# gay.



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

that might be the gayest thing i've ever seen.  not that there's anything wrong with that!

jf


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Erm? thats basically the same as Olympic gymnastic floor work without the jumps etc, I think you guys are seeing things in there that this female isn't!!



really?  cuz last night i was at a gay bar, making out with a bunch of gay dudes, & it wasn't as gay as that.

jf


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 22, 2009)

So, what's wrong with gay anyway?
I've seen more effeminate things in MA than that trust me lol!


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

jarrod said:


> that might be the gayest thing i've ever seen.*  not that there's anything wrong with that!
> *
> jf



why not a thing tez!  just being silly after staying up all night at my job again.

here's a pretty cool display of athleticism:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2466483/tempest_freerunning_crew/

jf


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 22, 2009)

While I agree with some of the things said, it has always been the men who defended the women and children for centuries from the beginning of time since Adam and Eve.

It is always good for the wife to protect the husband and her kids by smashing the assailant's head or something like that.

Men usually are stronger than women. This is why men are to act responsibly with their strength and to use that physical strength for good, not for evil.

Most women naturally are not as aggressive like that of the men are but if provoked to protect her kids. She will do what she has to do.

Remember that the animal kingdom and the human kingdom are two very different species and please be honest on this point. 

I am not going to allow my wife to think she can defeat a man every time she has to protect the kids. 

That would be considered suicide because men are naturally stronger than women. 

If I am at work and something happened to my wife and the kids for example, How can I defend my wife and kids while I am at work ? Of course I could floor it to where she is but usually by that time I get there, she could be dead or close to dead. 

Maybe she succeeded in defending herself while the kids ran away and the kids don't know that their mother is dead. Maybe both the mother and the kids survive and the assailant is dead. If I was there, the chances would go up that the assailant is deader than dead and my wife and the kids are alive and fine. 

I am talking about the chances of survival for her and the kids increase or decrease if woman is alone with her kids or with her husband and the kids. You have to be realistic on this one.

Now for example, I am with my wife and the kids and a man tried to assault my wife and kids when I am ordering food then I can quite easily step in to stop him and protect my wife and the kids.

I am not going to sit down with my wife and tell her a lie that she will be victorious every time she protects her kids fending off bad guys. 

I agree that the firearm is a great equalizer for women protecting her kids from harm but not every woman is psychologically capable of pulling the trigger when lives depend on her. Men in general are more capable of carrying out that duty. 

I think God hardwired men to be fierce protectors and the women to be gentle nurturers in the human kingdom, not the another way around. The animal kingdom is just that, the animal kingdom not ours. The Bible says for men to have dominion over animals and to have his household in order, to love and honor his wife.

Scientists usually get it wrong the first time around. God isn't wrong because He created the world and made the man first then the woman second. 

God does not make mistakes. Scientists do make mistakes with their theories until they get it right and the Bible confirms it. 

The Bible was right the first time around. The scientists weren't right the first time around.

This is why many people get confused when talking about the animal and human kingdom. 

You have to be more honest and realistic about these things because this is what usually happens in the real world.


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 22, 2009)

Hey Jarrod!  I hear you.  I know you were not gaybashing.  When you used the word gay, i definately could understand what you meant. I guess the word gay is so stigmatized it makes it a perfect setup for the whole pc wrap. 

Ok, let's take figure skating for example-an art i used to quite like no matter what people would say.  Different skaters will also have very different styles.  Some of them are gay, but that's ok--just kidding-i mean, sexuality in itself actually has little to do with the art of skating.  It may even be that the jumpy guy i posted above is not gay at all and only into that sortof movement that kind of competition.  He sure can pull some cool flares and handstandpressups.  respect for that i will try to emulate-but not the dance-at least i don't think i'd wanna try it....martial arts movements especially the internal stuff and stretching can seem 'gay' enough to some people...i remember jumping around like that when i was around 6 or 7...i actually, get this, for laughs,..put a string around a stuffed animal cat and pranced around in a similar way-to the music of peter pan all the while dragging the stuffed animal-dunno what i was thinking.  

I once saw this clip on youtube called 'inspirational dancer'  it was basically this guy that would do wacky dance moves and shake himself around in such a way that the crowd would crack up and be roaring in laughter.  

Whatever, point i'm trying to make is that movements or dance do different things to different people- whilst most people think kungfu or karate forms are impressive and cool, some may have different opinions.
Have to say though that the inspirational dancer made just about everyone lose it.  There are aspects of the soul that can be expressed through movement.  Dance is full of soul.  When i first posted the initial link, i was posting to display the flexibility and strength.  I had no interest in a silly looking form of dance.  Like i said, i personally do a lot of weird movements and may not be everyone's thing, but like some will like karate, some pentjak silat- in essence the beauty of a certain movement has a very subjective aspect to it.

Don't know if you've noticed but in all my foulmouthedness and vulgarity, i have never used the g word on mt.  That is because, before realizing my actions, i would say that all the time.  this is gay, that is gay...basically i meant lame or uncool.  I usually never really meant gay even.  To me what i was doing back then was far more derogatory and thoughtless than what jarrod said.  Also, i would be way more vulgar and say really nasty things with homosexual undertones if you can imagine...i still do that from time to time with people i trust to understand what i'm getting at-but at least now i try to say what i mean.  So i havent really used the term gay in a derogitory or inappropriate way in a long time...i guess at some point i started to ask myself why.
However, in my book, Jarrod did not use the word in a derogitory way.   Are those movements prancy and feminine or what....ballet is like rugby in comparison... taichi type movements can also be perceived as quite feminine or gay(again-only an opinion)-all depends how and when you do it to not make it inappropriate or create a scene out of nothing.  i just mean that something like a movement that reaches into a persons soul, however superficialy, is a form of power in itself, i suppose.

Sorry for the flames, no pun intended, and i do not think i will change my opinion on this much because i've already learnt my lessons on respect and 
selfawareness....one could argue with any gaybasher, that it takes one to know one.. hey we're all human- i don't think anyone is really being indecent.  

j


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 22, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> While I agree with some of the things said, it has always been the men who defended the women and children for centuries from the beginning of time since Adam and Eve.
> 
> It is always good for the wife to protect the husband and her kids by smashing the assailant's head or something like that.
> 
> ...


 
Bollocks! :lol: 
Allow your wife? Dear me, I think she can decide for herself what she thinks!
Please don't patronise me and the other women here with your 'little women and big strong man' stuff. What you believe is your own business but please don't project it on to the rest of us. What holds for you doesn't hold for me. What you believe doesn't make you right,it just proves you believe in something. 
Oh and you might want to remember Deborah.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 22, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Bollocks! :lol:
> Allow your wife? Dear me, I think she can decide for herself what she thinks!
> Please don't patronise me and the other women here with your 'little women and big strong man' stuff. What you believe is your own business but please don't project it on to the rest of us. What holds for you doesn't hold for me. What you believe doesn't make you right,it just proves you believe in something.
> Oh and you might want to remember Deborah.


 
Deborah was a prophetess, a woman of prayer. She did not participate in the actual battles. She made military decisions with the Lord by her side. 

Esther did not participate in any actual battles but she saved the Jewish people by praying and fasting for wisdom in this matter then she went before the wicked king and the rest is history.

I am not saying women can't defend herself and the kids. There are women that have succeeded but many more women have died and the numbers are pretty high. 

I am not going to be pc to your face and lie to you about your chances of being able to survive that kind of thing. 

I would be happy if you did survive this while your husband was away or whatever the situation was that you came home alive with the kids.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 22, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> While I agree with some of the things said, it has always been the men who defended the women and children for centuries from the beginning of time since Adam and Eve.
> 
> It is always good for the wife to protect the husband and her kids by smashing the assailant's head or something like that.
> 
> ...


Something to fight for, and the tools to accomplish it, and I think you under estimate the ability for a human of any gender to survive.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 22, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Something to fight for, and the tools to accomplish it, and I think you under estimate the ability for a human of any gender to survive.


 
I rest my case and I never said that women can't defend themselves. I am not under or over estimating the woman's ability to defend herself. I am not even questioning her ability to defend herself. You have to remember that the men and women's bodies and muscles are built differently. 

Women's muscles are more suitable for carrying babies, doing house chores and men's muscles are capable of very hard backbreaking labor or fighting wars that go on for 10 or 12 hours at times in Afghanistan and Iraq or in ancient times probably all day long the Roman army were fighting. I mean the Romans were way more physical, fighting with heavy swords and shields brutal hand to hand fights to the death under the hot Mediterranean sun with little water and dry roasted thirst, almost no food rations, physical fatigue etc. 

Women would not be able to realistically survive under those conditions since men are more used to hot and cold weather temperatures. Being mentally, physically and psychologically prepared to do or die battles.

I am making a honest and accurate estimate. The violent crime statistics every year speak for itself. I am sure police officers who drive to domestic violence calls generally find the women dead or beaten to a pulp, not the another way around. 

Women having a physical victory over the abusers are rare occurrences unless she shot him in self defense or she plunged the knife into his chest.

I am not going to lie to a woman or to my wife when I am teaching her self defense that she will always win. 

There are many men who fight another men everyday that win or die everyday. 

The chances of a woman physically winning in her favor is probably realistically closer to 35 - 40 % than the men who fight men with the chances being 65 -70 % of either men winning the fight.

I am being honest. It may not be what you want to hear but it is the truth.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 22, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> I rest my case and I never said that women can't defend themselves. I am not under or over estimating the woman's ability to defend herself. I am not even questioning her ability to defend herself. You have to remember that the men and women's bodies and muscles are built differently.
> 
> Women's muscles are more suitable for carrying babies, doing house chores and men's muscles are capable of very hard backbreaking labor or fighting wars that go on for 10 or 12 hours at times in Afghanistan and Iraq or in ancient times probably all day long the Roman army were fighting. I mean the Romans were way more physical, fighting with heavy swords and shields brutal hand to hand fights to the death under the hot Mediterranean sun with little water and dry roasted thirst, almost no food rations, physical fatigue etc.
> 
> ...


 
Somebody check the date for me please? Are we in 2009 or 1809? Really what a load of old tosh. Womens bodies are weaker? That will be why they are built for labour then which can go on for 36 hours even more.

Poor Roman men how they must have suffered....much like the working class or slave class women throughout the ages who have had to do hard physical work like road making, building work, laundry work etc all under harsh conditions.Few women in history have had the luxury of sitting being pampered, most have been out working in the fields pulling ploughs, planting, reaping. Aye and they've been soldiers too, war is a great leveller. During the wars women did the 'mens' work, labouring long and hard in physical jobs they were never thought to have been able to do.  In many cultures women still do the hard physical work, under conditions you wouldn't even go out in.

As for Afghanistan you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have many friends and colleagues out there of both sexes and they work under the same conditions. It's no good either saying women don't go out onto the front line as sometimes the enemy doesn't abide by those rules and the frontline comes to them.
https://www.lineofduty.com/content/view/95409/109/

Don't you dare debase this girls bravery by saying she can't cope with heat, cold or tough conditions.
We have simliar females in our medical services one of who performed a similiar act of bravery for which she was recognised.

As for domestic vilence you would obviously be very surprised to know exactly how many violent women there are, men won't admit to be being beaten by a women but trust me it happens and yes I've seen it.

https://www.lineofduty.com/content/view/95409/109/


Self defence isn't a thing where only men win against attackers, I know many men that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag if they were attacked. Self defence is to enable you to get away as quickly as you can not slug it out blow for blow with your attacker. If the self defence you are teaching involves fighting then you need to look at your training. That is a direct quote from Iain Abernethy with whom I trained yesterday. This goes for both sexes. Please feel free to email him if you doubt me. Self defence isn't fight training, there's nothing glorious or macho about going toe to toe with an attacker.
http://www.shotokankata.com/Articles/awareness.htm

Your truth is not THE truth. Your truth is what you want to believe.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 22, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Somebody check the date for me please? Are we in 2009 or 1809? Really what a load of old tosh. Womens bodies are weaker? That will be why they are built for labour then which can go on for 36 hours even more.
> 
> Poor Roman men how they must have suffered....much like the working class or slave class women throughout the ages who have had to do hard physical work like road making, building work, laundry work etc all under harsh conditions.Few women in history have had the luxury of sitting being pampered, most have been out working in the fields pulling ploughs, planting, reaping. Aye and they've been soldiers too, war is a great leveller. During the wars women did the 'mens' work, labouring long and hard in physical jobs they were never thought to have been able to do. In many cultures women still do the hard physical work, under conditions you wouldn't even go out in.
> 
> ...


 
It is quite sad to see that you are a feminist because feminism has destroyed many women's lives, there are short term gains but prolonged amounts of agony. 

I have noticed how many feminists remain single bachelorettes and wonder why they can't find a good man and those who do marry divorce within 3 years because of the jezebel attitude she has. Feminism is contrary to all that God had in mind for women. 

Let me also remind you that mother nature is actually Father's Nature because God created the earth IN HIS IMAGE just as God created men in his image and took a man's rib to form a woman to be his helper. Something most feminists despise and many feminists are God haters as well, even though they say that they are not.

I do not believe women should be in combat and certainly not a combat medic in the midst of war. She should work in the medic tents in the rear where it is safe. Leave the combat medics to the men and the women should be nurses in a place of safe haven.

I have family who are in the military and law enforcement. I can tell you most police officers responding to domestic violence calls usually find women dead or beaten to a pulp. 

Feminists would have you believe that most women can kick a man's butt but that is actually what is going to get her killed. I will say it again, women having physical victory over her abusers is a very rare occurrence. 

Most police officers that respond to a woman who is alive and the abuser is dead is because she had an equalizer or a knife in her hand. 

The mace spray and the martial arts for women is one of the most misunderstood subjects. That only buys you time to get away from your abuser and to really stop him, you would need a gun or a knife. I am shocked at how many women seem to think a restraining order will keep her safe. It does not keep women safe. It is just court paperwork. That is it. For any real safety, you need to be with your family, male relatives until the bad man goes to trial then he is actually in prison. 

I have actually had feminists tell one of my female friends that the restraining order would keep her safe and I had to really explain it to her. I had to keep both the feminists at bay and the angry guy away from her. It was not until she got beaten really bad by her boyfriend that she understood exactly what I was talking about and warning her against taking the counsel of her feminist friends. She said she wished she took my counsel.

That is what you seem to not understand about feminism. Do not buy into the feminist hyperbole. That brainwashing stuff is just going to get you killed. Sure, there has been some good progress made in areas like voting rights, women working in the medical field, women being able to have a job to make sure her kids do not go hungry in the absence of a fatherless household but please do not blindly buy everything that the feminists say. Even the Christian ladies are recognizing what feminism really is all about and denouncing feminism for what it is.

Now let's put this to rest. Case closed and allow the thread to return to its original purpose which was " What are the physical standards of what a man should be. "


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> Remember that the animal kingdom and the human kingdom are two very different species and please be honest on this point.



actually humans are one species of the animal kingdom.  there is no human kingdom.  the breakdown goes like this:

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

back to topic though, here is another impressive display, no tights or choreography required!






jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 22, 2009)

Tez, I'm sorry but he's right.  Women are weak and inferior creatures. They would never be able to hold their own against real men. History backs this up.  It's always been the men who do the fighting while the women make reinforcements and cook dinner. The sooner women today learn this, the faster they can get back to scrubbing floors and birthing more babies. The links back this up, 110%.


Strong, maybe it's not the women, but the people training them incorrectly and giving them false hopes from weekend "self defense seminars" that is the problem.


As to any anti-gay rhetoric, it's not welcome on this site so whoever/whenever/whatever, can it.


As to a serious standard for male excellence in training, you're going to have to really go far to top that "300" training stuff I saw a while back.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 22, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tez, I'm sorry but he's right. Women are weak and inferior creatures. They would never be able to hold their own against real men. History backs this up. It's always been the men who do the fighting while the women make reinforcements and cook dinner. The sooner women today learn this, the faster they can get back to scrubbing floors and birthing more babies. The links back this up, 110%.
> 
> 
> Strong, maybe it's not the women, but the people training them incorrectly and giving them false hopes from weekend "self defense seminars" that is the problem.
> ...


 

Bob I bow to your superior knowledge. What would I as a 55 year old Jewish female police officer (and ex RAF officer) who's been married for 36 years with two adult children know about anything? Oh and MMA coach, martial arts instructor and fighter lol! Yeah the one who choked the big guy out because he was too stupid to tap to a woman! 
Hey I'm going on tele soon reffing MMA fights!


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313

in light of another thread discussing the need for a conversation about race,  i thought maybe we could have one about sexuality.  is the word "gay" itself so taboo that any mention of it is homophobic?  is calling something gay tantamount to calling it bad?  

from my point of view, it seems as if overbearing political correctness has stunted our ability to even have these types of conversations.  

jf


----------



## Ramirez (Feb 22, 2009)

jarrod said:


> from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313
> 
> ...



  Hell no, that was harmless,  it was just a little humour,  I might have said the same thing myself and I have been on constant battles on another board defending gay marriage.  You didn't say anything malicious and that is the difference.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 22, 2009)

The word can be taken a number of ways.  Best way I can explain it is to refer to the late George Carlin.  He was talking about the use of certain terms to describe blacks, and how if he used them he would get flack, but Richard Pryor could use it with no worries.  

"Gay" is often used as an insult, a slight, a shot. It's also abused alot. We're aware that it's also popular slang in some areas, often used by teens.  We don't encourage it's use here however, as it can offend a number of our members (who view it rightly or wrongly as a slight towards them). We try to take how we see the use into consideration, and will usually nudge users towards less troublesome alternatives. If there was a real problem, that's where infractions, etc come in, though those are very rarely needed.

The biggest question is, when using "gay" are you referencing the stereotypical homosexual behavior, or something else?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2009)

jarrod said:


> from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313
> 
> ...



The words turn and twist back on themselves.

Originally, if something was a bit queer, that was just a way of saying it was odd, unusual, unexpected, or wrong.  It came to be applied to homosexuals, so a 'queer' was a homosexual, and people stopped saying this or that was 'queer'.

Then homosexual men seem to have expressed a preference for being called 'gay', and now some use the word gay to mean what queer used to mean before it was used to refer to homosexuals.

"That's so gay," could have been expressed as "That's so queer" a long time ago, and it would not have had an overtone referring to sexual preference.

Words are odd.  Or queer.  Or gay.  Whatever.

The next time I see something a bit out of place, I'll just say _"That's sort of bone-smuggler."_  Hmm, doesn't have much of a ring to it.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 22, 2009)

jarrod said:


> from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313
> 
> ...


 
I don't mean this as a personal reply to you, but rather as a way to address your question.

It's all in how a person is using the word. If I see something stupid, or lame, and I call it gay, then yes, that's offensive. Because in my mind, and by my actions, I'm equating homosexuality with being stupid or lame. If I see two guys making out, and I say, "hey, I think those guys are gay," that isn't offensive, even if it's also none of my business, because they may very well be. Unless of course when I said it I wasn't referring to their sexual preference, but rather something I thought was stupid or lame about what they were doing.

Get it?

Like if someone saw something disgusting and said, "Oh man, that's totally Kenpo. Like that's so Kenpo it's Ed Parker. That's the most Kenpo thing I've ever seen." Then I think Kenpo guys and gals would have a right to be offended, because it's equating what they are with something disgusting.

It might not be offensive to you, or your buddies, or even your homosexual buddies, but that doesn't mean it isn't an objectively offensive thing to say. 

Political correctness doesn't have anything to do with it. Class. Dignity. Environmental awareness. Those do. 

So know your audience and pick your words carefully, or go around pissing people off and claiming your right to free speach.

We all have the right to be an ***, and everyone else has the right to judge and censure us for it.


-Rob


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The biggest question is, when using "gay" are you referencing the stereotypical homosexual behavior, or something else?



that's a good point.  in the context of the thread linked, i was referencing a homosexual stereotype which has a large foundation in personal experience (i.e., MOST effeminate men i know are gay, & MOST gay men i know are effeminate).  so i was referencing a stereotype, BUT i was not placing a negative value on it. 

so i guess my question is, do we have to ignore stereotypes just because some are offended by them?  or is part of the benefit of having these types of conversations addressing these stereotypes & even possibly making a little fun of them?   

personally i think some of the reactions to my comments were a bit telling.  at no point did i indicate that gay was bad, or that effeminate was bad.  but casually refering to something as gay automatically led some to assume that i meant gay=bad, which was never the case.

jf


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 22, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I don't mean this as a personal reply to you, but rather as a way to address your question.
> 
> It's all in how a person is using the word. If I see something stupid, or lame, and I call it gay, then yes, that's offensive. Because in my mind, and by my actions, I'm equating homosexuality with being stupid or lame. If I see two guys making out, and I say, "hey, I think those guys are gay," that isn't offensive, even if it's also none of my business, because they may very well be. Unless of course when I said it I wasn't referring to their sexual preference, but rather something I thought was stupid or lame about what they were doing.
> 
> ...


Or, in another example of speech unconsciously shaping our thoughts...

On one occasion, my brother described someone trying to haggle him down on a price for services thusly, "They tried to jew me out of..."

I took offense.  I'm not Jewish.  The stereotype of the cheap Jew has been perpetuated for ages... but it's a hateful stereotype.  I called my brother on it...  We don't need to tolerate that, because everytime we do, we reinforce those stereotypes.

Or... in a humorous example... there was the story of my dad's cousin, whose last name ended in -ski.  My dad's side of the family is Irish; my grandfather emigrated in the 1930s.  The part of Ohio where my dad grew up had a heavy Irish neighborhood working in the steel mills.  There was also a large Polish community... and somehow, they came together for my dad's cousin's family -- but they lived in the Irish part of town.  One day, his cousin goes in and tells his dad the funny Polack joke he heard at school...  Somehow, his dad didn't find the joke so funny.  :shrug:

Jarrod, the problem wasn't the words _per se_.  It's the invisible, unthinking stereotype that accompanied them.  I too thought that the guy doing a competitive aerobics/cheerleader routine was ridiculous.  But I can say that; I don't have to say "it's gay."


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Jarrod, the problem wasn't the words _per se_.  It's the invisible, unthinking stereotype that accompanied them.  I too thought that the guy doing a competitive aerobics/cheerleader routine was ridiculous.  But I can say that; I don't have to say "it's gay."



but that's just it: i didn't think it was ridiculous.  i just thought it looked effeminate.  if someone was doing something i found objectionable & i called it gay, i could understand some outcry, such as in the "jew me down" example.  & i think that's part of the problem; we've become so sensitive to offending people that we assume certain words carry derogatory undertones even when they don't.  

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2009)

I watch a lot of old movies (from the 30's 40's and 50's) and I hear the word Gay all the time. Natalie Wood sang that she wanted to be happy and gay in West Side Story. I remember an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati where one of the characters was accused of being homosexual because one reporter asked another about Lester: "queer little fellow isn't he?" and a sports star mis-understood the connotation of the word queer. 

I don't think the word Gay is as taboo in relation to homosexuality as one might think it is. But now it's being used as a punch line in some cases, i.e. Shawn Of The Dead where Shawn's friend, Ed, would call him "gay" whenever Shawn told him "I love you man!" But then again Ed was a lovable crass SOB character anyway. 

Some folks still take things far too seriously I think. "Spoiled brats" I call 'em. 


Is this picture gay-bashing or is it just a joke?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Feb 22, 2009)

Maybe this can help.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay

The slang word gay can mean:



> 2. a homosexual male or female


 
or 





> . often used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. quite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their "masculinity"


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 22, 2009)

The problem, as I see it, is that if you come right down to it, anybody can find somthing offensive if they want.

I've been chastized for using the term "Rugrats" and "Snotlings" to describe children... and one of those terms, is a popular cartoon abouty children for cryin' out loud! 

I've seen Homosexuals upset about the word "Homo".  I've seen Jewish people upset by the word Jew.  I often call myself a Mic, because I am, but some Irish FREAK if you use that word.  Hell... I'll probably hear from some carnival sideshow worker about the fact I just used the word FREAK.

In the end, however, one Political Speaker I saw years ago who did an opening act for Jello Biafra said it best.  I can't repeat the whole thing, for fear of Offending someone, but it goes like this:

He's on stage and hes looking out at the audience... spots a black man and points and says, well, you know.  Everyone starts yelling at him, and he keeps repeating it.  Then he points at someone else, and uses a derogatory term for someone from south of our border.  Then back to the black man, and then on to the new one.  Then he points at someone else and calls them a "gay" in a deroggatory term.  And he keeps cycling thru it.  The crowd is upset and unruly and it goes on for some time.  Eventually most of the crowd started ignoring it and the thunderous offense slowed, and he was largly being ignored, when he stopped, and after a short bit of silence he yelled out:

"You SEE!  When you hear em enough, they just become WORDS!" 

I think Words are only offensive if we let them be.  Sure, people use them to try and do harm, but the harm only occurs if we choose to allow it.   You can call me a MIC with all the spite and venom you want... I'm gonna look at you and say "So?"  

So, Perhaps "Gay" is offensive, because someone wants to be offended.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 22, 2009)

I would say it's a joke poking fun at --not bashing -- jiu jitsu. Or, maybe it's a roundabout way of poking fun at homophobia. It's funny to me, but then I don't do jiu jitsu. I would hope however that jiu jitsu practicioners wouldn't take it too seriously.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 22, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> It's all in how a person is using the word. If I see something stupid, or lame, and I call it gay, then yes, that's offensive. Because in my mind, and by my actions, I'm equating homosexuality with being stupid or lame. If I see two guys making out, and I say, "hey, I think those guys are gay," that isn't offensive, even if it's also none of my business, because they may very well be. Unless of course when I said it I wasn't referring to their sexual preference, but rather something I thought was stupid or lame about what they were doing.
> 
> Get it?





jarrod said:


> but that's just it: i didn't think it was ridiculous.  i just thought it looked effeminate.  if someone was doing something i found objectionable & i called it gay, i could understand some outcry, such as in the "jew me down" example.  & i think that's part of the problem; we've become so sensitive to offending people that we assume certain words carry derogatory undertones even when they don't.




Try this one on for size just as a comparison:  "retarded."

There is nothing wrong with the word "retarded" as it applies to its medical definition; it is a label used to describe a particular condition where one's intelligence development is slowed or reduced via a medical condition.  It is actually a place some parents of developmentally challenged children want for their children to be, on paper, because it means a host of procedural safeguards for their socio-economic group that they would otherwise not be entitled to even though their needs for such would be clearly defined.  It is an unenviable-by-most delineation.

But if Bill Gates tripped over his own shoelaces, knocked his teeth out, took out a few paparazzi in the process and an action picture of his surprised, sprawling frame graced the front of tabloids, people would likely be calling him "retarded."

It is inaccurate - and offensive to those who have to *really* deal with the problems that word denotes.

I guess the litmus test is this one:  if you would be offended by someone else calling you that, then don't call anyone else that.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I guess the litmus test is this one:  if you would be offended by someone else calling you that, then don't call anyone else that.



WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!  :erg:


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 22, 2009)

jarrod said:


> WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!  :erg:



Did a light come on there?


----------



## tellner (Feb 22, 2009)

Gay really *is *the new Black. Attitudes that became unacceptable some decades back towards Jews or Blacks are still acceptable towards gays. The same arguments that were used against my father-in-law in 1960, Rosa Parks in 1955 or Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967 are taken out and dusted off for the queers today.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 22, 2009)

I have often heard the expression "If you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing at all".

However, not being perfect or in the least bit saintly, I must admit that were this ever to be enforced, I'd basically have to take a vow of silence.


----------



## tellner (Feb 22, 2009)

If you can't say anything nice about someone say it to the Enquirer


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 22, 2009)

There was an episode of WKRP where someone in referencing Les said "Queer little fellow", meaning odd. Unfortunately, Folks started thinking he was homosexual, and it wasn't a happy time for him.

In an episode of CSI a cowhand refers to a murdered Downs Syndome sufferer as "Retarded". When the same cowhand is fingered as the killer, Grissom's line is "By the way, the definition of the word "retard" is "to hinder" or "to hold someone back."  I think your life is about to become 'retarded'."


Think about it.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Did a light come on there?



lol, only in sarcasm land.  grappling gets called gay all the time, doesn't bother me in the least.  being called straight doesn't bother me either.  

did have a gay guy call me a breeder once, which is unfair since i don't have any kids.  

btw, if i were gay, i would be _fabulous_ 

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 22, 2009)

In honor of this thread, and the numerous misunderstandings, etc, I did a catwalk strut down a supermarket isle an hour ago.  My GF laughed her *** off.  (For those who haven't seen me, picture Silent Bob doing the model strut.)


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

lol!  my previous jujitsu coach is 6'2", 300lbs, has a shaved head, goatee, & many visible tattoos that look like they might have been done in prison.  & he can do a dead on rendition of big gay al's theme from south park.

"i'm th-upeeeeeerr, thankth for ath-kiiiiiiiing!"

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I have often heard the expression "If you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing at all".


You probably first heard it from Thumper, the cute widdle wabbit in the movie Bambi. 



Bob Hubbard said:


> There was an episode of WKRP where someone in referencing Les said "Queer little fellow", meaning odd. Unfortunately, Folks started thinking he was homosexual, and it wasn't a happy time for him.


I think I mentioned this in my earlier reply... the one you gave thanks to?  You DID read it ... didn't you?


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 22, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I have often heard the expression "If you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing at all".


 
I thought the saying went, "If you can't say something nice about someone, you're probably talking about Hitler."


-Rob


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 22, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> You probably first heard it from Thumper, the cute widdle wabbit in the movie Bambi.
> 
> 
> I think I mentioned this in my earlier reply... the one you gave thanks to?  You DID read it ... didn't you?


I speed read most of the time, and will admit to having missed that bit on first read.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 22, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I thought the saying went, "If you can't say something nice about someone, you're probably talking about Hitler."
> 
> 
> -Rob


Actually, I can say a lot of nice things about Hitler (who took a demoralized nation from ruin to the dominant power in a few short years, abet at great human cost, and then back to ruin again just as fast). They usually annoy folks, until I say "and it's very nice that he's dead." Then we're back in agreement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Try this one on for size just as a comparison:  "retarded."
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the word "retarded" as it applies to its medical definition; it is a label used to describe a particular condition where one's intelligence development is slowed or reduced via a medical condition.  It is actually a place some parents of developmentally challenged children want for their children to be, on paper, because it means a host of procedural safeguards for their socio-economic group that they would otherwise not be entitled to even though their needs for such would be clearly defined.  It is an unenviable-by-most delineation.



I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus.  Every year, we don orange vests and go out to ask for money to, as our vests say "Help Retarded Children."

The money goes to the ARC.  They use the term 'retarded' because the federal government does not recognize the term 'mentally disabled'.  They literally, legally, have to use the word 'retarded' and therefore we do as well.

I've been chewed out by people for daring to collect money to help 'retarded' children, because it's not PC.  Seriously.  Even - get this - by parents of mentally disabled children.  I'm collecting the money for YOUR KID.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 22, 2009)

Well,just to **** with the dominant pardigm.......

I had a kyokushin sempai-Wesley, by name. He was about 3 years older than I was, so he was 16 when we met. I went to boarding school, and didn't see much of him, but he was _awesome._ Then, I went away to college, and Japan,  and didn't see much of him at all.....then I came back to N.Y., reconnected with some people, and Wesley, and _he was *ga-ay*_, as in _drag queen_ gay. As in _professional *"danther"*_ gay. As in shaved off eyebrows, dressed to the nines as a woman, dynamite pair of legs, swishing down the sidewalk and every man watching, CAPITAL "G" effing _*gay*_.



> I'm more man than you'll ever be, and more woman than you'll ever get.


:lol:

And easily, one of the _toughest_ people I've ever known. We worked security at parties together back in the 80's, and I once saw him take on three guys, while he was wearing a mini skirt and high heels. He carried a .357-_in his purse_-and he wouldn't have hesitated to use it. For all I know, maybe he did. And he died standing up like a man, even if he was gasping for breath, blind and brain-damaged from AIDs in a hospital bed. The guy measured up to every standard I've ever measured manhood by except for one, and, when I thought about it, that one wasn't very much of a measure anyway.

As for the video that inspired this thread, Jarrod-it was a fitness competition, and that's how they do it.....but, yeah, it's pretty "gay."

So what?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2009)

I was 18 years old, just out of Marine boot camp, stationed at Camp Johnson, a part of Camp Lejeune in NC.  It cost $3 to take a gypsy cab from J-ville to the base or vice-versa, and I had drunk up all my money, so I walked back to base.  It was raining.  I was 18, weighed 145, wore cowboy boots and a big ol' cowboy hat, I kind of stuck out.

A 72 Ford LTD slid up to the curb, a huge black man behind the wheel.  He was blasting hip hop music on the stereo - remember that song _"Rapper's Delight?"_  That one.  He asked me if I wanted a ride to the main gate.  I said sure and jumped in, thanked him.

I noticed he was very, very, fat.  So fat that his belly went up and over the bottom of the steering wheel.  And the car had no more inside door locks - they had been removed.  And there were Radio Shack-style speakers duct-taped all over the inside of the car (this was way before big car stereos or woofers, that kind of thing).  Then I noticed that the song "Rapper's Delight" wasn't really the song you heard on the radio.  It was an x-rated version of it.  Never heard it before or since.  I won't go into the lyrics but they were explicit.

He asked me if I had been in NC long.  I said I'd been in town about 3 weeks.  He asked me if I was getting much leg.  I didn't know what that meant, so I said "Huh?"  He explained it meant, uh, p#*@.  Oh.  Well, no.

Just about that time, we slid up to the light before the last turn to Camp Johnson.  He wasn't going to turn.  He looked right at me and asked if I wanted a b*@ job.

I started clawing at the door handle, realized it was locked, started trying to pull up the lock, but it was missing.  Finally got my fingers wedged in the hole where the rod was supposed to stick up and felt the part where it had been cut off.  Somehow I wedged it up.  I pulled the door open and fell out, the car had already started to move.  I got up and ran like hell across the wet grass away from the car - my cowboy boots were slipping all over, I kept falling down.  Like a 400 pound fat man was going to chase me down, pull my pants down and force a b*# job on me.  Didn't matter, I was still terrified.

Of course, the worst part was not that.  The worst part was that I recalled later that as I was trying to get the door open, I was actually responding to his question - I said _"No thanks, man, that's not my scene."_  Not my scene?  Who the hell did I think I was, John Denver?  Wow, man, far out.

Thinking back on it, he might not have been gay.  He might have been a pimp.  Took me like ten years to figure that out.

I'm still ashamed.  I mean, about the _"that's not my scene"_ thing.  Scarred for life.  How lame is that?  God, I'm a dork.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

elder999 said:


> So what?


 
exactly.

everyone is at least a little gay.  i make scented candles, write poetry, & roll around with sweaty college boys a couple times a week.  

pretty gay when you state it like that!

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2009)

jarrod said:


> exactly.
> 
> everyone is at least a little gay.  i make scented candles, write poetry, & roll around with sweaty college boys a couple times a week.
> 
> ...



Hella gay.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 22, 2009)

*swish*


----------



## jim777 (Feb 23, 2009)




----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 23, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There was an episode of WKRP where someone in referencing Les said "Queer little fellow", meaning odd. Unfortunately, Folks started thinking he was homosexual, and it wasn't a happy time for him.
> 
> In an episode of CSI a cowhand refers to a murdered Downs Syndome sufferer as "Retarded". When the same cowhand is fingered as the killer, Grissom's line is "By the way, the definition of the word "retard" is "to hinder" or "to hold someone back." I think your life is about to become 'retarded'."
> 
> ...


 
Good point. The word "gay" and the word "retard/retarded" are often being used in the same way of late. If something is appears awkward, strange, unfamiliar, it's "gay" or "retarded. So the words have turned back to being put-downs but in a different way.

People with cognitive disabilities never chose to reclaim the word "retard" as many gays and lesbians have successfully reclaimed "gay." I cringe a little when I hear the word "retard" in the pejorative.

G


----------



## Drac (Feb 23, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I guess the litmus test is this one: if you would be offended by someone else calling you that, then don't call anyone else that.


 
Call me whatever you like..Wop, Dego, Guiena, Saghetti Bender..I have heard them..You should hear some of the conversations that take place in the locker room at shift change..


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Feb 23, 2009)

> often used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. quite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their "masculinity"


 
Anytime you say thats gay or this is gay you are speaking in a homophobic manner because you are distinguishing between homosexual manner and masculine manner by the defination.

So ya calling things gay is coming from the orginal homophobic usuage of the word.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 23, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Anytime you say thats gay or this is gay you are speaking in a homophobic manner because you are distinguishing between homosexual manner and masculine manner by the defination.
> 
> So ya calling things gay is coming from the orginal homophobic usuage of the word.


So saying "he was such a gay fellow" means he's homosexual? 

It's HOW the word is used determines it's context/meaning. 

Fag used to be a word for cigarette. So "smoking a fag" doesn't necessarily mean a drive-by shooting in a gay neighborhood.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> So "smoking a fag" doesn't necessarily mean a drive-by shooting in a gay neighborhood.



What goes 'clippity clop, bang. Clippity clop, bang'?

Amish drive-by.

Thanks, I'm here all week.  Try the veal!


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Feb 23, 2009)

> So saying "he was such a gay fellow" means he's homosexual?
> 
> It's HOW the word is used determines it's context/meaning.
> 
> Fag used to be a word for cigarette. So "smoking a fag" doesn't necessarily mean a drive-by shooting in a gay neighborhood.


 

If you want to use the orginal meaning as



> 1. jovial or happy, good-spirited


 But this term is rarely used today to mean this and it's slang defination of gay has proceeded the meaning.



> fag *2407* up, *654* down
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So I can not type F a g g o t but we can type F A G ? 



> ********  (1)
> 
> 1279, "bundle of twigs bound up," from O.Fr. fagot "bundle of sticks," from It. ******to, dim. of V.L. *facus, from L. fascis "bundle of wood" (see fasces). Esp. used for burning heretics (a sense attested from 1555), so that phrase fire and ****** was used to mean "punishment of a heretic." Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a ****** on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 23, 2009)

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

If you want an excuse to insult someone because it *used* to mean something else, you won't get one from me.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 23, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Semantics, semantics, semantics.
> 
> If you want an excuse to insult someone because it *used* to mean something else, you won't get one from me.


Well yeah... it's the intent of the word not the word itself.


----------



## jim777 (Feb 23, 2009)

Drac said:


> Call me whatever you like..Wop, Dego, Guiena, Saghetti Bender..I have heard them..You should hear some of the conversations that take place in the locker room at shift change..


 
My dad used to like to say, "Call me anything you want, except late for dinner". Always smiled at that one


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 23, 2009)

Calling bad stuff "gay" is retarded.  And vice versa.


----------



## astrobiologist (Feb 23, 2009)

Gay is not a synonym for ******...

Some band has a song with that title.  I have homosexual friends and family.  I love and respect them for being strong enough to be themselves, regardless of what mainstream society thinks.  Yet, I catch myself once and a while saying "that's gay" in reference to something being crappy, sucky, or otherwise less than worthy.  I'm not trying to insult a homosexual, just using a connotation of a word in reference of something else.  I try to avoid such uses of the word, but sometimes I fall back on what I've heard so many times on Comedy Central or in film.  The human mind is very impressionable.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Feb 23, 2009)

> Gay is not a synonym for ******...


 



> fag *2407* up, *654* down
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So we can see the realtion of how Gay,Fag,F a g g o t came into the meaning in slang use today.

If people want to use the word gay as an adjective knock yourself out.

But the usuage of gay as an adjective is coming from the noun use gay which as my previous dictionay defination slang term is used in a homophobic manner.
But I presented my point and I bow out from this thread enjoy.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 23, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> So we can see the realtion of how Gay,Fag,F a g g o t came into the meaning in slang use today.
> 
> If people want to use the word gay as an adjective knock yourself out.
> 
> ...


Agreed... on that note I'll say that a word is only as bad as a person *wants* it to be, whether they hear it or say it.


----------



## MJS (Feb 23, 2009)

Admin Note

Some posts were moved to this thread from the GMA section.  Given the nature of the topic, I would like to ask that everyone please keep the forum rules in mind and avoid making personal shots at members.  Please take note of sections 1.8 and 1.9.

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

Oooh, boy...

Let's start with this:



StrongFighter said:


> Deborah was a prophetess, a woman of prayer. She did not participate in the actual battles. She made military decisions with the Lord by her side.


 
That's sort of true-though she is also the only female "judge," and the only one of the "judges" to be shown actually acting in a judicial role. The rest of the Bibles judges were warrior/generals, as she was. Of course, she was also a prophet-and she prophesied that the war would be decided by the hand of a woman, after consenting to Barak's request that she accompany the army into battle.:



> I will go with you. However, there will be no glory for you on the road on which you are going, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hand of a woman *Deborah, Judges 4:9*


 
The war *was* decided by the hand of a woman, Jael, who assassinated the opposing general, Sesara.....ironically, Sisera survives the battle between men,* to be killed by a woman.*




StrongFighter said:


> Esther did not participate in any actual battles but she saved the Jewish people by praying and fasting for wisdom in this matter then she went before the wicked king and the rest is history.


 
The Book of Esther was written for Diaspora Jews, (Jews who lived outside Israel), to show them how to live in exile. If they encountered bigotry and prejudice, they must act with courage and integrity. The story also explained the origin of the feast of Purim, a major Jewish feast day. 

The story was also a political satire, showing the danger of giving absolute power to a monarch who turned out to be a fool. The Persian king in the story, Ahasuerus, governed by whim rather than by wisdom, becoming the tool of anyone shrewd enough to exploit him. The lesson is clear: do not give too much power to any one person; in the long run God alone should rule us. 

Christianity is often accused of causing the terrible anti-Semitism that has shamed the modern world. In fact, this story shows that anti-Semitism existed long before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. The story of Esther contains three different episodes:


_Vashti was banished, and Esther became Queen_ (Esther 1 & 2) 
Queen Vashti refused to obey the orders of her husband King Ashasuerus, so he divorced her and sought a new queen. This new queen was to be the most beautiful woman in the land. A young Jewish girl, Esther, was chosen, in what some might call the first beauty pageant..:lol:. Her uncle, Mordecai, overheard a plot against the king, and warned him through Esther. 


_Esther saved Mordecai from Haman_ (Esther 3-8:14) 
Mordecai offended a high court official, who decided to kill not only Mordecai but all the Jews in the Persian empire. Esther pleaded with the king at two banquets she gave. Mordecai was saved from death, and Haman was punished.


_Esther saved the Jewish people of Persia_ (Esther 8:15-10) 
Letters were sent throughout the kingdom repealing the decree of death for all Jews. There was great rejoicing, and an annual festival was celebrated to commemorate the courage of Esther and the deliverance of the Jews. This festival was called Purim. 

It&#8217;s also important to note that Esther (_Esther_ in Hebrew, means _hidden_) was a symbol of Jews who lived successfully in an alien culture. As a woman, she was not in a position of power &#8211; just as Diaspora Jews were not members of the power elite. As an orphan, she was separated from her parents &#8211; as Diaspora Jews are separated from their mother-country. With both these handicaps, she had to use every skill and advantage she had &#8211; as Diaspora Jews did. They, like Esther, had to adapt themselves to the situation. 


From the start, Esther had been helped by her uncle Mordecai, but nobody knew that they were related, or that Esther was a Jewess. Esther did not keep the dietary laws of Judaism, or retain the practices of an orthodox Jewess. God is never mentioned directly in the story. So the story is not a &#8216;religious&#8217; story as such, but a secular one, about pragmatism in the face of adversity.


One also has to view the story through the lens of the return of the Jews from their Persian exile to Jerusalem, and subsequent reforms that took place-many social reforms such as the abandoning of worship of other gods, the masculinization of YHWH (who previously had been portrayed in poetic imagery as having a motherly nature as well)


The social reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah-the prophets who made law upon the return to jerusalem- were accepted by the people, but not altogether without protest. For example, the stories of Ruth and of Esther, written in this period, make particular points about women: 


*They were powerful in their own right, and not to be treated as disposable chattels *


*They were as capable of being God&#8217;s instruments as men were, and sometimes, as in the case of Esther, even more so.*


Sorry for the serious thread drift, but I get a little too far into it when someone uses the Bible as evidence, and is on such obviously shaky ground....


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2009)

:bow:

Tell us what you know about Ruth.


----------



## Aniela13 (Feb 25, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> Women's muscles are more suitable for carrying babies, doing house chores and men's muscles are capable of very hard backbreaking labor or fighting wars that go on for 10 or 12 hours at times in Afghanistan and Iraq or in ancient times probably all day long the Roman army were fighting.





StrongFighter said:


> It is quite sad to see that you are a feminist because feminism has destroyed many women's lives, there are short term gains but prolonged amounts of agony.
> 
> I have noticed how many feminists remain single bachelorettes and wonder why they can't find a good man and those who do marry divorce within 3 years because of the jezebel attitude she has. Feminism is contrary to all that God had in mind for women.



...pardon the expression, but are you bloody joking me?! My muscles are more suited for carrying babies and doing housework? I'll grant you this--I can carry an unborn child and you can't, but I assure you that if we were to duke it out in a sparring match, you would find that my "child-carrying, housework-doing" muscles are also quite suited for fighting and work. As a matter of fact, I'd say I'm much better at fighting and doing physical work than carrying children and cleaning, seeing as I've never done the first (except ones that have already been born) and don't do the second nearly as much as I work out and do physical work.

And, just for kicks and giggles, let me point out that I'm not a feminist. Someday if I find a guy and get married, I'll submit to his leadership...but right now my top careers in mind include law enforcement, intelligence gathering/analysis, and martial arts teaching. If those careers being ideal for me make me a feminist in your world, then it's a sad world you live in. But I cannot and will not marry someone just to stay at home all day--I would go insane, and he would end up hating me, because I need to do something productive with my life and use the gifts that God gave me (hmm, sounds like God designed me for work outside the home....) By the way, the roots of feminism were *not* contrary at all to God's plan for women; do try and take a care not to group all parts of that ideology together, or we may end up back in a world where an abusive husband can divorce his wife (who is known to be abused), take their children, and leave her with nothing. That wasn't God's plan for women, and the origins of the feminist movement set out to deal with it.

All that to simply say...if you ask the instructor I trained with for an hour tonight, he will tell you that I am quite capable of more than carrying children and doing housework. Actually, he'd probably laugh quite a bit at you for even suggesting that I wouldn't be, as would all of the young (and older) men I train with. And I know that that holds true for many other women here on MT and elsewhere.

At any rate, hopefully the heart of what I want to express came across. Strong Fighter, there are a few things I agree with you about, but do try to keep in mind the analysis rule that "ideas are to be critiqued, personalities are sacred". (And if I have failed in this regard, I apologize.)

I was thinking about cleaning a bit tonight, but just don't feel like it now :ultracool It'll get done someday...when I'm done training... ^_^
~Ani


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2009)

Heh.  My ex-bf and I were talking about getting married when he suggested I stay home after our wedding.  I shrugged and said that it was fine with me...but reminded him that he can have a stay-at-home wife in the family....or an engineer's paycheck in the family.  Funny how he quickly found a reason for the latter. :lol:


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 25, 2009)

Ephesians 5:21-30  (New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition):
_Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of his wife just as Christ is the head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.  AS the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
_"_For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"
_​_This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.  In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife respect her husband.

_​Somehow, I think if Paul had any idea how these passages would be read and interpreted and applied today -- he'd have phrased them rather differently.  Of course -- they may be rather different in meaning, were I scholar enough to return to the original Greek and read them as he wrote them.

It's instructive, to say the least, to read the entire passage, and not simply "wives be submissive to your husbands."  Note that the comparison is repeatedly made of the marriage bond to the church of Christ; the husband is called to sacrifice himself for the family, just as Christ sacrificed himself for the church, and the wife is called to submit to the family/husband, just as Christ submitted himself totally to the church.  

I can't see how those who read this passage as supporting husbands commanding their meekly subservient wives; they're ignoring (to me) more than half the passage!  Is your finger subservient to your ear?  No; they work in concert to achieve the goals of the body.  In the same way, the marriage requires husband and wives to submit their individual selves to one another so that the marriage as a union can function.


----------

