Women are religion’s longest running victims

First topic message reminder :

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

Tosh wrote:

This issue is more about sanctity for women in their roles as gatherers and nurturing and men's roles as hunters.

There is no sanctity in roles.

There is in accepting the right one.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:Greatest I am, you are clearly on a mission. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here or what you think the rest of us layabout atheists ought to be doing. Personally, the whole idea of worshipping anything is abhorrent. I can't stand modern TV because the worship of vapid Z-list celebrities with the IQ's of ground beef makes me want to hurl. I wouldn't attend an atheist church. The fact that most atheists are free-thinkers makes the whole idea of a church repugnant. It's like trying to herd cats. Atheists are more likely to disagree about how, when, where, who and what should be in an atheist church.

Frankly, I think you give this Haigt guy too much credit. Sorry. You seem a bright enough fellow but you are a 'follower' of this guy and I dislike the idea of following anyone.

I follow ideas and not people.

The ideas that show longevity for the atheist movement is what I push. Haigt just happens to have the science to back him up and any atheist with a sense of civic moral duty will think of his offspring and their hivish nature and try to cater to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

Regards
DL

Shirina wrote:

Because you do not need us anymore in that way and we do not see you doing your duty toward family by recognizing the men are willing to die for you.

Ahh, but there is the implication of that price I talked about in a previous post. There is the subtle hint in your words that, while you may be willing to die for us, we must be docile and dependent in return.

You surprise me with this hogwash.
You are brighter than that.

I got this from a friend.
I thought it worth the read.

equalitarianism vs egalitarianism. These are not identical pairs of words, but synonyms with significant differences. A more stark division is between the gentleman and the cad. So I can support sanctity, egalitarianism and genteel behavior ... and an atheist can at least support the second two. But I can't support sanctimoniousness, or equalitarianism (often found in liberal and feminist politics) or boorish behavior.

A gentleman considers it his greatest privilege to take care of women and children. A gentlewoman considers it her greatest privilege to take care of men and children. Notice in both cases the selfish ego is suppressed. Notice also there is no need for an imaginary equivalence between men and women, as if they were a single gender. Notice that caring isn't a burden, though the wealthy consider it so ... but then all misers feel that way even at Christmas.

It is true that women are essential, and you can tell the quality of a civilization by how it treats its women, but even more how it treats its children. One has to conclude that human beings aren't very civilized yet ;-( I would like men to be treated well also, but without women and children being treated well, there isn't much point in having a society, as opposed to a troop of vicious baboons.

Regards
DL

DL,

Actually, you're killing too birds with one stone here, and I do mean killing.

Two things I believe deserve a detailed response. First is that your premise about genteel behavior could have come right out of the Old Testament. As non-theist, I don't accept those roles when commanded by God much less if they are commanded by men. I think the bottom line here is rather simple: If women want to stay home changing diapers and fixing dinner forever, then that's fine ... as long as they have the choice. I'm not a very "nurturing" person and have more in common with men than I do with other women. It's one of the reasons why I can talk at length about military hardware with Rock, but I would decline an invitation to join in a conversation about the latest shoe fashions.

Simply being female is not enough to justify pigeon-holing all of them into a restrictive role. Some women want nothing more than to be a mother and good wife. However, for me - and others like me - a life of domestic "bliss" would be a psychological death sentence. Yes, I do feel that if a woman has children, she should take good care of them ... but if a woman chooses not to be a mother, she should be free to do so without any societal stigmas attached to her decision. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for the vast majority of human history going all the way back to the Romans.

or equalitarianism (often found in liberal and feminist politics)

I think you misapply "equalitarianism" as it is most commonly used in liberal and feminist politics. Rock brought up the issue of female firefighters being unable to meet the rigorous physical requirements for being one. I can agree with that ... but women are only asking for equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work and the like. No one is suggesting that men and women are identical in every respect. If you do not support equalitarianism in the way it is meant politically then you essentially support a backward system whereby women are once again expected to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I sincerely hope this isn't your idea of an ideal society.

I would also point out that it is only in a dreamland utopia where all men treat all women well. In the real world however, domestic violence, infidelity, and all manner of mental and spiritual abuses against women are all too commonplace. I'm sure you're aware of the sex scandal currently taking place with General Petraeus? A case in point. In my own life, I come from a long line of women who were left on the lurch by men who simply lost interest and moved on. With the exception of my own mother, who is educated, the rest of them were not and had no skills with which to support themselves. I won't (and haven't) made that mistake. If a woman's only real role is to take care of her husband and her children, she becomes exceptionally vulnerable. What leverage would she have, what options would she have, should her husband cheat on her? Abuse her? Up and leave her? This has been an issue plaguing women for centuries, one that only now has been more or less rectified. If women were stuffed back into their traditional roles, we would also be stuffed back into vulnerability.

That's the first dead bird you've killed. The second is this:

Your ideal world - which would be a nightmare for some - is an example of why an Atheist Church is a bad idea in the mind of many Atheists. What if, for instance, you were the "high priest" of one of these churches and began telling the women of your congregation that, in order to be a TRUE Atheist, they must live up to your moral ideals of genteel behavior? And where would those moral ideals end? The bottom line here is that any Atheist church runs a higher risk of simply becoming a lifestyle cult or a cult of personality (i.e. Jim Jones) than a true political force. I will give the Christians this much -- at least they have a Bible and a God that tells them what to believe, and they are limited by that. Atheists have no such restrictions, and no Atheist leadership can justify or legitimize their actions with a book or a few commandments. Atheist leaders of an Atheist church can freely impose their will upon the congregation using the same methodology that religious churches use to enthrall their own congregations. It would be religion without the God, but the results would be the same.

I agree that Atheists do need to organize and unite ... but turning ourselves into another form of religion isn't the way to do it. Organizing into political action committees, lobbying Congress or Parliament, setting up events, and getting the Atheist alternative out there is a good way of moving forward. But it *has* to be kept secular in more than just name. Yet I worry that many Atheist church leaders would, over time, turn Atheism into a bona fide non-theistic religion like Buddhism or Taoism, and that's what I don't want.

Just something to think about.

In the scenario, where the man gives up his seat in the life boat for a woman,or save the women first ,would be okay for me. However I would not make this a law ingrained ,especially when different scenarios occur.

It is difficult and I guess best left to the individuals personal judgement to make those choices to either save the male or the female.

One example when being courteous,we give up our seats for the elderly in our normal daily lives. In situations like the life boat; Ideas of who to save becomes less courteous regarding elderly.
1. Some will think these seniors have had their lives and people much younger should go in the life boats.
or
2. Some will think they deserve to be saved because they earned that right by a life's worth contribution.

Now in the scenario of desperation,regarding continuing existence. Lets say for example,A catastrophe so big that only a few will survive by leaving the Earth. Well obviously, you can not save all the women,because extinction is bound to follow. You have to have BOTH male and female to continue life.
Two by two like Noah's ark lol.

There are women who have and would,stay behind with their husbands ,brothers ,fathers unless seriously persuaded by their loved one to be saved.

We can all be moral I guess,if we save anyone we can.

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights

I haven't actually mention my position on the actual topic. I'll have to ponder on it when I get back.

Good day

Shirina

Be someone male or female, that person should not have impediments to follow whatever nature he or she has. The premise of the O P is not to pigeon hole anyone in any role. Elevating women is taking the chains that now bind them in a hole while men hold the keys. The goal is sanctity for the family more than it’s individual parts. At present it is men who are reducing family and it’s values to what we now have. Many good ones for sure but way too many that are not.

Genteel is an attitude. It is not based on how strong one is be it a male or a female.

As to an atheist institution, what you describe I do not see happening for an organization of atheists be it called a church or by any other name. These are free thinkers and would not fall into the religious type conditions you fear.

If interested in longevity and concern for our children and grandchildren, atheists will give them a place to exercise the groupishness or lose some of them to religions. Each atheist will have to either recognize that natural tendency and act or not.

Regards
DL

Jsmythe

Man is a rule following machine. We cannot help that. To ignore the law of the sea and leave it to individuals to decide would have people arguing with the captain as to who they think should be saved or not. Sure there will be exceptions but to leave the policy or law up in the air will give you case like the Italian captain in court as we speak.

This was part of the discussion after the sinking of the Titanic.
I near choked on it when I read it but you may habe a different view.

"there was no reason for women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of their own interests.".

Do you think that would be a true statement in that era or even today?

Regards
DL

"there was no reason for women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of their own interests.".

Do you think that would be a true statement in that era or even today?

GIA, I doubt it was a true statement for the Titanic:

There were 711 survivors. The numbers who survived were as follows:

1st class women 140 (4 lost)
1st class men 57 (118 lost)
1st class children 6 (none lost)
2nd class women 80 (13 lost)
2nd class men 14 (154 lost)
2nd class children 24 (none lost)
3rd class women 76 (89 lost)
3rd class men 75 (387 lost)
3rd class children 27 (52 lost)
Male crew 192 (693 lost)
Female crew 20 (3 lost)

Interesting vote.

Moral men and women treat everyone in equal terms irrespective of gender or they would not be moral.

That does not mean that there are not different expectations from the different genders.

There is a door unlocked.

That does not mean that there are not different expectations from the different genders.

And you're basing that statement on what?

And you're basing that statement on what?.

Thorazine, about 100 mg.

The man/woman/boy/girl is completely deranged, please don't mention butterflies.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Tosh wrote:

"there was no reason for women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of their own interests.".

Do you think that would be a true statement in that era or even today?

GIA, I doubt it was a true statement for the Titanic:

There were 711 survivors. The numbers who survived were as follows:

1st class women 140 (4 lost)
1st class men 57 (118 lost)
1st class children 6 (none lost)
2nd class women 80 (13 lost)
2nd class men 14 (154 lost)
2nd class children 24 (none lost)
3rd class women 76 (89 lost)
3rd class men 75 (387 lost)
3rd class children 27 (52 lost)
Male crew 192 (693 lost)
Female crew 20 (3 lost)

Interesting vote.

Same page I think.

The numbers are hard to resolve though.

Regards
DL

If we add:

Men and all crew: 358 survived and 1355 lost.

Women and children: 353 survived and 158 lost.

If you were a man or crew member then you had a 1 in 5 chance of surviving( approx 20%).

If you were a woman or a child then you had a 2 in 3 chance of surviving( approx 66%).


I suppose in a way it shows some moral selection process, but stats can mean anything you want them to.

I suppose physicality comes into it, a woman or child could not force herself onto the lifeboat, therefore in theory they would all die.

Transfer this practice to other physical struggles in nature and you would have a tribe of men with no women or kids, ergo extinction.

Morality is relative both to individual and group survival.

Tosh wrote:

....Morality is relative both to individual and group survival.

But why are you so reluctant to define "Morality", Tosh?

But why are you so reluctant to define "Morality", Tosh? .

Because you haven't asked me to dear Walter, any reason why you are reluctant to define morality my friend, because I have asked you more than once.

Another statistical thought - women are often, but not always, smaller and weaker than men (arguably as a result of historical child rearing practices which encouraged the development of physical strength in boys) - smaller and weaker people will usually come off second best in a struggle with larger stronger people.
If girl children were encouraged in childhood to develpop physical strength, good hand/eye coordination and a competitive spirit, maybe the 'differences' between the sexes would be much less 'different' and would be seen for what they maybe are - differences between individuals.

Well a man would not be expected to bear a child, for one example, nor in any so called civilised society would a woman be expected to take on the role of protector.

Tosh, unfortunately, is unable to answer any question in anything like a reasonable manner, he is a self conffesed Troll and deals only in the absurb.

Women often take on the role of protector on the planet where I live in circumstances where the woman is the strongest individual in the group (which often also arises where there are men in the group).
I agree men cannot bear children

Tosh, unfortunately, is unable to answer any question in anything like a reasonable manner, he is a self conffesed Troll and deals only in the absurb..

Of course dear, how old is the earth again ?

nor in any so called civilised society would a woman be expected to take on the role of protector.

I served in the US Navy ... in another time, that would be considered the warrior class, a protector. Women serve in the British military, as well. As they do in Israel, Sweden, and several other civilized societies. One thing that makes a society civilized is women having the *choice* to perform whatever role she wishes to and is capable of.

One thing that makes a society civilized is women having the *choice* to perform whatever role she wishes to and is capable of.

Oh yes, Shirina - nicely put

Curious though how often Society considers a girl who becomes pregnant to have made that choice all by herself.

Curious though how often Society considers a girl who becomes pregnant to have made that choice all by herself..

Barring accidents and rape, possibly.

polyglide wrote:
Well a man would not be expected to bear a child

 

A “man”; i.e., a sexually mature male human (X-Y chromosome set) “would not be expected to bear a child” because a sexually mature adult male cannot bear a child; thus, this non-expectation has nothing whatsoever to do with what society chooses to expect. To illustrate this point in a somewhat “ig’nunt” manner, a 6’0” physically mature male forward would not be expected to start on a National Basketball Association team. Neither the Celtics nor the Heat returned my emails. This physically mature male forward lacked the necessary height; all sexually mature male humans lack the necessary plumbing.    

polyglide wrote:
… nor in any so called civilised society would a woman be expected to take on the role of protector.

 

Au contraire. On your native island a woman was (1) expected to protect her society, and (2) did a damned fine job of it for awhile. Her name was Boudica (Boudicca, Boadicea). Click here to view the Wiki article.

Does anybody else own a thesaurus?

Does anybody else own a thesaurus?.

Fred Flintstone has one called Dino.

I take the normal as the acceptable and not an isolated case, in general the male is the protector both in animal and humankind.

I take the normal as the acceptable and not an isolated case, in general the male is the protector both in animal and humankind..

I believe the norm in nature is the female protects her offspring, but that is only on planet earth, you may have other ideas.

polyglide wrote:
I take the normal as the acceptable and not an isolated case, in general the male is the protector both in animal and humankind.

 

Adult male polar bears track down and eat polar bear cubs, while adult female polar bears put their lives at risk protecting their cubs from adult male polar bears. When visiting brown and black bear-populated national parks in Canada and the US, park patrons are cautioned to never get between “mama” bear and her cubs.

It is a fact that in nature there are many seeming anomalies, this makes some less able to grasp the existance of God.

Animal life is inundated with that which one would not think was in line with a loving God.

However, I was realy talking about mankind and I cannot think of any loving husband or partner that would not be expected to protect his family.

As for the anomalies, we do not know what the arrangement between God and the Devil involves and wether the latter is able to interfere with creation or not.

However, I was realy talking about mankind and

....but...but...it was you who included all animals ?

I cannot think of any loving husband or partner that would not be expected to protect his family.

I cannot think of any loving wife or partner that would not be expected to protect her family.

It is a fact that in nature there are many seeming anomalies, this makes some less able to grasp the existance of God. Animal life is inundated with that which one would not think was in line with a loving God. As for the anomalies, we do not know what the arrangement between God and the Devil involves and wether the latter is able to interfere with creation or not..

I would hardly describe all of nature (bar mankind) as an anomaly, and according to your theology all of nature ( bar mankind) is the devils work.

If you add this to the devil's work that affects mankind then there is more evidence for the devil than there is for God, did you work out all this contradictory gibberish yourself ?

Tosh wrote:I suppose physicality comes into it, a woman or child could not force herself onto the lifeboat, therefore in theory they would all die.

Transfer this practice to other physical struggles in nature and you would have a tribe of men with no women or kids, ergo extinction.

Morality is relative both to individual and group survival.

I agree.

Regards
DL

boatlady wrote:Another statistical thought - women are often, but not always, smaller and weaker than men (arguably as a result of historical child rearing practices which encouraged the development of physical strength in boys) - smaller and weaker people will usually come off second best in a struggle with larger stronger people.
If girl children were encouraged in childhood to develpop physical strength, good hand/eye coordination and a competitive spirit, maybe the 'differences' between the sexes would be much less 'different' and would be seen for what they maybe are - differences between individuals.

A fly in the ointment is testosterone which women and girls are shy on.

If you were correct the Olympics would not have men's events and women's events.

Regards
DL

boatlady wrote:Women often take on the role of protector on the planet where I live in circumstances where the woman is the strongest individual in the group (which often also arises where there are men in the group).
I agree men cannot bear children

Bear them!!

Many men cannot even stand them and that is why women are the backbones of most families.

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:It is a fact that in nature there are many seeming anomalies, this makes some less able to grasp the existance of God.

Animal life is inundated with that which one would not think was in line with a loving God.

However, I was realy talking about mankind and I cannot think of any loving husband or partner that would not be expected to protect his family.

To protect a family, a parent must be around.

Count the deadbeat dads and the unwed mothers and see just who is doing the protecting and who is bitching about paying alimony.

As for the anomalies, we do not know what the arrangement between God and the Devil involves and wether the latter is able to interfere with creation or not.

Don't you believe that God gave Satan the power to deceive the whole world?

Regards
DL

I find it amusing that some think that protecting the family involves some WWF wrestling match requiring brute strength as if our only option is a slug fest.

Even a little girl can learn how to shoot a firearm. No physical strength required.

Sometimes described as "The Equaliser".