Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

by Greatest I am Thu May 24, 2012 10:00 pm

Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

Scriptures, and other myth’s, say that God determined that men should rule over women. This gives form, --- in a demographic sense, ---- to our common and society, and says that our demographic pyramid should have a hierarchical shape and or form. This initiates tension and has God demonizing woman, as well as any notion of female equality with man.

His motive must be for the good of women. Somehow!
After all, sanctity of the family is one of the main points of morality.

God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man’s dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female.

Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice.

What do you think?
What would real men do?
What would real women demand?
Do men and women have what it takes to be free?

Justice under law should be gender and age neutral, with limits, but with a good spirit of assuring equality. We do not administer that justice. We only give it lip service. Men are not walking their talk. Neither are women.

In Gods timocracy, a place of government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. All honors go to the Queen and her children. A king’s first responsibility is to insure the veneration of his queen. Honor demands it. He accepts this burden and pleasure wisely. The Queen, as the Beta archetype is the life of the kingdom. The archetypal king’s duty is to raise woman’s position. That means that all men have the same duty. That of not denying women equality and elevating her.

Men. Be good kings. You are making good just men look bad. Step up.
God wills it.

Women. Be good queens and demand what is yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA

Regards
DL

by Shirina Thu May 24, 2012 10:44 pm

Whenever someone believes they have a mandate to rule and dominate someone else, the end result is usually unpleasant for the ruled. All too often, ego edges its way past common sense at which point said rulership becomes tyrannical. Few men (or women, for that matter) can resist the siren's call of power, and you know what they say about absolute power. In terms of men browbeating women into utter subservience, well, we need only look at history to see the results. We can go all the way back to the days of Rome where women weren't even allowed good seats in the colosseum much less own property - even slaves were treated with more respect. We can trace this tyranny all the way into the 20th Century given that women were not even granted the right to vote in this country until 1920. Despite all the race hatred between blacks and whites, incidentally, black men were given the right to vote in 1869!

So no, we definitely do not need a mandate from God suggesting women be ruled by their husbands ... because that mandate ends up spilling over into society at large. It will not stay a husband-wife issue. The male dominance over females ultimately becomes both law and culture.

I do think, however, that women have a responsibility, too. No longer should men be tasked with taking the plunge and asking the girl out - she can be assertive too. No longer should it always fall to the man to pay for a date. Nope. And she can start making HIM feel appreciated. The reward for being dominated was a certain amount of doting and protection from the dirtier side of life. Of course, a man is still free to adopt the old school style if he so chooses ... but he should understand that this, in no way, obligates a woman to submit to his authority. Women need to realize that if they want equality, it has to truly BE equality. That means giving up some of our benefits of "ladyhood."

by ROB Fri May 25, 2012 2:01 am

Hebrew Bible:

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness… So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1:26-27

by oftenwrong Fri May 25, 2012 10:22 am

The Philadelphia chapter of the National Organization for Women annually awards a Barefoot and Pregnant Award "to persons in the community who have done the most to perpetuate outmoded images of women and who have refused to recognize that women are, in fact, human beings."

by astra Fri May 25, 2012 12:39 pm

AH well HARRUMPH, cough, sniff,

I have always held to the maxim -

Treat a good woman like you treat a good carpet -
put her on the washing line and beat the stuffing out of her twice a week!

Keeps her in her place.

em who are you? Why you wearing a nuse's uniform?

by Greatest I am Fri May 25, 2012 9:38 pm

Shirina wrote:. Women need to realize that if they want equality, it has to truly BE equality. That means giving up some of our benefits of "ladyhood."

Sniped for brevity but well put.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri May 25, 2012 9:39 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Hebrew Bible:

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness… So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1:26-27

And do you agree with God setting man above woman?

Regards
DL

by astra Fri May 25, 2012 10:19 pm

And do you agree with God setting man above woman?

I HAVE to say no!!

(that skillet was hot and heavy!) Very Happy

by ROB Sat May 26, 2012 12:40 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Hebrew Bible:

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness… So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1:26-27

Greatest I am wrote:
And do you agree with God setting man above woman?

Ha adama is first mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27; male and female are first mentioned in Genesis 1:27. Please read the text with me.

Hebrew Bible:

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness… So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1:26-27

Ha adama is mentioned again in Genesis 2:7. Please read the text with me.

Hebrew Bible:

And YHVH Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:7

Woman is first mentioned in Genesis 2:22-23. Please read the text with me.

Hebrew Bible:

YHVH Elohim fashioned into a woman the rib which he had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Genesis 2:22-23

Greatest I am wrote:
And do you agree…?

My agreement is irrelevant. YHVH Elohim is maker and creator; I (ha adama) am made and created. Truth is truth independent of with what I might or might not agree.

Greatest I am wrote:
… with God setting man above woman?

I see no text regarding “God setting man above woman.”

by Greatest I am Sun May 27, 2012 7:42 pm

Thanks for the usual.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Sun May 27, 2012 8:04 pm

Women have always been in charge. Proof usually comes with the words 'not tonight dear, I've got a headache'. Wink

by ROB Sun May 27, 2012 8:32 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Women have always been in charge. Proof usually comes with the words 'not tonight dear, I've got a headache'.

“If she isn’t happy, there will be no peace in the valley.”

1 Freddy 2:3

by trevorw2539 Sun May 27, 2012 10:23 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
trevorw2539 wrote:
Women have always been in charge. Proof usually comes with the words 'not tonight dear, I've got a headache'.

“If she isn’t happy, there will be no peace in the valley.”

1 Freddy 2:3

Surely the Aramaic translation of 'valley' is 'bedroom'. Wink

by oftenwrong Sun May 27, 2012 11:09 pm

"Surely the Aramaic translation of 'valley' is 'bedroom'."

No,Trev, all of that is in English.

by ROB Mon May 28, 2012 10:29 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Surely the Aramaic translation of 'valley' is 'bedroom'.

Uh, huh.

It’s also ‘living room’, ‘dining room’…

by biglin Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:22 pm

OK, let's keep this simple.

What makes you assume that ALL men know what is best for ALL women?

What makes you think that God said that men should rule over us rather than it simply being a bunch of men who declared that he had SAID that to them?

Where's your evidence that any such conversation between God and man ever took place?

If you look at the Garden of Eden story, Satan went to Eve - the woman - rather than Adam - the man.

Why? Is it because he thought she was smarter than her husband?

You have to remember that the Bible was written over many centuries by lots of different blokes and (in a couple of cases) some women too.

But in any case trying to use it as an argument for female submission is a bit dodgy.

I have (like most gypsy women) a bit of an ambivalent attitude to the whole issue of gender relations.

Romani culture is fairly patriarchal and pretty traditional in general. You would be amazed at what us girls have to go through in terms of our culture!

On the other hand we are no way any sort of doormat. Yes, we broadly accept the idea of male headship of the family but that doesn't mean we let our blokes get away with everything!

Women are actually valued in many ways MORE highly than men in gypsy culture.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm talking about REAL gypsies - Romanies - and not the wannabes, the jenishers who call themselves travellers and have got us REAL Roma a bad name because unlike us they don't follow the 'leis-prala' - the laws of the brothers.

by astra Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:05 pm

In pre Roman Times the succession of the crown in Scotland went down the Queen's line, and this matriachal system which saw a king and 5 Kinglets north of the Border lasted until the Romans and Normans finished it off.

Women have been mostly respected, until the industrial revolution in Scotland, then the Irish influx toppled the balance, but by no means is a man "king" of "his" castle.

I have a book by Norman Prebble that explains far far better than I ever could! will look it up.

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:28 pm

biglin wrote:
What makes you assume that ALL men know what is best for ALL women?

Most men don’t know what’s best for most men. I am most men.

astra wrote:
I have a book by Norman Prebble that explains far far better than I ever could! will look it up.

I’ve got a book entitled How to Be King of Your Castle: Ten Steps for Men to Regain Mastery over All They Survey.

I’ll ship it to you right after my wife lets me read it. Look for in about twenty-eight years.

“If the woman ain’t happy, there shall be no peace in the valley” (! Freddy 2:3).

by oftenwrong Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:23 pm

Throughout History, women have allowed their Men to get out of the house in order to fight wars, or hunt for food, or simply invent ways to pass the time, such as Banking or Politics, while in temporary exile from the family hearth.

Rewards have always been available for those returning home with gifts.

by Greatest I am Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:36 pm

biglin wrote:OK, let's keep this simple.

What makes you assume that ALL men know what is best for ALL women?

I do not assume this and know that many men would not until trained in right thinking.
That to me starts with understanding this following.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

What makes you think that God said that men should rule over us rather than it simply being a bunch of men who declared that he had SAID that to them?

I do not think God said it and agree that it was self-serving men. Although back then when muscle meant more to survival than today, it may have had some justification. That justification no longer exists.

Where's your evidence that any such conversation between God and man ever took place?

There is no evidence to justify a belief in God unless one has had an apotheosis. I have but as is the case with all these types of claims, I cannot offer any proof of it and do not push for belief and only offer it as an anecdotal rendering. I also do not have a dogma to sell.

If you look at the Garden of Eden story, Satan went to Eve - the woman - rather than Adam - the man.

Yes. Not surprising to me. I read Eden as a simple story of a rite of passage from childhood to maturity. We all know that women, girls that is, mature faster than men. Further, in that day right up to today, women rear children more than men do and Eve would have led Adam into the knowledge of good and evil.

Why? Is it because he thought she was smarter than her husband?

Not smarter but more mature. I can allow that she was smarter because of this but men do catch up.

You have to remember that the Bible was written over many centuries by lots of different blokes and (in a couple of cases) some women too.

No argument. If bright men and women, they would have discussed things with their mate before writing.

But in any case trying to use it as an argument for female submission is a bit dodgy.

As I indicated above, it may not have been for that point in time. For today, no argument.

I have (like most gypsy women) a bit of an ambivalent attitude to the whole issue of gender relations.

Some of us are followers and some of us leaders. We should all follow our natures.

Romani culture is fairly patriarchal and pretty traditional in general. You would be amazed at what us girls have to go through in terms of our culture!

Way too much IMO thanks to the attitude of all those in the Abrahamic religions.

On the other hand we are no way any sort of doormat. Yes, we broadly accept the idea of male headship of the family but that doesn't mean we let our blokes get away with everything!

Any married person who has not learned that democracy in a family is better than a tyranny is rather stupid. At the same time, because of man's inherent nature, should be the leader but he should be creating a timocracy based on duty and that means that he would lead for woman's sake and not his own. Lead out of duty and not his pleasure IOW. He should put woman above himself and to me, it is woman's duty to humanity to also do her duty and take her position above men. That is how the fifth moral position shown in that Ted clip is attained. Both need to recognize their duty to the whole of society.

Women are actually valued in many ways MORE highly than men in gypsy culture.

If so, there is nothing that I can teach them.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm talking about REAL gypsies - Romanies - and not the wannabes, the jenishers who call themselves travellers and have got us REAL Roma a bad name because unlike us they don't follow the 'leis-prala' - the laws of the brothers.

I will have to take your word on this. I have no knowledge of this situation.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:09 pm

Women are actually valued in many ways MORE highly than men in gypsy culture.

In our society - since most of us are not Romani - women are highly valued, but that valuation comes with a steep price. The value of women can be summed up in one oft-heard phrase when ships sink: "Women and children first!" Women are often placed on pedestals by our patriarchal society. We are the beneficiaries of chivalric behavior ... we gain the benefit of a man's protection, a man's concern, a man's caring. They stand when we stand, we have doors held open for us, chairs slid out for us, dinners paid for, drinks bought for us, and we could, as women, live a very pampered life.

But we pay for that with our independence, our dignity, our strength, and our pride. We must play the role of the delicate flower, the easily broken, overly emotional china doll that still holds up her skirt and "eeks!" if a mouse is sighted in the kitchen. We must avoid things like politics, careers, military service, or interest in male activities. We must depend on the man for our financial viability as well as perform mostly domestic tasks such as cooking good dinners, keeping the house tidy, and raising the children.

For some women, that price is far too high, something many of us discovered during WWII when work and a paycheck liberated the female half of the species. For some of us, including myself, our spirits are far too free to ever be chained by societal expectations regarding the roles husbands and wives are supposed to perform.

Unfortunately, that price which many women are willing to pay, has caused femininity to be seen as weak, ineffective, and essentially worthless. Some of us, including myself, take a dim view of men who insult other men by calling them "girls" or saying things like, "You throw like a girl," "You hit like a girl," "You run like a girl." Because ... what does that say about girls? I find it trite and insulting, but that is just another part of that price - to be seen as weak, even to some extent, naturally stupid.

No thanks.

by oftenwrong Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:52 pm

Gender role-play is a "given" in our society, with babies assigned one or the other at the earliest possible age. Exceptions provide tatty newspapers with their Sunday content.

In the 21st. Century it has become acceptable and quite common for homosexuals to form legal partnerships, with the result that one of the males adopts feminine traits - up to and including those of the traditional housewife.

Which suggests that such behaviour is nurture, not nature.

by Shirina Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:56 am

Hitler described the "perfect woman" as: "Stupid and politically naive."

by polyglide Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:04 pm

The perfect woman as is the perfect man, as rare as rocking horse manure.

The fact is neither can do without the other in the long term.

Both have different roles to play in life.

The answer to the quesion is, it all depends on who is involved.

There is obvious situations where it is far better for the male to take charge of matters for the well being of the female but just as many situations arrise, for many reasons, why the female has to take charge of affairs for the benifit of the male.

The very best scenario is for the male to make the female think they are in charge, when they are not, gain all the benifits from doing so and then everyone is happy.

God made man first and women ever since have been trying to catch up.

by oftenwrong Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:09 pm

How many platitudes can be shoehorned into a single posting?

by Greatest I am Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:21 pm

polyglide wrote:The perfect woman as is the perfect man, as rare as rocking horse manure.

The fact is neither can do without the other in the long term.

Both have different roles to play in life.

The answer to the quesion is, it all depends on who is involved.

There is obvious situations where it is far better for the male to take charge of matters for the well being of the female but just as many situations arrise, for many reasons, why the female has to take charge of affairs for the benifit of the male.

The very best scenario is for the male to make the female think they are in charge, when they are not, gain all the benifits from doing so and then everyone is happy.

God made man first and women ever since have been trying to catch up.

You might want to read genesis 1 again. They were both made at the same time.

R O B

This is where you should quote your Jewish works and teach.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:22 pm

oftenwrong wrote:How many platitudes can be shoehorned into a single posting?

+ 1

Regards
DL

by polyglide Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:29 am

As far as Iam aware woman was made from a rib of man and therefore the man must have been made first but does it realy matter ? both man and woman are both proving to be equal in ruining the earth and everything therein.

by Greatest I am Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:05 pm

polyglide wrote:As far as Iam aware woman was made from a rib of man and therefore the man must have been made first but does it realy matter ? both man and woman are both proving to be equal in ruining the earth and everything therein.

Read Genesis 1 again for the first time. Man and woman in the myth were created at the same time.

Unless you want to believe that a God who created all the other animals with mates is so stupid as to forget that man also needs a mate.

Regards
DL

by ROB Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:58 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Read Genesis 1 again for the first time. Man and woman in the myth were created at the same time.

Genesis 1 doesn’t say that “[man] and woman in the myth were created at the same time.”

Hebrew Bible:

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27

Who: Elohim (“God”).
What: Created ha adama (“man”), “male and female”, “in his own image.”
When: Doesn’t say; moreover, the Hebrew word translated “day” in other portions of Genesis 1 cannot be inextricably tied to a twenty-four hour “day.”
Where: Doesn’t say.
How: Doesn’t say.
Why: To “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Scholarship requires that one pay attention to “who”, “what”, “when”, “where”, “how”, and “why” of a document. Scholarship requires that one refrain from attributing to a document information (“when”) not found therein.

Scholarship requires that one pay attention to the words contained within a document. Scholarship requires that one refrain from attributing to a document a word (“myth”) not found therein.

by Greatest I am Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:26 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

Greatest I am wrote:
Read Genesis 1 again for the first time. Man and woman in the myth were created at the same time.

Genesis 1 doesn’t say that “[man] and woman in the myth were created at the same time.”

[quote]Hebrew Bible:

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
quote]

Male and female and not just male.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:31 pm

There's just no substitute for the testimony of an eye-witness.

by ROB Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:37 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Male and female and not just male.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

I’ve not confirmed what you’ve said. God (Elohim), through God’s Word (Genesis 1:26-27), has confirmed what God has said.

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:47 pm

.......... and The Lord said, "Let there be Light"

and behold, there was Light,

and an excuse for humans to argue about it until the end of Time.

by polyglide Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:49 am

And the end of time as we know it is not far off.

by Greatest I am Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:59 pm

polyglide wrote:And the end of time as we know it is not far off.

Opinion is not fact unless you have some facts to add.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:23 pm

Radio News headline today, Friday 13 July.

"Iran to have nuclear weapons within four years."

Is that a fact?

by ROB Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:14 am

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?
by Greatest I am on Fri 13 Jul 2012 - 17:59

Opinion is not fact unless you have some facts to add.

Note the following quotes.

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Fri 13 Jul 2012 - 16:53

Satan has been sentenced to hell according to the myth.¹

Justice delayed is justice denied² so God must want him here³ and as stated above, it looks like he rewarded him by giving him dominion here⁴ after clawing it back from mankind.⁵

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Fri 13 Jul 2012 - 16:49

Scholarly examination of the text show it to be forgeries and plagiarisms.⁶

And examination of Jewish text shows that they knew they were writing myths that only the uninformed would read literally.⁷

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Fri 13 Jul 2012 - 16:43

… The Jesuits running the show ignored it all.⁸
… I have forgotten just how many atrocities Christianity has been involved in.⁹

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Thu 12 Jul 2012 - 20:53

God loves the evil ones more than the good because he is the greatest sinner.¹⁰

God is man.¹¹

… As the Alpha, God knew he had to do this to also be the Omega.¹² That is a part of the full standard of good and evil as declared by God as the law maker.¹³

This shows that he loves sinners more than those of us who are supposedly good.¹⁴

God… placed his beloved Satan near the tree of knowledge to insure that mankind ate of it¹⁵… Evil is our lord and God as shown by God’s actions.¹⁶ Satan is not real of course¹⁷…

… Without us, we would all be living in what we would call hell instead of the paradise that we have created thanks to sin and the evils we do.¹⁸ This maintains the perfection of all that is.¹⁹ This explains why God loves the sinner and hates the sin²⁰ and this is also why we are rewarded with the eternal paradise of hell.²¹

Martin Luther, A Gnostic Christian²²…

The root of all religions is the Great Arcanum²³…

… God’s… murder of his innocent son.²⁴ You are missing the moral of the myth²⁵… This thinking will send you to hell.²⁶

Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.

From Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 20:53 through Friday, 13 July 2012 at 16:53, a time period of twenty (20) hours, Greatest I am posted at least twenty-six (26) opinions unsupported by facts.

by Greatest I am Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:37 pm

ROB

Show anything that you have said about God that is supported by fact.

Finding it in your book is not fact. That is just a fact that a man wrote it.

I also note that you did not refute anything that I wrote. Hmmm.

Regards
DL

by ROB Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:13 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?
by Greatest I am on Fri 13 Jul 2012 - 17:59

Opinion is not fact unless you have some facts to add.

Greatest I am, from Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 20:53 through Friday, 13 July 2012 at 16:53, posted at least twenty-six (26) opinions unsupported by facts. Note the following.

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?
by Greatest I am on Sat 14 Jul 2012 - 15:37

ROB

Show anything that you have said about God that is supported by fact.¹

Finding it in your book is not fact.² That is just a fact that a man wrote it.³

I also note that you did not refute anything that I wrote.⁴ Hmmm.⁵

Does not pertain to Greatest I am posting opinions unsupported by facts.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Opinion unsupported by fact.
Does not pertain to Greatest I am posting opinions unsupported by facts.
Does not pertain to Greatest I am posting opinions unsupported by facts.

by Sponsored content