantings of a male supremesist, something women have had to deal with for thousands of years.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys.

Could it be that women tend to express emotion and such more than men, so you see their religiosity more clearly as well?

I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.

I see a lot more women that wear jewelry in general than men. I don't think this proves much of anything.

And why when women are into Christianity they are in all that love and compassion stuff and completely ignore its contradictions, logical absurdities and bloody history? It's like Christianity appeared yesterday, all pure and clean and is the best thing that anyone discovered.

Why do people always look at the way an idea has been misused and then try and use that as a justification for dismissing it out of hand? There is nothing inherent in Christianity that is bloody. One need not ignore the history of the church to see that much of what they did was a misuse of Christ's teachings - or even outright ignoring them.

And as for contradictions and logical absurdities - again, these usually are a part of the church, not an inherent problem in Christianity.

Yeah, about that. Shouldn't they have an issue with that?

This sounds sick, but I guess some women may like Christianity in the same way that women fall in love with their kidnappers. Some kind of psychological stuff.

Or maybe some women look at the Old Testament and the many descriptions of mistreatment of women as a description of a culture that has long since evolved and bettered itself.

Sarcasm or not, that was a hurtful post. It didn't appear sarcastic; it appeared like the rantings of a male supremesist, something women have had to deal with for thousands of years.

I could just turn around and say that human evolution being based mostly on the intelligence of the female was a hurtful post, but I won't. I honestly don't care. If you found it hurtful, then sorry, but I can't please everyone.

Here's something to consider. Anyone who has ever invented anything that has truly changed the world and how it works, such as, say, a light bulb -- was male. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Alexander Graham Bell are major examples. But, funny, I can't find one woman that has made the same impact.

Perhaps the single most important contribution to human progress made by women was agriculture. Men provided food by hunting, women by gathering. It's no surprise (and this is supported by many anthropologists) that women noticed that the same plants grew in the same places year after year and decided to see if they could control where the plants grew - hence the birth of farming. Medicine was another contribution made by women, first because women generally helped women give birth so they had to develop ways of making more comfortable and less dangerous, second, because, again, of the gathering aspect of prehistoric culture - women noticed that certain plants had certain medicinal effects - analgesic, aseptic, etc. Don't tell me that women haven't had an appreciable impact on anything world changing. Oh, and if you want modern - Marie Curie among many others. Do a little more research, just because the facts are hidden doesn't mean they aren't there.

I could just turn around and say that human evolution being based mostly on the intelligence of the female was a hurtful post, but I won't. I honestly don't care. If you found it hurtful, then sorry, but I can't please everyone.

I never claimed that women are more intelligent than men. One or two posters did. But you can't attack our entire gender for that.

I see feminazis as women who blame men as a whole for their sense of inequality, instead of a group of individuals in history. It is equally sexist to blame men in general for gender inequality as it is for men to think that women are inferior. I get tired of being lumped in with a bunch of people who were blinded by their cultural bias.
It's not sexist to tell the truth. Men have suppressed women since the dawn of human evolution by exploiting their relative physical weakness. They have used women's pregnancy as a weakness with which they subjugated women.

The power balance has always been in favour of men, because men have known how to use their pack behaviour to weaken women.

Unless this truth is accepted, real progress can't be realised.

You have nothing to feel inferior about other than your own skewed sense of reality.

[P.S.: Feminazis don't stop at blaming men, they want to take revenge on them.]

I never claimed that women are more intelligent than men. One or two posters did. But you can't attack our entire gender for that.
Just as ours cannot be attacked for the actions of a few retarded males.

Perhaps the single most important contribution to human progress made by women was agriculture. Men provided food by hunting, women by gathering. It's no surprise (and this is supported by many anthropologists) that women noticed that the same plants grew in the same places year after year and decided to see if they could control where the plants grew - hence the birth of farming. Medicine was another contribution made by women, first because women generally helped women give birth so they had to develop ways of making more comfortable and less dangerous, second, because, again, of the gathering aspect of prehistoric culture - women noticed that certain plants had certain medicinal effects - analgesic, aseptic, etc. Don't tell me that women haven't had an appreciable impact on anything world changing. Oh, and if you want modern - Marie Curie among many others. Do a little more research, just because the facts are hidden doesn't mean they aren't there.

Cool. I'm not saying that women have had no impact on the world, though.

I never claimed that women are more intelligent than men. One or two posters did. But you can't attack our entire gender for that.

I'm not attacking your whole gender.

A lot more social empowerment would be required. Women have been empowered loads since the Suffragette movement, but some women still look at statistics and say, "the average woman is paid less than the average man", which can be explained by the fact a lot of women elect to be stay-at-home mothers (income=0) after childbirth, etc, or the fact the kind of jobs women tend to do (secretarial) pays less than more male-dominated industries (engineering)... because of the skill level differential.

Actually, the statistics show that women in the same job with the same level of expertise often statistically get paid less, especially in male-dominated fields. It isn't a matter of looking at the salaries of *all* women, but of women working in the same fields as men.

Thus, the differences cannot be explained by women staying at home or women taking different jobs.

I think it's because a lot of women are waiting to be 'found' by 'that tall, dark, handsome rich man'. In my Year 8 class, out of all the girls there, I was the only one who didn't raise my hand when they asked "who wants to marry a rich man" (because money was not my priority). To this day, even males can't believe money isn't the main factor for choosing a partner (though these males tend to be the rich sort :p )... the fact most of my friends are actively searching for the elusive rich man, has probably compromised their studies or ambition to achieve anything valuable themselves.

Where do you live and what is wrong with the girls you know?

To truly discourage women from being religious, they have to be clearly, without question, above males. In terms of money, prestige, status... everything. They need to attain power themselves, before being discouraged to remove faith in a higher power that will 'help' them.

(a) Why do you want to discourage religion?
(b) Why would being "above" a man make a woman less likely to be religious?

EDIT: Because of the popular mentality that women must marry rich men, this could explain why men work hard to become rich (get the girl), and women work less hard, waiting for their prince to come (get the rich man)... thus why women feel unempowered financially.

Once again, what women do you know that don't work as hard as men (on average)?

It's not sexist to tell the truth. Men have suppressed women since the dawn of human evolution by exploiting their relative physical weakness. They have used women's pregnancy as a weakness with which they subjugated women.

The power balance has always been in favour of men, because men have known how to use their pack behaviour to weaken women.

Unless this truth is accepted, real progress can't be realised.

You have nothing to feel inferior about other than your own skewed sense of reality.

[P.S.: Feminazis don't stop at blaming men, they want to take revenge on them.]
Men? All men? Everywhere? You sure? Positive? Think extremely carefully before answering. I claim that it is sexist to blame the entire male gender for past events. Is it not equally sexist for a woman to look at a man and think 'oppressor' as it is for a man to see a woman and think 'weak'?

Also, you've no basis to call my sense of reality skewed, or to imply that i would feel inferior if it were the case.

Men? All men? Everywhere? You sure? Positive? Think extremely carefully before answering. I claim that it is sexist to blame the entire male gender for past events. Is it not equally sexist for a woman to look at a man and think 'oppressor' as it is for a man to see a woman and think 'weak'?

Jackpot! :D

Unless this truth is accepted, real progress can't be realised.

You have nothing to feel inferior about other than your own skewed sense of reality.Amen.

I'm not attacking your whole gender.

You did when you said that women never invented anything useful.



Just as ours cannot be attacked for the actions of a few retarded males.

Point is, I didn't attack your gender.

It's not sexist to tell the truth. Men have suppressed women since the dawn of human evolution by exploiting their relative physical weakness. They have used women's pregnancy as a weakness with which they subjugated women.

Well in one sense it was a weakness. Up until the 20th century, complications due to pregnancy resulted in a significantly high mortality rate. Fortunately men were always comming up with things like wars in order to equalize the playing field on the mortality scale.

Unfortunately, the oversimplistic view of the man putting down the woman is exactly that, oversimplistic.

You did when you said that women never invented anything useful.

Yes, I kind of did. Sorry.

Point is, I didn't attack your gender.
This is true. My apologies.

Yes, I kind of did. Sorry.

Forgiven.

This is true. My apologies.

Again, forgiven.

Men? All men? Everywhere? You sure? Positive? Think extremely carefully before answering. I claim that it is sexist to blame the entire male gender for past events. Is it not equally sexist for a woman to look at a man and think 'oppressor' as it is for a man to see a woman and think 'weak'?

Also, you've no basis to call my sense of reality skewed, or to imply that i would feel inferior if it were the case.
The exceptions only prove the rule.

You sense of reality is skewed the moment you start thinking that all would be well, once history is forgotten.

It's a survival tactic for a woman to look at a man and think 'oppresor'. It's a predatory tactic for a man to see a woman and think 'weak'.

I'll reiterate that you will stop feeling guilty for being male, once you accept the truth about mankind's history and start treating women on an equal basis to men. I'm not saying you should behave the same way (appearance-wise) with men and women. I'm saying you should bahave with equal respect.

It is not laughable, it is worth looking into seriously.

Most of human progress is the result of women's intelligence, the same intelligence that helps them plan for the long term, instead of preparing for the next orgasm, like men do.
Hahahahahah bwa ha ha ha ha h ah ah hee he he he he hee ho ho ho hooo ha hah hahh ahhh...
Well...Where to start?
Firstly, allow me to rebutt this specific post before I go into any great length on your theory. The idea that women's superior intelligence is responsible for 'most human progress' is inane. Aside from the fact that women aren't any more intelligent than men, historically women have rarely been in positions to use this alleged intelligence . This is not because men are superior, more like women weren't given a chance to contribute (until recently). Further, your view that men are perpetually planning their next orgasm reflects your marked ignorance on the subject of your criticism. Whilst it is true that the male sex drive is higher than womens, the the urge is hardly all consuming. If anything, these hormonal tensions are most often redirected into aggression, which is why men tend to 'get things done'.

Now the idea that women are more intelligent, as they are less physically inclined due to aspets of their body is a falllacy in logic. True, womens' bodies make them less physicaly inclined (usually). It is also true that women tend to be more cerebral than men. For this reason, engaging in more activites like reading watching TV, art, music, and writing. However, womens intelligence isn't at all tied to this. That is, just because they are using their brain doesn't mean they are more intelligent. For example, take tabloid magazines; here we see women engaging in inane cerebral entertainment, however reading these tabloids will not give them an advantage in understanding Steven Hawking's 'A brief history of time'. Intelligence is your deductive powers of intellectual analysis, not how much you use the grey muscle.

Now that I am done with your arguement, allow me to cap off by criticising you. You sound as if you are a little bitter. Perhaps you were manipulated and bested by an inscrupulous fellow. Nonetheless, your man-hate is very apparent as a flimsy front for your deep seated self-loathing and jealousy of the opposite gender. Don't despair though, being a woman isn't so bad at all. In fact you are just as good as any male (with the right attitude). If only you could recognise your equality with men, then perhaps you would no longer need to try and justify your superiority over them. Funny thing is, I can't decide whether you are a misinformed and nieve little girl, or bitter and jaded divorcee. If I could make one request of you, please don't be a teacher (Unless you already are, in which case, please be nice to the boys). The educations system does not need another deeply insecure role-model to take out their failings on the hopes and dreams of the youth. Unfortunately I must be off now, but if you do have anyqueries on the equality of Humankind (regardless of race, gender, or religion) do post, and I will get back to you.

The exceptions only prove the rule.

You sense of reality is skewed the moment you start thinking that all would be well, once history is forgotten.

It's a survival tactic for a woman to look at a man and think 'oppresor'. It's a predatory tactic for a man to see a woman and think 'weak'.

I'll reiterate that you will stop feeling guilty for being male, once you accept the truth about mankind's history and start treating women on an equal basis to men. I'm not saying you should behave the same way (appearance-wise) with men and women. I'm saying you should bahave with equal respect.
I do, you assumptive bigot. Your reactions towards me are extremely sexist. You have assumed from the start that i am biased against women, that i feel guilty for being male, and that i believe history should be forgotten. And i didn't ask if it was survival or predatory, i asked if it was sexist. A man saying a woman is weak, and a woman saying a man is an oppressor, are both working off the same level of sexual bias.

It's not sexist to tell the truth. Men have suppressed women since the dawn of human evolution by exploiting their relative physical weakness. They have used women's pregnancy as a weakness with which they subjugated women.

The power balance has always been in favour of men, because men have known how to use their pack behaviour to weaken women.

Unless this truth is accepted, real progress can't be realised.

You have nothing to feel inferior about other than your own skewed sense of reality.

[P.S.: Feminazis don't stop at blaming men, they want to take revenge on them.]


Sorry, Expera, I have to disagree. Early on in human evolution, the status of male and female was not unbalanced. There was a recognition that, while women had different gifts than men (regardless of how you "feel" this is fact) and therefore a different role in the culture, women and men were equal, and their contributions equally valued. Women who were capable did hunt and did wage war (Queen Boudica is an example). Men who were capable did nurture. There was and is no male conspiracy to dominate women. It was an unfortunate accident growing out of some diseased cultures.

I do, you assumptive bigot. Your reactions towards me are extremely sexist. You have assumed from the start that i am biased against women, that i feel guilty for being male, and that i believe history should be forgotten. And i didn't ask if it was survival or predatory, i asked if it was sexist. A man saying a woman is weak, and a woman saying a man is an oppressor, are both working off the same level of sexual bias.

"We hate in others what we see in ourselves."

That is a quote that my grade 9 English teacher once told me. It's actually very true, and this topic is proving it.

Now that I am done with your arguement, allow me to cap off by criticising you. You sound as if you are a little bitter. Perhaps you were manipulated and bested by an inscrupulous fellow. Nonetheless, your man-hate is very apparent as a flimsy front for your deep seated self-loathing and jealousy of the opposite gender. Don't despair though, being a woman isn't so bad at all. In fact you are just as good as any male (with the right attitude). If only you could recognise your equality with men, then perhaps you would no longer need to try and justify your superiority over them. Funny thing is, I can't decide whether you are a misinformed and nieve little girl, or bitter and jaded divorcee. If I could make one request of you, please don't be a teacher (Unless you already are, in which case, please be nice to the boys). The educations system does not need another deeply insecure role-model to take out their failings on the hopes and dreams of the youth. Unfortunately I must be off now, but if you do have anyqueries on the equality of Humankind (regardless of race, gender, or religion) do post, and I will get back to you.
Though slightly more acid-tipped than i would have used, this is a good argument. I also must be off. Feel free to further try to judge my personality, and i will get back to you... if i feel the need, anyway.

It's not sexist to tell the truth. Men have suppressed women since the dawn of human evolution by exploiting their relative physical weakness. They have used women's pregnancy as a weakness with which they subjugated women.

The power balance has always been in favour of men, because men have known how to use their pack behaviour to weaken women.

Unless this truth is accepted, real progress can't be realised.

You have nothing to feel inferior about other than your own skewed sense of reality.

[P.S.: Feminazis don't stop at blaming men, they want to take revenge on them.]
This I call Penis-owning-neo-hyper-feminism. I don't remember being briefed by the 'boys club' on these tactics. Damn! Why have I been competing when I could be attacking the opposite gender?

Seriously, anyone who actually believes in an organised patriarchy is an idiot. Sorry, Expera, but we aren't all against you. Men don't have secret meetings on the next womens rights advancement they are going to counter.

Besides, what further progress can there be? Women are now equal. They can work, vote, and all that stuff. Don't confuse the problems which face women in the 3rd world with those of your own.

To hit a little closer to home. The unfortunate truth is that you are unsuccessful because you weren't as good as everyone else at what ever you tried (men and women alike), not because of a global conspiracy of men which are trying to hold you down.

The exceptions only prove the rule.

You sense of reality is skewed the moment you start thinking that all would be well, once history is forgotten.

It's a survival tactic for a woman to look at a man and think 'oppresor'. It's a predatory tactic for a man to see a woman and think 'weak'.

I'll reiterate that you will stop feeling guilty for being male, once you accept the truth about mankind's history and start treating women on an equal basis to men. I'm not saying you should behave the same way (appearance-wise) with men and women. I'm saying you should bahave with equal respect.
I don't feel guilty. I treat women with the same respect I treat all people (unless they demand less through stupidity, or earn more through intelligence, wisdom, or general niceness). If a woman fails, then she was not up to the challenge facing her. Welcome to equality. It is easy to point your finger in the shadow of defeat, but it certainly does nothing for you situation. Don't worry though, men do this as well (well, they don't blame the patriachy), ever heard of "my parents", "the government", " society", "The Jews/asians/illegal immigrants", "that person", or "discrimination"? If you truly believe there is an organised coalition of men against you success, do something about it. Spite them with your success, Uncover them with your intellect, evade them with your crossdressing skills. But don't sit there and point.

<laughter>
Well...Where to start?
Firstly, allow me to rebutt this specific post before I go into any great length on your theory. The idea that women's superior intelligence is responsible for 'most human progress' is inane. Aside from the fact that women aren't any more intelligent than men, historically women have rarely been in positions to use this alleged intelligence . This is not because men are superior, more like women weren't given a chance to contribute (until recently). Further, your view that men are perpetually planning their next orgasm reflects your marked ignorance on the subject of your criticism. Whilst it is true that the male sex drive is higher than womens, the the urge is hardly all consuming. If anything, these hormonal tensions are most often redirected into aggression, which is why men tend to 'get things done'.
Mostly true and undisputable. Except for the fact that women are indeed more intelligent because of their inherent tendency to think for the long-term future. Men's hormonal tendencies are most often redirected into aggression, which is why men make wars and in those wars, rape and kill women indiscriminately. Once again, exceptions only prove the rule.


Now the idea that women are more intelligent, as they are less physically inclined due to aspets of their body is a falllacy in logic. True, womens' bodies make them less physicaly inclined (usually). It is also true that women tend to be more cerebral than men. For this reason, engaging in more activites like reading watching TV, art, music, and writing. However, womens intelligence isn't at all tied to this. That is, just because they are using their brain doesn't mean they are more intelligent. For example, take tabloid magazines; here we see women engaging in inane cerebral entertainment, however reading these tabloids will not give them an advantage in understanding Steven Hawking's 'A brief history of time'. Intelligence is your deductive powers of intellectual analysis, not how much you use the grey muscle.
Stephen Hawking's office has a blown-up poster of Marylin Monroe. Reading tabloids or gaping at a sexy poster doesn't mean that one is incapable of doing better things. The point is that neither Hawking's nor Helen Keller's disabilities stopped them from being great. These are all results of progressive movements like the feminist movement.


Now that I am done with your arguement, allow me to cap off by criticising you. You sound as if you are a little bitter. Perhaps you were manipulated and bested by an inscrupulous fellow. Nonetheless, your man-hate is very apparent as a flimsy front for your deep seated self-loathing and jealousy of the opposite gender. Don't despair though, being a woman isn't so bad at all. In fact you are just as good as any male (with the right attitude). If only you could recognise your equality with men, then perhaps you would no longer need to try and justify your superiority over them. Funny thing is, I can't decide whether you are a misinformed and nieve little girl, or bitter and jaded divorcee. If I could make one request of you, please don't be a teacher (Unless you already are, in which case, please be nice to the boys). The educations system does not need another deeply insecure role-model to take out their failings on the hopes and dreams of the youth. Unfortunately I must be off now, but if you do have anyqueries on the equality of Humankind (regardless of race, gender, or religion) do post, and I will get back to you. I'm not a feminazi. I think you'ld show tendencies of becoming one if you were a woman. I'm glad that you're not a woman. :D

Mostly true and undisputable. Except for the fact that women are indeed more intelligent because of their inherent tendency to think for the long-term future.

Long-term planning does not equate to intelligence, analytical powers equates to intelligence. I think what you mean to say is that long-term planning reflects intelligence. This is, however, still wrong. Long-term management skills are just that. They are neither complicated or hard to understand, and even a child can be taught to plan for the long term. Many artic animals plan for the long term by stockpiling fat reserves for hibernation. Ants plan for the long term future in the stockpiling of food for future use. Further, I challenge you on you wild allegation that women 'inherently' think for the long term. Most people I know (including men) think for the long term. The only group that consistently does not is teenagers and children.

Men's hormonal tendencies are most often redirected into aggression, which is why men make wars and in those wars, rape and kill women indiscriminately. Once again, exceptions only prove the rule.
Just like they kill men indiscriminately? Wars are horrible events comprised of horrible acts. Perhaps you meant to reference the way in which people kill other people indiscriminately in war. The rape is auxiliary to the killing, and usually precedes it. Men raping and killing women indiscriminately in wars is not a rule. In all of the wars of the 20th century, many women would have been raped by male soldiers. Compare this to the number of male soldiers in all wars. Rapists are the exception. The concept of men going to war to rape women is ridiculous. It's not all about you.

Stephen Hawking's office has a blown-up poster of Marylin Monroe. Reading tabloids or gaping at a sexy poster doesn't mean that one is incapable of doing better things. The point is that neither Hawking's nor Helen Keller's disabilities stopped them from being great. These are all results of progressive movements like the feminist movement.
You know very well that I said reading tabloids does not increase your ability to understand complex material requiring intelligence for full comprehension. I never said it would decrease your intelligence. The whole point is that frequency of cerebral activities does not actually influence your core intelligence,(i.e. your raw ability to breakdown and digest complicated data). The femenist movement was progressive, now it is encroaching.

I'm not a feminazi. I think you'ld show tendencies of becoming one if you were a woman. I'm glad that you're not a woman. :D
Clever. Did I add troll as a possibility to the previous list?:confused:

women like feeling morally superior to others.

women like feeling morally superior to others.

So do men. If they didn't, we wouldn't have religious wars.

So do men. If they didn't, we wouldn't have religious wars.

naah we just like to fight and will take any excuse to get in a good scuffle.

I think you're all being a little stupid here to some extent, using the terms "women" and "men" like they're two people. I don't think you all realize just how different everyone is and how incredibly unique a lot of people are, regardless of gender.

Women in one area can resemble a certain stereotype, women in another can resemble another steretype, women in yet another area can resemble nothing like you've ever seen before. All this, the same goes for men, on the exact same scale.

The women I know are some of the most blatant and radical athiests you will meet.

Probably just around your area, or you are somehow being sexist.

naah we just like to fight and will take any excuse to get in a good scuffle.

Yeah I've met a few guys who fit this description. At times, I feel like competing with other guys just to rank myself and be somewhat primal.

By no means does this mean every man feels this way, or that it's even a bad thing to feel this way. I'm not here to judge, and neither should anyone else.

Not entirely sure what you're talking about, but let me remind you of something: you're basing this off of the assumption that all people who wear crosses are christian. This is not my experience. Now beyond that, I could also remind you that perhaps the reason you don't see as many men wearing crosses is because most men don't wear jewelry, and those that do don't flaunt it around typically, of course there are exceptions. Beyond this, I can't say much, but I did go to an all-male catholic high school, and there are a lot of similar establishments, which have thousands of very religious men in them, and another thing: in the Catholic church (largest organization in the WORLD), only men can be priests. You may be on to something, try taking a poll to see the ratio of men who wear christian jewelry vs. female, that would be interesting.

naah we just like to fight and will take any excuse to get in a good scuffle.

So this is why Al Quaida and Hamas are fighting? Not because they feel morally superior, but just because they like to fight.

...
Further, I challenge you on you wild allegation that women 'inherently' think for the long term. Most people I know (including men) think for the long term. The only group that consistently does not is teenagers and children.
This is where periods and pregnancy come into the picture. The periodicity involved habituates women to the concept of planning for the long term. That's why they 'inherantly' think for the long term. Unless you're talking about nocturnal emissions (HUH!) in men, you can't be saying that men undergo such physical experiences regularly.


Just like they kill men indiscriminately? Wars are horrible events comprised of horrible acts. Perhaps you meant to reference the way in which people kill other people indiscriminately in war. The rape is auxiliary to the killing, and usually precedes it. Men raping and killing women indiscriminately in wars is not a rule. In all of the wars of the 20th century, many women would have been raped by male soldiers. Compare this to the number of male soldiers in all wars. Rapists are the exception. The concept of men going to war to rape women is ridiculous. It's not all about you.
It's not about me at all. It's about those raped and murdered women. Something which occurs with such unerring frequency in wars is definitely not an exception, it is the rule.

...
The femenist movement was progressive, now it is encroaching.
Non-sense! Encroaching? Get this straight: asking equal respect only encroaches on male superiority complex. You've got a big one, it seems. Are you over-compesating? As I said before, accept the truth of mankind's history and start stomping on your own male superiority complex. Then you'll feel the humanity to repect women equally without feeling encroached.

I've never had a wet dream. Again, stop talking about men like they're one person.

I do not think women are so into religion (coming from a women's point of view incase you were wondering). First of all, it really also depends on what country you're talking about. And wearing a cross doesn't specifically mean that you are religious. I think that there some men are just to macho to show that they are religious. I'm a women and I'm not religious.

The women I know are some of the most blatant and radical athiests you will meet.
Some of us consider that radical kind of atheism to fall under the general category of "religious".

Some of us consider that radical kind of atheism to fall under the general category of "religious".

That reminds me of what my history teacher said about communism and fascism. He said that if you bent the political spectrum into a ball, the communist and fascist ends would be closest, because the more you go to either side, the more you become like the other side.

I've never had a wet dream. Again, stop talking about men like they're one person.
No need to take offence. If you feel the need, you deserve it. It is enough to be reasonable and see that things should change for the better.

Regarding nocturnal emissions, you might not remember them. If you doubt about it, consult your doctor or peruse a knowledgeable information source about the topic.

No need to take offence. If you feel the need, you deserve it. It is enough to be reasonable and see that things should change for the better.

Regarding nocturnal emissions, you might not remember them. If you doubt about it, consult your doctor or peruse a knowledgeable information source about the topic.

You'd certainly remember the "evidence" left behind.

You'd certainly remember the "evidence" left behind.
Or maybe not. Regular masturbation precludes wet dreams.

That reminds me of what my history teacher said about communism and fascism. He said that if you bent the political spectrum into a ball, the communist and fascist ends would be closest, because the more you go to either side, the more you become like the other side.
I don't know that that's entirely accurate, given how generally close Mussolini's fascism and Stalin's communism were anyway and yet how different the two ideologies' ultimate aims were, but a good analogy if you ignore that point. Extremists always bear more relation to opposing extremists than to allied moderates.

Or maybe not. Regular masturbation precludes wet dreams.
That's not exactly true either. Masturbation is largely a mental thing; wet dreams are a physical phenomenon. While yes, typically young boys will have caused a conscious ejaculation prior to their first late-night adventure, they will not necessarily have developed a mental state of regular chicken-choking by that point (excuse my terminology; I'm simply trying to avoid word repetition). It all depends on the individual.

However, if you're implying what I think you are, it's not exactly in good taste. I'd have thought the best approach in stating your cause would be to rise above such snide comments rather than stoop to the behaviour espoused by those who embody the sexist injustice you fight against.

That's not exactly true either. Masturbation is largely a mental thing; wet dreams are a physical phenomenon. While yes, typically young boys will have caused a conscious ejaculation prior to their first late-night adventure, they will not necessarily have developed a mental state of regular chicken-choking by that point (excuse my terminology; I'm simply trying to avoid word repetition). It all depends on the individual.
Masturbation sessions which don't result in ejaculation necessarily end up as wet dreams. Not to say that wet dreams don't happen by themselves. Health-wise, absense of regular ejaculation, conscious or un-conscious, signifies a medical abnormality.

However, if you're implying what I think you are, it's not exactly in good taste. I'd have thought the best approach in stating your cause would be to rise above such snide comments rather than stoop to the behaviour espoused by those who embody the sexist injustice you fight against.
Truth is not always in good taste.

Well, it answers a generalization with a generalization, but here goes:

Religion is designed to appeal primarily to the emotions. Women, on the whole, tend to be more emotionally attuned than men. There is your connection. Sorry if it was floated before -- long thread.

Some of us consider that radical kind of atheism to fall under the general category of "religious".
Many atheists are completely against religion, and I would know because I am. Although, it doesn't befront me none when someone wants to pray or whatnot. If that's what they want to do, let them. Live and let live, y'know what I'm saying? I think the word you're looking for here is not religious but extremist.

Me. Should be proselytize. BTW is it just me or do people find Straughn's posts conceptually difficult? I don't get many of his implied references.
I often have to bluff my way through them, mind you i have to bluff 40% of the teamn anyways...


snip...
I don't know if any other types of Christianity bother with the Priest to couple councilling prior to the wedding.
Pre-marital counseling really isn't a bad idea... it doesn't have anything to do with religion--getting married is a pretty big deal, and you'd like to think that you're not going to make a life-altering decision like that without at least getting some consultation beforehand. However, I really only think this applies to very young people (i.e., a "word to the wise" before you sign your life away at the age of 19 or something). I don't really see it as being useful or necessary for older folks.
I imagine most Churches would like to see those getting married in their churches to actually stay as parishoners...
Of course churches would like to see their newlywed couple in church the following Sunday. They need all the warm bodies they can get (cold bodies don't contribute to the collection plate).
I completley agree with both statements.

Dunno about you, but where I live women appear more religious than guys. I have lost count of how many women wear little crosses 'round their necks, compare to like, five men.



In our culture, it's more socially acceptable for women to wear necklaces than males.

I find that if either sex is more religious, it's men.

In our culture, it's more socially acceptable for women to wear necklaces than males.

I find that if either sex is more religious, it's men.

Would you like to expand on this a bit further?

Would you like to expand on this a bit further?

Sure, it's simple. I see way more women wearing necklaces of any kind than men. This seems to be the case with most kinds of jewelry, that it is simply more common and "normal" for females to wear it than males. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are more religious necklaces to be found on women than on men.

Sure, it's simple. I see way more women wearing necklaces of any kind than men. This seems to be the case with most kinds of jewelry, that it is simply more common and "normal" for females to wear it than males. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are more religious necklaces to be found on women than on men.
On interpretation, I think what expansion was being asked for was the Men being more religious aspect rather than the jewellery aspect.

Here's how I figure it. If a man is willing to be convinced, it takes just a few rational arguments to get him to embrace a religion. However, no matter how deep in he is, he will see the faults the religion has and attempt to correct them, or just leave the religion.

However, with a woman, you practically have to brainwash them appealing to emotion and other bs like that. However, once they are into that religion, neither hell nor high-water will sway them from it. That's why you get them psycho obsessed women so often.

Of course, I may be biased and I may be wrong, but such is my view.

Where I live its rather that the elderly are very religious.

Where I live its rather that the elderly are very religious.
Where I live, it's pretty much all the people who are marginalized.

Fear of death is pretty much at the core of the Big Three religions in the western world, and, logically, the elderly are more aware of their mortality than most young people. They tend to be good targets for superstition.

Individuals who have little to hope for in this life are also more prone to embrace the idea of another, better life, after death. Those who live in poverty need something to cling to, and the promise of an everlasting paradise is pretty tempting when you can't even buy shoes for your kids.

Individuals who are out of their minds with pain or grief are also more likely to believe in things that you'd have to be out of your mind to believe.

I don't think any of these things make their BELIEFS right, but I do think that the choice to believe in superstitious ideas can be a perfectly sane one. Sometimes people just grab a hold of whatever they can.