Obedient wives club: Good sex to keep hubby happy, curb social ills

A new organisation is stirring up controversy in Malaysia.

 

[The Obedient Wives Club] launched on Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom. "Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu.

Just wondering, but is female submission the only thing that makes men happy and keeps societies afloat? You hear this argument again and again all over the world, and the saddest thing is when you hear it coming from women.

Story

Tags: muslim, obedient wives, submission, women

Views: 409

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"Sandy's comment did not make me feel any shame or guilt on behalf of my gender. "And yet you felt compelled to reply, and tell her that not all men treat women with disrespect.  Why did you feel the need to post a response if you did not feel a need to redeem your gender?  Why did you feel the need to post a serious response if Sandy's post was meant in jest?"It was made in the context of a story about women in Indonesia who think they have to be completely submissive to their husbands and who think they are commanded by Allah to do so."Sandy did not ask whether female submission was the only thing that makes Indonesion men happy, or keeps Islamist societies afloat.  Her comment was aimed at the male gender as a whole.  It was aimed at you, and it was aimed at me, and it was aimed at our sons.
"Women need more access to health care assistance considering the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant and are often left caring for the child alone. "Are you not aware that women outlive men?Are you not aware that mortality rates for testicular cancer are even with mortality rates for breast cancer, yet breast cancer recieves THREE TIMES the funding?Are you not aware that in very many cases, women end up caring for children alone because they actively exclude the fathers from their children's lives?
"considering the fact that men make more money than women in the same job, often have an easier time getting promoted, and are more likely to be taken seriously by their superiors, some leveling of the playing field is warranted."Are you aware that all studies that examine the causes of the wage disparity between men and women have shown that this is due to choices made by women in their careers, and not by systematic discrimination?  Are you aware that a recent study showed that unmarried professional women without children earned 8 percent MORE than their unmarried professional childless male colleagues?  The wage gap is a complete myth, and you have been fed a line.
If I am being sensitive, it is because I have witnessed the effects of statements such as Sandy's first-hand.  I have walked into a family court room and had to deal with the assumption that I was a self-centered dead-beat father who's only goal was to avoid supporting his children.  I've been presumed guilty in courtrooms, and I've seen how men are presumed guilty within society as a whole.  Posts such as Sandy's contribute to this.

Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin.

(Just trying to increase my overall accuracy rate....)

My initial comment to Sandy's post was not meant to make men look better, it was my own commentary on the absurdity of the Obedient Wives Club.

Yes, a lot of good men do get a bad rap, but it's not because of statements about the absurdity of the views of a few Indonesian women. I'm sorry that you lost your custody battle, but just because the courts and your ex-wife screwed you over doesn't mean you have to take it out on all women.

As far as the studies you mention, I'm not familiar with them. Could you provide links?

I didn't lose my custody battle.

I won, but only after the mother demonstrated complete irresponsibility did I get primary custody of my children.  And then I was STILL ordered to pay child support to my non-custodial ex-wife who had the children about 30% of the time, because she was voluntarily unemployed.  It took five years, two trips to the court of appeals, and $80,000 to get that reversed.

The studies are available by google searching, and I have also posted them on Atheist Nexus before in the Atheist Feminist forum.  I don't have time to dig them up right now.  If you are unable to find them in a search, let me know and I will retrieve them for you.

How long have you been on AN?  How many of Sandy's posts have you read?

Sandy, admittedly, is usually pretty balanced in her comments.

I will say, I think she may have been unaware of the subtle implications of her post.

I respect Sandy, based upon the other exchanges we have had, but I will still call her out when she posts something which is demeaning to men.  I trust she, and others, would do the same were I to post something demeaning to women.

I think she may have been unaware of the subtle implications of her post.

 

You are free to think that, but it is an assumption on you part, you can attempt to show that it might be a somewhat reasonable assumption but you do not know this. 

 

I will still call her out when she posts something which is demeaning to men.

 

Please do so, I do see a lot of sexism going around in everyday life and what can be frustrating to me is that it's not okay to make sexist jokes about women, but that it is often quite okay to make sexist jokes about men. Personally, I would like to see that all kinds of horribly offensive jokes are considered to be ok, regardless of who might be offended and to what degree.

 

I do feel however that this is more then just a pet peeve to you and that you are emotionally involved in this subject, all perfectly fine to me, but it does seem though you are taking your assumptions at least one step too far. You can also point out your problems and opinions in regards to the subject or Sandy's post without making assumptions as to the motivation of the people involved, it will generally improve the atmosphere of the discussion.

Rob, where in my original post did I make assumptions regarding Sandy's motivation?
"But I also have to say, Sandy, that your post if pretty offensive. I don't feel that I should have to be put into the position of defending my gender. I'm sure you would be offended if I posted an article about gold-digging women with a comment such as 'Just wondering, but is sponging off of men the only thing that women want and keeps societies afloat'? Gross gender generalizations and exaggeration of stereotypes are divisive, demeaning, and intellectually shallow regardless of their target."
I simply requested that she consider whether she would be offended by a similar comment regarding women before she posts things like that again. It looks to me like I made my point in exactly the manner you have requested. I'm starting to think that everybody ELSE here is over-reacting to my comment.
And by the way, up to this point NOBODY on this thread has had the courage to answer my questions.

I notice, TByte, that during your long-winded "argument" on the AN News wall, TNT666 called you out as actually being Bruce Lindemann, the guy who was accused of being a troll on the Feminist Atheists forum a few months ago. I thought she was wrong, as initially your posts didn't come across the same as Bruce's but now I'm beginning to wonder. Bruce used to make the same sorts of accusations - "nobody's answered my questions" - "you're all over-reacting to innocent-little-me." "women have everything their own way, and it's so unfair to men" ad nauseam.

If you are Bruce, and you're only keeping this thread alive to feed a deep need for attention, please stop. You're sucking my time.

Yes, that is me. And I'll point out (as you should have read in the thread) that TNT666 was admonished by the forum moderator that revealing a member's name without their consent is a violation of site rules.
Care to post you last name, Sandy? If not, then please refresh yourself on forum rules.
Accusing me of having a deep need for attention is a cheap and shallow dodge. You are well aware that I post only when particular issues are raised. Why don't you try actually answering my questions rather than trying to excuse away my motivations?
Oh the irony!  LOL!  You get bent out of shape by what you consider Sandy's motivation but, nobody is allowed to question yours.

Classic! 

 

The subject areas where I post are available with simple search, Susan.  My motivations and what I am arguing should be obvious.  There is no irony, and it remains a cheap dodge to continue avoiding addressing the issues I raised.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service