Male chauvinists, be aware!

This rant is because of a post by a male chauvinist regarding the female gender.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this link, he quotes the carefully selected opinions of a number of men who support his position, and then uses this as ‘proof’ of his views. Anyone reading his post, who does not have their thinking cap on, may then take his views on board. I could reply to his post at the link above, but an address against this form of hypocrisy deserves a far wider audience, and also because male chauvinists need to be aware of what they are truly up against.

The main thrust of the original post is from a religious angle, so I will start there.
In Hebrew, ‘Elohim’ is ‘masculine plural’, while the name of God ‘YHWH’ is ‘feminine singular’. As God is unique and there is only One, there is actually no question of ‘gender’, so you can make of this what you will. But I find it interesting that the female form is used for the personal name of God.

The attitude of the Son towards women in his lifetime has also been curious, because he addressed them with respect and on a personal one-to-one basis. It is the sort of behaviour that would be strange and relatively unknown amongst men who are dismissive of females as being inferior to men.

Paul when he says he does not permit women to speak in church, say ‘I do not…’, so he is stating his own personal opinion; not God’s, or the Holy Spirit’s, or the Scriptures. Although he does go on to state, ‘as the law says’ but I have never seen anything in the Biblical ‘law’ to support this statement!

There is a lot of discussion within the original postings about the actions and guilt between Adam and Eve over the apple. However, if we consider the role of ‘men only’ being permitted to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, we will come to see how women have been protected from this folly of evangelising and promoting the personage who will soon become recognised as the Antichrist.

That is from a religious angle, but let’s look at some scientific facts.
The male mitochondria energises the tail of the sperm to reach the egg and then comes to a dead end, while it is the female’s mitochondria that gives the spark of ‘life’ to the foetus and this is passed on from daughter to daughter endlessly, whereas the son’s mitochondria to impregnate his wife, becomes another dead end. So it is the mother who not only carries the foetus to term, but also gives it life!
Bryan Sykes, professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, says in his book, ‘Blood of the Isles’ that genetically speaking all foetuses are female for the first weeks of life, and then divert if they are to become male. So on page 130 of his book, he puts it bluntly, ‘Men truly are genetically modified females’! Not only that but elsewhere he states that the male DNA is the genetic equivalent of a train wreck.

Getting back to the religious side of this. God’s whole purpose is to create a kingdom/nation of holy priests, as stated to the Israelites when Moses went up the mountain in Exodus 19:5 & 6, and this was said without regard to tribe, gender or age.

When the 24 Elders in the Book of Revelation throw down their crowns before the Lamb of God who is about to open the Seven Seals, they say ‘he is worthy’ because BY HIS BLOOD, he has made them a ‘kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ to God. These two very small sections of the Bible display the whole of God’s purpose in creating mankind, and also the whole reason for the crucifixional sacrifice of His Son!

So there is no limitation of gender or age, etc. on those who elect, by refusing to worship the Antichrist, to become saints, who will go through the Tribulation to become the priests of God and of the Lamb. These are those who will NOT undergo judgment or the second death!

After the thousand years, the rest of the dead will be resurrected to face judgment according to their works; so you have to pity any man who is judged partly on his attitude towards, and subsequent mistreatment of, women.

So chauvinists, be aware!

Wow, way to react to someone else's stupidity with more of the same.

Congratulations, you fell for it...sigh.

a reply to: Maigret

I had to go read his OP. Don't let it get to you girl. You are beautiful. Men who hate women are just haters. Not worthy of your time to hate them back.

Do you know what the toughest job in the world is?

a reply to: Metallicus

And of course this rant uses Religion as its basis...Yup, that makes it solid.

*sigh*

Peace

The op in that post wasn't agreeing with those opinions, he simply posted them to point out how chauvinistic they were. did you read the end of his post? he's saying why would you believe in that.

a reply to: Maigret

I am a follower of Jesus. His word, HIS deed. The words, and deeds of lesser beings than the Son of God do not concern me much, save for that they unfortunately have held sway over people for thousands of years. All the stigma and stupidity that centralising power and knowledge have created around certain persons, beliefs, activities, and even one whole gender, are not the result of the word of God, but the word of man, and that is a shame.

Personally, I believe that womankind deserve better than they get from many nations and religions. They birth our young, they suffer with monthly agony in order to be able to fulfil that biological requirement, they have to put up with greater pressure upon their appearance than do us males, and are often objectified by males, even in these so called enlightened times.

To cap it all, women have to do such a routine to use the toilet, when compared with males. It seems as if women folk, therefore, should get all the respect imaginable. Between the heroic and impossibly painful act of giving birth, and the sheer aggravation of making toilet and spending a week out of a month feeling like they have been stabbed in the guts, I think they are pretty hardcore, and deserving of respect for that alone, never mind just because they are people, and deserving of as much respect as anyone else automatically.

As for folk reading the post you linked to, and being swayed by it through a failure to don their thinking cap before reading, I have to say, that anyone who reads anything with half their brain switched off deserves to gain some skewed ideas, and have them screw with their lives.

originally posted by: TheLookingGlass
The op in that post wasn't agreeing with those opinions, he simply posted them to point out how chauvinistic they were. did you read the end of his post? he's saying why would you believe in that.

Yup but then, you know how well woman comprehend words. hahahahahahahahahahahaha....... !!!!!

I'm kidding everybody.

His post was anti religion not anti women, but then that could have struck just as strong a chord...

You should have read his entire post. The OP was simply pointing out how religion is incredibly misogynistic, and why would any woman go along with it?

It is said that people see what they want to see. This is obviously an issue that bothers you greatly.

a reply to: Maigret

Chicks...
They'll never get it.

So, religious women...why on earth would you believe in a religion that hates you so much? It almost hates you more than it hates gays, but the reason it hates gays it's because men shouldn't ever act like women, the scum of the earth. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

.... Yeah seems you have missed this part.....
He simply made a worst of the worst list.

It was a hit against religion, not against women.

If anyone got the other thread as being penned by a chauvinist, you either didn't read the ops fully, or are clearly having some issues with comprehension. It was actually a person pointing out inherent sexism and chauvinism in the core teachings of a religion and then simply asked why soo many women would follow the religion. Fair question.

it's even worse than you think. remember paul said that eve was innocent -- she was tricked, but adam was not tricked, he knew precisely what he was doing. therefore, only the guy who was not innocent, should teach the gospel, according to paul. everytime i read his words there, i just shake my head. it 1) makes no sense and 2) makes no sense, and furthermore, 3) makes no sense.

a reply to: Maigret

in your blind thirst for "having to say something for the sake of not being shut up" you ended up not understanding that the thread was actually against it...

My girlfriend actually does that crap all the time... women just cant listen - just shoot first and ask questions later. lol

Good job girl...

if you read the verse regarding the creation of the adam, you'll note that both the male and female were created in the image of elohim. later, eve is created in the image of adam. what's the difference? eve was the first mom. the prior adam males and females, were elohim copies - the females didn't give birth, as new adam males and females were copied instead of being procreated. and to be female and an elohim copy, means there must've been female elohim to be copied from.

many have said, well the verse there is in the singular voice - it's elohim as the royal we, creating man. not exactly. yes, it is elohim in the singular voice, creating adam males and females from other elohim, some of which were female and some of which were male. but they weren't human beings yet. in fact, they don't become human beings till the fall narrative. the entire fall narrative is about the adam males and females becoming procreators instead of clones, as it were.

the translators inserted the word "man" where it originally said, "adam", which gives the impression that those first adam males and females were human beings, but they weren't. they were elohim.

If the mighty G were a woman, we would all be sandwiches

Didnt cheesits say every jot and tittle? No bleeding around me lady!

a reply to: TrueBrit

a reply to: TheLookingGlass

The OP just so pissed off,so she/he don't want to read the whole post before judging.
Quite close minded.

originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni


in your blind thirst for "having to say something for the sake of not being shut up" you ended up not understanding that the thread was actually against it...

My girlfriend actually does that crap all the time... women just cant listen - just shoot first and ask questions later. lol

Good job girl...

This kind of behavior is extreme annoying but some guys like to do it also.Like a physiological responses of a biting dog.(But they think themselves are morals)
It's dumb and create a lot of hating.Anyway ,the OP didn't bite a wrong person ,because she/he is not religious.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Wow, way to react to someone else's stupidity with more of the same.

Congratulations, you fell for it...sigh.

More of the same? Yeah, right. According to your post, I quoted females in Christian authority saying the nastiest things they could, about males.

originally posted by: TheLookingGlass
The op in that post wasn't agreeing with those opinions, he simply posted them to point out how chauvinistic they were. did you read the end of his post? he's saying why would you believe in that.

Can't you see that the sentence at the end of his post was a disingenuous distancing of himself from those he was quoting, as though he had no responsibility for what they'd said.

However, he is responsible for gathering, and then publically quoting all these sources denigrating women.

He delivers these quotes of religious authorities which are all vehemently anti-female, and then he asks why would you believe in a religion that hates you/females/women? Those quotes have nothing to do with their religion or its core teachings, and everything to do with the words and attitudes of those men mouthing them.

a reply to: Maigret

Oh ,then news report and any media must can't quoting any hate speech.

You are a saint for "freedom of speech ".
LOL