Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here's what I get: as a christian I deserve to be called an intolerant bigot; as a Caucasian I am a racist simply because I'm white, and as a male I'm a chauvinist, and its okay for everyone to call me these things because its what I am. I am the most abused person on the planet but that's okay, it appears, if I don't want the abuse I shouldn't be those things, and then you tell me you've got problems?
Come now, where is the equality in this line of questioning?
The only real solution to the situation is just love. Love those who hate you; love those who spitefully use you; love your enemies. This is hard to do, but I've had to do it all my life. I've had to choose to be friendly and forgiving when others were not and didn't deserve it. I've been spat on, kicked, punched, verbally abused and excluded. Twice on the verge of a nervous breakdown [ages 8 & 12]. And yet here I am, still offering friendship. Why? Because I choose to love and that is what I encourage you to do.
They bring a different way at looking at things. Men generally are more right-brain thinking. Women generally are more left-brain thinking.You have yet to tell me what women bring to the table that makes them either better leaders or better at righting the country. Again, I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be in leadership positions, I just want to know what magic they possess that will make things better.
In awakening, no one needs to be incriminated. No one has suggested that. Your exactly correct, the answer IS love.I suppose that would depend on who "we" incriminates. I know my parents had prejudices but we were taught to recognise them just as that: prejudices, and we were taught that by our parents, not the government school where these things abounded. Yes I know about denial and intolerance, I suffered abuse because of it, but I don't need to be a part of it. To me the answer is love, not retaliation, though I am probably guilty of it sometimes, constant abuse is hard to take. I honestly empathise with anyone who has suffered abuse.
The question I have is if religions are basically sexist to the detriment of females why are there so many more woman than men that attend worship services in Christian churches? I have no knowledge of the other religions' demographic break downs so I do not know if this is a universal phenomenon or only a Christian thing but it seems to me that, at least in Christianity, women tend to be more interested in participating in religious practices than men. Thus my question. As it would seem to be that the opposite ought to be true that the ones benefiting from the sexism ought to be the more enthusiast supporters while the ones being oppressed by it ought to be running away from it I am curious to know what everyone thinks the reason why the current the situation that exists differs from what one would expect.
They bring a different way at looking at things. Men generally are more right-brain thinking. Women generally are more left-brain thinking.
I can't really reply for the radical feminists you spoke to, but there's a chance that they might have tried to communicate the kind of idea I shared above:
See, some feminists feel that distinguishing between "sex" (the biological dimension) and "gender" (the socio-cultural construct) is already going too far; to them, it's basically the equivalent of saying there's valid racism (intelligent Jews, athletic Africans) and invalid racism (KKK). The moment you construct the kind of fundamental chasm between people, stereotyping them on account of some physical characteristics, you've already crossed the line.
I'm not sure whether I agree completely with them, but I see where they are coming from. If you told an African that it's his natural role in life to be an athlete rather than an academic, that'd be pretty offensive - but tell a woman that her "natural role" is to stay home and raise the kids, and all of a sudden it's socially acceptable.
Really??? Even from reputable sources like Time, NYTimes and Forbes, they could present skewed information?
I couldn't find one either. I did read way back due to the controversial nature of the research, there's not much done in that direction.
It's like nobody wants to find out who's the more intelligent gender. One experiment was conducted in dogs and female dogs are the ones who scored higher in the tests involved.
The religions and the rigid will have to change or eventually be discarded.
As virtually all established religions originated after the agrarian and before the industrial revolution, it does not come as much of a surprise that they reflect the moral and cultural norms of an era that revolved around land ownership, chains of succession, and the repression and controlling of female sexuality. Even Buddhism, which might look like a perfect candidate for a more egalitarian stance, was deeply enmeshed in sexual politics since day one, reflecting the mores of the society around it.
What we need to keep in mind in this context is that sexism - like racism - is first and foremost based on the assumption of a fundamental and essential difference between the postulated categories. "Jews are weak intellectuals, Africans are naive athletes." "Men cannot express feelings. Women are gushing with emotion."
This difference informs the sexists' perception of the world and their own place within it.
Now, the question is: can religions that are so deeply rooted in the past adapt to a new era - and do they even intend to do so? Since many of them regard their texts as timeless revelations, and since these texts are so fundamentally rooted in bygone ages, I wonder if a "transplant" is possible.
It may speak for itself. So does the fact that the only ones talking about women being subservient are feminists that are hurling accusations at men, on the whole--or trolls who enjoy enfuriating women.Yeah, even though the main definitions of subservient means to be a less important subordinate or to obey unquestionably. Which when directed in the context of a woman, speaks for itself.
That is correct. The Feminist attack on the Bible began in the 60s and accused God of promoting patriarchy, with patriarchy having a negative connotation. What Christians should be fully aware of is that Feminism is essentially rebellion against God and His design for men and women. Therefore Feminists also worship the universal "Goddess Mother", which is Satan's substitute for the one true and living God. This Goddess Mother is to be found in every pagan religion since the tower of Babel. The only problem is that this Goddess Mother is pretty ugly.
I can't speak for other religions, but as a Christian I feel like people worry so much about the gender and less about "keep My commandments". I feel like people elevate the leadership role that God has given us, Elders, so much as if being a leader is "better than" and not realizing that Christ ask us to be a "slave" to each other. It doesn't matter what we feel that man or woman can do, it is about being obedient to the One who have asked us to be servants. Christ came, as a humble servant, and we are asked to be.
We are so focused and saying "I can do anything you can do better" not realizing that the vision that God is trying to accomplish is not the same vision that we are trying to do. It is not God who is trying to elevate either man or woman, for we are all one in Christ, for those who are in Christ, it is about glorifying God in a way that pleases God.
But men also were the ones who planned hunts and wars, so I don't know. The point is, women are not inherently better than men.
Wars for the most part is stupid, but really there is no word for it when you use intelligence to do utterly stupid things. Because that is way way worse than stupid!
At the surface, who is really better is debatable, but at the genetic level, there is a clear winner - females. XX genes is simply far more resilient than XY and with a little tweaking (scientists have done so in a mice) XX can do virgin births (completely without sperm cells). There's no conceivable way to pull the same trick with a male alone, without egg cells - because over 90% of the genetic material is stored in the egg!
The virgin birth process is still not yet perfected with relatively high rates of failure but some animals who already do like the whiptail lizards, do so with completely healthy offsprings. It's only a matter of little effort until the technique is perfected, but the lack of interest is is proving an obstacle to the research.
As virtually all established religions originated after the agrarian and before the industrial revolution, it does not come as much of a surprise that they reflect the moral and cultural norms of an era that revolved around land ownership, chains of succession, and the repression and controlling of female sexuality. Even Buddhism, which might look like a perfect candidate for a more egalitarian stance, was deeply enmeshed in sexual politics since day one, reflecting the mores of the society around it.
What we need to keep in mind in this context is that sexism - like racism - is first and foremost based on the assumption of a fundamental and essential difference between the postulated categories. "Jews are weak intellectuals, Africans are naive athletes." "Men cannot express feelings. Women are gushing with emotion."
This difference informs the sexists' perception of the world and their own place within it.
Now, the question is: can religions that are so deeply rooted in the past adapt to a new era - and do they even intend to do so? Since many of them regard their texts as timeless revelations, and since these texts are so fundamentally rooted in bygone ages, I wonder if a "transplant" is possible.
I fail to see how this makes females better..
With over 7 billion humans on the planet, the ability to give birth has never had a lower value.
Some people latch onto anything they can to prove their side is better. I looked at the whole mouse thing and, let me tell you, seems like it works a lot better the old fashioned way as opposed to taking immature eggs from human females, genetically manipulating them so that they appear to be "male-like", and then combining it with a mature egg. Need we point out that it still takes two people as you wouldn't want what would amount to incest to occur by using two eggs from the same person.
Males also help the strengthen gene pool. Without males there would be less competition resulting in less sophisticated life forms, and I doubt without males we'd ever having anything resembling the sophistication and intelligence of a human being.
Sorry female supremacists (or whatever you want to call yourselves), but males have actually been quite important. Lol.
Jumping in late here, but I searched all 15 pages for the words "example" and "specific", trying to find what Jane the Bane is talking about.As virtually all established religions ...reflect the moral and cultural norms of an era that revolved around land ownership, chains of succession, and the repression and controlling of female sexuality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?