So FD, you're now running with 'they weren't even allowed to stand up'?

Thats an interesting one, though I'm not sure it will pass the common-sense test you were so eagerly advocating a second ago.

Would you agree that your meme would be at least as, and probably stronger if it had been a group of women standing in the back instead of those men? You know, previously you lot have been so keen on the "women forced into the back row" thing. Also I'm still struggling to understand how the woman sitting on the chair amongst the men fits in...

Let me guess - not the woman sitting on the chair?

Not the men shuttled to the back of the room and forced to stand? Why don't you expand on your "its so unfair they weren't even allowed to stand" argument FD - I think thats a real winner.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they are students or trainees there on work experience? That could explain why not all the women are on the floor don't you think?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:


ok sure, so expand on 'what you actually said' about it somehow being more submissive to sit on the floor rather than stand in the back of the room.

Or you could just pretend again that you never meant that the girls on the floor were in the most submissive position in the room - up to you.

Do you think the woman in the chair is being submissive?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:


Why does your view of submissiveness depend on mine? I'm not the one giving none-to-subtle hints about who is made to be submissive here.

So can you elaborate on this please:

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:


Please tell me if I've mistaken this for you implying that the girls occupy the most submissive position in the room. If I did, then great, then we agree that this picture is not a depiction of evil Islamic oppression of women.

If I'm not mistaken, then we can move on to why this is necessarily more submissive than being shuttled to the back of the room and forced to stand. Who knows, we might even be able to get to the lady sitting in the chair.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:


I'm not sure FD - you see this whole "submissiveness" idea of this photo was never my idea, it was yours. Which is why I'm asking you to explain it. Your question is premised on the assumption that I think there is some sort of submission dynamic going on in this picture - which in fact I don't. I can hardly offer an opinion on the nature of something I don't believe exists can I? And I don't understand where you are going with this line of questioning - why don't you just come out and explain how sitting on the floor is being submissive, but standing at the back is not, preferably with an explanation of why the woman in the font row avoided the floor "sin bin". Can you answer that like an adult FD - without resorting to childish rhetorical questions or petulantly pretending you didn't imply that the women sitting on the floor are being submissive?

Quote:


Ah, so you are incapable of answering the question? I haven't seen that one in a while.

Quote:


That's odd. You just finished suggesting we go there:

Quote:

Thanks John. I often use photos of women with their faces covered to demonstrate gender equality. Check out the wrists on her.

Good point John. We should simply ignore the photo of women in letter box outfits that you used to demonstrate how not sexist Muslims are. Perhaps you would like to try changing the topic again? I am sure you can figure it out eventually. Try asking yourself what you would make your wife wear to demonstrate her freedom.