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

Aristophanes remarked something similar three thousand years prior to Churchill in his play "Lysistrata". There is nothing new under the sun..

Colonel Conundrum and his link of famous quotes has the gall to quote " there is nothing new under the sun ".

Indeed.

When Winston Churchill was told in 1960 that in the year 2000 women would rule the world, he said : " They still will, will they...?"

You were there of course.

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Seeking and demanding sanctity is one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they must give sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equality and give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women and elevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demand this are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.

We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.

Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. The Alpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highest position. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the throne but the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over the King.

The research done by Mr. Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern with tribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to the most advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not in the best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize that they should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obama being re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are to survive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.

Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.

In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men than women and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do not deny women equality and place women above themselves.

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research and logic behind this premise.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Regards
DL

For goodness sake

boatlady wrote:For goodness sake

Would you have women give up their place in the lifeboat to men?

Regards
DL

Quote : "Would you have women give up their place in the lifeboat to men?"

There would surely not be much choice in the matter , given that somebody would have to lower the boat...

Greatest I am wrote:

boatlady wrote:For goodness sake

Would you have women give up their place in the lifeboat to men?

Regards
DL

How about men/women learn to share that place in the lifeboat ??

Redflag wrote:
How about men/women learn to share that place in the lifeboat ??

 

If a woman and I are in a lifeboat, and if there is sufficient space and sustenance therein for but one person to survive, then “that place in the lifeboat” is her place. My place is in the water behind the lifeboat; my job is to expend my remaining life force pushing the lifeboat towards shore.

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known."
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

There is no reason for inequality for men any more than there is a need for inequality of women. Swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction is just the other side of the same extreme.

While protecting women, as the incubators of life, may have been necessary in our hunter-gatherer past when the human population of the earth was less than a million, today's exponential population growth shows that it is no longer necessary to protect women to the point of male inequality to ensure the survival of our species. The idea that "alpha males" should be sacrificed for "beta females" is a throwback to a time that no longer exists -- and hasn't existed for at least a millennium.

As for the lifeboat question -- it should be first come, first serve. Or better yet, just have enough lifeboats for everyone. Cruise ships of this day and age are certainly large enough to do so.

Shirina - thank goodness for a sensible voice

Shirina wrote:
As for the lifeboat question -- it should be first come, first serve.

 

If I am come first, I am served first, and I am served as I proclaim; in other words, what I say goes.

Here’s what I say: If a woman comes second, and if the lifeboat has space and/or sustenance sufficient for but one person’s survival, her place is in the lifeboat, because what I say goes, and my place is in the water, behind the lifeboat, expending my remaining life force propelling the lifeboat and the woman therein towards safety, because what I say goes.

Noblesse oblige.

RockOnBrother wrote:
If I am come first, I am served first, and I am served as I proclaim; in other words, what I say goes.

Here’s what I say: If a woman comes second, and if the lifeboat has space and/or sustenance sufficient for but one person’s survival, her place is in the lifeboat, because what I say goes, and my place is in the water, behind the lifeboat, expending my remaining life force propelling the lifeboat and the woman therein towards safety, because what I say goes.

 

oftenwrong wrote:
Noblesse oblige.

 

Au contraire.

Phil Hornby wrote:Quote : "Would you have women give up their place in the lifeboat to men?"

There would surely not be much choice in the matter , given that somebody would have to lower the boat...

Would you have your wife lower you?

Regards
DL

Redflag wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

boatlady wrote:For goodness sake

Would you have women give up their place in the lifeboat to men?

Regards
DL

How about men/women learn to share that place in the lifeboat ??

How about if there are some who must be left behind?
Who should they be?
Men or women?

Regards.
DL

RockOnBrother wrote:

Redflag wrote:
How about men/women learn to share that place in the lifeboat ??

If a woman and I are in a lifeboat, and if there is sufficient space and sustenance therein for but one person to survive, then “that place in the lifeboat” is her place. My place is in the water behind the lifeboat; my job is to expend my remaining life force pushing the lifeboat towards shore.

First atta boy for you.
I knew there was something in there somewhere.

Regards
DL

Shirina wrote:

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

There is no reason for inequality for men any more than there is a need for inequality of women. Swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction is just the other side of the same extreme.

While protecting women, as the incubators of life, may have been necessary in our hunter-gatherer past when the human population of the earth was less than a million, today's exponential population growth shows that it is no longer necessary to protect women to the point of male inequality to ensure the survival of our species. The idea that "alpha males" should be sacrificed for "beta females" is a throwback to a time that no longer exists -- and hasn't existed for at least a millennium.

As for the lifeboat question -- it should be first come, first serve. Or better yet, just have enough lifeboats for everyone. Cruise ships of this day and age are certainly large enough to do so.

Tell that to that Italian captain in court as we speak.

You tried to fence sit with the ship scenario. Let me try another harder one for you.

You are in a boat and two twins are drowning. One male one female.
You can reach either but only one of them. Which one will you save?

Regards
DL

boatlady wrote:Shirina - thank goodness for a sensible voice

Ask you nautical friends for us.
I think they will change your view on the question you did not answer.

Regards
DL

RockOnBrother wrote:
Thread title: “Moral men and women will deny women equal rights”

Human rights are Creator-endowed; human rights are unalienable. Immoral men, gender inclusive, routinely deny human rights to women, gender exclusive, and thus (1) usurp the Creator’s authority, and (2) steal that which belongs to those to whom they deny human rights. Usurpers and thieves are immoral; accordingly, the thread title, “Moral men and women will deny women equal rights”, authored by the thread initiator, is oxymoronic nonsense.

Yet you agree with the premise.

Nice of you to give men the poser to steal from your absentee God who can't even use his super powers to prevent someone stealing from him.

There goes your only atta boy.

Regards
DL

RockOnBrother wrote:

RockOnBrother wrote:
If I am come first, I am served first, and I am served as I proclaim; in other words, what I say goes.

Here’s what I say: If a woman comes second, and if the lifeboat has space and/or sustenance sufficient for but one person’s survival, her place is in the lifeboat, because what I say goes, and my place is in the water, behind the lifeboat, expending my remaining life force propelling the lifeboat and the woman therein towards safety, because what I say goes.

oftenwrong wrote:
Noblesse oblige.

Au contraire.

You are like your God. You can be on both sides of the fence.

Regards
DL

Why is a female life more important than a man's? I fail to see any inherent traits in either gender requiring through misguided morality a need to sacrifice one for the other. What I DO see is male ego at work, the good old testosterone churning away. After all, it is far more "macho" to sacrifice one's life for a woman than it is to wimp out and climb into the lifeboat. Everything else is simply rationalization after the fact.

It is also a subtly veiled accusation of feminine weakness -- that somehow women DO need to be protected from the harsh pronouncements of random chance and disaster. Perhaps men feel they have a better chance, however small, of surviving without a lifeboat than women do. Yet is it really practical? If I had children, especially young children, and I was simply a housewife with no job and no way to support my children, I would MUCH rather put the breadwinning male into the lifeboat because he has the ability to provide for those children. I would not. My survival would only ensure my children exist in poverty conditions whereas my husband would be able to afford my children opportunities and resources I could never give them.

In addition, going back to the lifeboat issue ... IF the reason to save women has to do with giving birth to children, do we then decide to deny a woman past her child-bearing years a seat in the boat? Do we question female children if they plan to have children of their own, and if not, deny them seats, as well? Of course, I doubt such discrimination ever occurred on the Titanic as it sank, so my assertion is that there is more going on in the man's mind, psychologically speaking, than pragmatism surrounding child birth.

Which brings us back to my original point concerning male ego, testosterone, being macho, and the avoidance of appearing weak in the eyes of others. Would this sacrifice really be about the women? Or is this sacrifice more in line with what society sees as the "appropriate" behavior for men? After all, men far more than women are constrained by societal expectations. No one calls a woman wearing men's clothes a "transvestite" or "cross-dresser," after all, and "tomboys" are not shunned by society. An effeminite male, however ... all I can say is "good luck with that."

Thus my opinion is that the male desire to push the woman onto the lifeboat has very little to do with saving women, but saving one's own male ego. Better to be spoken well of in death than to be ridiculed in life, I suppose.

Just some thoughts to chew on.

Good post Shirina - especially endorse the thoughts about the childbearing nature of women, and whether that is what increases their value. Speaking as a non-childbearing specimen, I understand that to mean that my value is negligible in the eyes of some on this forum.

Seems to me the lifeboat analogy and the idea of 'protecting' women arise much more from the conception of woman as possession than from any real regard for a woman's value in herself, and as such reflect a disturbing tendency of though among some posters. Most women, given the choice, would I believe express a wish not to be rescued but to be provided with the means to rescue themselves (adequate educational opportuities, equal rights in the workplace, a legal system which guarantees their rights)

In answer to the question 'would I give up my seat in the lifeboat for a man?' - yes, I would if the man's need was greater - in a figurative sense I and most women have been doing that very thing throughout history, in terms of often putting their own plans in second place to providing a physical and emotional support system for the men in their lives, who would otherwise suffer psychological distress (poor dears).

A non-swimmer male is not going to get out the boat to let a swimmer female in, if both are swimmers then the strongest gets in the water. If both are equal swimmers then the man gets in, a man cannot breast feed babies and a woman can nurture, hunt and gather. The male is taking a risk for the benefit of the group, the group cannot survive without offspring.

Morality is genetic and rational.

God bless our primate instincts.

If both are equal swimmers then the man gets in, a man cannot breast feed babies and a woman can nurture, hunt and gather. The male is taking a risk for the benefit of the group, the group cannot survive without offspring.

Tosh, I've already debunked this argument. The survival of the species will not depend on who survives the sinking of a single ship ... not with close to 7 billion people on the planet. Breast feeding in the modern world is not necessary, and a father can nurture as well. I know this because I lived with my single father for 7 years. In addition, the modern world does not treat single housewives well if they suddenly have to enter the workforce. Someone with experience, regardles of what education she runs out and gets, will almost always get the job before she will. In that respect, the modern version of "hunting and gathering" is not something a woman can do easily if she hasn't done it before.

What you say would be true if this were the year 20,000 B.C.E., but it's not.

especially endorse the thoughts about the childbearing nature of women, and whether that is what increases their value.

Hello, boatlady:

I think we both know that child-bearing ability has been a double-edged sword for women throughout history and all cultures. Women were often seen as baby machines (hopefully MALE baby machines) for most of humanity's existence. The value placed on females centered exclusively on their ability to create babies and had little (or no value) apart from that.

While women may be protected from sinking ships, fighting in wars, or getting splashed by a car driving through a mud puddle, we pay for that protection, and pay dearly. For a very long time, even in the West right up until the mid-20th Century, women paid for that protection by being subservient, docile, and silent. We were to stay out of the workforce and refrain from inheriting wealth or owning property. We were to stay out of politics (without even the right to vote), and be properly vulnerable, helpless, and completely dependent on male support. You can still see this kind of dependency by watching old TV shows from the 50's; one of the most popular plot lines in those shows involved women trying to trick their husbands into giving them money for a new dress. Women were treated like children with an allowance.

Of course I know you know all of this, boatlady, so my post is less a response to you and just general commentary ... especially to any "old school" men who may be reading.

It still amuses me when some guy berates another guy for swearing "in mixed company," as if female ears will bleed if an expletive is heard. Yet I open doors for men, I allow men ahead of me in line if they have just a few items and I have many, I would happily give up my seat to a man who really looked like he needed to sit, and I would put myself in harm's way to help keep a man from impending injury. I even joined the military right out of high school, though by luck of the draw, I ended up well away from danger. I've always believed that if women want true equality, we can't expect to keep those special little female privileges we've enjoyed for so long (including having lifeboat seats reserved for us) ... because the price we pay for them is just too high.

Greatest I am wrote:

RockOnBrother wrote:
Thread title: “Moral men and women will deny women equal rights”

Human rights are Creator-endowed; human rights are unalienable. Immoral men, gender inclusive, routinely deny human rights to women, gender exclusive, and thus (1) usurp the Creator’s authority, and (2) steal that which belongs to those to whom they deny human rights. Usurpers and thieves are immoral; accordingly, the thread title, “Moral men and women will deny women equal rights”, authored by the thread initiator, is oxymoronic nonsense.

Yet you agree with the premise.

 

Thank you for the shout out on the lifeboat. I was born male; as an adult male, I have but two options: I can choose to be a sorry-a** physically grown male, or I can choose to be a man. I was raised by a man who was ably assisted by a group of men; his father, his brothers, his brother’s-in-law, and two first cousins-in-law, all of whom would have fed my behind to the lions at the zoo had I saved myself at the expense of a woman’s life. As one of them said to me, “Your mother is a woman.”

I disagree with any statement that denies Creator-endowed unalienable human rights to all men gender inclusive. You confuse my commitment to men doing their jobs with men denying human rights to women gender exclusive.

There is a commonly accepted misconception about that women and men are equal. They are not. This inherent inequality does not give anyone the right to usurp the human rights of anyone.

too true!

Shirina wrote:
Why is a female life more important than a man's? I fail to see any inherent traits in either gender requiring through misguided morality a need to sacrifice one for the other.

 

Having been created by my Creator into freedom of choice, I can act as I choose to act. You don’t need to see anything in order for me to act as I choose to act.

If you and I are the sole actors in the lifeboat scenario, there are but three options.

1. You are first into the lifeboat. As you say, “first come, first served”, so the one place in the lifeboat is your place.
   
   
   
2. I am first into the lifeboat. As you say, “first come, first served”, and as I say, “if I’m first served, then what I say goes.” I say that the one place in the lifeboat is your place.
   
   
   
3. We climb into the lifeboat at the same time. As I’m stronger than you, what I say goes, so the one place in the lifeboat is your place.
   
   

In all three scenarios, I expend my remaining life force pushing the lifeboat and you towards safety.

You don’t like that? Sue me. Perhaps you’ll recover, say, one half of my estate. Sine I’m about a hundred grand in the hole, you’ll recover minus fifty grand and my children will thank you for easing their burden.

Shirina wrote:Why is a female life more important than a man's? I fail to see any inherent traits in either gender requiring through misguided morality a need to sacrifice one for the other. What I DO see is male ego at work, the good old testosterone churning away. After all, it is far more "macho" to sacrifice one's life for a woman than it is to wimp out and climb into the lifeboat. Everything else is simply rationalization after the fact.

It is also a subtly veiled accusation of feminine weakness -- that somehow women DO need to be protected from the harsh pronouncements of random chance and disaster. Perhaps men feel they have a better chance, however small, of surviving without a lifeboat than women do. Yet is it really practical? If I had children, especially young children, and I was simply a housewife with no job and no way to support my children, I would MUCH rather put the breadwinning male into the lifeboat because he has the ability to provide for those children. I would not. My survival would only ensure my children exist in poverty conditions whereas my husband would be able to afford my children opportunities and resources I could never give them.

In addition, going back to the lifeboat issue ... IF the reason to save women has to do with giving birth to children, do we then decide to deny a woman past her child-bearing years a seat in the boat? Do we question female children if they plan to have children of their own, and if not, deny them seats, as well? Of course, I doubt such discrimination ever occurred on the Titanic as it sank, so my assertion is that there is more going on in the man's mind, psychologically speaking, than pragmatism surrounding child birth.

Which brings us back to my original point concerning male ego, testosterone, being macho, and the avoidance of appearing weak in the eyes of others. Would this sacrifice really be about the women? Or is this sacrifice more in line with what society sees as the "appropriate" behavior for men? After all, men far more than women are constrained by societal expectations. No one calls a woman wearing men's clothes a "transvestite" or "cross-dresser," after all, and "tomboys" are not shunned by society. An effeminite male, however ... all I can say is "good luck with that."

Thus my opinion is that the male desire to push the woman onto the lifeboat has very little to do with saving women, but saving one's own male ego. Better to be spoken well of in death than to be ridiculed in life, I suppose.

Just some thoughts to chew on.

Indeed. Let's both eat of your fine fare.

What difference in machoness do you see if a woman sacrifices herself for a man?
I see none as they both need strength of character to step up to that hardship.

I ignored your references to qualifying women as beneath our consideration or comment.

Be you the breadwinner or not, women make better single parents than men do regardless of the revenue.

The sacrifice of the males on the ship is what society presently expects and is the right thing to do. It is his duty. Look at the heat that Italian captain is getting.

Yes. To a man, it is better to be dead than live in shame and yes, the ego is involved.

For the woman, the ego should also be involved as she accepts that she is more valuable overall than the male. She is the womb of life and the backbone of the family that should be the first consideration of the male as well.

Historically it has fallen to the males to be the warriors of society and I see no reason to change that and see reasons to maintain it. You are right to know of the male ego and if women take his right to express it in the protection of those he cares for, he will no longer care for them. Placing women above men saves their ego and give men purpose and a place for pride. Women take more pride in family and they too need to have that outlet at that level and it is transferred to the greater society if she is Queen. She is the gatherer and that includes cities and states. Man is the hunter so let him hunt.

Regards
DL

Shirina wrote:

If both are equal swimmers then the man gets in, a man cannot breast feed babies and a woman can nurture, hunt and gather. The male is taking a risk for the benefit of the group, the group cannot survive without offspring.

Tosh, I've already debunked this argument. The survival of the species will not depend on who survives the sinking of a single ship ... not with close to 7 billion people on the planet. Breast feeding in the modern world is not necessary, and a father can nurture as well. I know this because I lived with my single father for 7 years. In addition, the modern world does not treat single housewives well if they suddenly have to enter the workforce. Someone with experience, regardles of what education she runs out and gets, will almost always get the job before she will. In that respect, the modern version of "hunting and gathering" is not something a woman can do easily if she hasn't done it before.

What you say would be true if this were the year 20,000 B.C.E., but it's not.

Please name 1 character trait that man has lost in the last 20,000 years?
None. Neither has woman. Sure science has allowed us to do things differently but our characters are the same today as back when.

Man has always been the protectors of the nations and family and you would take that from him. Tsk tsk.
Why do you see so many men disrespecting women and visa versa?
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.

Regards
DL

boatlady wrote:Good post Shirina - especially endorse the thoughts about the childbearing nature of women, and whether that is what increases their value. Speaking as a non-childbearing specimen, I understand that to mean that my value is negligible in the eyes of some on this forum.

).

Then they are stupid as that is a minor consideration.
Please read what I gave Shirina.

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

Regards
DL

RockOnBrother wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

RockOnBrother wrote:
Thread title: “Moral men and women will deny women equal rights”

Human rights are Creator-endowed; human rights are unalienable. Immoral men, gender inclusive, routinely deny human rights to women, gender exclusive, and thus (1) usurp the Creator’s authority, and (2) steal that which belongs to those to whom they deny human rights. Usurpers and thieves are immoral; accordingly, the thread title, “Moral men and women will deny women equal rights”, authored by the thread initiator, is oxymoronic nonsense.

Yet you agree with the premise.

Thank you for the shout out on the lifeboat. I was born male; as an adult male, I have but two options: I can choose to be a sorry-a** physically grown male, or I can choose to be a man. I was raised by a man who was ably assisted by a group of men; his father, his brothers, his brother’s-in-law, and two first cousins-in-law, all of whom would have fed my behind to the lions at the zoo had I saved myself at the expense of a woman’s life. As one of them said to me, “Your mother is a woman.”

I disagree with any statement that denies Creator-endowed unalienable human rights to all men gender inclusive. You confuse my commitment to men doing their jobs with men denying human rights to women gender exclusive.

There is a commonly accepted misconception about that women and men are equal. They are not. This inherent inequality does not give anyone the right to usurp the human rights of anyone.

What human right do you see being usurped?

Regards
DL

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 a commonly accepted misconception about that women and men are equal. They are not.

Women and men have the same rights, this does not make them the same, in fact none of us( except identical twins) are the same.

I hope this pearl of wisdom is not too original or different or the same or equal.

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.

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. There's no joy in rescuing a damsel in distress if she has the resources to solve her own problems. Thus the woman's place is in the home, I suppose.

I really don't have the pain threshold to answer all of your points, though, so I'll discuss the rest of them later.

Greatest I am wrote:

RockOnBrother wrote:
I disagree with any statement that denies Creator-endowed unalienable human rights to all men gender inclusive. You confuse my commitment to men doing their jobs with men denying human rights to women gender exclusive.

There is a commonly accepted misconception about that women and men are equal. They are not. This inherent inequality does not give anyone the right to usurp the human rights of anyone.

What human right do you see being usurped?

 

This lady was denied her unalienable human right to life after first being denied her human rights to liberty, freedom from rape, freedom from brutalization, and freedom from torture.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by RockOnBrother on Mon 9 Jul 2012 - 18:49

Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul to cheers of jubilation from watching men

By Hamid Shalizi and Amie Ferris-Rotman

KABUL – Saturday, 7 July 2012, 7:04 PM BST

KABUL (Reuters) - A man Afghan officials say is a member of the Taliban shot dead a woman accused of adultery in front of a crowd near Kabul, a video obtained by Reuters showed…

In the three-minute video, a turban-clad man approaches a woman kneeling in the dirt and shoots her five times at close range with an automatic rifle, to cheers of jubilation from the 150 or so men watching in a village in Parwan province.

When the unnamed woman, most of her body tightly wrapped in a shawl, fell sideways after being shot several times in the head, the spectators chanted: "Long live the Afghan mujahideen! (Islamist fighters)", a name the Taliban use for themselves.

Full Reuters story: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/07/us-afghanistan-taliban-woman-idUKBRE8660C320120707

Video: Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul
https://www.youtube.com/v/vCV61MYdRj8

 

This young lady was denied her unalienable human right to the pursuit of happiness (education taken for granted by Westerners) along with her unalienable human rights to freedom from terrorist stalking, freedom from grave physical injury, and freedom from attempted murder.

 

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by RockOnBrother on Wed 10 Oct 2012 - 21:08

Taliban shoot Pakistani schoolgirl campaigning for peace
By Jibran Ahmad
PESHAWAR, Pakistan | Tue Oct 9, 2012 3:46pm EDT

(Reuters) - Taliban gunmen in Pakistan shot and seriously wounded on Tuesday a 14-year-old schoolgirl who rose to fame for speaking out against the militants, authorities said.

Malala Yousufzai was shot in the head and neck when gunmen fired on her school bus in the Swat valley, northwest of the capital, Islamabad. Two other girls were also wounded, police said.

The government agreed to a ceasefire with the Taliban in Swat in early 2009, effectively recognizing insurgent control of the valley whose lakes and mountains had long been a tourist attraction.

The Taliban set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Yousufzai attended. A documentary team filmed her weeping as she explained her ambition to be a doctor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-pakistan-schoolgirl-idUSBRE8980EB20121009

Taliban Shoots 14-year-old Pakistani Schoolgirl
https://www.youtube.com/v/FEjhuoQ0x5A

Taliban shoots 14 year old schoolgirl in the head because she's asking for the right to be educated
https://www.youtube.com/v/PNxl5Nk2sJ8

 

Since you prefer edification via YouTube, feel free to presume that I agree with Solomon Burke and the Five Blind Boys from Alabama.

None Of Us Are Free: “There are voices crying across the ocean” - Solomon Burke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFkmRp_G2uo

Shirina wrote:
… right up until the mid-20th Century, women paid for that protection by being subservient, docile, and silent. We were to stay out of the workforce and refrain from inheriting wealth or owning property. We were to stay out of politics… and be… completely dependent on male support.

 

Sounds as if you’ve not known many 20th and 21st Century Black American women. Before posting, I counted the Black American women in my family, all known great-grandmothers, all great aunts, mother, all aunts, wife, all sisters, all sisters-in-law, all female first cousins, all male first cousins’ wives, all grown daughters and nieces, and all daughters and daughters-in-law of first cousins. Some are retired or deceased; hence the “are/were.”

None are/were subservient (one is an officer with command authority in the US military), none are/were docile, none are/were silent, all are/were in the workforce, all did inherit, have inherited, or will inherit estates (not necessarily wealth; we are not a wealthy family), all owned, own, or will own property (most purchased property from their own earnings, one that I knew personally was the daughter of ex-slaves), all vote/voted and participate/participated in politics/government, none are/were dependent on male support.

Wake up, look around you, and see the proud faces of Black American women.

Barbara Jordan on Impeachment, July 25, 1974
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CDcYiyF5eLc

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 1
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/Bg7gLIx__-k

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 2
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/2YvxjfoOJLw  

Shirina wrote:
… I open doors for men, I allow men ahead of me in line if they have just a few items and I have many, I would happily give up my seat to a man who really looked like he needed to sit, and I would put myself in harm's way to help keep a man from impending injury.

 

I’m impressed. You are the type of lady for whom I enjoy opening doors, allowing to go ahead of me in line, and giving up my seat. I cannot imagine enjoying giving up my life, but, if ever again I need to put myself in harm’s way to protect a woman, the sacrifice would certainly feel worthwhile and absolutely appropriate if it were for the type of lady that you are.

Shirina wrote:
… if women want true equality…

 

True equality involves understanding truths and implementing practices, procedures, policies, rules, regulations, and laws firmly rooted within and based upon those truths. Here are a few key truths.

Women and men are not equal. Equal opportunity does not equate to equal ability. I’ll start with an “ig’nunt” example and then proceed on to reality. I’m a bit older than CP3 (Chris Paul, #3, point guard par excellence for the Los Angeles Clippers who also has an Olympic Gold or two), and I started “ballin’” a few years before he did, so perhaps I should be starting and CP3 should be backing me up. NOT!

Chris Paul's Top Ten Plays of 2011-2012
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/fFaflkGpqXk

It’s easy to see with athletics, a bit more difficult to see in other areas, including male-female inherent inequality. If one steps back and lets truth impinge upon one’s consciousness, it becomes clearer, including the key understanding that inequality does not equate to superiority/inferiority of either gender.

Are men superior to women/women inferior to men? Of course. Beginning in the 1990s or earlier, fire departments nationwide (US) began opening their academy doors to female applicants. Twenty years or more later, few firefighters are female. Equal opportunity? Yes. Equal employment based upon female/male population percentage. No. Why? The physical requirements are extreme; most applicants can’t meet the standards, including almost all female applicants.

Are women superior to men/men inferior to women? Of course. This superiority/inferiority is a bit harder to see but just as crucial. I know and have known more women and men than I can count; in an almost perfect gender-based correlation, women “read” humans better than men. I’ve been “burned” more than once by someone I perceived as genuine who really wasn’t. I got tired of hearing “I told you so” from women who love me, so I started paying attention, and my life has been much easier since then.

I won’t go too much into nurture, because you won’t believe me, but I’ve been “kicked to the curb” more than once by children after I gave nurturing my best shot. On each such occasion, the preferred nurturer, always a woman, wasn’t initially available, so the child came to me, but as soon as the first team hit the scene, it was if I wasn’t and hadn’t been there.

How does that translate to the workforce? Here’s one more example (I’ve spoken of firefighters). Men can effectively teach young children in elementary school just as long as there are women teachers/administrators around, preferably more women teachers than men teachers. Women can effectively teach young children in elementary school with no men teachers/administrators on site. This next example is speculative, but I’d hock my house and bet on it if I could. Having watched almost all episodes of Law and Order SVU, I believe that women investigators are markedly superior to men investigators in the crucial area of interviewing victims of sexual assaults. I believe that fuller use of women investigators in this role would result in more perpetrators being convicted.

I could go on awhile, so I’ll stop. Summation: Real equal opportunity will result in more people being in positions Base upon their own individual abilities.

Shirina wrote:
… because the price we pay for them is just too high.

 

The only “price” you would “pay” if you attempted to jump out of the lifeboat would be having to fight me. You can “logic it” all day long, or all week or month long for all I care; if you and I are in a lifeboat that will sustain but one life, either (1) the life it will sustain will be your life, or (2) you will knock me out. End of story.

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