|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion is for men | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i think what you're missing here is that IQ tests are not meant to have anything to do with leadership capacity. they are meant to put a quantitative score on the potential for abstract reasoning, which we think means especially smart in this culture. leadership has dick all to do with abstract and a great deal to do with practical skills. i'm near genius, but that doesn't make me a good leader. i'm built for other things. in fact, i'm almost completely useless in the "normal" world. however, as an academic, i am invaluable. this means that my IQ tests are more or less accurate in that they have shown that i am built for advanced abstract thought. i will never be a general. i will most likely never be president.
i'm sorry to be off topic, but it is so irritating when people take IQ tests out of context, and it's generally because they're pissy that they didn't score higher. it doesn't mean anything in "real life". it's not supposed to. and now back on topic. we see religion as being very male centric, because our culture is male centric. why hasn't a woman been pope? because there is a tradition that men won't follow women. they think women are irrational, emotional, and untrustworthy. this has become institutionalized into the build of the church as it has in most of society. even women who have played larger roles in history and the church have been recorded as having smaller roles. there are many women barely mentioned in the new testament who were instrumental in the early church. but they are not remembered as more than sidenotes. i'm quite certain that as many women wrote letters and books as did men... theirs were simply not preserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
From what I understand, even today some companies make applicants take IQ tests and hire according to their scores. Really? I'd never heard that. I've had to take writing tests, Myers-Briggs (twice), and the MMPI as part of pre-hire screening, but never an IQ test. That would seem to be pretty strange, all things considered. Do you have an example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ana writes: I am not the kind of person who will get bothered by misogynistic attitudes, because I accept the idea that most men think more objectively. It is proven, if you look at statistics, that men do better in IQ tests. This a disappointing statement, but inline with church doctrine. First about your IQ claim, women typically score higher on verbal and memory tests while men score higher on tests concerned with mathematical and spatial ability. However the variance is large within the sexes compared to the covariance between the sexes. Nevertheless I don't see how IQ scores have *any* relationship to misogynist attitudes. Misogyny regardless of the degree is abhorrent, loathsome and an antiquated mode of thought. I listened to an interview of Buckminster Fuller a long time ago and he commented that the fate of the world and human survivability rest on women equality. I was young at the time and thought this comment was incongruent, if not trivial. Looking back now I have a more full understanding what he was saying and realize his wisdom. Here are few things that misogynist attitudes influence:
For obvious reasons many religious ideologies have been selected that favor high birthrates since a good proportion of any brood will become similarly infected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Iceage writes: This a disappointing statement, but inline with church doctrine. First about your IQ claim, women typically score higher on verbal and memory tests while men score higher on tests concerned with mathematical and spatial ability. However the variance is large within the sexes compared to the covariance between the sexes. Nevertheless I don't see how IQ scores have *any* relationship to misogynist attitudes. Misogyny regardless of the degree is abhorrent, loathsome and an antiquated mode of thought. Whew. This was the tiniest and least significant part of my post, but as usual I recieve the most scrutiny here. Hopefully, to combat your *disappointment* I can explain that, IQ tests aside, I am not worried about perceived mysoginism in religion; it doesn't bother me, because I am content with the roles which women and men play, different roles, and not overly worried about making the sexes the same. I am not looking for a competition, and since this thread was about mysoginism in religion, I did not think it was necessary to discuss every detail of the down-side of mysoginism in other areas. I am also not trying to be 'in-line' with any religious idea, but rather, if the idea was not 'in-line' with me, I would be one of those who oppose it. Plain and simple. I would stop being Catholic, or I would be a psuedo-catholic who is self-excommunicated.
Overpopulation and associated poverty. High birth rates exist in societies were women lack the ability to control their own fertility. This may be for variety of reasons such as traditional, religious and political, etc. constructs. This is very weird to me. I could just as easily say that in areas where men lack the ability to control themselves, as in, poor leadership, poor-planning, poor-decision making, birth-rates are way too high. The abortion rate is already way too high because even in societies of equal opportunity, men AND women don't make good decisions. There is no religion which says 'thou must have sex'. In many religions celibacy is preached as the greatest possible vocation.
For obvious reasons many religious ideologies have been selected that favor high birthrates since a good proportion of any brood will become similarly infected. I have heard this before and it is pure bollocks, sorry. The only way the 'disease' of christainity has been spread is evangelism, martyrdom, ministry, etc. There is no use in making the christian respect for life a pathetic attempt at indoctrination via procreation. We could just as easily come out and preach that, and to my knowledge, no one has, ever. Yet people want to provide subconscious motives for things which already have a motive; respect of human sexuality. And again, it overlooks that whole thing about celibacy, and the fact that even today priests are still trying harder than ever to get people to join them in a celibate vocation. It is a little curious here that you say 'selected' as if evolution has selected for certain religions. Maybe I am wrong...
Political power. Giving women political power transforms the political landscape. Women are less inclined to make war and are more attune to justice and give more emphasis to domestic issues. I have no data here, just a belief. Wasted Potential. Societies that restrain women essentially miss out on half their human potential - half of the intellectual, artistic, wisdom and moral potential smothered under a outdated power structure. Your belief that women are less inclined to make war is part of your own bias about what women are capable of and not. It may be a good generalization, but let's see what happens when Hillary Clinton gets her hands on the reins. All of that pent-up frustration! I think women might be so war-like they would never get past petty battles with their Cabinet, not to mention the errand boys and secretaries. Thus, the appearance would be that they don't make war. I am just kidding...but out of all of this, I would say there is a huge part of the population that would not be utilized in terms of productivity. Still, if more women were given high power jobs, it would stand to reason that more men would be forced into lower positions, so, all in all, may the best 'man' win the job. Whoever fits the criteria. That includes, the criteria that the candidate must be male.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Brennakimi writes: i'm sorry to be off topic, but it is so irritating when people take IQ tests out of context, and it's generally because they're pissy that they didn't score higher. it doesn't mean anything in "real life". it's not supposed to. Anybody in mind?
and now back on topic. we see religion as being very male centric, because our culture is male centric. why hasn't a woman been pope? because there is a tradition that men won't follow women. they think women are irrational, emotional, and untrustworthy. this has become institutionalized into the build of the church as it has in most of society Not true of the Church. They don't think anything, except that Jesus is God and He chose a man for a Pope. This is the only 'tradition' which they are allowed to go by.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You don't mind "hatered of women"? That's what "misogyny" is, you know.
quote: That is not true. Average IQ scores reflect no gender difference. Women and men tend to do better at different parts of IQ tests, and men show a greater range of scores than women, but those are the only gender differences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: IQ tests were first developed to identify students who needed help in school, Larni.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The thing is, misogyny and sexism isn't about merely recognizing that men and women are different. Feminism readily recognizes that men and women are different. Misogyny and sexism says that the differences mean that one gender is intrinsicly more important or better than the other. It actively discounts and devalues everything about and concerned with the "less important" gender. It is a caste or class system. It's all about power. You may not be "looking" for a competition, but if you accept sexism and misogyny as normal, you are accepting the notion that your gender is intrinsicly less important and not a good as the male gender.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Anybody in mind?
not really. just generally works out that way.
Not true of the Church. They don't think anything, except that Jesus is God and He chose a man for a Pope. This is the only 'tradition' which they are allowed to go by. i don't actually recall jesus choosing a pope. and the reason there is no woman pope is because women can't preach. because paul said they should not be allowed to usurp the authority that god had clearly given the penis owning members of humanity. if they can't preach, they can't be priests. if they can't be priests, they can't be promoted to higher church offices. they can only be perfume carrying servants who anoint the body of christ (serve the physical and emotional needs of the church, rather than the intellectual or spiritual needs). however, judges speaks of the prophetess deborah. paul even talks about his friend's four prophesying daughters. if women can be chosen by god as prophets, why can't they be chosen my man to be leaders? because mankind is flawed and men have decided that they refuse to be led by women. why is it that people think the church is immune to the problems of humanity? just because we know we should not, does not mean we will not. there was no blue lightning to stop luther from spreading anti-semitism and there is none to keep church men from subjugating women.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
brennakimi writes: i don't actually recall jesus choosing a pope. Before your time, eh? Or you have not heard 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church'?
paul said they should not be allowed to usurp the authority that god had clearly given the penis owning members of humanity. Good for Paul. Personally, I am fine being a perfume carrying servant who anoints the body of Christ, as you say. Women ARE leaders, brenna, in different things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: You may not be "looking" for a competition, but if you accept sexism and misogyny as normal, you are accepting the notion that your gender is intrinsicly less important and not a good as the male gender. No, both genders under God are equally important and intrinsically the same. They are only physically different, which for obvious reasons, make men better at some things, and women others. That I view the role of the priesthood more suitable to the male gender in natural ways, does not mean that I accept mysogony as normal, but that I see no evidence of it in church practice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They are only physically different, which for obvious reasons, make men better at some things, and women others. That I view the role of the priesthood more suitable to the male gender in natural ways I don't think anybody can question physical differences between men and women. But here's a hint, my friend. When you take a leap from weewees and hoohoos, to concluding that "men and women are equal, but are suited for different jobs", but coincidentally the jobs men are "physically more suited for" are prestigious jobs like church leaders, running businesses, and political offices; and the jobs you believe women are "suited for" are jobs that are typically undercompensated and underappreciated, you're a misogynist. It's true that typically men exhibit greater body strength than women, generally with less effort. But since even a person in a wheelchair - indeed, a quadriplegic - could fulfill the duties necessary to lead a church, it's illogical and sexist to say that the physical differences between men and women make men more suited for church leadership. The simple truth of the matter is that, by any objective standard, women are more suited than men for the leadership of ministry - they're typically more likely to be sensitive, introspective, and nurturing, as well as being generally better communicators. However, men lead the church because church leadership is prestigious, and therefore patriarchy excludes women from serving in that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i'm saying that there is no other scriptural evidence that there is any such authority given to penis bearing members of humanity. i am not necessarily built to lead, but to say that all women are built the same and none are gifted by god to lead men is ridiculous. adam didn't ask god why he wasn't given a maid like all the other animals, he asked why he wasn't given a companion. a companion is inherently equal. not all men can lead; not all women can lead. but some of each can, and who is paul to contradict the clear gifts of god?
Or you have not heard 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church'? and yet the church follows the dictions of paul.also, i really don't recall any mention of a church hierarchy. sure, jesus had 12 who were his subleaders, but they were not to become mini-jesuses after he left. jesus is our mediator and our lord. who is this pope guy anyways? Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
nator writes: IQ tests were first developed to identify students who needed help in school, Larni. Hmmm, if you are talking about Binet then I suppose you are right. But I would argue that it was parellel conceptual evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I think you may be misinterpreting this passage, ana. I don't think that Jesus used "Peter" as a slang for "penis" the way we do today. This must be why you think that Jesus meant that only men could be leaders of the Church.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024