Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pyrrho · 05-28-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
When I mentioned Ephesians 5:22-33, I've been told that I misinterpret it to mean submission, that important part is that husbands should love their wives, and it is all about "equal but different"

I just don't get it... I also don't understand how muslim converts feel liberated. You don't need to become a religious convert to dress in unappealing clothes and feel comfortable. But I guess this is more of an issue of lack of confidence and need for justification. Seems that "my religion commands me" is a valid excuse for almost anything. If you do something because you feel like doing it, people are free to criticize you. If you do it for religious reasons, all of a sudden it is just fine. You got to love political correctness...

"Equal but different" is a euphemism for being unequal. You see, it is not socially acceptable to say "unequal", so people often don't. But giving it a new label does not change its nature or its essence.

So, the only thing confusing you is language. You seem to understand the reality of the situation perfectly.

Pyrrho · 05-28-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
Christians just don't see the sexism in this attitude. The "in charge" man thinks he's doing good when he consults his wife's "opinion". If you have joint finances, you should be asking for her consent when making financial decisions. It's her money just as much as it is yours when you have a joint account.

I think the Christian attitude boils down to the notion that "marriage can't be a democracy" because there are only two voters. Somebody has to be "in charge", make decisions and take responsibility. It sounds logical, but it's sexist bullshit.

-Mike...

I agree. My wife and I decide about our money together. It is certainly no more mine than hers. Of course, if we were both stupid jerks, then it wouldn't work having no one in charge, but since that is not the case, it works beautifully.

Luiseach · 05-28-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubble head
Who says we haven't already. Might be a topic for another thread but I don't think we ever got away from slavery - we just modified it to appear acceptable.

Paying some poor chump minimum wage or 1.00 day in some countries is a lot easier than being responsible for them, sheltering them, feeding them and keeping them healthy. Many of our American businesses do it overseas and right here at home with our friends from the south as I'm writing this.

This definitely would make for an interesting thread, I think.

If you have the time and inclination, I second the motion to start a new thread on this topic....

Opera Nut · 05-28-2003, 06:14 PM

Legal Note: If you live in a community property state (Texas and some of the western states in the U.S.) then one-half of everything in the marriage is pretty much hers. Community property states have a much more liberal attitude about women owning property and that comes from the Spanish influence in the western states.

Common law states which are under the English influence had many legal impediments for women. This was expressed by Blackstone who said "In marriage the man and the woman are merged into one person as a legal fiction, and that person is the man."

When I took Marital Property in law school, there were still valid case decisions allowing women to own and manage their own property dating from 1836, which was the first year that Texas was a Republic.

Even in the 1960s in Texas, a married woman had to go to court to get her "disabilities of couverture" removed in order to dispose of property in her own name so she could be legally a "feme sole".

lpetrich · 05-28-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Opera Nut
Common law states which are under the English influence had many legal impediments for women. This was expressed by Blackstone who said "In marriage the man and the woman are merged into one person as a legal fiction, and that person is the man."

This might be called the deep-sea-anglerfish theory of marriage, but with the sexes reversed.

chimaira · 05-31-2003, 09:18 PM

If there is women all did free to think, and to convert to the islam and that mister ipetrich declares that they choose to go in prison it is similar, I say that is itself false for exactly these women converting are completely free to convert to the islam, therefore the islam this is the liberty for the women converting, otherwise they not.

05-31-2003, 09:18 PM	#46
chimaira Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: France Posts: 169	yes If there is women all did free to think, and to convert to the islam and that mister ipetrich declares that they choose to go in prison it is similar, I say that is itself false for exactly these women converting are completely free to convert to the islam, therefore the islam this is the liberty for the women converting, otherwise they not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2003, 06:14 PM	#44
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	Legal Note: If you live in a community property state (Texas and some of the western states in the U.S.) then one-half of everything in the marriage is pretty much hers. Community property states have a much more liberal attitude about women owning property and that comes from the Spanish influence in the western states. Common law states which are under the English influence had many legal impediments for women. This was expressed by Blackstone who said "In marriage the man and the woman are merged into one person as a legal fiction, and that person is the man." When I took Marital Property in law school, there were still valid case decisions allowing women to own and manage their own property dating from 1836, which was the first year that Texas was a Republic. Even in the 1960s in Texas, a married woman had to go to court to get her "disabilities of couverture" removed in order to dispose of property in her own name so she could be legally a "feme sole".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.