Sunday, August 16, 2015
Since Torah establishes the moral context of the relationship of husband, mainly in Deuteronomy 24 but throughout the Pentateuch we can clearly state that Kristi's statement is logically airtight with respect to the Bible which claims most of Torah as Scripture.
When talking about the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an as Scripture it is necessary to assume God exists, as all clearly state that He does. Whether or not the men who wrote scripture were divinely inspired (another possibly false assumption: one author may have been a woman documenting the God inspired Hebrew culture but probably not directly inspired by God.) The culture documented in Scripture was dominated by God's laws, morals, mores, and whims. Therefore the people documenting the culture whether inspired by God or not were reflecting one God's Culture. Other cultures may have had entirely different laws, morals, mores and even different Gods. There are other Gods mentioned in Scripture.
From Scripture we only know about one culture, which was dominated by God. We have no documentation of negative attitudes about women in any culture which preceded or co-existed with the culture of Scripture. Data from aboriginal cultures and agricultural cultures generally show that women were at least equal if not specially respected and protected for their ability to perpetuate the species.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Archeological climate studies suggest that a major drought in the Levant beginning just before 2000 BCE with attendant famine, plagues, and cultural stress especially in agricultural communities (and in other fertile areas at different times) opened the way for marauding nomads to plunder the surviving stressed farming communities. Hmmm, rivers turning to mud or blood, locusts, death of first born and other children, frogs leaving the wetlands.... sound familiar?Something of great significance happened early on in the history the Middle East. Some life altering event left an indelible mark on the world view of the inhabitants as conditions went from very good to very bad. A pessimistic, hostile, anti-women and anti-nature world view emerged. Unlike any worldview the world has ever seen."
What is a necessary resource for marauders? Lots and lots of poor young men to die in battle. How do you get lots and lots of poor young men? Take the women out of the economic production cycle of planting and reaping, either by farming or gathering, and turn them into property as breeders of warfare assets, that is poor young men.
If you can get God to consider those dumb farmers as lesser beings to be plundered, humanism that is treating all people, men, women and children as worthy of respect is simply weakness.
Is it just a story that God refused Cain's offering of produce? Cain who then killed his herding brother and became an object of derision for all time? I think not. Note that Cain used superior weaponry to kill the herder. This is a fable for all time. The only way to deal with marauders is with superior weapons. So much for peaceful coexistence.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Kristi, it's interesting that you claim to be oh-so-rational - yet when I make a simple comment disagreeing with your tactics, you come out with all the emotional and exaggerated phrases.JewOne
Kristi does not pretend to be rational at least as I read her posts. She is an advocate for women's rights in religion, and in combating belief systems rationality is useless. The fact that you have to argue about tactics is an indication that your strategic position is precarious to say the least.
While Judaism has arguably made more progress in women's rights historically as well as currently, perhaps you will admit that rational arguments carry no weight at all with the majority of Jewish men. They have to be shamed and emotional arguments are the only way to get through to them.
Believe it or not, Kristi is working for you and Shusha and all Jewish women as well as all victims of religious misogyny. I tend to agree with her that the Abrahamic God is the problem for women in religions, and all the commentary in the world may not be enough to salvage the God of Abraham even for the Jews.
Paul was no piker in reinforcing the message, but then again he was trying to salvage his version of Judaism from the ravages of Jesus and perhaps Hillel both of whom IMO essentially rejected the God of the Torah for a more personal user friendly deity.
Progress towards thinking about the prevailing misogyny in religion that spills over into the society dominated by those misogynic religions.Progress towards what?JewshaThe OP got your attention, that is at least progress.I think at this point the only thing being achieved with this thread is "people from various backgrounds coming together to tell the OP that their methods are unnecessarily offensive."LDS
Even the attacks, diversions, and lies, make people "see the smoke" most people will simply rubberneck, a few will figure out there is a fire, one or two will try to do something to put out the fire, and as many if not more will scream "Let it burn!"
But just seeing the smoke makes people think about their belief about the cause of the fire. And that thinking is inside the conceptual blocks that protect the belief. Thinking inside the blocks is a disaster for beliefs.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Jan 28, 2015 -- theist wrote:Are men typically more violent than women? Does their physiology say they're more visually stimulated? Are they typically stronger? Is covering that which visually stimulates them one way to solve the problem these aspects create or at least decrease the likelihood of the problem occurring? We both know the answer is "Yes".
You may not speak for me. I do not know the answer is "Yes," in fact I repudiate it entirely.
Eve proved that forbidden fruit will cause even the sinless to fall. Your visually stimulated pricks are far from sinless.
If your eye causes you to sin cut it out. Jesus has told you how to solve the problem much more effectively (He tells you three times in Matthew and Luke.)
I have a much more effective solution, respect for all people no matter how they look or how they choose to dress or which God they do or don't listen to. Unless they show by their words or actions that they are unworthy of respect.
Friday, November 7, 2014
I think that far too many women hold grudges when personal relationships fail. They, in a sense, remain emotionally attached to the failed relationship. I also think that far too many atheists hold grudges against religion. Even after years of separation, many seem permanently attached to the failed relationship.
What else can one expect from religious misogyny and misanthropy? God and the man demand a relationship, when in reality all God and the man care about is dominance. Is it any wonder that one promised a relationship and discovers that all that is happening is that hesh is getting fucked holds a long lasting grudge against the fucker? And then tells the world to beware of fuckers?
Morality might be defined as warning the world about fuckers.
Monday, January 20, 2014
The Garden of Eden story is one of the nastiest in the Bible. It was a setup from the get-go.
Somebody wanted to explain why people so often have "grass greener" syndrome, why we have to work, why women have labor pains and, generally speaking, why men get themselves in trouble when they listen to women.
How much you wanna bet a man who liked playing the misogyny card came up with that story?
Every Mythological Story has some Level of "explanatory" Aspect ...
No Doubt MANY Women throughout History have resonated to Genesis 3:16 -- " ...in Pain you shall bring forth Children, yet your Desire shall be for your Husband ... "
Just to refresh your memory as to how this started. You used the truncated Gen 3:16 to counter(?) or justify the accusation of misogyny. Incidentally using Bible quotes to justify anything on an atheist board is generally a bad idea.
Nonetheless, linking the undeniable pain inherent in childbirth to the wrath of God and suggesting that women should "resonate" by associating the pain of childbirth with the dominance of the husband, is just what Christine and I have been talking about as one of the horrible exploitive aspects of the Abrahamic religions. As I noted before Gen 3:16 is the worst verse in the Bible for half of the human population. And in my opinion for men as well as it justifies abuse of women which degrades men as well as women. On the other thread you indicated that owning slaves was degrading for slave owners. Does abusing women cause similar approbation from you and your religious tradition? It certainly does from my humanist tradition and I would submit from the tradition of Jesus as well.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Christianity (like most other religions) is used in two ways: to justify all the prejudices and power imbalances of society as it stands, or to call on people to transform that society towards the image of higher ideals. Doug MuderEven ignoring the Abrahamic misogyny of treating women as breeding chattel to carry the seed of the man which alone would disqualify Christianity as a force for social good, Christianity from the time of Paul has had the ideal of exploiting the sheep and to the extent possible the larger society for the benefit of the church leaders. The lip service to the ideals of Jesus is disgusting in its hypocrisy as nowhere in Christianity can they be found to be implemented or even recommended.
Individual Christians have been able to see beyond their faith for the good of the larger society, but in nearly all cases they have been considered heretics by their faith superiors.
Just for the record Doug, I do not consider Unitarianism, Universalism, or Transcendentalism to be Christian in any respect.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke,”
Too little, too late. Maybe something like
As an unadulterated prick with no personal redeeming values I must think of all women as sluts or prostitutes or I have no hope of ever getting laid. As it is, porn is the usual solution as the porn pushers don't care who pays the bill. The attack was not on Ms. Fluke but on all women. I appologize for using her as an example.just might have a possibility of qualifying as an apology to Ms. Fluke. There is nothing he can do about the assault on all women.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Darwin is no more relevant to modern evolutionary theory than the Bible is to modern morality.
Evolutionary theory suggests that whatever sexual dimorphism in behavior and breeding functions that works for the species studied in the ecological niche they find themselves in will result in an evolutionary advantage. However when the niche changes a species than cannot adapt may well become extinct.
In a survival desert marauding niche, with high infant mortality and high male mortality in war a female human as a brood mare, socializer of children and society made evolutionary sense.
In a modern society with sophisticated medicine and technology the evolutionary pressure seems to be for maximizing intellectual innovation, and eliminating half of the population from that activity seems like an evolutionary dead end. Out breeding resources is another evolutionary dead end. We are seeing in countries like China and India and some parts of the USA that women are critical participants in the economy, and fit in the 2.1 replacement children as time permits. Or not at all in many cases.
Nobody is trying to turn them into men. They still are the producers of the next generation, but if men want to participate genetically in the next generation, the rules have changed considerably. It is no longer useful to fuck anything with a vagina, she probably is infertile until she finds someone that will be a good parenting partner. Which these days means recognizing her intellectual contributions to the society and the economy.
One of the reasons misogynistic religions are so down on homosexuality is that the good parenting partner may well be female, and the requirements for getting sperm into that mix can be interesting to say the least. It happens, frequently naturally, but never by accident.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Out of respect for misogynist atheists and other misogynists of all faiths and lack thereof (if the shoe fits you can still refuse to wear it because it is too ugly) we will now replace misogynist with sexist.
If a poster reports that women are generally not interested in joining contests to see how far they can piss into a strong wind. Is this a sexist comment? Does the sex of the poster matter?
If a woman does not choose to participate in pissing contests about the existence of God is she being sexist?
If she points out that many women do not wish to participate in pissing contests about the existence of God should she be required to remove the atheist label from her blog? Does the language she uses to point this out matter?
If a man refuses to go to a school board meeting to protest the religious backed attempt to dumb down the science and arts curriculum can he still call himself an atheist. Is he being sexist because he thinks that is women's work. < sarcasm> Y'know Kinder, Küche, Kirche and all that?< /sarcasm> Does the fact that he is attending an atheist conference on the existence of God instead make any difference?
If a woman suggests that one of the turn offs to women is that to many, atheist are a bunch of testosterone dominated, egg heads with no emotion who like to argue.. and the response is a boobquake, one might expect that she and many others who have learned not to think with their genitals would find confirmation of at the very least insensitivity to what she was trying to say.
FYI the term "Boobquake" is a reference to a fundamentalist preacher who blamed the Haiti earthquake on women who dressed inappropriately. It has been generalized to any inappropriate reference to or misuse of especially images of women's breasts. In my opinion, the use of the photo was inappropriate in the context of the thread, hence a boobquake. It had nothing at all to do with the characteristics of the woman in the photo.
If a woman is trying to educate an argumentative, dogmatic person, frequently male, about things that are important to many women that the man seems to be ignorant of, it is not stereotyping it is information. IMO that was the intent of her main post. She was trying to inform the atheists here why this forum is generally unattractive to women. It is quite apparent that some of the atheists here were offended by her remarks and chose to attack the messenger rather than deal with the message. The comments in the link I sent to MOP were almost universally in the same attack the messengers mode, including some argumentative, dogmatic women.
The atheist movement if not atheists in general have a serious problem. Women should be the driving force in combating religious misogyny and religious anti-intellectualism including the gutting of the school system. They after all, are the ones most affected by it. Atheist men are generally more concerned with dogmatic issues as those make the best arguments. Sterile intellectualized discussion of God beliefs isn't an alternative to anything. It is in effect an admission of acquiescence to the status quo. You are welcome to it. You are ceding the fight against the misogyny and anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism to others. Your privilege certainly but I would prefer that you keep it in your Ivory Tower where intellectualized discussions of issues don't bother anyone else. Some of us are trying to make a difference, and egg head BS doesn't help. I find dogmatic issues almost trivial compared to misogyny and anti-intellectualism. Pissing and moaning about whether God exists or not resolves neither of those issues.
I have dealt with subconscious misogyny for most of my life, and am therefore hypersensitive to it. Some of it is directed at males in "female" roles. As one of the original Mr. Moms by agreement with the mother of my children who was in a very demanding, very misogynic career environment, I was frequently the target of remarks like "that is woman's work," "Where is your wife?" "Why isn't your wife taking care of that?" Hmm, lessee, "She is presenting a paper at an international conference that is critical for her personal grant funding. Is taking her kids to the park more important so that her husband should be excused from the duty?"
If you think a simple descriptive term like misogyny is an insult, please explain how it is so. Or better please explain how misogynist is an insult if it is a true description of a pattern of behavior. Am I insulting Paul by calling him a misogynist or merely describing the over all tenor of his writings concerning women? If a man is wearing a T shirt saying "Women are Property" and refers to all women as "Bitches" or worse, am I justified in calling him a misogynist or am I insulting him? If I refer to the T shirt wearer as a misogynist and he responds "Damn right!" did I insult him?
A descriptive term is an insult only if it applies to you and you wish it didn't. If a woman calls a man a misogynist and he says "That bitch just insulted me." I wonder who has the problem. Someone can call me a misogynist, and I can just laugh at them and ask what gives you that impression. Or if I wanted to be insulting I could reply "liar." At that point is simply an argument about fact. Am I or am I not a misogynist. If the accuser said you did this or said that and that indicates misogyny, I can say here is the context that makes it OK or I say I am sorry I didn't mean it that way, or in rare cases simply apologize for my remark.
On another thread (but more relevant to this thread now) I commented that it is surprising to find misogyny bubbling through atheism. JCarlin rightly corrected this to "bubbling through society in general". I completely agree; I just had higher expectations though from a group of people who after all have been independent enough to examine their commitment to a previously common belief in society and choose a different mindset. In a similar way, I have higher expectations from professionals who work in university settings and large corporations than from, for instance, a clerk at Radio Shack.
I wonder if there are 2 issues here:
2. An approach to solving problems that is more feeling-based than thinking-based, separate from gender. (Attention all you thinking-type guys: this is NOT the same as logical/illogical!) Have you ever taken any of the Meyers-Briggs personality tests? Many women identify with the "feeling" category, and many men identify with the "thinking" category. I can see why religion would tend to attract the "feeling" set more so than the "thinking" set... perhaps the opposite is true for atheism.
I suspect that if some prick told some woman that she should go shopping, care for her children, dust, iron, and talk about relationships instead of messing with the intellectual matters here it certainly would be a pejorative gender stereotype in fact full blown misogyny. Hmm. Providing information about the characteristics of a group by a member of that group may or may not be prejudice or bigotry, although the same thing said by an outsider may well be hate speech.
Like it or not, if atheism is to be an effective alternative for those disgusted by fundamentalist religion atheism is going to have to attract a lot of people who don't want to shout and argue but will quietly talk in their relationship circles that the excesses of fundamentalism are bad for women and children. If one of those people chooses to point out what atheists need to appeal to if they are not going to remain a marginal group of pricks shouting into the wind of fundamentalism, maybe the pricks should listen. So far their record is pretty dismal.
Maybe atheists should be content in their ivory towers not believing in God and ignoring the rest of the world. But the rest of the world will go right on gutting the schools and turning large parts of the US into a third world country. I find that abhorrent, and personally don't give a NoGod damn about what somebody believes or not about God. I do care about the children who are pulled out of school to worship God. I am not going to reach their mothers with intellectualized BS about whether or not somebody can prove God exists. I am going to reach their mothers with atheists some of whom paint their fingernails, and care about not only herm children but all children. The gender inclusive pronoun is significant because there are atheist dads who take their children to the park and talk to the women there about bringing up children and go to the PTA meetings demanding effective science education and who put their testosterone charged aggression to good use by challenging the fundamentalist status quo, not staring at boobs advertising intellectual arguments about God.
Not incidentally I am not chastising Freedom From Religion and other female dominated atheist groups for using all the conventional appeals to the misogynists that run things. We need a lot more of them. We are not going to get them with intellectual discussions. Thanks for showing us a path that many more of us should be taking.
Early in the feminist movement it became clear that the language needed a word for the attitude expressed first by Paul in Corinthians and Timothy: Women should be silent and subservient. This is an expression of an underlying attitude that women are fundamentally inferior to men and are suitable only for breeding, child care and housekeeping. Since this is almost a definition of hatred the word misogyny seemed not only useful but correct in tone and inference. As noted in a different post it does not refer only to women but to men doing 'women's work.' See a male nurse in the mid 20th century. Or the movie Mr. Mom.
Sexism is a different issue that is best expressed as women as sex objects. No real implication of inferiority, just that no matter what they have accomplished or their position the comment 'check out that rack' would be acceptable in a sexist group. And the minor sensation the Million dollar challenge raises no eyebrows: Would you bet a million dollars that you could have sex with a random woman stranger by midnight? Usually referring to the women in the room at a conference or lecture.
Male chauvinism is a step up? the ladder in that women are while not simply sex objects are not as necessarily as important as men in the society and can therefore be paid less for the same work, exploited as arm candy, and in menial jobs like receptionists despite their credentials, and historically librarians and teachers which are grossly underpaid for their importance to the society.
When I use the word misogyny I am generally referring to a disrespectful attitude toward the contributions of women. But many of the insults were misogynic, in that they implied that she shouldn't be playing with the big boys here.
As I have said several times before it is the society as a whole that is misogynic, in large part because Christianity, not just fundamentalist Christianity is misogynic and Christian mores are dominant in our society. It is not surprising that atheists are affected by these mores, but of all people we should be trying to raise our consciousness of this pernicious Christian and to a lesser extent Jewish effect on the mores of the society. Theoretically atheists should be looking at all the dogma not simply the God dogma and rejecting the crap.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
"God is losing the Kinder, Küche, Kirche battle, and female believers as well. Although some women will chose (be indoctrinated into) this path, the best and the brightest will leave the religious gene pool.
Think of it as evolution in action."
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The main article is an incredibly good response to a MS(ogyny) article on female atheists. Don't bother with the MS article.
"jgbel in reply to J'Carlin
So, when you say 'theists,' you of course mean only male theists, right? Which makes up what percentage of the population, and excuses what?
J'Carlin in reply to jgbel
Not really, look at any religious site and see the number of females that buy into the 'be submissive' role. I don't have demographic data, I don't think Pew Research has done a survey on submissive females in the churches.
It excuses nothing. Bigotry and sexism has no excuse. But it is all too common among both genders in religious circles. Certainly more among the men, and men are more blatant and proud of their misogyny."
Thursday, April 1, 2010
You chose not to believe and that constrains your life.
"Quite the contrary. I am one of the people here that chooses not to believe, not only in God but in anything. It has released all constraints on my life, as beliefs are by definition constraints. I choose to accept constraints that I have found to be useful for living in a modern society. Some of which are similar to belief constraints, largely because some belief constraints are based on natural requirements for social living. The difference is that the constraints I have accepted are based on the realities of the modern world rather than the realities of a bunch of bronze age desert marauders. You may keep your bronze age belief constraints, in particular the belief of women as property. They don't work for me."
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Yin/Yang, patriarchal/matriarchal. It is predominately a patriarchal world we live in and it's not working anymore. Even how we have treated our planet is patriarchal. The feminine must be integrated for the shift to occur.
Agreed. But I do not see a relationship to Yin/Yang in the traditional usage or to the shadow. This patriarchal dominance is open and overt evil. Nothing hidden or part of an evil shadow.
The empowerment of women by taking control over their fecundity was the huge change and had nothing to do with projection or shadow. It was an intelligent and conscious decision that if they were to be more than brood mares they had to require condoms Comstock Act or no. Female contraception methods were the death knell of patriarchy, although the men haven't acquiesced quietly. But again this wasn't the uncovering of a hidden dark side of acquiescence on the part of the women, it was simply grabbing a technical opportunity when it was presented."