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

Sometimes described as "The Equaliser".

If testorone was the only factor then all men would be more aggressive and women less so, this is obviously not the case. Physicality in men may have been a large factor in our recent history but now we have modern tools.

There is no physical or genetic reason why in our modern technological world, a woman cannot protect her family as well as a man. There is nothing innately wrong with a man being the nurturer/carer and the woman the provider/protector.

Humanity has one big advantage over the rest of life, we can adapt very quickly to environmental changes, all we need is the right tools.

Shirina wrote: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.

No argument on some things that women can do as well if not better than men.

Some jobs though, men are more well suited for.

Police, firemen etc. where brute strength might be handy.

If in a fire or to get three guys off me in a bar fight, I would rather see big and burly come through the door than a smaller female.

Regards
DL

DL,

The police use tazers and all firepersonal undergo the same physical tests.

Breast feeding used to be an obstacle now we have breast milk expessors.

We have devised tools to make our choices equal, we did this because we want equal choices in everything, not just somethings.

I fail to see the logic in devising a society only to accomodate the extreme ends of the gender spectrum, at the expense of the giant bell in the middle.

Tosh wrote:DL,

The police use tazers and all firepersonal undergo the same physical tests.

Breast feeding used to be an obstacle now we have breast milk expessors.

We have devised tools to make our choices equal, we did this because we want equal choices in everything, not just somethings.

I fail to see the logic in devising a society only to accomodate the extreme ends of the gender spectrum, at the expense of the giant bell in the middle.

If you want full equality that badly then keep your coin handy to flip against some woman when they are filling the lifeboats.

You can join who he world is calling Captain Coward.

Regards
DL

If you want full equality that badly then keep your coin handy to flip against some woman when they are filling the lifeboats.

You agreed with my explanation for a male giving his place to a female, it had nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with reason.

I never see the value in discussing extremes to disprove a general principle, principles are knowledge, and no knowledge is absolute.

You can join who he world is calling Captain Coward.

That's really what it's about, though, isn't it?

The male ego?

It would seem to suggest that women would be shoved into those lifeboats not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the man being able to avoid ridicule and shame. I'm not altogether sure there is very much honor in that, truth be told.

back to where we started!

Men and women are similar in hoping for approval, but women seem more deeply affected if they don't receive it.

Men and women are similar in hoping for approval, but women seem more deeply affected if they don't receive it..

Approval is status seeking, I doubt women are gifted with more genetic drives for status than men, a misogynistic history of violent conflict suggests otherwise.

I believe female emancipation is recognised as the greatest contributor to civilisation, greater even than religion.

I fail to see why there should be any disparity between sexes, if each was not intended to have different roles to play they would not be endowned with different abilities and stengths etc;.

The problems have arrisen because some do not want to conform to the roles that would ensure a better life for all concerned.

Shirina wrote:

You can join who he world is calling Captain Coward.

That's really what it's about, though, isn't it?

The male ego?

It would seem to suggest that women would be shoved into those lifeboats not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the man being able to avoid ridicule and shame. I'm not altogether sure there is very much honor in that, truth be told.

Yes. It absolutely has to do with man's ego.
The same ego that drives our duty to do our first moral duty of care/harm towards women.

If the strongest of our species cannot be moral and do his or her duty then the weaker cannot either and man will never reach the sanctity that he should be after.

Just like it would be your duty to let a child live, it would be a man's duty to let you live.

Nice new avatar BTW.

Regards
DL

Tosh wrote:

If you want full equality that badly then keep your coin handy to flip against some woman when they are filling the lifeboats.

You agreed with my explanation for a male giving his place to a female, it had nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with reason.

I never see the value in discussing extremes to disprove a general principle, principles are knowledge, and no knowledge is absolute.

You say that as if that statement was absolute truth and true knowledge.


Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:I fail to see why there should be any disparity between sexes, if each was not intended to have different roles to play they would not be endowned with different abilities and stengths etc;.

The problems have arrisen because some do not want to conform to the roles that would ensure a better life for all concerned.

True and religion has enshrined in it's holy books that women are not allowed to conform to a leadership role even if she is the most qualified. ------- Genesis-----he will rule over you.

The one verse that has kept man unjustly discriminating against women since day 1.

Regards
DL

The problems have arrisen because some do not want to conform to the roles that would ensure a better life for all concerned.

Thanks for pointing out one of the most pronounced failures of religion -- the idea of conformity. Forget freedom, forget personal choice, forget equality, forget being the master of your own life. No, just conform to what others believe you should be. You know, I spent my formative years in a nation that had a caste system for a thousand years, so I know how dangerous that kind of thinking can be. What you're suggesting is essentially the same thing, a de facto caste system where men must be X and women must be Y, and if you don't bow down and submt, YOU are part of the problem. What utter rubbish. Look at Saudi Arabia for a lesson on what it's like when men and women are forced into roles based on religion and cultural tradition. No thanks.

Tosh wrote:


.... Approval is status seeking, .....

Not one of your concerns then, Tosh.

Not one of your concerns then, Tosh..

Correct.

Greatest I am wrote:
… religion has enshrined in it's holy books that women are not allowed to conform to a leadership role even if she is the most qualified.¹ ------- Genesis-----he will rule over you.²

The one verse³ that has kept man unjustly discriminating against women4 since day 1.⁴

 

1. Untrue.
   
   
2. Misrepresentation of content of Genesis.
   
   
3. ”The one verse” as quoted is not one verse.
   
   
4. Untrue.
   
   

 

Perhaps one day you will choose to read, study, and understand Genesis before misrepresenting its content on a public forum. Or perhaps not; after all, you have chosen to misrepresent Gnosticism hereon for many months.

I tried to engage you in analyzing Genesis starting at 1, 1 and you refused so take your hypocritical garbage and shove hard.

It is no wonder I have not seen anyone dialog in any significant way with you.

Regards
DL

There is not much to have a dialog about, Genesis 1.1 could loosely be interpreted as a metaphor of the Big Bang, I am not convinced as some as to the importance of this approximation.

The beginning of everything is not the best place to look for proof of God's creation, try the beginning of mankind, it saves 13.7 billion years of quantum heartache. The scientific fact of the modern synthesis undeniably refutes Genesis1:1, God did not make us, we evolved from a common ancestor with primates.

This is evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 is false, no need to go any further and waste time talking about things outside our universe.

Evolution doesn't prove God does not exist nor does it prove God did not guide it, it simply proves Genesis 1:1 is NOT true.

There is no debate about this in any reasonable circles.

Greatest I am wrote:
I tried to engage you in analyzing Genesis starting at 1, 1¹ and you refused² so take your hypocritical garbage³ and shove hard.⁴

It is no wonder I have not seen anyone dialog in any significant way with you.⁵

 
 

1. Untrue.
   
   
2. Untrue.
   
   
3. One cannot do anything with that which one does not possess.
   
   
4. No.
   
   
5. One cannot see clearly when one’s vision is occluded.
   
   

Shirina, you have a very silly habit of not understanding what is written and putting your own views forward that have nothing to do with what is written.

The manner that some women are treated has nothing to do with Christianity nor the manner Christians think women [bless them] should be treated. I do not know of anything in Christianity that says women should be misstreated, in fact just the opposite.

However, for many reasons men and women are best suited for different roles and if we all played the parts we are best at, the better matters would be.

The manner that some women are treated has nothing to do with Christianity nor the manner Christians think women [bless them] should be treated. I do not know of anything in Christianity that says women should be misstreated, in fact just the opposite.

I'm not talking about abuse or mistreatment, polyglide. Even when women had virtually no rights, I'm quite certain that the majority of men did not mistreat women. This, however, is what I'm talking about:

However, for many reasons men and women are best suited for different roles and if we all played the parts we are best at, the better matters would be.

I'm pretty sure I know what "roles" you're referring to. It is almost a trusim that when men start talking about "roles" for men and women, it essentially boils down to women being stuck in the nurturing role, the role of healer, listener, comforter, and, of course mother, food preparer, house cleaner, and doting wife.

It is very, very rare to watch a movie, read a book, or even see a television show with a strong female lead unless the stories are about domestic dramas. How many female action heroes can you name? Uhm ... yeah, that's right. I can't name any at all and I like action movies. I also enjoy reading high fantasy, but there, too, despite stories being about completely different worlds, women stay home and see their lovers off to understake the dangerous quests -- or are the goal of the quest as saving damsels in distress seems a popular venue. In Tolkein's famous Lord of the Ring series, not one single woman embarked on the quest despite there being 8 members of the Fellowship of the Ring. You'd think with that many, there'd be one female in there somewhere.

In our culture, made manifest through literature and movies, women are always there to support the man, to give care and comfort. They end up as healers, nurses, counselors, inspiration, and, all too often, liabilities for the male hero.

Now, I'm not some kind of rabid "femi-nazi" as feminists are sometimes called. But I can tell you straight away that I would make a lousy nurturer and an even worse mother. I hate housework, and I'm a crappy cook. I personally need to be on the front lines doing the "fighting," not tucked safely away to blow kisses to a lover as he runs off to do all of the doing.

The bolded part of your statement is the one part I agree with. The better matters would be if we all played the roles that we were best at. NOT the roles we are born into playing because of our genders. I was never handed a script to read when I was born. I'd be much better suited to being involved in politics rather than motherhood or providing domestic bliss. Women need to be allowed to do what they are best at, and every society that forces their populations into traditional roles are backward, impoverished cesspools.

Yep, I agree with most of what you say, there are some men better cooks and carers than woman and they do the jobs well, some women take on the work usually thought of as man's work etc;

However, in human terms the original purpose for a woman was to be a companion for man, man's role was to look after the woman and the childrenc;

I know you do not believe in God but I do and that was his original intention.

The unfortunate fact is that mankind has deviated so far in every aspect of life from the original intention that we have ended up in the present state of the world, where in some countries women are no more than slaves,
this has nothing to do with anything other than mankind not adhereing to God's original intention.

Abuse of women and children is prevelant in every, so called, civilised country and irrespective of what you may say there are children starving in every country including America, just ask for the facts.

The only real traditional roles there are, are those I stated at the beginning
and if they had been adhered to there would have been no problems, mankind has caused all the problems along with the assistance of the Devil.

How on earth anyone can think that mankind has been so stupid for so long all on his own and bring the earth to it's present state is beyond me.

I personally need to be on the front lines doing the "fighting,"

This is just too surreal, this lunatic is barking mad, the only front line you should be leading is the queue for thorazene.

lolol, I just love the internet.

Polyglide
You don't know what 'God' wants any more than anyone else - the complete definition of the concept 'God' involves being inscrutable, that is, not to be understood by mortals.
Even those who share your apparently fairly fundamentalist theocentric world view would want to say that - the phrase used I believe is 'passeth all understanding'

Tosh wrote:There is not much to have a dialog about, Genesis 1.1 could loosely be interpreted as a metaphor of the Big Bang, I am not convinced as some as to the importance of this approximation.

The beginning of everything is not the best place to look for proof of God's creation, try the beginning of mankind, it saves 13.7 billion years of quantum heartache. The scientific fact of the modern synthesis undeniably refutes Genesis1:1, God did not make us, we evolved from a common ancestor with primates.

This is evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 is false, no need to go any further and waste time talking about things outside our universe.

Evolution doesn't prove God does not exist nor does it prove God did not guide it, it simply proves Genesis 1:1 is NOT true.

There is no debate about this in any reasonable circles.

I know.

That is why I wanted to pin his ears back.

Regards
DL

RockOnBrother wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
I tried to engage you in analyzing Genesis starting at 1, 1¹ and you refused² so take your hypocritical garbage³ and shove hard.⁴

It is no wonder I have not seen anyone dialog in any significant way with you.⁵

1. Untrue.
   
2. Untrue.
   
3. One cannot do anything with that which one does not possess.
   
4. No.
   
5. One cannot see clearly when one’s vision is occluded.
   

Now you are just lying.

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:However, in human terms the original purpose for a woman was to be a companion for man, man's role was to look after the woman and the childrenc;

I know you do not believe in God but I do and that was his original intention.
.

He shall rule over you.

That does not sound like a man looking over a companion.

It sounds like that companion had better do what her ruler tells her to do.

Perhaps that is why in the 10 commandments, women are slid in with the rest of the man's owned goods.

Regards
DL

However, in human terms the original purpose for a woman was to be a companion for man

It's a male ego thing. Plain and simple. This is why, in nearly every culture regardless of religion or god, women have been treated as property, chattel, and second class citizens. That doesn't mean they were abused in all cases, but they were often powerless. Even the Romans, creator of democracy, forced women to take the role of a subservient child-factory. They weren't even allowed to sit in the good seats at the colisseum. Slaves could, but not women. That, of course, mirrors the fact that, in the US, women did not receive the right to vote until 50 years(!) after former male black slaves could vote -- this despite the rampant racism at the time. When women are treated worse even than slaves, it doesn't take a sociologist to figure out there's a problem.

Women became less than a companion and more like a pet, something still loved but yet not quite human. Something that had no power, something that dependend entirely on the owner's good graces, something that could be abandoned at a whim. Women always had to negotiate from a position of weakness, and in some ways, still do.

I know you do not believe in God but I do and that was his original intention.

Polyglide, on another thread, you told me that the mind of God is incomprehensible and therefore unknowable. Yet here you are telling everyone exactly what God intended. How interesting ...

Greatest I am wrote:

He shall rule over you.¹

That does not sound like a man looking over a companion.¹

It sounds like that companion had better do what her ruler tells her to do.¹

Perhaps that is why in the 10 commandments, women are slid in with the rest of the man's owned goods.²

 
 

1. This statement demonstrates incomplete, deficient comprehension of the text from which it is incorrectly derived.
   
   
2. Untrue.
   
   

RockOnBrother wrote:Thu 29 Nov 2012 - 0:06

Greatest I am wrote:
I tried to engage you in analyzing Genesis starting at 1, 1¹ and you refused² so take your hypocritical garbage³ and shove hard.⁴

It is no wonder I have not seen anyone dialog in any significant way with you.⁵

1. Untrue.
   
   
2. Untrue.
   
   
3. One cannot do anything with that which one does not possess.
   
   
4. No.
   
   
5. One cannot see clearly when one’s vision is occluded.
   
   

 

Greatest I am wrote:Sat 1 Dec 2012 - 0:24

Now you are just lying.¹

 
 

1. False.
   
   

Shirina wrote:

However, in human terms the original purpose for a woman was to be a companion for man

It's a male ego thing.

 

Hebrew Bible:

And Elohim said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:¹ and let them¹ 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 Elohim created man in his own image,¹ in the image of Elohim created he him;¹ male and female created he them.¹

Genesis 1:26-27

 
 

1. Woman gender exclusive (female) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with man gender exclusive (male), and man gender exclusive (male) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with woman gender exclusive (female); it is as one entity, man gender inclusive (male and female), that they are created in the image of Elohim.
   
   

Woman gender exclusive (female) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with man gender exclusive (male), and man gender exclusive (male) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with woman gender exclusive (female); it is as one entity, man gender inclusive (male and female), that they are created in the image of Elohim.

That's why I said it's a male ego thing and not a religious thing. Even in cultures wildly different from each other with extremely diverse religious beliefs, women were always second class citizens whether it was in Rome, Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Britain or America (just to name a few). The only common thread running throughout these disparate cultures and beliefs was that man always had the upper hand against women, so with male ego the one common denominator, well, there you go ...

Misogyny is all about paternity and power, despite the claims of our Genesis guru all cultures practised inequality and all cultures were based on religious codes of conduct. A Jewish fundamentalist is no less chauvinistic than anyone else, they obviously do not interpret their scripture through 20 th century contemporary eyes.

I find it truly baffling how one man can claim his interpretion of vague metaphors must be the right one, and if anyone else interprets it differently( including its authors) then they are wrong, its called being a Texan.

The Haredi Jew is a Genesis fundamentalist, these are the clowns who insist men sit at the front of the bus and women at the back, they obviously do not share R0B's rather egaliterian interpretation of Genesis.

I would have thought a black man would recognize the symbolic nature of bus segregation.

The manner that some women are treated has nothing to do with Christianity nor the manner Christians think women [bless them] should be treated. I do not know of anything in Christianity that says women should be misstreated, in fact just the opposite.

Polyglide, lets assume mysogyny existed prior to 315 ce throughout the Roman Empire and lets assume Christianity promotes equality, care to explain to me why mysogyny prevailed throughout Christendom until the secular enlightenment of the 17th century ?

Why did Christians in the Christian world need secularism to introduce emancipation when all the monarchs and the people were Christians, and Christianity preached equality ?

Woman gender exclusive (female) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with man gender exclusive (male), and man gender exclusive (male) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with woman gender exclusive (female); it is as one entity, man gender inclusive (male and female), that they are created in the image of Elohim.

mmmm, Texas, no offence but this is one very weird interpretation of " He shall rule over you.".

I have noticed a pattern in your deductive methodology, and its rather biased. When it suits your case, you take words from a scientific text and interpret them in a reductive manner( macro-evolution) and at other times when it suits your case, you take words in a religious text ( he shall rule over you) and interpret them in an expansive manner.

Fundamentally your belief is based on your meaning of words, you are a semantic semite.

Nothing wrong with that my friend its what makes you delightfully eccentric and just a little bonkers, but you take the fundamentals far too seriously.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Woman gender exclusive (female) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with man gender exclusive (male), and man gender exclusive (male) is created in the image of Elohim interdependently with woman gender exclusive (female); it is as one entity, man gender inclusive (male and female), that they are created in the image of Elohim.

 

Shirina wrote:
That's why I said it's a male ego thing and not a religious thing. Even in cultures wildly different from each other with extremely diverse religious beliefs, women were always second class citizens whether it was in Rome, Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Britain or America (just to name a few). The only common thread running throughout these disparate cultures and beliefs was that man always had the upper hand against women, so with male ego the one common denominator, well, there you go ...

 

I’m not sure about “male ego” (causative factor), but history affirms women’s “second class citizenship” (result) throughout a preponderance of cultures. Whatever the causative factor might be, I believe that Genesis 1:26-27 differentiates man gender inclusive from other life forms.

We tend to “deify” certain animals. For instance, the male lion is seen as “The King of the Beasts” (The Lion King generates revenues almost twenty years after its release) because of its perceive nobility. Yet male lions are thugs, home invaders, and serial murderers, roaming the savannah, sometimes in gangs, until they find a pride (home) occupied by another male lion/lions. These savannah thugs then attack the resident lion/lions, and if successful, maul or murder their victims, invade the home (pride), and kill the children (cubs). Female lions aren’t much better; after the thugs have killed their children, the fickle females flirt with and mate with the home invaders/murders.

Put human faces on the characters and it looks, sounds, and “feels” like most stories of human conquerors taking over vanquished tribes. It seems to me that “natural” humans are more like lions than we would like to believe. It also seems to me that we need something to counter these “natural” human tendencies if we are to be truly human. Genesis 1:26-27 goes directly counter to these tendencies, “deeming” woman a necessary component of man gender inclusive. In fact, if I read it correctly, Genesis 1:26-27 precludes man gender exclusive from claiming manhood without woman gender inclusive. Since the prefix “re” means “do it again”, “redeemed” mankind means, among other things, man gender inclusive, “male and female”, as was originally “deemed.” No room for second class citizens in redeemed man.

Man was given the free will to choose the way in which he wanted to act and behave towards each other.

Man to woman, woman to man etc;

You cannot blame anyone other than man for the choices he has made.

The Romans were heathens as were several other memebers of other nations but that just shows how bad the choices man made were.

A womans place is tied to the kitchen sink, I don't' think but some do and that is not God but man.

Women have as much right to choice as men, the fact that both often make the wrong choices is their fault alone.

Ah, polyglide, free will is also up for debate. Where in the bible does it state that God gave man free will? I think this is one of the crazy saints that declared it.

Life is a series of choices and consequences. You may choose right or wrong and the consequences can be beneficial or detrimental. And sometimes not always as we plan or would like. A good choice might prove detrimental in the long run depending on circumstances. We are also biological creatures subject to the whims of our biochemistry which includes hormones and neurotransmitters that are influenced by our environment. Just how much free will do you really think you have?