Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are The Historical Respective Roles Of The Genders Relevant Today?
Son
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 16 of 116 (557523)
04-26-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Where we started
You are saying the Bible system is better, but you haven't shown why we should believe you or even what do you mean by better. I've shown you that the nordic countries that respected parity better were better off economicaly. Why is that so if women are not suited to leadership roles? Shouldn't they be poorer? Also what exactly should be women's role in society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 11:24 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 17 of 116 (557524)
04-26-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


In my household
My wife is the primary income maker. I am primarily responsible for the domestic duties of the household. We are happily married. We are also well known in our community for our volunteer efforts. We also provide respite foster care. How can you decide what is best for other people? Traditional marriage roles have no bearing on modern society.

Here are some things you should look into.
Divorce statistics for fundies as compared to rest of society. I know what your response will be to this. "damn woman's lib", "lesbians"

Education levels of fundies compared to rest of society. Your response. "Damn liberal education is cause of all our problems"
If so, live by your beliefs. No electricity, no food from grocery stores and of course no computers. None of these things would have happened with a biblical based education system. Ever heard of Madame Curie, Grace Hopper.

You represent the most vile side of the radical right. You are a sexist, racist, homophobic xenophobe. You fantasize of the day when the white male was the dominant being of society. Do you realize how most people, including white males, lived in that time period. We are not that far removed from that period. Look at Victorian england, The US prior to the 20th century. The average person, even the white male, lived a brutish existence.
I know, I know
Your mantra
"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 116 (557527)
04-26-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Flyer75
04-26-2010 8:55 AM


Unintended consequences of the suffrage movement
Call me a traditionalist, or an old fart, whatever you prefer...idiot will work too. I agree to an extent with Buzz on this. I think statistics show the decline in the family structure has changed quite a bit (divorce, out of wedlock births, ect) with the woman's liberation "movement" if you will. I'd obviously prefer the mom to stay home and have an influence on the young ones then send them off to a day care to be watched by someone that just doesn't care quite as much.

I think that along with the huge benefits of the sufferage movement have also introduced some unintended consequences. For instance, that most Americans cannot do without dual incomes can directly be attributed to women working.

That being said, I wouldn't trade this pitfall in for an antiquated society that shackles their women to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Flyer75, posted 04-26-2010 8:55 AM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 04-26-2010 1:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Flyer75, posted 04-26-2010 10:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 19 of 116 (557530)
04-26-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
04-26-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Unintended consequences of the suffrage movement
Hyroglyphx writes:
I think that along with the huge benefits of the sufferage movement have also introduced some unintended consequences. For instance, that most Americans cannot do without dual incomes can directly be attributed to women working.

This is not entirely a negative. This recent recession had less serious impact than earlier recessions, because in many cases it was one of two wage earners in the home who were out of work, instead of the sole wage earner being out of work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 20 of 116 (557531)
04-26-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Where we started
More freedom has been lost by mandating equality than anything else. Last century hundreds of millions were murdered, impoverished and oppressed by governments and dummies who tried to make all men equal. It's now happening in the US of A. Diversity and freedom go hand in hand.

I agree that "all men created equal" is somewhat of a facade, or at the very least, poorly worded. It is true that not all people are the same. We have different mental faculties, different abilities, different skills, etc. I think the general opinion is that all people should have the same opportunities. I have the same opportunity to play professional basketball. But like it or not, Lebron James and I were not created equally in terms of basketball. He has a genetic advantage over me, "fairness" be damned.

2) Educational opportunities should be open to all, but not necessarily provided for all by someone else's buck.

This doesn't have anything to do with the suffrage movement or the topic. Be careful not to slip down the slippery slope.

3) As I said before, men are more adapted to the leadership role and this has been the case for nearly six milleniums of human history.

Men and women generally think differently and they obviously have different physical attributes. But should that necessarily preclude women in all cases on the sole basis of gender? I don't think so, as incalculable women have faired better than men in many areas dominated by masculinity.

The Biblical way is best.

If stoning women to death is your version of the "best" then by all means, go live with the Taliban. They won't argue that point.

If the man loves his wife as he ought, he will want the best for her.

What if what is best for her is allowing her the ability to freely choose her own destiny and not have her husband micromanage every aspect of her life?

The problem arises with cultures such as Islam which oppresses women and men everywhere who do not practice Biblical principles such as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness faith, meekness and self control.

My goodness, Buz, you do know where Islam got its principles with women, don't you? Islam is an extension of the bible. Halakha and Shari'a are parallels of one another.

If you want to find a women who chooses to live a more traditional role, they are out there. More power to you in finding one. At least then it is a choice on both sides. The issue is that you seem to want to persuade all women to ascribe to your value system. But maybe they don't want that. Shouldn't it be their choice?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 11:24 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 04-26-2010 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 04-26-2010 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 116 (557532)
04-26-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
04-26-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Where we started
The issue is that you seem to want to persuade all women to ascribe to your value system. But maybe they don't want that. Shouldn't it be their choice?


Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.

Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle
, 1968


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 116 (557543)
04-26-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
04-26-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Where we started
Hyro writes:

Buz writes:

More freedom has been lost by mandating equality than anything else. Last century hundreds of millions were murdered, impoverished and oppressed by governments and dummies who tried to make all men equal. It's now happening in the US of A. Diversity and freedom go hand in hand.

I agree that "all men created equal" is somewhat of a facade, or at the very least, poorly worded. It is true that not all people are the same. We have different mental faculties, different abilities, different skills, etc. I think the general opinion is that all people should have the same opportunities. I have the same opportunity to play professional basketball. But like it or not, Lebron James and I were not created equally in terms of basketball. He has a genetic advantage over me, "fairness" be damned.

Be careful not to follow Buz down his rabbit hole of insanity. He's arguing against a meaning of "all men are created equal" that no sane person has ever advocated for.

Thomas Jefferson included this phrase in the Declaration of Independence as a way of distinguishing this fledgling nation from Britain, where the monarchy ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. Jefferson simply meant that everyone should be governed by the same set of laws; that the law should apply to all people in the same way. He never meant that all people have equal abilities or that we should treat them as if they did.

What's more, nobody in power in this country has ever advocated treating all people as if they had the same abilities. This is simply another fantasy sprung from the deeply warped and disfunctional mind of Buz and other delusional creatures of his ilk.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 8:42 PM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 9:05 PM subbie has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1741 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 23 of 116 (557550)
04-26-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 11:24 AM


Partnership, Not Leadership
quote:
3) As I said before, men are more adapted to the leadership role and this has been the case for nearly six milleniums of human history. The Biblical way is best. If the man loves his wife as he ought, he will want the best for her. No human entity works with two equal presidents.
Your whole issue is about who is in charge, isn't it? Not the actual work. A marriage can be a partnership. Each contributes their talents and experience to the partnership. One may take the lead in any given situation, but it isn't mandatory.

I've noticed widowers tend to remarry more so than widows.

The World Is Full of Remarried Men

Deep down, most women feel that men on their own are needier than women in similar circumstances: emotionally needier, sexually needier and in greater need of conjugal support in bringing up a family.

My mother won't even go on dates. She doesn't want to have to take care of someone again.

A more cynical analysis might say that men are serviced by marriage, whereas women do most of the servicing. The feminist sociologist Jessie Bernard certainly took that approach in her classic text on The Future of Marriage.

Women, she said, put the work in: they structure most of the domestic arrangements and take responsibility for everything from the Christmas card list to remembering in-laws' birthdays. Men remarry, she has said, because they are the beneficiaries of wedlock whereas women are the emotional, psychological and familial net contributors.

Thus, while many women would like to remarry, they are inclined to approach it more carefully – since the personal investment by women is much higher, the rewards must be commensurate.

One widow I encountered put it like this: "Another husband would have to be well worth ironing eight shirts a week for."

I've been in a marriage that was not a partnership and I've been in a marriage that was a partnership. Guess which one lasted.

In my opinion Paul was trying to get husbands and wives to respect each other. Remember the marriages were arranged then. As far as who was in charge, I feel Paul was deferring to the laws and traditions of the time. He didn't have the power to go against local laws and it would have been wrong of him to suggest that the people go against them.

Why would anyone want women to become property again? Have some men become that insecure?

Money is necessary to survive today. Since child mortality is down (U.S.), we don't need as many children in hopes they survive to procreate or to work the family farm. IMO, some of the problems with children is that there isn't enough work for them to do.

I see a trend with my daughter and her family. The parents are glued to iphones and xboxes. Women being free people did not cause all the ills of society.

Buz, even the "good ole days" had its fleas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 11:24 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 24 of 116 (557553)
04-26-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


Ask the Other Half
… what worked for all human cultures…

I think you meant "what worked for half of all human cultures", buzz.


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 116 (557566)
04-26-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
04-26-2010 3:18 PM


Re: Where we started
Jefferson simply meant that everyone should be governed by the same set of laws; that the law should apply to all people in the same way. He never meant that all people have equal abilities or that we should treat them as if they did.

You're absolutely right. I won't even entertain it.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 04-26-2010 3:18 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 116 (557569)
04-26-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
04-26-2010 3:18 PM


Re: Where we started
subbie writes:

Be careful not to follow Buz down his rabbit hole of insanity. He's arguing against a meaning of "all men are created equal" that no sane person has ever advocated for.

Thomas Jefferson included this phrase in the Declaration of Independence as a way of distinguishing this fledgling nation from Britain, where the monarchy ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. Jefferson simply meant that everyone should be governed by the same set of laws; that the law should apply to all people in the same way. He never meant that all people have equal abilities or that we should treat them as if they did.

What's more, nobody in power in this country has ever advocated treating all people as if they had the same abilities. This is simply another fantasy sprung from the deeply warped and disfunctional mind of Buz and other delusional creatures of his ilk.

So by that token it would be delusianal for draft laws, job descriptions, regardless of brute strength needed, front line combat, rest room laws, dress codes and a host of other gender relative matters to assume that all should be goverened by the same set of laws. The majority of the founders obviously figured voting rights weren't for everyone. No?

For nearly 6 milleniums most cultures understood that families function better with one having the leadership role rather than two presiding ones with equal authority.

Most have been traditionally sensible enough to understand that the strong one who was responsible for the safety of the family would be the one suited for the leadership role.

One area I see in modern culture is the discipline of children. It is the manly commanding lower voice, the physical strength and the relatively larger sized male that is most capable of handling the ultimate discipline of the children. We've lost much of that today with so many of the families without a male leadership role in the household. Obviously we're paying a hefty price for it culturally.

I'll quote from the prophet Isaiah in the third chapter relative to the end times. This prophecy, as are all Biblical prophecies, so on the mark with our times:

Isaiah 3 writes:


5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor: the child shall behave himself proudly against the old man, and the base against the honorable.

12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 04-26-2010 3:18 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2010 9:18 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 04-26-2010 9:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 29 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-26-2010 9:33 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 9:38 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Jaderis, posted 04-27-2010 5:54 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 04-27-2010 11:01 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 27 of 116 (557571)
04-26-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 9:05 PM


Re: Where we started
One area I see in modern culture is the discipline of children. It is the manly commanding lower voice, the physical strength and the relatively larger sized male that is most capable of handling the ultimate discipline of the children. We've lost much of that today with so many of the families without a male leadership role in the household. Obviously we're paying a hefty price for it culturally.

Discipline by physical intimidation is probably the worst way to discipline a child. Logic and love are much more effective ways to discipline and they also produce a much more productive and responsible adult than any physical form of discipline.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 9:05 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2010 9:51 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 28 of 116 (557572)
04-26-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 9:05 PM


Re: Where we started
Yes, old Bean both genders should be governed by the same set of laws when it comes to combat, police work, firefighting or any other occupation where strength is a legitimate need in the performance of the job. A set of physical requirements relevant to the demands of the position should be established, then anyone who can meet those requirements, male or female, is allowed to compete for the job. The only real mystery is why you don't understand this.

You're quite right, a majority of the founders didn't think voting rights was for everyone. In fact, I'd venture to guess that virtually none of them would have thought it a good idea to give dem darkies the vote. So what? I got news for ya, Binkie, the founders weren't perfect. They were wrong about some things. Even Faith recognizes this fact. Get over it.

I have a quote for you, of about the same level of intellectual worth as the one you gave:

Mairzy doats and dozy doats
And liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
Yes! Mairzy doats and dozy doats
and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?

In short, your thousands of years of subjugation of women were wrong. Intelligent, civilized people are past that. The sooner you catch up to the rest of us, or simply fade away like a good little christian soldier, the better it will be for everyone.

{AbE} Here's another quote. It's from a different context, but it fits here just the same.

You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! You understand, you've got to get off my back!

Edited by subbie, : As noted


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1385 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(3)
Message 29 of 116 (557573)
04-26-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 9:05 PM


Re: Where we started

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Self-edited to remove some of my more rash remarks. I finally calmed down after reading Buzz's sexist ladin remarks.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 9:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 30 of 116 (557574)
04-26-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 9:05 PM


Re: Where we started
So by that token it would be delusianal for draft laws, job descriptions, regardless of brute strength needed, front line combat, rest room laws, dress codes and a host of other gender relative matters to assume that all should be goverened by the same set of laws. The majority of the founders obviously figured voting rights weren't for everyone. No?

He's simply stating the historical fact of what Jefferson meant by equality. But you make a good point. There is at the opposite end of this extreme, a lobby who wants to androgenise the world and pretend there aren't differences between men and women. It is equally silly in my opinion. There are some jobs that preclude people on the basis of their gender.

The question is whether should apply in all cases. That would be a bad move, forcing people to conform to a one-size-fits-all mentality.

Apparently you feel that all women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen on the basis that they are generally the meeker sex.

For nearly 6 milleniums most cultures understood that families function better with one having the leadership role rather than two presiding ones with equal authority.

How it has worked since time immemorial is the Taliban's version. Like it or not, that is the biblical version, where society looks at men as something to be desired and women being silent, servile, and shitting out kids at an alarming rate.

Slavery has also existed from the beginning. On the basis that it is "traditional," should we reinstitute it?

One area I see in modern culture is the discipline of children. It is the manly commanding lower voice, the physical strength and the relatively larger sized male that is most capable of handling the ultimate discipline of the children.

This is completely ignorant. So you think that kids respect daddy because he intimidates them? That's fear, not respect.

Since Isaiah comes from a time when stoning to death unruly kids was the norm, I'll just go ahead and abstain from his parenting skills if you don't mind.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019