Women and Religion - Does it anger you?

quote:

---

They're out on the streets yelling for looser agendas while they're latch key kids are home alone or running the streets.

---

A lot of power comes from connotation, doesn't it? I certainly don't personally know any feminist who neglects his or her children in the process of protesting inequality to women (the most common form of feminism as far as I know) - speaking of which, how is that a "looser agenda"? Or were you only thinking of extremists, or perhaps in stereotypes?

quote:

---

I look at the stats and long term graphs which tell the sad story since mom left the home for the workplace, the career and the public arena.

---

I look at the stats and long term graphs which tell the sad story since the rise of computers. I look at the stats and long term graphs which tell the sad story since World War II/Korea/Vietnam. I look at the stats and long term graphs which tell the sad story since Peanuts was first published in a newspaper.(I wasn't quite sure which time period exactly you were talking about) Just because two trends or events appear at the same time does not mean they are at all related.

quote:

---

Not quite. As for me and mine, I very often go with the wishes of my dear, dear wife. There are times though when my decision prevails where my wife would rather go another route, but she recognizes my leadership and there's no fight over the matter since we both have established the concept of one president in the family.

---

It's things like these and Message 56 that scare me the most about buz's position. Even if you very often go with the wishes of your wife, it still remains that you have the final "veto" power in the relationship, which essentially means that you have authority over her. I always hate to use this typical "Golden Rule" argument (for some reason it always feels so juvenile to me when I employ it), but if the roles were reversed, do you really think that you'd have no objection?

quote:

---

Stay home and enjoy caring for the kids and grandkids and you too will be a happy and fulfilled woman.

---

Well, since now I've already done it... "Stay home and enjoy caring for the kids and you too will be a happy and fulfilled man." Does that sound fulfilling to you? I recognize that to many it does, but why restrict a woman perfectly capable and interested in pursuing other goals to this position? Just because she's a woman?To quote Betty Friedan: "I'm a server of food and putter on of pants and a bedmaker, somebody who can be called on when you want something. But who am I?"

quote:

---

Last I heard both Christians and other are about equal.

---

According to this site, the rates are as follows:Jews: 30%
Born-again Christians: 27%
Other Christians: 24%
Atheists/Agnostics: 21%Basically the same numbers were listed here and a couple of other places I found - all are based upon the same study, I think (one didn't mention it, but the rest all had some mention of George Barna), but the page for it won't load for me, so I can't verify the accuracy of these numbers.And on a quick side-comment from Message 56:

quote:

---

Women respect and admire men who assume their God given leadership role and often women despise the wimpy man of the house.

---

This isn't necessarily true today, especially the first part. Most of the women I know, in fact, would be hesitant to agree to anything less than equality in a relationship. And that's in a largely conservative, fundamentalist Texas town (which, somehow, I ended up in as well...)!Oh yeah, and most women - or nearly everyone, really - despises generalizations. Including this one, of course.

quote:

---

I am nearing three score and ten. If you were an adult living 50 years ago and suddenly were plunged ahead in time into the here and now, you would consider the whole feminist agenda to be ultra extreme, be appalled by the manners and attitudes of children, shocked at the divorce rate and breakup of so many homes, furious about the sudden loss of basic personal rights and freedoms and wonder what ta heck happened to our culture in general.

---

It's interesting you should mention age. While I certainly am not from the same era as you, my parents both were. Let me give you a quick view of my home when I was young. My mother worked for a large company in the nearby city; my father worked at home. He was still the "breadwinner" but for convenience he was generally the one who managed the "women's jobs" of cooking and taking care of me and my siblings when we were sick, etc. They shared some of the other tasks, such as cleaning and washing clothes. All decisions were generally made through compromise and agreement. Now from what you say later in your posts, this arrangement invited strife, argument, and divorce. On the contrary, I don't believe I've ever heard them argue, nor seen a happier couple than them. And from what you say in this post, their behavior should have been shocking at the time - but it wasn't. Perhaps they simply lived in a more tolerant neighborhood... Tolerant, by the way, is not a four-letter word.I do agree about personal rights, though I strongly suspect we are thinking of different ones.

quote:

---

1. The alternative of constant bickering under the watch of the kids about what's to be done and absense of a leader in the home has been a major factor in the breakup of the home, imo.

---

What I was exposed to wasn't constant bickering, it was compromise and progress. Hardly what I would call bad examples.

quote:

---

2. If the roles were to be reversed, the physically stronger of the two would be the subordinate. The one who's brain has been designed by the creator to lead would be subordinate. The brain of the one who's brain has been designed to play the responsive role would be the one to lead. The one less able to defend, to provide and to lead would be at the controls, so to speak.

---

Wow... Just wow. So first of all, all women are physically weaker than men? And physical strength should be the determining factor in leadership? No wonder Arnold is governor...The brain argument, ironically enough, recalls memories of the early Scientific Revolution (or perhaps it was the medieval viewpoint prior to the Scientific Revolution that was based on classical theories? I remember my old European Studies textbook mentioning it in the same chapter, but I'm afraid I cannot remember the context). The size of the skull was used to argue for male dominance. Can you not see what's wrong with this argument? As has been pointed out earlier, men are far more likely to take brash, silly risks and generally less adept at reasoning than women. Which of these sounds like leadership qualities to you?Not that I'm arguing for female dominance of the household either (only equal partnerships) - just responding to your assertions about the inequalities in brains.

quote:

---

There was a time when the honorable role of a woman in the home was not considered to be restrictive, but alas, the feminist agenda so permeating society today has fed that lie into the minds of men and women alike.

---

There was a time when the honorable role of serfs and slaves in serving their superiors and their country was not considered to be wrong, but alas, they began receiving education, standing up for themselves, and fighting back against a system that forced them into a role they didn't accept.Not to equate homemaking to slavery - but it's basically the same thing, a statement wistfully thinking of those grand ol' times before progress occurred.There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to pursue a life beyond the home, not any more than it is for a man to do so. I'm not arguing against the role of women (or men) who wish to work in the home; I'm arguing against the assertion that that should be their only role. See the difference?

quote:

---

Familiar foolish firey falacious fabrications flowing forth from frustrated fabian females fevorishly fomenting offensive feministic fanaticism.

---

To which I say, "Always avoid alliteration."

quote:

---

A good husband need not become the subordinate mate in defiance of God's direction in order to allow the desires of his wife to prevail over his own for the good of the union.

---

I'm pretty sure that what crashfrog is arguing for is equal partnership - in other words, there is no subordinate mate.

crashfrog (Message 158):

quote:

---

The trick is, you subordinate your personal desires for the good of the union. You know, like you're supposed to in a marriage. (emphasis added)

---

buzsaw (Message 167):

quote:

---

A good husband need not become the subordinate mate in defiance of God's direction in order to allow the desires of his wife to prevail over his own for the good of the union. (emphasis added)

---

Morte (Message 169):

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure that what crashfrog is arguing for is equal partnership - in other words, there is no subordinate mate.

---

buzsaw (Message 171):

quote:

---

Have you been reading me, Morte? I'm fully aware of that and have been debating as to whether it works, by and large as well as one head.

---

I wasn't talking about your position in that post; I was simply arguing against what appeared to me to be an implication that crashfrog was somehow arguing for the subordination of either "mate" in the marriage - in other words, an unequal partnership. Rather, I believe he was saying that sometimes both partners have to go against their personal wishes for the best of the marriage. From Message 167, it sounded as though you thought he was arguing for the dominance of the wife in the marriage.

But the point is, we all disagree with the form of treatment you're talking about - and what's the point of debating on something everyone agrees on? As Ned said, if someone tries to defend that view, you can be sure that we'd argue against it.

quote:

---

Silence is telling.

---

Surely you don't think that all of the people who have been arguing with you for the side of equal treatment of women would suddenly change their opinion simply because it's another religion in the spotlight? We're not simply arguing against the "Christian viewpoint" because it's the Christian viewpoint, if that's what you think.

quote:

---

I seem to be the only one in town who cares to respond to the topic question by voicing my anger concerning the Quran, the prophet Mohammed and the way millions of women in the Islamic world are being treated.

---

And I agree. See how easy that was? But I don't agree with your Biblical view - the view that women should be subservient and men should be the sole leaders, in or out of family. Therefore, that's what I'm debating - because there's something there to debate.But you say that only your objections are on topic... So only objections to other religions than yours are on topic? I see nothing off-topic about debating Biblical views as opposed to Islamic ones.{Added in edit} Just out of curiosity (being unfamiliar with the Quran and wondering about jar's comment in Message 240) what in the Quran does it say about women, specifically?

quote:

---

The rest of you are so intent on and busy about bashing the Bible and Christianity...

---

I was thinking that you'd say something like this - that's exactly why I said in Message 237...

quote:

---

Surely you don't think that all of the people who have been arguing with you for the side of equal treatment of women would suddenly change their opinion simply because it's another religion in the spotlight? We're not simply arguing against the "Christian viewpoint" because it's the Christian viewpoint, if that's what you think.

---

...See, we're not intent on bashing anything - we simply disagree with a view you've put forth and are debating it, rather than "debating" a topic we all agree on. Do you really think that your opponents, after having stood for the equality of women throughout this entire post, don't oppose the inequality and mistreatment of them in other forms as well? Do you really think that our views are based only on "bashing the Bible" and that we couldn't care less if it's another religion? That is, to put it simply, a completely absurd idea.

quote:

---

...that you all seem to be oblivious to the plight of the millions of women on the planet who are really being maltreated.

---

Again, not oblivious, just that I simply agree with you on it and so choose not to argue against it. It really is that simple. No anti-Christian conspiracy involved, here.This message has been edited by Morte, 05-19-2004 08:49 PM

quote:

---

Get it now?

---

Ah, I had an entire response typed out but then I finally realized what you were trying to say. I was reading it as, "I seem to be the only one in town who cares to respond to the topic question (by voicing my anger concerning the Quran)", rather than as, "I seem to be the only one in town who cares to respond (to the topic question) by voicing my anger concerning the Quran". My mistake. I guess that the main reason it focused on Christianity in any case was because if you looked at Message 1 rather than the (somewhat misleading?) topic header, it focuses on only Christianity.But in any case, that was just a minor point that I only stated because I thought you were saying others weren't addressing the topic. Or on topic. Whichever. What I'm more interested in is if you have anything to say to the rest of the post...