Women and roles
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2011, 11:23 AM
RE: Women and roles
(10-09-2011 02:12 AM)Blythe Wrote:  I found this and it horrified me, i wanted to throw something
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20...o_lady.htm

That's an awesome site! ;)Did you see he has a 2 part movie posted of the finding of Noah's ark? I highly recommend "the police state" link in which he talks about how you should put an alarm on your door at night for when children's services comes in fake cop uniforms to steal your children & rape your women. Great stuff, great stuff. My son was messing about here with me & we had a great conversation on how some religious groups refuse medical care for their kids, based on the link to some girl being "stolen" from her family because they wouldn't let her have cancer treatment.

Every time you say you don't believe, Jesus rips the wings off a fairy. - SkepticalParenting.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 12:05 PM
RE: Women and roles
Hey.

Just a quick question. When people say "Christians" do they really mean extreme right wing US evangelical mega church Christians and are just being lazy? Anyhoo, moving right along….

I think sexual dimorphism, let alone the behavioural differences that Emil Momma pointed out, precludes equality. But egalitarianism is different than equality because it accepts difference. I'm all about egalitarianism.

But the most important question is, is true egalitarianism possible within the context of a hierarchical civilisation? I think the answer is a resounding no. That doesn’t mean that the inequality must take the form of patriarchy, but that it must take some form. The system simply demands it. At any rate, I’ll focus on patriarchy.

The notion that patriarchy is somehow restricted to the Abrahamic religions is ridiculous. Patriarchy is as old as civilisation itself (except in Egypt, but it got there). Gwynn Dyre did an EXCELLENT documentary on patriarchy, civilisation and militarism (and how they are intimately related) in 1994. It's up on Youtube (I don’t think it’s 100% complete unfortunately). I HIGHLY recommend it. It’s exceptional.

One of the most important aspects of patriarchy is that it involves the mechanisation of women and their transformation into baby making machines. When you need to throw young men into battle to be slaughtered, as all competing militarised hierarchical societies must, it behoves you to have a large pool of young men to draw from.

I know a lot of Israelis and Palestinians. Man. That anger runs deep on both sides. I remember asking an Israeli friend of mine if peace will ever be reached in Israel. He said no. Because the extremists on both sides reproduce too prodigiously. They'll win by sheer force of numbers. The value of the baby making machine in action.

In terms of Christianity, of course there's patriarchy in Christianity. But being shocked about that is like saying, "You mean there's water in ALL of the oceans???? And the rivers and lakes too??? Does the President know about this???" That being said, the idea that there isn't a STRONG movement away from patriarchy in Christianity is insulting to the men and women that have made it their fight for the last few decades. I know plenty of female ministers that weren't allowed to be ministers when I was a kid. Regardless of how widespread this movement is in Christianity globally (I couldn't actually tell you how widespread it is, but even that fucking psycho hose beast minister in Jesus Camp was a woman) the blanket statement that it's in all of Christianity just doesn't fly.

One of the important historical roles of religion was as a means of mass communication. Mass communication facilitates hierarchical rule. Now that we’ve moved into an era where we have true mass communication (books, radio, TV, movies, Internet) the role of religion in that regard has shifted from primary to secondary. But make no mistake, the patriarchy has safely migrated from religion into secular life. That being said, mass communication itself is eroding the need for patriarchy. It won’t eliminate it because we’re still militarised and we still need to throw young boys into the meat grinders of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is eroding it. It should also be pointed out that mass communication is also eroding patriarchy’s prominence in the religions that have hosted it for the last few thousand years. This is why there are more female and gay ministers. The revolution is occurring everywhere. It also needs to be pointed out that in places where we look today and say, “How disgusting! They’re so patriarchal. The savages.” places like the backwaters of Afghanistan or Somalia or Kazakhstan, modern mass communication and widespread literacy AREN’T PRESENT. So the role of religious patriarchy in the day to day operation of a militarised hierarchical society is still of primary importance. It’s somewhat silly to shit on them for doing something that we ourselves did happily for thousands of years when the truth is we’re only moving away from it because we have new alternatives that we’re too selfish to share with them.

We’re not as enlightened as we think we are. Women’s lib was in the 70s. That's not that long ago. Universal suffrage only happened in Canada, the US and the UK in the 20s. And in Canada and the US, Natives and blacks didn't get full suffrage until the 60s. All of that being said, women still get paid less than men in all of those countries. So obviously it's better here than in some places, but I think we gotta stop patting ourselves on the back so hard.
Quote:LUKE: You don't believe in the Force, do you?
HAN: Oh, you mean that thing you just found out about, like, three hours ago and are now judging me for not believing in it?
-Family Guy, "Blue Harvest".

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 01:24 PM
RE: Women and roles
(10-09-2011 12:05 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.
Just a quick question. When people say "Christians" do they really mean extreme right wing US evangelical mega church Christians and are just being lazy?
Sometimes we're just being lazy, but in this context, it makes no difference, since all their ideas originate from the same book.

Quote:I think sexual dimorphism, let alone the behavioural differences that Emil Momma pointed out, precludes equality.
How does it do that? Equal doesn't mean identical or even similar, just having the same value or status. Men of different stature, colouring, costume, mores and native tongue have no problem being equal before the law or in business. Egalitarian means based on a principle of equality.

Quote: But the most important question is, is true egalitarianism possible within the context of a hierarchical civilisation?
Of course not. Every step of inclusion is difficult to achieve. But the slaves and females have been emancipated... more or less.

Quote: The notion that patriarchy is somehow restricted to the Abrahamic religions is ridiculous.
Nobody said it's exclusive or surprising. Only, India and China don't have a huge influence on our society... yet. And they're moving toward enlightenment, emancipation, equality, opportunity and participation in their politics, while we're moving backward to the middle ages.

The fundamentalist right in America, and that horrid pope in all the places he can influence, are what drive the regression. It doesn't matter if United and Anglican churches have been growing more tolerant and modern: they're not running the show at the moment. The aggressive, loud, highly political extremists are.

Quote: We’re not as enlightened as we think we are. Women’s lib was in the 70s. That's not that long ago.
And already there has been erosion of the rights so hard-won in those two decades. An enormous, concerted attack on reproductive freedom, on the agencies and institutions that made it possible for women and children to escape abuse, and on unions that negotiate equal pay and promotion rules... even before equal pay and promotion was anywhere near achieved.

The problem is not the past history of civilization, but the present drive, in North America, by powerful religious entities, to reverse progress. And it's not just for the war-machine - they're feeding it girls, too. It's for the money-machine. Meaningful, influential participation by women in the decision-making process always shifts the balance away from mega-profit toward social responsibility.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
10-09-2011, 02:44 PM
RE: Women and roles
(10-09-2011 12:05 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.

Just a quick question. When people say "Christians" do they really mean extreme right wing US evangelical mega church Christians and are just being lazy?

No I was referring to the teachings in the bible, on which Christianity is based. Starting at genesis when women is made as a helper for man etc etc, right up to revelations where men who have not been 'defiled' by women are in heave,
Christianity IS based on the bible.

Quote:
I think sexual dimorphism, let alone the behavioural differences that Emil Momma pointed out, precludes equality. But egalitarianism is different than equality because it accepts difference. I'm all about egalitarianism.

Again, no, Equality isn't about behavioural differences, as I pointed out in my OP everyone is different. Equality is about how we see each other, rights, opportunities and roles etc.
Quote:
But the most important question is, is true egalitarianism possible within the context of a hierarchical civilisation? I think the answer is a resounding no.

Because it seems hard, maybe impossible, does that mean we should not strive for it? Of course not. And I think it is possible and given the rest of you post, a good place to start would be to focus on changing the way we settle differences (ie war and violence).
It has been said the more involved women are in public life (is politics, business etc) the less that country is involved in internal and external conflicts.
To answer some of your other points, I never said it was only Abrahamic societies that had patriarchy, it is and has been very wide spread, (but not entirely).
Regardless of what IS, we need to make society what it should be. That is a place where everyone, regardless of ethnicity, gender, the amount of money they have or haven't, or religion is treated equal.

I want for myself what I want for every women, absolute equality. Agnes Macphail
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Blythe's post
10-09-2011, 04:00 PM
RE: Women and roles
Hey, Peterkin and Blythe.

You've both said that Christianity is based on the Bible. That's true. Staggeringly simplistic, but true. The idea that every Christian sect enacts every single command of the Bible is demonstrably false. So yes, I agree, there's some fucked up shit in the Bible. But the notion that because that stuff is there that Christian doctrine MUST reflect it is just insupportable. I know Christian ministers that preach, openly, that Christ was not the son of God. How could they do that if their doctrine was required to reflect absolutely everything written in the Bible?

Anyhoo, I'm not saying that patriarchy isn't in the Bible because it is. All I am saying is that there are Christian sects and movements within Christian sects that are moving away from patriarchy DESPITE it being encoded in the Bible.

Hey, Peterkin.

Equal does mean same. Egalitarianism refers to equality, not of person or trait, but of quality. At any rate, I was just explaining my position. Now I've supported it. If you want to use the term Equality, have at it. I will not stop you.

You're right. No one said that it was exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. But you said, "There is nothing egalitarian or democratic about the Abrahamic religions." That's what I was reacting to. I also just wanted to point out that it isn't exclusive.

Hey, Blythe.

Quote:Because it seems hard, maybe impossible, does that mean we should not strive for it? Of course not.

I agree. Just because something seems hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

But as far as I'm concerned, it's actually impossible.

If I said, “Is breathing underwater unassisted possible for humans? I think the answer is a resounding no.” You wouldn't answer, "Because it seems hard, maybe impossible, does that mean we should not strive for it?" because regardless of how hard we strive, it ain't happening.

Hierarchy requires that decision making be made centrally. It cannot function without stratification. So it's impossible for me to be equal to the leader because he has powers that I do not. That's just one example, but my contention is that hierarchy simply cannot function without inequality.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm saying "abandon equality!" I'm not. I'm saying that living in a shitty system that you make slightly better is still living in a shitty system. If the system precludes egalitarianism, change systems instead of spending all of your energy polishing turds.

Quote:And I think it is possible and given the rest of you post, a good place to start would be to focus on changing the way we settle differences (ie war and violence).

I agree wholeheartedly. The issue is that we are trapped within a Nash Equilibrium. Andrew Smookler very succinctly deals with the problem of avoiding war when (what game theory would call) players are engaged in the struggle for power in his brilliant Parable of the Tribes.

So I'm with you 100%. We need to settle our differences in a better way. But to do that, we need to switch systems because this system demands that we settle things a certain way. But switching systems might prove impossible due to the Nash Equilibrium and the struggle for power. So we're stuck polishing turds… for now.

Quote:It has been said the more involved women are in public life (is politics, business etc) the less that country is involved in internal and external conflicts.

The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Women are in public life --> there’s less conflict --> women in public life causes less conflict.

I think that it's more likely that women are more involved in public life in countries that are wealthy. There's greater freedoms, greater education, greater communication infrastructure and therefore, less patriarchy. Furthermore, these countries are so preposterously powerful militarily (for example, the US has twelve aircraft carriers and each one has a larger air force than 70% of the countries on the planet), that lesser states don't even bother to challenge them and just roll over, while war with equally matched states is so unthinkably destructive that it is avoided at all costs. Internally, due to rights and economic freedom, people are more content.

All of that being said, there isn't actually less conflict. There's MORE. We want more stuff so we need to take more stuff. It's just that there's less FIGHTING with external adversaries because we just steamroller them. But fighting is not conflict; it’s a conflict resolution strategy. That is to say, the aim of things like fighting, war, compromise, negotiation and yelling really loud is to bring about an end to an existing conflict.

Regardless of the makeup of the hierarchy, the needs of the hierarchy remain the same.

Quote:To answer some of your other points, I never said it was only Abrahamic societies that had patriarchy, it is and has been very wide spread, (but not entirely).

You're absolutely right and I apologise if you felt I had implied that. I was addressing the post to the community at large rather than you personally.

Quote:Regardless of what IS, we need to make society what it should be. That is a place where everyone, regardless of ethnicity, gender, the amount of money they have or haven't, or religion is treated equal.

I agree with you. I can't tell you how much I agree with you. This is my life's work. I'm just trying to identify challenges in order to find actionable solutions.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 04:23 PM
RE: Women and roles
(10-09-2011 04:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  But as far as I'm concerned, it's actually impossible.


I think that it's more likely that women are more involved in public life in countries that are wealthy. There's greater freedoms, greater education, greater communication infrastructure and therefore, less patriarchy.

two points Matt
The impossible can be made possible, maybe not in our lifetime, but I do believe it, just one step at a time. Look at what's possible now compared to 1000 years ago. never say never.

Second, I was referring to studies done by the CIA on conflicts and how they predict where flash points will be. I think you have it backwards, I think countries are wealthy, have more freedom etc. BECAUSE women are involved, not the other way around. When women in very poor counties are given the ability to make money (small business) there is a decrease in violence, of course there are many other factors involved as you pointed out. What comes first? Thank you for your interesting thoughts.

I want for myself what I want for every women, absolute equality. Agnes Macphail
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 06:14 PM
RE: Women and roles
(10-09-2011 04:23 PM)Blythe Wrote:  
(10-09-2011 04:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  But as far as I'm concerned, it's actually impossible.


I think that it's more likely that women are more involved in public life in countries that are wealthy. There's greater freedoms, greater education, greater communication infrastructure and therefore, less patriarchy.

two points Matt
The impossible can be made possible, maybe not in our lifetime, but I do believe it, just one step at a time. Look at what's possible now compared to 1000 years ago. never say never.

Second, I was referring to studies done by the CIA on conflicts and how they predict where flash points will be. I think you have it backwards, I think countries are wealthy, have more freedom etc. BECAUSE women are involved, not the other way around. When women in very poor counties are given the ability to make money (small business) there is a decrease in violence, of course there are many other factors involved as you pointed out. What comes first? Thank you for your interesting thoughts.

Given the point of this thread and the comments you've made, would it be completely inappropriate to say that - if that black & white photo in your avatar is you - that you are totally hot?

Probably.

On the point, the idea of the subservience of women certainly predates all the major religions and none of the major religions are alone in their view on women. However, by claiming women's 2nd class status is the will of some god certainly makes it a lot more difficult to evolve away from those views, don't you think Ghost? It's one thing if you believe women are inferior from a cultural perspective, because that is the way it has always been. Cultures can change and evolve. But, if you believe god wants you to slap your wife around, that's a bit more difficult to change. After all, god is always right and never changes his mind.

Oh, one other thought: Blythe - your comment on women and impoverished nations is very interesting, I've never seen that before. However, just because there is a correlation like the one you describe doesn't automatically mean there is causation. You may be right, but I'm not convinced. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not in any way suggesting woman should not be treated equally. I am suggesting, however, that women's rights may not be a causal effect on wealth. I'm inclined to think that is more the other way around, that wealthier countries are more likely to value the rights of women and even minorities. So, yes, I think Ghost is probably right on that one. But, I can be convinced otherwise with some data and evidence.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 07:46 PM
RE: Women and roles
Hey, BnW.

Quote:However, by claiming women's 2nd class status is the will of some god certainly makes it a lot more difficult to evolve away from those views, don't you think Ghost?

And yet it's changing. So what's your point?

And the religious view IS a cultural perspective.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 09:57 PM
RE: Women and roles
(10-09-2011 06:14 PM)BnW Wrote:  Oh, one other thought: Blythe - your comment on women and impoverished nations is very interesting, I've never seen that before. However, just because there is a correlation like the one you describe doesn't automatically mean there is causation.

Sadly I have not been able to find the article. Nothing is really simple when it comes to humans and behaviour, agreed, what is the cause, what is the effect? Its complicated. Its messy. but what the article was saying is that women (and the article was really talking about very poor counties mainly in Africa) was that if you gave women the power to make money (small business ) they were much more protective about the success of these than the men, and (I presume there is some sort of tipping point in a society when this happens) the more women are involved in such ventures (and therefore have some economic power) the less likely that country would become internally unstable. If I come across it again I'll save it and link it here. Sorry I can't remember more details.

I want for myself what I want for every women, absolute equality. Agnes Macphail
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2011, 09:57 AM
RE: Women and roles
I'm a bit slow on the uptake but i finally get it.

Civilization has bosses, and bosses have always been men. Since women are different, you can never be equal. Every couple of centuries, some of our sects throw you a few crumbs (which the more dominant sects immediately claw back, but we don't want to know about that) and maybe later on we'll give you more - don't be so impatient. Anyway, the other religions are just as patriarchal and undemocratic, so what are you complaining about?

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: