to think that banning the use of the word "God" is a bit much?

[MiniMonty]

Need the opinions of many women and Mothers here...
The wife has suddenly stated that she is "offended" by our three kids (and me) saying "oh God" or "God in heaven" or "for God's sake" etc as she has recently become a bit God Squad and rediscovered her Christianity.

Caused a huge row over the kitchen table three nights ago and it rumbles on with wife being pretty committed to the idea that no one should be allowed to say "Oh God" or "for God's sake" etc.,

My view is that this is unreasonable (and a bit silly) and even if you take it seriously in terms of not offending peoples' religious ideas - still a bit silly.

Am I wrong?

It's been rumbling on for three days and nights now and I need something...

All and any cast iron responses to the religious bullying very much appreciated.

The wife... Enough to make any woman want to turn to prayer. I am not a believer but she appears to me to be far more reasonable than you. She is asking you to respect her views. You regard her as an object. YAB far, far more U than your wife.

Mini

That response wasn't really a response to the points some of us have made.

When you've calmed down maybe you can come back and explain why you are so unwilling to compromise with the wife you love. This is a bout her not about wider society

....... "the only woman I will ever put first.
"The Wife" is a pretty awesome and shocking person who I love and respect"

Ho Hum indeed

Perhaps you could choose someone else's name to use as an expression of irritation instead. Your own maybe.

Oh dear me.

The OP's last post has realised I was probably too polite in my first one

I object to the wife because it makes her sound like a possession. She isn't she's a human being. I say the dog because I own my dog, you can't own a human being.

As for free speech...it isn't as free as you may think it is.

So do you think Martin Luther King, Christopher Columbus, Imran Khan, Isaac Newton, Mel Gibson, Ravi Shankar, Alice Cooper, J.D. Salinger, Vikram Seth, C.S. Lewis, William Wilberforce, the Queen, T.S. Eliot, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Meera Syal, Florence Nightingale, Muhammad Ali, Julia Roberts and Aldous Huxley (have) all "failed as fully functioning adults" then SGB?

I have never EVER heard or read of a woman saying "the husband".

Possibly because we don't live in a culture where it's OK for women to disrespect men. Whereas on the other hand....

I say 'the husband', very tongue in cheek of course.

If someone finds something offensive, why would you keep saying it? A lot of people don't like blasphemy, not all god-squadders either. It sounds awful coming out of the mouth of babes.

Possibly because we don't live in a culture where it's OK for women to disrespect men. Whereas on the other hand

There's LOADS of examples of where this comment is just wrong. In the media for example, I'm talking about adverts of late, it's okay for the women in said adverts to take the piss out of their partners not being able to do DIY and getting a better person to do it :o

Oh and the Amanda Holden advert, she's using a man as a foot stool. IMAGINE the roles reversed?!

I woulnt like to imagine :o

Oh, you mean like the lynx adverts? Or the wkd adverts? Or the yorkie adverts? Or the images in every "aspirational" mens magazines, lads mags and newspapers?

Have you ever seen a woman being used as a footstool? I've not. I think both sexes should be able to take the piss out of each other anyway, with boundaries of course.

And I wasn't saying that there isn't any! I was just saying that there IS circumstances in where men are disrespected, contrary to what the poster said.

The difference is, in ads, a man being objectified is done with humour, in a "as if" way, women being objectified is very different "buy this and half naked women will clean for you" the example you use is one in a sea of women being flouted as toys and possessions by society.

In your opinion

Whereas mine is women are allowed to go that one step further (ie the man slave) and its seen as all smug and tongue in cheek.

The advertising industry is built on the idea that women function solely to please men. Sex sells, especially when its draped over a car or cleaning the house in a french maid costume, or stripping off in the middle of a supermarket. Can you think of any other ads like the amanda holden one?

Philadelphia adverts for one. The men serving the women, dressed in nothing but angel wings and shorts.

I don't think there's anything wrong with these adverts by the way, I'm just saying its not as one sided as people would like to think

And blame it I know that sex sells. You're telling me this... Why?

Refer to my above point. I'm not saying there isn't any adverts were women are disrespected or what have you, I'm just replying to the poster who think men haven't been.

Once again, a fantasy/fantastical advert.

In my opinion you are wrong, things ARE that one-sided and misogyny is so ingrained that most of us don't even notice it anymore. The "what about the menz" argument doesn't hold any water, its just something that people use to prevent any change. A smoke and mirrors tactic.

So? Whether its 'fantasy' or not. It's still men being used as an object.

Why doesn't it hold water, because you don't want it to? Is that why? Because if you accept that men are used in a similar fashion, moreso recently, it takes away from you being able to talk about us poor women being used in such a way?

I quite like the fact that the gap is becoming narrower, but it would seem some dont want it to.

Another sexist advert against men is the Boots advert. Personally I find them funny especially as DP thinks he's dying of the flu right now but it doesn't mean it's not sexist. It's had hundreds of complaints apparently.

I agree with you about the footstool thing, Ghostship

Two wrongs don't make a right

I think all these "men looking helpless around the house/sick" ads are just positive reinforcement of the idea that we need a nice woman to do it.