Are The Historical Respective Roles Of The Genders Relevant Today?

Poor, poor Buz. Perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't hold such a position that opens you up to such "attacks". You could, oh I don't know, try not being such a racist, sexist bigot. That may help.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

Tradition relative to all aspects of this thread were also less than 300 years ago all of the way back.Jehovah raised up nations to punish his own messianic nation, Israel and cause them to return to him by enslaving them. Enslavement had some to do with the survival of the nation and with keeping them in line so as to ultimately become Jehovah's messianic nation.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Total non sequitur.Just admit that the biblical view of slavery has been relegated to the dust bin of history. It'll be a good start.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And yet you still worship this tyrannical asshole.....No wonder you still want slaves. But, do you want Jewish slaves? Or black ones?

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

Good ol' Buz, what would this forum do without your pig-headed ignorance?As for "worked for all human cultures, relative to the role of the respective genders, for six milleniums of recorded history might work best for our times" please allow me to show some serious counterexamples, as in the spirit of Thomas Kuhn as when he refers to a hypothesis in serious trouble.In actuality, the degradation of women relative to the ability to take on leadership positions is largely limited to false interpretations of Christianity by misogynists. That is why such abuse of truth, largely confined to Greeks, Romans, and other older and similarly patriarchal and martial civilizations was accepted without question by early 'Christians' which in turn led to what should be properly known as the Dark Ages.Some women in leadership positions throughout history (as sole rulers):Yohl Ik’nal
Queen of PalenqueOther Mayan queens: Yohl Ik'nal, Muwaan Mat, Six Sky, and Ik' Skull.Wu Zetian
Empress of China 690-705 ADHatshepsut
Pharaoh of Egypt 1479-1458 BCEOther female Pharaohs: MERYT-NEITH (1st Dynasty c.3000 BC), NITOCRIS (6th Dynasty 2148-44 BC), SOBEKNOFRU (Neferusobek) (12th Dynasty ?1767-1759 BC), TWOSRET (Tausert) (19th Dynasty c.1187-1185 BC), CLEOPATRA (c 51 BC)Zenobia
Queen of Palmyra, ruler of 1/3 of the Roman Empire 267-274.Boudica
Queen of the of the Brittonic Iceni tribe, lead revolt against Romans, AD 60-61Isabella
Queen of Castille, and later SpainJoan of ArcMary I
Queen of England, 1553-1558Elizabeth I
Queen of England, 1533-1603Anne
Queen of England, 1702-1714Christina
Queen of Sweden, 1632-1654Catherine II
Empress of all the Russias 1762-1796Victoria
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1837-1901Indira Gandhi
Prime Minister of India, 1966-77 and 1980-84Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel 1969-74Margaret Thatcher
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 1979-90Janet Jagan
President of Guyana 1997-99Benazir Bhutto
Prime Minister of Pakistan, 1988 to 1990 and 1993 to 1996Now of course I could go on about other various female rulers, such as the Queen of Sheba, of Tahpenes, of Vashti, or Queen Esther of which your own infallible Bible mentions, in contradiction to your assertion, but of course the Bible has no contradictions. This list is a start Buz, do we need to continue? There is a lot of Mongol, Hindi, African and American Indian history yet to be covered.Edited by anglagard, : Emphasize the list concerns women in charge, not one of wives of kings or emperors.Edited by anglagard, : Add title and signatureEdited by anglagard, : accuracy

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

There are just so many things wrong with this post.Strangely, my own parents worked in a similar way to the one you advocate and I do not, never have, felt much honor, love or respect for them. I was spanked and I remember the pain and terror of the spankings but I have no idea what I did to "deserve" them. I remember my mother, too confused and spineless to take on any disciplinary role herself, telling me and I would be terrified sick all day. I wasn't beaten with a belt or a stick or anything. Just your version of plain old "loving corporal punishment." I guess your answer would be to tell me I was a wuss for not taking my medicine. Or maybe he needed reassurance that the horrible shit who smacked him was still capable of warmth and approval, since you were his father and he was stuck with you for better or for worse. Having jobs with "nice incomes" and families says zero about a person's emotional or psychological well-being. This is what always gets overlooked when people claim that corporal punishment "did me/them no harm." Lack of awareness is not the same as lack of existence. If you think that scaring a child shitless earns their respect or makes for a happy future, you are truly deluded (a conclusion that any sensible person reading this thread would have come to from the OP).

First of all, Buz, PD provided scripture that refutes just that. Please provide scripture that supports your position. Secondly, even supposing this was the case, do you mean to say that thousands of years of tradition should be upheld at all times on the sole basis that it's traditional? Slavery is irrelevent to the topic, but if we were to go by your traditional stance, we should still practice slavery because it's a "biblical principle." You aren't even addressing that. Instead you introduce the non-sequitur that "sure they had slaves, but they treated them really well." But it's still slavery. So do you therefore support it because it's "traditional?" But why not? That's the question. It's not a cheap shot. It is designed to get you to identify the problem with upholding traditions for the sake of their being traditional. It's circular. You need to identify actual reasons why you support something and not support it de facto just because ancient and outdated people's practiced it.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

quote:

---

Coyote, you and your friends consistently convolute my position, which that the Biblical role of the woman is to tend the house and children as the man is in the workplace, be it a fisherman, merchant in the markets, farmer, etc.

---

I agree that there are two roles men physically can't do and that is to bear children and suckle them. So during Bible times, women were stuck with those roles and those roles do tend to keep them rather close to home. This really is the only role that is gender specific. So a culture would need to form around that fact. Archaeology of the Bible: WorkEven when two men or several men live in a house together (such as military), household jobs are assigned. Obviously they aren't assigned by gender, strength, or intelligence.In a family, one person isn't supposed to do all the work and couldn't in those days. From the looks of it the woman was actually more the leader. It was a very different setup back then. It would be very difficult for a single man or woman to do all that was necessary to survive. Today a single man or woman can do all that is necessary to survive.What they can't do separately is have children, but today a pregnant woman can survive on her own if she must or chooses to.The Bible gives us a glimpse of the roles necessitated by environment and survival. The writers of the Bible were not dictating the roles for the future. As the environment changes, so do the roles except for the one of bearing children.A healthy, wise, skillful and enterprising wife is an asset. Just as a healthy, wise, skillful and enterprising husband is an asset.My husband appreciates the fact that I can fix the dryer, the computer, change out a light switch, manage money, do taxes, raise and can produce. Right now I'm learning to reupholster the furniture to save money.I appreciate the fact that my husband makes good money, does the grocery shopping on his way home from work to save gas and he can fix the cars. He won't let me grocery shop or mow the yard unless he's injured or out of town.When siding blew off the end of the house, I figured out how much siding we needed, where to purchase it, borrowed the necessary tools, and then we both put up the siding. I took the lead in the application because I used to put up aluminum siding with my Dad. This also saved us money.IMO, the roles within a family are up to the family; not something to be dictated by ancient writings. Needs change.What works for you, may not work for others. What works for me, may not work for others.

The topic of slavery is a non-sequitur to the OP. You people who want to debate it might do well to open your own topic for that issue.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I appreciate the good points in your message, PD. The impetus of my messages has been more related to the leadership role than of varied situations relative to different families.My brother and his wife build and remodel houses together. Though they work hand in hand, and make decisions together on many things, my dear sister-in-law nevertheless honors the leadership role of my husband generally. Neither she nor my wife hesitate to admonish or correct us, their husbands when they think we are out of line or wrong about something, though when all is said and done, if an issue comes to the status of impasse, as in any other organization, the sensible and workable solution of the chairman presiding one breaks the impasse so as to keep the peace and allowing the impasse to lead to divorce or separation.Often we, the heads of household, change our position on a given matter in favor of our wife's wishes and/or advice.In some cases the 50/50 authority thingy works, but all too often it makes for continual bickering, unreast, in extreme cases, violence, separation, misery and divorce. It also causes more fear, discontent and unhappiness in the lives of the children to listen to this. I well remember the terrible feeling I had as a child when my parents became embroiled in a heated argument before they were converted.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

We don't want to debate slavery.At this point it would be enough to get you to admit slavery is wrong. You seem to be avoiding that issue. My guess is because it is condoned in the bible.But come on, just admit slavery is wrong and we can move to another issue.ETA: Or are you going to be like a poster on another board who, when pressed on this same issue, responded: "My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves." Edited by Coyote, : Addition

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Evidence of this please? You last few hundred posts have been bald assertions, devoid of any justification or evidence. "Buz thinks so" doesn't make it so.I also asked you how much your wife cost you (4 times now). Why do you refuse this simple question?

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

quote:

---

Neither she nor my wife hesitate to admonish or correct us, their husbands when they think we are out of line or wrong about something, though when all is said and done, if an issue comes to the status of impasse, as in any other organization, the sensible and workable solution of the chairman presiding one breaks the impasse so as to keep the peace and allowing the impasse to lead to divorce or separation.

---

But a family isn't a company. Divorce and separation will still happen if a woman or man feels oppressed.From what you've described, you have a partnership. My guess is that those things that cause an impasse, your wife has already decided she can live with either decision since you've already said she has no problem correcting you when you're wrong.

quote:

---

In some cases the 50/50 authority thingy works, but all too often it makes for continual bickering, unreast, in extreme cases, violence, separation, misery and divorce. It also causes more fear, discontent and unhappiness in the lives of the children to listen to this. I well remember the terrible feeling I had as a child when my parents became embroiled in a heated argument before they were converted.

---

The partnership isn't what makes for continual bickering, unrest, violence, separation, misery, and divorce.In all cases, Buz, whether the leadership role or 50/50 it is the personalities of the people that determines if the marriage will work. If you weren't a man who could take correction from a woman, your marriage would be more difficult and your wife would have to suffer through your mistakes.Give me an example of an impasse.Even if you make the final decision, I see three ways it can play out.1. You decide your way is best.
2. You decide to let your wife have her way.
3. You come up with a compromise if one is available.One side if not both have to bend. Problems arise when neither side wants to bend in either setup.So do you end the impasse with compromise or deem one side or the other the winner?
If compromise is offered by your wife, do you take it?From my understanding, in the Bible, women weren't allowed to divorce if the arranged marriage didn't work. The men could though in Judaism. Property can't reject its owner, but the owner can reject his property. Jesus taught that they shouldn't except for infidelity.Women are no longer property, so they can divorce a man should he become abusive, oppressive, or unwise.Bottom line: People need to learn how to choose the right mate the first time around, learn how to argue/disagree constructively, and learn how to compromise when necessary. Deeming one person as the "authority" doesn't solve serious problems.

I agree with Purpledawn's post above, she has been eloquent on this subject. I would add that a 50/50 partnership is essential for my husband and me. In fact too often he wants to let me have my way and I have to remind him that he needs to make his contribution too. You see, what happens when you run roughshod over a person's own needs is, it creates resentment. So while outwardly they might say, "Yes dear, do what you want," they may be quite angry inside. These feelings don't go away and they create further problems down the line. I don't want either my husband or me to be resentful, so we hash things out together, and it works.I notice you haven't responded to my post about corporal punishment. In the war of anecdotes mine's pretty good, don't you think? I grew up with a domineering father with anger management issues, who always resorted to verbal or physical threats when he didn't know what else to do (which is what I suspect happens to most if not all parents who claim that their corporal punishment is "loving" and "necessary"), and a submissive mother. I could never identify with her because I craved a strong role model. My father was a bully. Is this really what you want for people, Buzsaw -- is this the Biblical ideal of a family living Christian values? I got head problems from some of this stuff that are taking years to undo. Go ahead, try justifying this lifestyle to me some more.

Hooah, usually, I'm expected to either refute falehoods or shut ta heck up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As for your 2nd demand which is nothing but meanspirited yada, I don't waste my time on nonsense from smart asses. I acknowledged that I read your message. That's what you're getting from me unless you become a tad more respectable and sensible, whether or not you agree with my position.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.