Bigotry against women in Fundamentalism

[white_raven23]

I didn't mention the Koran anywhere.

 

Ah, you are correct, as Cerise pointed out as well, PUG is the one who posted about the Quran, not you. Sorry about the mistaken ID.

[Asimov]

Becca, do you shave your armpits?

[doomguarder]

What the hell does that have to do with anything, Asimov?

 

Baiting?

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Becca, do you shave your armpits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Asimov, quit playing bait-the-feminist. It's something I would expect out of a thirteen year old boy trolling the Net, not a regular member who seems to pride himself on his intelligence.

 

What the fuck is your problem, that you're suddenly doing the textual equivalent of poking me with a stick? You started out on an earlier thread, when I was very emotional and ranting about how Biblegod's an asshole. You were warned by someone else that questioning me on that so pointedly was insensitive, but I answered you straight anyway. NOW, you seem to just be being an asshole for the sake of it.

 

Lay off. I mean it. I don't know what the hell your beef is with me, and I don't fucking CARE.

[LadyFeline]

I may be misunderstanding you.

Is it your claim that the differences in men and woman's muscle structure is a result of sexism?

 

Woo. Someone failed his Biology class (big surprise, there. Probably stopped paying attention when they got into evolution and didn't tune back in when they got around to human anatomy)

 

Let me tell you something, rodent - the human muscle system is EXACTLY THE SAME, regardless of gender. We all have the same muscles attached to the same bones, which perform the same functions with varying degrees of intensity.

 

The only differences are located in the throat and pelvic region (where the genitals/reproductive organs are), and apparently the brain, too. Otherwise, everything is essentially the same.

 

Men's muscles are only bigger, on average, because of *gasp* societal pressure to be big and strong and work out every day to get the rippling six-pack and buns of steel. But, you know what? I've seen men that I could probably break in half with a flick of my wrist, they were so skinny, and I've seen women that I thought were guys at first, they were so muscular. So, ah, where's your logic again?

 

Go back to your cave, rodent. And plase, please stop talking. You lower the IQ of any person unfortunate enough to stumble across your blatherings.

[Asimov]

Asimov, quit playing bait-the-feminist. It's something I would expect out of a thirteen year old boy trolling the Net, not a regular member who seems to pride himself on his intelligence.

 

What the fuck is your problem, that you're suddenly doing the textual equivalent of poking me with a stick? You started out on an earlier thread, when I was very emotional and ranting about how Biblegod's an asshole. You were warned by someone else that questioning me on that so pointedly was insensitive, but I answered you straight anyway. NOW, you seem to just be being an asshole for the sake of it.

 

Lay off. I mean it. I don't know what the hell your beef is with me, and I don't fucking CARE.

 

[Asimov]

Ok, I'm sorry. I know you probably don't care that I apologize, because you think I'm an asshole, but I said it.

[LadyFeline]

Asimov, quit playing bait-the-feminist. It's something I would expect out of a thirteen year old boy trolling the Net, not a regular member who seems to pride himself on his intelligence.

 

What the fuck is your problem, that you're suddenly doing the textual equivalent of poking me with a stick? You started out on an earlier thread, when I was very emotional and ranting about how Biblegod's an asshole. You were warned by someone else that questioning me on that so pointedly was insensitive, but I answered you straight anyway. NOW, you seem to just be being an asshole for the sake of it.

 

Lay off. I mean it. I don't know what the hell your beef is with me, and I don't fucking CARE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Becca, just ignore the rude little fuck. He's probably just some skinny, acne-ridden teenager boy pecking at keys in his mommy's computer room while looking at lesbian porn.

 

In short, he's not worth your time or emotion.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

What the hell does that have to do with anything, Asimov?

 

Baiting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's being a prick to me for fun. He's been doing it...gee. Since before this thread even started. Maybe he got incensed when I mentioned I'm not a hardcore atheist. Maybe he just likes picking on people who get emotional when pressed. Maybe he assumes that all feminists are ballcutter loons who want to remap the English language and live in lesbian collectives, and is having a knee-jerk reaction to someone (OMG!!!!!) bringing up any issue that even marginally involves women's rights.

 

Or, maybe he's just generally a dick.

 

I do wonder why none of the mods have said a single thing about this. But even so...there's always setting his posts on Ignore.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Becca, just ignore the rude little fuck. He's probably just some skinny, acne-ridden teenager boy pecking at keys in his mommy's computer room while looking at lesbian porn.

 

In short, he's not worth your time or emotion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just...really don't need this. My recovery's hard and embarrassing and messy and just generally misery-making enough without having to deal with the NONchristians being assholes to me as well.

[Asimov]

Becca, I pmed you...

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Becca, I pmed you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I saw it. I will answer it when I'm less upset.

[doomguarder]

He's being a prick to me for fun. He's been doing it...gee. Since before this thread even started. Maybe he got incensed when I mentioned I'm not a hardcore atheist. Maybe he just likes picking on people who get emotional when pressed. Maybe he assumes that all feminists are ballcutter loons who want to remap the English language and live in lesbian collectives, and is having a knee-jerk reaction to someone (OMG!!!!!) bringing up any issue that even marginally involves women's rights.

 

Or, maybe he's just generally a dick.

 

I do wonder why none of the mods have said a single thing about this. But even so...there's always setting his posts on Ignore.

 

I would break it down to lack of empathy.

 

Asimov, like me, never was a xtian. Sometimes it is hard to understand the pain and anguish someone is in if you have not suffered in the same way.

 

Part of why I am on this board is to understand not only the xtians, but to understand the process by which someone can buck decades of indoctrination to find their own path.

 

I also suspect, as you state, that he has run across more than a few militant feminists.

 

Don't hate him because he is insensitive. He does have some really good thoughts and is worth listening to when he is not playing class clown.

 

MODs on this site rarely jump in without someone calling them. If being an asshole got you barred here, we would have no xtians to argue with.

[Cerise]

None of the assertions I made had anything to do with the Bible.

Just like a gal to miss the point.

 

 

That was a joke.

Thanks for not calling me names, I appreciate your response.

 

I didn't miss the point. I answered all your other assertions and speculations. That you immediately passed them over to nit pick speaks volumes.

[Cerise]

Cerise:

 

Just a thought here:

Much of your objection to my points is based upon the current modern state of affairs -- that is, modern living has overcome many things that may have hindered role equality in ancient times.  For example, a gun's effectiveness has less to do with strength and more to do with the ability to aim -- and if the men's restroom is any indication the women has the men beat there.

 

So I have to ask -- what would Ishmael say to all of this?  If we went back to a society and lived as most people have -- save circa 1000BC would the roles make anymore sense then?  Would a man's strength mean more then?

 

The reason I ask is that it just occured to me that I'm a member of the aristocracy.  I have white, smooth hands and I sit on my butt all day in an air conditioned office.  I write computer code -- something only made essential because of totally unnecessary beauracratic nonsense.  If the beaucracy were destroyed I'd be no different than a French count wandering the streets of Paris waiting to get beheaded by the mobs.

 

Is the fact a woman can earn a viable income the result of this artificial society?  Is the confusion of roles possible because of our excessive lifestyle?  If we were in a primitive society would there be any doubt about roles?  Would it even be negotiable?

 

In light of the book Ishmael, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that.

 

 

Maybe if you read Quinn more closely you would see that he is against the very thing you are advocating with your analogies. That is "the one right way for everybody" approach.

 

There is no "confusion" of roles. You only see it as that way because you assume one right way: man dominant, woman submissive. Other cultures (even ancient ones) disagree with your assessment.

 

Now, if we are finished derailing the thread...

[Amethyst]

MG, then a leader does not have to be the one with the greater physical strength ~ the good leader will delegate the physical tasks to the one with the greater physical strength.

 

What about mental strength?

 

I can't comprehend why you value brawn so much more highly than brains. The mind is what's needed to make competent decisions. IMHO, presidential candidates should have to take an IQ test and whoever scores highest should win. Of course, IQ tests are currently flawed -- you could just be really good at test taking, or good at memorizing facts, but not intelligent. But accomplishments should show who is more intelligent.

 

By your method, we could have a 1,000-pound ape running the country because he's physically stronger than everyone else, yet completely and totally incompetent. (Hmmm...well, except for the 1,000 pounds, doesn't that sound familiar?)

[SkepticOfBible]

I think that is all very reasonable and well said.

 

I do think that in any team it is necessary to have a leader (we can leave that term somewhat vague) and that it is so necessary that it happens quite naturally OR the team dissolves.  Having a leader on the team doesn't mean that the leader makes all the decisions, but rather that on the whole, the responsibility for the welfare (welfare is also vague) of the team rests on the leader's shoulders.

 

 

Bad leaders are ones that use his/her position for personal gain.

Good leaders are ones that compromise, consider all points of view, and delegate.

Biblical husbands are not only required to be good leaders, but they most also love those they lead -- and that love should be the self-sacrificial sort of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok then what about positions where the husband is a bad leader. It is a known fact that some men just can't be good leaders, no matter what amount of training they go through. And what about cases where the women is better leader

 

 

1: Physical Strength

I think if woman and men were about the same physically in strength it would make sense to have it be either or -- however, when laying down a general rule I think it makes sense to have the physically stronger one be the leader for two reasons:

 

a. As crass as it seems there is just no way to enforce the leadership of a physically weaker human upon a stronger human being.  A society that attempted that is just begging for revolution.

 

b. When faced with adversary, the one responsible for the welfare (the strong one) is sent to face that adversary.  The advocate for the welfare of the family should be the strong one and the leader since he/she will be making on the fly decisions in regard to the family unit.

 

Illustration:

When Napolean wanted to take power he and a bunch of men got together and started killing people to get it.  When women wanted the right to vote in the USA they petitioned their leaders and asked for it (directly) and after a political battle they won that right after convincing male leadership it was the right thing to do.  Women didn't have the physical option that Napolean had -- fighting for the right to vote wasn't a physical battle because it couldn't be one.

 

Let's not forget Joan of Arc. She kicked some serious ass way before Napolean. This is despite the fact that the society was still patriachel

 

In Indian(Not American Indian) history there are number of examples where Women have led men into battle and have won.

 

2: Reproduction

Like physical strength, reproduction has a huge impact on women.  There are two seperate points here as well:

 

a. A woman that is pregnant or recently birthed cannot be out doing the business of the field or carrying on business at the city gate with great effectiveness.  Children demand an incredible amount of resources and attention.

 

b. When a woman allows herself to get pregnant she has made herself vunerable and is taking on a great deal of trust in her man.  She is taking a submissive role in this act alone.

 

In terms of point A, a women is as capable of working in the field as any man after their pregrency. Pregancy is akin to severe illness where a man may not be recover his strength for a long time.

 

Women can take a dominating role in deciding when she wants to get pregnant. After the pill pretty much women have the say when they want to get a baby

 

3: Efficency

A team that doubles up on all tasks is just a weak team.  I'm not talking about having a basic understanding of what the other team member does, I'm talking about specialization.  By deciding in advance what roles the sexes will have in marriage the process of raising one sex to do well in one role and the other sex to do well in anothe role is a good way to end up with a very effective team.  Alot of questions and confusion is handled up front with well defined roles.

 

Well as far planning goes and roles goes there are a number of households in America which says that either sex is capable any task. Familes which have "house husband" are equally successful as the one with the traditional roles.

 

 

Summary

I think there are several other reasons as well, but in summary I have to say that I believe without even making an appeal to the Bible one can come up with a rational list of why wives should submit to husbands.  An efficient, organized society that recognizes the strengths of the two sexes and uses them well at a very fundamental level is a society that is going to prosper.  I think the Bible isn't saying anything revolutionary with the bit about roles -- I think it is merely stating the obvious.

 

You obviously haven't taken into consideration where a matriachal system does equally well. The Amazonian tribe is a very good example.

[SkepticOfBible]

I'd invite you to read Ishmael if you haven't.

I think Cerise would understand (although likely disagree) with what I'm saying because we've both read that book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I recommend you reading about Joan of Arc and other exceptional women in history

[Mad_Gerbil]

I recommend you reading about Joan of Arc and other exceptional women in history

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess I'm confused.

I don't know where I claimed women couldn't be excellent leaders.

 

If you believe my position to be that women cannot be good leaders then you are busy refuting a point I never made. Not only did I never claim such a thing, but the context of Joan of Arc's leadership was entirely outside the bounds of marriage.

[Mad_Gerbil]

What about mental strength?

 

I can't comprehend why you value brawn so much more highly than brains. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, addressing a point I never made.

I never said brains weren't important -- or even more so than brawn.

[Mad_Gerbil]

I didn't miss the point.  I answered all your other assertions and speculations.  That you immediately passed them over to nit pick speaks volumes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I like to think through things with other people.... is there a board where I can do that without every unanswered point being cause for people to pretend it matters? If you direct me to that place, I'll happily go there.

[Godless Dave]

And the answer is......because they want to!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then they're pathetic excuses for human beings. They will also be in deep trouble if their husband dies or leaves them, if they never learned how to manage household finances, make an insurance claim, or file a tax return.

 

Again, not talking about SAHMs. I'm talking about women who are taught not to learn certain skills, not to be independent, and to let their husband make all important decisions and who go along with it.

[Alice]

I'd invite you to read Ishmael if you haven't.

I think Cerise would understand (although likely disagree) with what I'm saying because we've both read that book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd invite you to recognise that introducing this book and commenting as you did at the point when all your arguments for male headship had been shown to be based on falsehoods was the action of a man desperate to find somekind of justification for the role he has taken on for himself. This is how your comment came across,

 

... 'my arguments are only false because we live in a technological excessive world ... everything would be better if we could go back to a time when men were men.'

 

If your identity and self image is built on an idea that you have a 'god given' role as the leader in your household, having this challenged is likely to be a diffcult experience. You are unlikely to give up something easily that gives your life significance and purpose. Changing your view would involve a mini internal revolution ... not always a pleasant process, but revolutions do not have to be bloody ~ velvet ones happen too. (I guess I'm saying don't be too hard on yourself ~ but at the same time don't throw alternative justifications into the mix to shore up your failing position!)

 

Again, addressing a point I never made.

I never said brains weren't important -- or even more so than brawn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmmmm ~ but you did give 'PHYSICAL STRENGTH' as your number one suggested justification for men being best fitted to fulfill the headship role.

 

I'd like to direct you to post number 197. I'd be interested in your comments about societal organisation along class lines.

[Amethyst]

I never said brains weren't important -- or even more so than brawn.

 

But you did imply it very strongly.

[Cerise]

I like to think through things with other people.... is there a board where I can do that without every unanswered point being cause for people to pretend it matters?  If you direct me to that place, I'll happily go there.

 

I don't know Gerbil, did you ever manage to find that place after the last time you took your ball and went home because the girls here wouldn't play nice with you?