Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 11:49 AM
41 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, edge, Faith, FLRW, JonF, ooh-child, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (10 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,154 Year: 5,191/19,786 Month: 1,313/873 Week: 209/460 Day: 25/29 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Religion is for men
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 77 (384936)
02-13-2007 2:45 PM


Woman power
A few quick remarks.

I have known many people working under leadership that in terms of IQ was inferior to the employee. Leadership is related more to personality than IQ.

Many women have held position of power both inside and outside of the Church. Having said this let me say that the percentage of such women is far lower that I think it should be.

Personality seems to be the overriding factor in determinations of leadership.

The fact that most of the wealth of the world is owned by women seems to indicate that they refuse to accept leadership even when they could easily accept it.

Because the status quo is as it is, can we then infer that things are as they should be with men leading and women following. Generally.

As an aside, I did see something about the infallibility of the Pope. I hope this was a joke. Man is always fallible.

Regards
DL


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 3:18 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 62 of 77 (384941)
02-13-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
02-13-2007 1:05 PM


Re: Eve the Leader
nasty writes:

But I do believe that gender roles play a big part; men are seen as leaders.

That is what I said. Not;

nator writes:

I mean, didn't you mean to say that since you think men are naturally smarter they make better leaders?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 1:05 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 9:36 PM anastasia has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 63 of 77 (384943)
02-13-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Greatest I am
02-13-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Woman power
GIA writes:

Having said this let me say that the percentage of such women is far lower that I think it should be.

things are as they should be with men leading and women following. Generally.

And they say women are fickle. :)

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Greatest I am, posted 02-13-2007 2:45 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Greatest I am, posted 02-14-2007 9:02 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 77 (385018)
02-13-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by anastasia
02-13-2007 3:13 PM


Re: Eve the Leader
Didn't you say:

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.

If you didn't mean to say that men aren't naturally smarter, what did you mean?

If you didn't mean to say that you weren't bothered by woman-hating attitudes, what did you mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 3:13 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-14-2007 7:40 PM nator has not yet responded

    
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 65 of 77 (385038)
02-13-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by anastasia
02-09-2007 12:34 AM


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.

What do you mean "better at objective thinking"?

This is an interesting discussion lol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 12:34 AM anastasia has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 66 of 77 (385111)
02-14-2007 8:14 AM


Move Discussion Forward
Per the rules: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

I don't see that much of the last day's discussion has addressed the point of the topic let alone move it forward.

Please try to address the overall point of a post and move the discussion forward.

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

Thank you Purple


  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 67 of 77 (385115)
02-14-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by anastasia
02-13-2007 3:18 PM


Re: Woman power
Fickle.
I don't see that in anything I said???

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anastasia, posted 02-13-2007 3:18 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 68 of 77 (385254)
02-14-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
02-13-2007 9:36 PM


Re: Eve the Leader
nator writes:

If you didn't mean to say that men aren't naturally smarter, what did you mean?

If you didn't mean to say that you weren't bothered by woman-hating attitudes, what did you mean?

Altogether it was a lousy way of saying;
Men may be better in certain areas, I am comfortable giving credit when it is due without getting up-tight and crying 'sexism', but in this issue I must
disagree with the blanket statement that 'Religion is for Men'

Going by history, we could conclude that painting is for men. Music, literature, science, sporting, philosophy and many other areas are dominated until recently by male contributions, although of course women were equal in patronage and appreciation. When you look through the ages, there are two areas where women DO stand out as important figures, and religion is one of them.

In fact, outside of the RCC priesthood, the leadership role of women in religion is progressing more at present than it is in some secular traditions. As mentioned, we have not yet had a female president, and other positions such as orchestral conductor, are rarely filled by women.

So, I would say Religion is not 'for men' but that certain functions have been overseen by men traditionally, which correspond to the roles given men in society.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 9:36 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-19-2007 12:30 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 77 (385307)
02-15-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
02-08-2007 8:43 PM


I don’t know if it is their different form of logic or debate style or if it is the types of feelings they bring to a discussion or what.

I wouldn't trust this sense too much. When I first came here, I thought Phat was a girl... and recent events are shedding light on this truth... or, phact.

As for the rest of your post... it's baseless.

J0N1CU5


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 02-08-2007 8:43 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-15-2007 3:26 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 76 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-19-2007 12:32 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 70 of 77 (385324)
02-15-2007 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Jon
02-15-2007 12:26 AM


Jon makes a good point. Generalizations often cause mischief in discussions of gender. We have to use them, it seems, yet it's necessary to use them and take them with a helping of salt.

Studies show differences, for example, in the way the brains of women and men assign function. Each form of wiring has its strengths and weaknesses and each represents a compromise. Yet it's not hard to imagine ways the two approaches might be complementing each other in human society. And even so, the brains of men and women remain far more alike than they are different.

When it gets to cases generalizations break down all the time. Statistically we know, for example, that men are more likely to use sports metaphors and women are more likely to have a large vocabulary for color and texture. We can argue about how much stereotypes influence this statistic and how much the statistic shapes the sterotypes.

But when it gets to individuals the generalizations often break down anyway. Someone from a household of athletes is more likely to use sports metaphors than someone from a household of social workers. An artist is likely to possess a wider vocabulary for color than a chemical engineer. A more educated person is likely to have a larger vocabulary on most subjects than less educated person. These things hold true regardless of the gender of the individuals involved.

Many things influence who we are and what we do. Statistics are interesting, but people are more interesting.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Jon, posted 02-15-2007 12:26 AM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Greatest I am, posted 02-15-2007 2:27 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 71 of 77 (385410)
02-15-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Archer Opteryx
02-15-2007 3:26 AM


Men
Quote
"Many things influence who we are and what we do. Statistics are interesting, but people are more interesting."

All is relevant.

Part of the reason for the post was to learn why when religion causes so many problems, sore women are not involved.

I think if more were we would not have near as many problems as we do. They provide sober 2nd thought and are naturally (I think) less violent than men.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-15-2007 3:26 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 02-15-2007 3:25 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 77 (385416)
02-15-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Greatest I am
02-15-2007 2:27 PM


Re: Men
They provide sober 2nd thought and are naturally (I think) less violent than men.

It's this kind of stereotypical thought that people have been trying to beat out of your head since you first started this thread.

J0N1CU5

Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : Made sensible sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Greatest I am, posted 02-15-2007 2:27 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 73 of 77 (385940)
02-18-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
02-08-2007 8:43 PM


the 'transformational' leadership style
An article about leadership styles appeared this week in Psychology Today. Research suggests that female leaders do slightly better than male leaders in sustaining 'transformational' leadership styles that involve acting as a mentor and building relationships.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 02-08-2007 8:43 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Greatest I am, posted 02-18-2007 8:34 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 77 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-19-2007 12:35 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 74 of 77 (385993)
02-18-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Archer Opteryx
02-18-2007 11:54 AM


Re: the 'transformational' leadership style
I guess that when the Big Crunch comes our politicians at the U. N. will be well advised to send their wives.
Perhaps the pope would be well advised to do the same.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-18-2007 11:54 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2037 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 75 of 77 (386014)
02-19-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-14-2007 7:40 PM


Re: Eve the Leader
So, I would say Religion is not 'for men' but that certain functions have been overseen by men traditionally, which correspond to the roles given men in society.

it is my assertion, thus, that it is those traditional roles in society that have put men into similar roles in the church, and not real divine intention.

this is unfortunately unprovable as the church kind of controls all the potential information on this and they're certainly not budging.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-14-2007 7:40 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019