Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion is for men
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 18 of 77 (384196)
02-10-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by anastasia
02-09-2007 12:34 AM


Misogyny
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:
  • 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.
    For obvious reasons many religious ideologies have been selected that favor high birthrates since a good proportion of any brood will become similarly infected.
  • 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out on half their human potential - half of the intellectual, artistic, wisdom and moral potential smothered under a outdated power structure.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by anastasia, posted 02-09-2007 12:34 AM anastasia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 6:14 PM iceage has replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 40 of 77 (384337)
    02-10-2007 11:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by anastasia
    02-10-2007 6:14 PM


    Re: Misogyny
    iceage writes:
    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.
    Ana writes:
    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.
    Let's just say men will be men. Abortion is often related to free access to contraceptives.
    However note: There are direct correlations between birth rates and gender equality in a society.
    There are variety of reasons for this including:
  • Access to contraceptives
  • Enforcible rape laws
  • The ability to divorce
  • The ability to be economically independent
  • etc.
    Women in patriarchal societies do not have the ability to choose family size, they do not control their body. This is wrong.
    Ana writes:
    There is no religion which says 'thou must have sex'. In many religions celibacy is preached as the greatest possible vocation.
    Many religions encourage large families- Catholics, Mormons and Muslims, etc.
    In addition, there is a correlation between birth rates and the general miseries of the people.
    So in essence religion contributes to the misery of the world.
    Ana writes:
    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.
    Large families are encouraged by many of the major religions not by happenstance.
    Large families equate to church growth. By the way the Muslims appear to be currently winning this race.
    Ana writes:
    It is a little curious here that you say 'selected' as if evolution has selected for certain religions. Maybe I am wrong...
    Perhaps this corresponds to Dawkins meme idea - birth rate maybe a "extended phenotype" of religion meme. Interesting idea.
    Consider the Protestant Shakers that preached celibacy and frowned on procreation, they went from 100,000s members to essential none - a data point.
    Think what the may about the "pure motives" of the church on their respect for "human sexuality" I would prefer they thought more on poverty and its causes and effects.
    iceage writes:
    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.
    Ana writes:
    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.
    Not sure what you were saying here. Yes the point is that the best person would fulfill a specific job. That may threaten some men. But overall this would allow for a higher productive and prosperous society.
    However I think you are thinking of economics as a zero-sum situation. (ei. women could in some situations would bump a man to a lower status paying job) That thinks is wrong.
    Allowing women to participate in economic development increases and generates wealth and opportunities. Everybody boat floats higher.
    Your argument is the same argument used against automation. A backhoe will put 10 men out of job so it is bad. In practice a backhoe frees 10 men to pursue high order work that became available as a result of a more productive society that uses back hoes.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 6:14 PM anastasia has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024